My idea on Tarentino

[Colon]

And there's Death Proof, which is just an honest, straightforward flick.

 

[luiz]

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.

I never watched Jackie Brown, exactly because I feared it would be like Kill Bill or some crap like that. I should give it a go one of these days.

 

[innonimatu]

He's very good at setting up scenes. The whole cinema part, really. Photography, editing... That makes him a great director. Unfortunately all* his stories are shallow. Personal conflicts, maladjusted individuals, violence. He always glosses over the environment, the causes for those conflicts, or any complex characters. The background is static and his character's only evolution is losing some limbs, or their lives. The stories are never deep. And after a while it gets predictable. You know what you are going to get, he doesn't surprise.

Take Kill Bill. He spreads it across two movies... but the damn story could have been done in a 40 minute short! He stretched it into a grand spectacle... and it worked. But the only memorable portions are the technical ones (the photography, the score, all the set-up of the scenes). The story is a generic one, done a thousand times already. All his career, Tarantino stuck to what he was good at, doing this ever more lavishly as he was given the money to do it. I regret not seeing what he could do with his vast technical ability, and his knowledge about the history of the art, had he ever dared filming about something different.

Perhaps he will still do it. But looking at his career so far, then even for this type of movie I say give me Iñárritu over Tarantino. He also does the cinema technical tricks magnificent, uses the same static background, but Iñárritu's characters actually evolve! So, Tarantino seems to me great, technically, but certainly not "the best".

* disclaimer, I think I still have a couple of his films to see. Would be nice if I discovered I'm wrong.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.

Death Proof was actually fantastic. It has one of those monologues (and I seem to remember the character actually said the words 'edgycool', I kid you not) but it's still phenomenal. The other one that was released with it as a double-feature was garbage in my opinion, however.

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:

That's neat, I'll have to see that one.


Oh I thought D'Jango was fantastic, totally forgot about that one. It has the best characters of all his movies and it's just fun. I'm really hit or miss with his work.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Dusk till dawn was good.

 

[metalhead]

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.

It's not realistic when the person in question shoots guns, at people, for a living. People tend to see divine in the ordinary when they already believe. As a basis for an awakening it makes no sense.

Nor should it. Tarantino simply doesn't do character development. It's not what he's going for in his movies.

 

[Tahuti]

He always glosses over the environment, the causes for those conflicts, or any complex characters.

I have always interpreted the situation of any a character in a Tarantino movie as beyond the so-called Despair Event Horizon.

 

[Narz]

Nor should it. Tarantino simply doesn't do character development. It's not what he's going for in his movies.

Well put.

Which is why he's a bad producer. Movies are first and foremost about story, not image.

I forgot about Kill Bill, I forgot where I was stuck watching that drivel. What a waste of camera lens and acting

 

[metalhead]

I think where his movies are weakest is where the story calls for investment in characters for maximum effect. In Pulp Fiction where they are trying to revive Mia, or they are trying to clean up Vincent's car before whats-his-name's wife gets home, the stories are flat because the audience just isn't invested in the outcome. If Mia dies, so what? We don't care that Marsellus will be sad or Vincent will probably get killed. It is ultimately an empty and pointless scene.

Frankly I think the Coen brothers do this same type of thing more effectively. The Big Lebowski is great because they recognize that the characters are just there to be characters, and they don't try to play anything that needs investment in the characters themselves. The director's self-awareness bleeds through into the movie to the point that everyone is in on it. Tarantino doesn't always seem to understand that, and some of his scenes fall flat as a result.

 

[Narz]

Frankly I think the Coen brothers do this same type of thing more effectively. The Big Lebowski is great because they recognize that the characters are just there to be characters, and they don't try to play anything that needs investment in the characters themselves. The director's self-awareness bleeds through into the movie to the point that everyone is in on it. Tarantino doesn't always seem to understand that, and some of his scenes fall flat as a result.

Well put.

 

[Tahuti]

I think where his movies are weakest is where the story calls for investment in characters for maximum effect. In Pulp Fiction where they are trying to revive Mia, or they are trying to clean up Vincent's car before whats-his-name's wife gets home, the stories are flat because the audience just isn't invested in the outcome. If Mia dies, so what? We don't care that Marsellus will be sad or Vincent will probably get killed. It is ultimately an empty and pointless scene.

Schadenfreude. I watch Tarantino movies as Schadenfreude Comedies and I think that's perfectly ethical because Tarantino is completely self-aware that he is making a movie and nothing else. However, not unlike A Clockwork Orange or David Lynch flicks, it arguably comes with a message about the hidden brutality of the societies the films were made in.

