My idea on Tarentino

Terxpahseyton

Nobody
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,759
I think Quentin Tarentino has little idea what he is doing. But he got a lot of intuitive knowledge about film-making, fuled by a lot of actual knowledge about films of the past. But he messes up all the time, and when he is brilliant, it is either, because he combined so many classic tropes that it amounts ot a unique piece of a movie picture, or it is because he combines his love of classic movies with his lust for revolution, giving us classic, tried and true moves with a lot of taste of subversion.

Both requires little deeper understanding or skill. It just requires unique person within aunique situation.
Tarentino is eccentric and strong-willed. Particularly the latter. The will is his strange. His utter luck is that this will mett an orginaly and good enough formula in his case. Because as a person, I think Tarentino is very dumb. Very, very dumb. I think so, because of most of thei nterview I had the pleasure to see him in.
The best gems are those where he feels in control and at home. There he really reveals the shallow patterns of his mind. A lot of plot tropes, and emotional tropes, and tropes and tropes... nothing else. Tarentino is the prototype of a successful nerd. In that he is not only good in his obsession, but his narrow focus leaves him also stupid, but successful nevertheless.

You now may think: "But x and y and z were fantastic and he did it".
This is all true.
And not contrary to what I said.
I love Pulb Fiction, not least because I discovered it with my best friend when we were about 13 years old and we both FELL IN LOVE.
´
But in hindsight, it is good for reasons mentioned, in spite of Tarentinos intellectual handicap. That is what I am saying.

And this story is, really, as good as the story of Tarantino being a
genius


But my story will seem frustrated and angry and petty, while the other story may seem over the top, but still reasonable.

This is all really makes sense when you get into the differences of old and modern movies. And there is SO MUCH difference. Tarentino taps into that while being a mainstream childish nerdy punk.
 
He's very overrated. Pulp Fiction is, IMO, the most overrated movie of all time. I did like the part where Travolta's character gets killed. Quentin's own acting role in the movie was cringeworthy.

I thought the older movie he made with Madonna was half decent. Haven't seen most of his other stuff, I read Hateful Eight was terrible. Quentin seems to try to be weird/violent/offense just for the sake of it. His storylines are never very good (Pulp Fiction for instance, can most of the people who claim it's good even remember the storyline coherently).
 
As someone who loves classic Western films, I really wanted to like Django Unchained. But after watching it, it is really obvious that despite Tarantino's claims that he was paying "homage" to the Westerns of old, DU is just gore and action porn. Despite the fantastic acting from DiCaprio, the film was really hampered by a silly scheme and a cast full of terrible"heroes". Django was an unabashed racists (though obviously understandably so) whose only defining characteristic is that he "can shoot good". Schultz is a hypocrite and a murder who hides behind a massive sense of self-righteousness and makes a mockery of the rule of law. Being a bounty hunter isn't a license to murder anyone the government might have a warrant out for.
 
Tarantino is an absolute genius. I don't think there's a better cinematic eye working in the business today aside from maybe PTA.

No idea who this Tarentino guy is though.
 
He is the guy who likes to shoot Nazis.

He really hates Nazis, and a lot of other people. But Nazis are cool, kinda, so hating on them is, as well, of course.
Except grammar or spelling Nazis. They are not. No,no. Not all. More like.. they are really not. So they are not even good for poor movies with good entrances. They are just bastards of society. Indecently what Nazis thought of Jews. So they are like the real Jews, from a Nazi POV. Or any POV adopting the Nazi POV.
 
Last edited:
Tarantino? Cringe-worthy? Nooooo.
Spoiler :
 
I am really bothered by his pithy monologues.

When he's writing it's must be that he just focuses on edgycooltalk dialogue that will get teen boys to quote it. It's annoying. I literally couldn't finish Furious 8 or whatever.

I'm not saying he's trash but he's certainly hit or miss with me and even then most of the ones I like have cringy monologues.
 
He's very overrated. Pulp Fiction is, IMO, the most overrated movie of all time. I did like the part where Travolta's character gets killed. Quentin's own acting role in the movie was cringeworthy.

I thought the older movie he made with Madonna was half decent. Haven't seen most of his other stuff, I read Hateful Eight was terrible. Quentin seems to try to be weird/violent/offense just for the sake of it. His storylines are never very good (Pulp Fiction for instance, can most of the people who claim it's good even remember the storyline coherently).

Maybe you'd like Jackie Brown, it's different from his usual shtick I'd say

Tarantino is an absolute genius. I don't think there's a better cinematic eye working in the business today aside from maybe PTA.

No idea who this Tarentino guy is though.

What about Lynch and Malick? I do think PTA is up there, only rewatched the master recently, but Tarantino has become a little wack.
 
I'll give you Lynch. I'm still not sure how I feel about Malick. I kinda go back and forth on him. He always seems to be a little too impressed with his own visual style.
 
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were great, the rest of his stuff is generally bad with some good moments.
 
