How can anyone insult the directorial abilities of the guy who made Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, and the Kill Bills?!? (Especially part 2?)

/wanna fark?

I remember watching Pulp Fiction on it's 10th anniversary and wondering why I ever liked it in the first place.

The utter utter worst thing about Quentin Tarantino in that film is that he casts himself as a suburban dork who for some reason is infinitely cooler than Jules and Vincent. This is after spending the entire film setting up a belief that Jules and Vincent are the coolest, meanest motherfarkers on the planet, then they go to Quentin's house and he completely pussy whips them.

I hate that.

Roman Polanski did that too in Chinatown, tiny little dwarf that he is, he cast himself as the tough guy that slits Jack Nicholson's nose.

" width="269" height="199">

"Casino Royale with cheese!"

"Casino Royale with Cheese!"

dustman81:

If Quentin made a 007 movie all we'd ever see is Bond getting tortured because that's all Quinton ever does in his movies anyway.

/NOT a Quentin Tarantino fan
//quite the opposite really

a) It's not like "re-making" Casino Royale is some unique idea, given that it's the only Ian Fleming novel not made into a serious movie. The original was done as a spoof.

b) Tarantino sucks.

c) Pulp Fiction was accidentally good.

d) Any questions, see b.

Azu: Tarantino has never written his own movies. They are all taken from short stories, ie Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, or blatant rip-offs, disguised as "homage", such as Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs.

I think if you watch his movies, there's a screenplay credit. This means he wrote it. I believe he won an oscar for a screenplay.


I can't stand it when people say he's refreshingly new or imaginiative, when all he has a knack for is lining up shots.

Sure, obviously, Scorsese doesn't know shiat when he praises Tarantino.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the film world - as does Tarantino and Scorsese.

*yawn*

Jean-Puc_Licard

Quinten was supposed to be Jules' old partner from what I understand. He was a hit-man like Jules and Vincent, cept he had "left the life" like Jules was talking about doing.

The way his character re-acts makes a little more sense when you see it in this light.

2006-01-08 02:25:53 PM obeymatt

I used to think Tarentino was brilliant...then I found out he ripped off the whole Resevior Dogs movie from a Japanese movie called "City on Fire" that has the exact same plot. He also didn't write any of the funny stories in Pulp Fiction. Kill Bill was a rip pff of Kill Chiba. This guy is a dork who worked in a video store...not a movie genius.

The funny thing about these claims is that they are always different movies

"Kill Bill was exactly like Lady Snowblood!"
"Kill Bill was a total copy of Kill Chiba!"
etc.

What is even funnier is when you watch them side by side, they aren't that similar at all. They are more different than 2 average hollywood movies.

So
a) The movies aren't that similar
b) you might as well say Shakespeare was a total rip off, not a genius. He never wrote any of his plots, he borrowed them from other sources, because he was more concerned with other aspects. Taratino is the same way. The genius of taratino isn't general plot lines which he might have borrowed, his genius is in the details: The dialogue, the cinemtagrophy, the music etc. Things he didn't rip-off in anyway...


Also he wrote the majority of Pulp Fiction. I guess if you thyink the boxer story has the only funny parts you would think he didn't write any of the funny parts, but the rest was him.

After Kill Bill (1 and 2), I wouldn't let Tarantino make Bond either. Overly stylized action sequences are not cool, especially in a Bond movie.

I think QT could have done a good job with Bond, I was also hoping that Clive Owen would have been the new Bond but we'll see what this new guy does.

Since they are remaking Casino Royale I'd really like to see Bond come across as more of the Fleming Bond. A womanizing, ruthless, and cold-hearted SOB willing to do anything for Queen and Country.

GungFu

If you watch his movies, they ALL end with "Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino".

Hardly what I call "credit" to the stuff he steals.

And to your second "argument", I'm not even going to waste my time. If people can't form their own opinions on a matter, they quote a "professional". I've seen it a million times. As you said it, *yawn*.