 

[metalhead]

You still need some sort of investment in the characters for Schadenfreude to really work, though. And the problem is, if you are watching a Tarantino flick to begin with, you are probably not all that inclined to instantly think negatively about a drug using hitman. For me at least, it's not particularly satisfying then to see that character go through trying situations and then ultimately die.

You know where he was at his most brilliant? His scene in 4 Rooms. The dialogue, the scene, the stakes, and characters that were very obviously there as vehicles and nothing more. Reservoir Dogs, too - the characters even all had pseudonyms as if to tip us off. I mean yeah, the story had a reason why they needed those names, but it was a way to tell the audience not to care too much about the people themselves.

 

[Tahuti]

You still need some sort of investment in the characters for Schadenfreude to really work, though.

I would say Tarantino films manage to achieve this effect, just not in the same way as say The Green Mile, in which case it horrible filmmaking narratively speaking. Nobody wants to see bad guys who aren't badass on a pedestal. When the villains and anti-heroes of a Tarantino do something bad, it is hilarious, because you are invested, just not too much for it not to be funny.

 

[metalhead]

I could see that. For me it works better when, say, Blonde gets shot than it does when Vince nearly gets stuck with Mia having OD'd. Blonde deserves to have bad things happen to him, but I don't necessarily feel that way about Vince. And certainly not about Mia.

 

[Tahuti]

I could see that. For me it works better when, say, Blonde gets shot than it does when Vince nearly gets stuck with Mia having OD'd. Blonde deserves to have bad things happen to him, but I don't necessarily feel that way about Vince. And certainly not about Mia.

Well, I would say the torture of Bridget von Hammersmark by Aldo Raine in Inglourious Basterds is an example of such scene where Tarantino's schadenfreude comedic credentials are placed in line. Or the man accidentally shot by Vincent in PF when Jules is driving.

 

[Disgustipated]

He's a one hit wonder in my opinion. I absolutely loved Pulp Fiction and still do to this day. But I also happen to like Bruce Willis and John Travolta, so that helped. Samuel Jackson was amazing as well. He hit that one out of the park. Still in my top 10 list of favorite movies. I think a big thing was it was so different. And now lately his movies seem to be all the same, so the novelty has worn off.

I honestly don't remember much of Reservoir Dogs, I watched it on the ship when I was in the Navy, and I'm not sure I even seen the whole thing. I'd have to watch it at home with less distractions. But honestly I'm not that interested in it.

I did somewhat enjoy Basterds, but it had its limitations as well. Django I absolutely hated, and I couldn't figure out why this movie was so popular. Kill Bill I watched the first one in the theaters and absolutely hated that one as well, I had no interest in seeing the second Kill Bill. Jackie Brown I just found to be boring. I haven't seen Four Rooms (only one of the stories are his I believe) or Death Proof. I have seen True Romance (which he wrote, but did not direct), and it seemed pretty good at the time, but I honestly don't remember much about it.

As for the Hateful 8, I believe it is coming onto Netflix this month, so I'll probably check it out. Though I should give up on Tarantino at this point. He'll never had the magic he had in the early to mid 90's.

 

[metalhead]

Yep, each scene in Four Rooms is by a different director. The scenes are of uneven quality; Tarantino's is last, and longest, and best, but the rest are necessary and entertaining setup to properly frame it. I don't believe it's particularly long, so it's worth a watch. Especially if you like Tim Roth.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Did you get the insight from the cracked.com article? I even thought for a moment this post was a copy/paste.

Nope from the bottom of a whiskey glass

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

It truly is. I enjoyed it. His only movie which is based on a book. Perhaps kis only "normal" movie. While still weird and Tarentino-esque
And it bombed. Success with Reservoir Dogs. Break-Through with Pulp Fiction. And then this financial turd. Probably for the reason Warpus said: it was not what people expected. Too much an actual normal story.
So he did Kill Bill, had great success, and never looked back.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I've liked most of the Tarantino I've seen. Never watched Kill Bill and even without seeing it I can understand that some people hated it. He can be very good in small to medium doses, but a Tarantino movie that has two parts or is too long will feel padded and exhausting. Django Unchained was pretty good for the first one and a half hours. Then it kept going on and on and quickly fell apart. Pulp Fiction was also just over two and a half hours, but the initially disconnected storylines somehow made it work.
He's a mixed bag and shouldn't make movies that follow a single plot for more than 90 minutes.