I think Quentin Tarentino has little idea what he is doing. But he got a lot of intuitive knowledge about film-making, fuled by a lot of actual knowledge about films of the past. But he messes up all the time, and when he is brilliant, it is either, because he combined so many classic tropes that it amounts ot a unique piece of a movie picture, or it is because he combines his love of classic movies with his lust for revolution, giving us classic, tried and true moves with a lot of taste of subversion.

Both requires little deeper understanding or skill. It just requires unique person within aunique situation.
Tarentino is eccentric and strong-willed. Particularly the latter. The will is his strange. His utter luck is that this will mett an orginaly and good enough formula in his case. Because as a person, I think Tarentino is very dumb. Very, very dumb. I think so, because of most of thei nterview I had the pleasure to see him in.
The best gems are those where he feels in control and at home. There he really reveals the shallow patterns of his mind. A lot of plot tropes, and emotional tropes, and tropes and tropes... nothing else. Tarentino is the prototype of a successful nerd. In that he is not only good in his obsession, but his narrow focus leaves him also stupid, but successful nevertheless.

You now may think: "But x and y and z were fantastic and he did it".
This is all true.
And not contrary to what I said.
I love Pulb Fiction, not least because I discovered it with my best friend when we were about 13 years old and we both FELL IN LOVE.
´
But in hindsight, it is good for reasons mentioned, in spite of Tarentinos intellectual handicap. That is what I am saying.

And this story is, really, as good as the story of Tarantino being a
genius


But my story will seem frustrated and angry and petty, while the other story may seem over the top, but still reasonable.

This is all really makes sense when you get into the differences of old and modern movies. And there is SO MUCH difference. Tarentino taps into that while being a mainstream childish nerdy punk.

Did you get the insight from the cracked.com article? I even thought for a moment this post was a copy/paste.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you'd like Jackie Brown, it's different from his usual shtick I'd say

Jackie Brown is a favourite of mine. A much more subtle and nuanced movie than his other work. Maybe because it's adaptation.

I think Reservour Dogs and Pulp Fiction are great works. Don't care for Kill Bill as much and even less for the nazi movie and the cowboy one. Haven't bothered to watch the latest one. I do like Death Proof. Simple, with a lot of room to breathe before switching into bloodcurling action.
 
I disliked Jackie Brown quite a bit. Sat through the whole thing and didn't enjoy much of it at all. I was probably just expecting something else, I walked in there not knowing what it was about.

IMO Tarantino is a good movie maker. He makes entertaining movies with interesting characters and interestings interplays and relationships between them. I don't think he's a genius or anything like that. He seems to really enjoy certain at times obscure movie memes/dynamics, and he taps into those in his movies.

One thing I like about his work is that he does what he wants, not necessarily what he thinks the audience wants to see. He's a bit of the Norm MacDonald of movies. He's got his own ideas about what's entertaining and he sticks to it 100%. He wants to entertain the audience, but he doesn't let them call the shots.
 
Tarantino often tells a great story, and typically in an unusual and memorable way. But his movies lack depth. His characters tend not to develop much, and when they do - like Jules in Pulp Fiction - the development is sorta hackneyed and tacked on. People who have no experience shooting guns can very easily miss from point blank range in an adrenaline-fueled situation; that's a stupid reason for a religious awakening.
 
People who have no experience shooting guns can very easily miss from point blank range in an adrenaline-fueled situation; that's a stupid reason for a religious awakening.

Objectively, yes that is a stupid reason for a religious awakening. However, it's also a realistic reason. People in the real world see all kinds of naturally explainable things as signs of divine intervention. I think that made Jules more believable as a character. I also saw it as Jules representing the irrational part of our minds with Vincent serving as the rational part debating with Jules in the diner.
 
Pigs are filthy animals though.
 
I am really bothered by his pithy monologues.

When he's writing it's must be that he just focuses on edgycooltalk dialogue that will get teen boys to quote it. It's annoying. I literally couldn't finish Furious 8 or whatever.

I'm not saying he's trash but he's certainly hit or miss with me and even then most of the ones I like have cringy monologues.
Jackie Brown is a favourite of mine. A much more subtle and nuanced movie than his other work. Maybe because it's adaptation.
I disliked Jackie Brown quite a bit. Sat through the whole thing and didn't enjoy much of it at all. I was probably just expecting something else, I walked in there not knowing what it was about.
Heh, a couple of years back I got Mark Kermode's autobiography, and he said Jackie Brown was his favourite film precisely because it's Quentin's only film where the characters aren't all mini-Tarantinos. Sadly, since it was such a departure from his usual fare and (in his view) was a commercial failure, he retrenched into the edgycool ultraviolence:

 
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were great, the rest of his stuff is generally bad with some good moments.
Jackie Brown is a pretty good movie.

IMO Tarantino has three kind of movies:
-The two pulp movies: Reservoir Dogs (which is a preparatory work for Pulp Fiction, his opus magnus) and PF itself.
-Jackie Brown: His least tarantinesque movie and maybe the best along with PF.
-The other movies: a lot of crap full of blood and nonsense where the only one having fun is Tarantino himself.
 
Top Bottom