I'm still confused as to why everyone thinks this movie would be "Pulp Fiction" with Bond characters. Yeah, there were similarities in "Resevoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction", but that's because those movies took place in the same fictional world. "Kill Bill" was a completely different movie with much less witty banter, and no reciting of Bible verses between kills. I'm fairly certain that this would just be a Bond movie with a bit of extra style, and would probably kick ass, too.

It would be a disaster...his hyper-action hyper-violent genre that seems to be the only thing he's capable of making would kill the Bond franchise. He's a one-trick pony...a talented, rich one-trick pony.

I really don't see what the big deal about Kill Bill Vol. 1 was, I didn't like it so I didn't see the second one. He's an okay director, I'm just sick of everyone worshipping him like a god. And forever who claimed he might be better than Spielberg ever was, what about Raiders of the Lost Ark or Schindler's List?? Are we saying that his movies top that???

obeymatt: I used to think Tarentino was brilliant...then I found out he ripped off the whole Resevior Dogs movie from a Japanese movie called "City on Fire" that has the exact same plot.


Obviously, you're just going by what you've read instead of actually seeing where his influence is from.

It's a Chinese movie, from Hong Kong.

This may be a total revelation to you, but people get ideas from a whole variety of sources. I think you need to realise that directors you like and respect do exactly the same.

Azu: Tarantino has never written his own movies. They are all taken from short stories, ie Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, or blatant rip-offs, disguised as "homage", such as Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs.

And what short story was Pulp Fiction based on?

Jackie Brown WAS an adaptation of a novel. Not something he hid (nor something unusual, billions of movies are novel adaptations) but every other one was original to him.

But AGAIN, when Tarantino gets praised it isn't for coming up with some radical concpet like a botched roberry! or an assassin avenging herself on old allies!
His general plot lines are fairly standard.
(Again, same with Shakespeare and plenty of other writers)

He gets praised for how well he works with actors, for the dialogue he writes and for all the other little details.

Ok, if my earlier post came off as pretentious, I apologize.

No, you don't need to take a class to determine whether you like something or hate it.

I personally needed the class to understand things from the production POV. Maybe some people are able to do this without a class; I am not one of them. There is so much more to writing, directing, producing, and post than I ever imagined sitting in a seat at the theater...

I was trying to say that a movie you hate does not equate to a director sucking (well, not all the time). But, admittedly, the best director on the planet may not be enough to save a film that is deficient in other areas.

/soapbox

I just hope he does a few more Elmore Leonard books.

I understand that it's part of the character, I just think casting himself in that role is a bit of a wank. Well, quite a big wank actually.

SaintAwesome
Quinten was supposed to be Jules' old partner from what I understand. He was a hit-man like Jules and Vincent, cept he had "left the life" like Jules was talking about doing.

I always just assumed this. The way he got along with Jules', and the twinge of jealousy that Vincent shows throughout the scenes with Quentin's character made it all pretty obvious to me (along with all the casual talk of bodies, etc.).

I can see why some farkers don't like Quentins films, though: they just didn't get it. Prolly think Kurosawa is a sushi roll.

/Oh well, they can always rent "Titanic" instead.

90% of the time when someone claims a taratino movie is ripped off completely from some obscure foreign movie they have never seen the movie in question.

They just read that on aintitcoolnews or some other lame site and then repeat it to sound smart.

Azu: GungFu

If you watch his movies, they ALL end with "Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino".

Hardly what I call "credit" to the stuff he steals.

Dude, you said he never wrote any of his films. I'm saying he does. This is obvious. You seem to think that because the idea wasn't his, he's not entitled any credit.

Do you know the difference between a screenplay and a novel?


And to your second "argument", I'm not even going to waste my time.

Why, not smart enough to formulate an argument?

If people can't form their own opinions on a matter, they quote a "professional". I've seen it a million times. As you said it, *yawn*.

I think Scorsese is a good benchmark that people in the know within the movie world respect.

Obviously, to you, he means nothing.

Sad and *yawn*

years ago i was an orderly on the episode of 'ER' that tarantino directed, interesting guy, very excitable, visual. the 'ER' crew was pretty set in their ways and were a little upset at him because he wouldn't just sit back and watch a monitor he would trail closely behind the moving camera. that really pissed off some of the crew actually. it was very entertaining, plus i got to shoot hoops with clooney... as for the bond movie he would do a very credible job with his reverence for all the prior films, it would certainly be a 'homage'. bond needs some freshening up, he would have brought that. but the franchise is all about marketing and tie-ins now.

eclypsyr
Schindler's List??

Oh please. That wasn't even a *good* film. How hard is it to make a tear jerker out of the freaking holocaust?!? And that ten minutes of filing past graves at the end of the movie, boy-o did that enrich my movie going experience something fierce.

Schindler's List was a formulaic Spielbergian oscar-whoring attempt, not entertainment or art.

If people can't form their own opinions on a matter, they quote a "professional". I've seen it a million times. As you said it, *yawn*.


Should I listen to someone who knows nothing about the art of directing's opinion on a director? or someone who knows a lot?

I'm gonna go with the guy who knows a lot.

Also just spewing off one liners like "he sucks" isn't making your own argument, kid.

Forgetting about Pulp Fiction, am I the only person who thought Kill Bill was the most horrendous piece of crap ever?

I thougth Kill Bill 2 was one of the greatest movies I've ever seen.

Certainly the best action movie in recent history (although It doesn't have much competition there).

Kill Bill 1 was good and fun, but not mind blowing.

Steve121
but the franchise is all about marketing and tie-ins now.

A-yup...the sole purpose of the Bond franchise at this point is to keep the super-wealthy educated about what the top of the line cars, watches, games, etcetera they should spend their time and money on.

When they produce $10,000 "pen/pencil gift sets" to promote a movie with, and plan on selling even one of them, chances are the movie isn't any good.

He directed an episode of "Charles in Charge", and it was quite enjoyable... Over the top, but enjoyable.

A really great director's movies will speak to the public on his behalf.

Perhaps, but it isn't like Taratino's movies lose money. They are pretty popular on both the popular front (check the IMDB rankings of his movies) and the critics front (lots of awards and great reviews from the big names).

Mugato: Once again, I think that you're missing the facts, Kill Bill was meant to be over indulgent. I don't think Tarantino operates under the dillusion that real life works like it did in that movie. Blood my gush a little if you cut off someones head, but it doesnt shoot 5 feet into the air, and he knew that and played it for laughs. If you were one of those people that were nit pickin' the movie from start to finish about how it didnt synch with the real world then the movie went over your head.

The fight scene between Uma and Darryl in Kill Bill 2 is one of the best in movie history.

Pxtl: Am I the only one who liked Resevoir Dogs way more than Pulp Fiction?

And Kill Bill kicked ass just for being different.

Nah, I'm with you and the others in that Resevoir Dogs kicked a surprising amount more ass.

And Kill Bill? I was a fan of Tarantino, but was surrounded by people who said it was 'eh'. So I downloaded it for myself and watched it. And then passed the copy around to my friends. That weekend we all went out and watched it again on the big screen.

Only did that two other times, Passion of the Christ and American Rejects.

Wow, I like bloody movies...

negarver: No, you arent, but please, would you at least give a thoughful critique of why you think that, instead of just some screeching proclaimation that "It sucked".

Q's dead, baby, Q's dead.

nothingyet: If I have to take a damn movie class to "get" someone's style, I will pass. I love Quentin's movies, and direction style. I also like Eastwood's direction. I didnt have to take a STUPID FILM CLASS to know that I like what I like.

Bill Frist: YOu don't need to study film to see if YOU like something, but you need to study film to understand the importance and talent of a director.

Well, you don't have to take a STUPID FILM CLASS to know what you like. In fact, the movie studios are banking on that. It is the same reason the Da Vinci Code sells like hotcakes and Joyce's Ulysees isn't book of the year. Ulysees is unaproachable for the average reader. Nothing wrong with that. Da Vinci Code selling well doesn't make it art, and Ulysees not being a huge commercial success doesn't make it not art, or if you really want to debate it and say it isn't art, not interesting and significant.

What a STUPID FILM CLASS does for you is help you understand the technique and history of film, so you have a deeper appreciation of it as an artistic medium. If you don't like that- cool. Watch the movies you like.

What Tarantino is into as a director is Genre. Each one of his films is as much of a genre exercise as it is an attempt at a blockbuster film. There is a legitimate claim that he is ripping off old movies, but he would make the argument that it is in fact a homage. When he 'rips off' a movie, he doesn't just pull the technique- he also leaves visual cues from that movie to make it TOTALLY OBVIOUS where he is taking his material. Like footnotes in a way. On top of that he throws in his own style.

So, if you don't like his style, that's fine. There are "good" directors I'm not fond of. Still, what Tarantino does is filmically relevant, whether you think so or not.

Heterodyne: People only say that Pulp Fiction is brilliant because it instantly makes them look smart.

Yes, for a long time that has been true.

But it was on Television a couple weeks ago in the place I work out, and I watched it again for the first time in years.

Super Tight Dialoge. Great biatcharacters. Good Story.

It still looks sharp and new. None of the copies have even come close to getting the effect. I have to give it brilliant.

BTW, HEAT is on TNT right now, and it also has a very good timeless feel.

Oshizzle: I just hope he does a few more Elmore Leonard books.

Same here. Hell, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, his best films, basically played like Leonard novels to begin with.

People talk about influence but few people bother to mention Leonard, which, if you've read him at all, seems to be the PRIMARY influence in his films, what with the back-and-forth characters, the dialogue and general crime themes.

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal" Pablo Picasso.

Cliche quote, but relevant.

The responses in this thread make me sure that most of the posters here dont' know anything about art.

Lets just hope that he doesn't join forces with John Woo.

/shudder

He directed the Bronco offense in their final regular season win over the Chargers. It was decent, but not brilliant. But I'll give him props since it was raining.

I also liked the Bridget Fonda sex scene in Jackie Brown.

I think in the 10 years that elapsed between my first and second viewings of Pulp Fiction is that life experience saw to it that lots of people I knew died or had miserable things happen to them and consequently I'm less likely these days to be entertained by representations of violence and misery. In spite of that I never watch movies with the intention of seeking "escape", so I don't even bother watching things like Forrest Gump or Titanic. If you don't find violence and bloodshed entertaining then QT is obviously not your man.

The thing that strikes me about Bond, and I haven't watched one since "Die Another Day" is that they are extremely camp. QT can do violence, but I don't think it's in his repertoire to do camp. Kenn Russell on the other hand...

I started thinking that QT was no longer synonymous with "good movie" after seeing "From Dusk Til Dawn", what a pile.

I started thinking that QT was no longer synonymous with "good movie" after seeing "From Dusk Til Dawn", what a pile.

He didn't direct that. I thought it was alright for a cheesy horror film though. Better than most, but its not a genre I like.

perhaps they'll let him "introduce" Bond, like he's doing with other movies now -- -- just as if he really has put his imprimatur on it!

pulp fiction was so so. quentin has to realize he isnt entitled to a goddamn thing. get over it, hack-boy.

meh

most directors are overrated in the sense of how much they do, or more importantly what they contribute, usually people confuse the director for X and Y, while he actually contributed A, B, and Z

the director directs the presentation of the film, many directors get their name on a script if they simply collaborate with the writer somewhat... Kubrick was mostly a collaborator, he would also change things on set if he felt it would help his job of directing (because after all, it's impossible to account for how a scene will really play out when you're writing it, only a slight idea or concept - and that idea or concept might be the wrong direction), even Kubrick said that all things have already been done, it's our job to do it better

most directors are not "gods" of the movie world, even the "gods" are not geniuses, there's nothing wrong with stealing ideas or adapting material, so Tarantino doing that is not a reason for despising him

it's how high everybody puts him that puts people off, simply that, it's very pretentious and self-important crap, Peter Jackson didn't exactly land on the moon with any of his films, he did something similar to Tarantino - adapting material, but the difference is nobody, including Jackson, thinks he landed on the moon, it's like Orson Welles after Citizen Kane, when they asked him why he did this or why he did that, they all asked about the screenplay - that the screenplay was somehow "his creation", it wasn't, it was Herman Mankiewicz's

i also blame the auteur theory

and all other self-important trite

Let's play a tune for Quentin.