Quentin Tarantino

[hearthesilence]

Don't get me wrong. I like QT. But it is really the same thing over and over again. Revenge, retribution and/or "i'll get him before he gets me" storylines, which is fine for the entertainment value but I never expect anything deep.

That's pretty much why I was disappointed that Jackie Brown turned out to be such an anomaly and (as I've said elsewhere here) why I think another adaptation would be promising, partly to bring in some new, unexplored element to his work. I haven't seen it in about 7 years, but what I remember best about that film are Pam Grier's relationship to Robert Forster and to a lesser extent DeNiro's burned out character. If I had to guess why, maybe it's because his films generally indulge in '70s pop culture, and if you think of these characters as representations of that, they feel like characters who are self-conscious of the fact that they're a lot older and something like relics from that era.

I still think Pulp Fiction is his best by a wide margin - even if you argued that it covers the same material that's been recycled over and over again, it comes together brilliantly in that film, it's easily his most entertaining film to me.

And to be fair, while I'm not much of a fan of his last two films, Christoph Waltz is my favorite performer from Tarantinto's stable of actors - regardless of my reservations about those movies, he's definitely worth seeing in both of those films.

[FrauBlucher]

I've been meaning to revisit Jackie Brown for some time. I haven't seen it since it's release.

[mfunk9786]

I tend to find that people who generally seem to dislike Tarantino's work consider it his best film, and those who like his work consider it his worst. A generalization, of course, as everyone's taste is different, but certainly something I've noticed over the years.

[domino harvey]

Second-worst behind Death Proof but certainly least interesting / entertaining for me (and I swear this is the tenth or eleventh time this has come up)

[domino harvey]

Speaking of, when is Criterion releasing Bottle Rocket?

[matrixschmatrix]

I love Jackie Brown and am generally a Tarantino fan- though I think there are certainly aspects of what he does that invite criticism, I also think he consistently makes exciting and interesting movies that deserve people talking about them. I also think Jackie Brown is my favorite of his movies, and that it's also sort of the least Tarantino-ish of his movies, though I don't think that's what I like about it. It's definitely got the best soundtrack of any of his works, as far as I'm concerned.

[criterion10]

We're allowed to post our rankings of QT?

1. Inglourious Basterds
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Jackie Brown
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
6. Kill Bill, Vol. 2
7. Django Unchained
8. Death Proof

[mfunk9786]

I've created a monster and I love it

[knives]

I love Jackie Brown and am generally a Tarantino fan- though I think there are certainly aspects of what he does that invite criticism, I also think he consistently makes exciting and interesting movies that deserve people talking about them. I also think Jackie Brown is my favorite of his movies, and that it's also sort of the least Tarantino-ish of his movies, though I don't think that's what I like about it. It's definitely got the best soundtrack of any of his works, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, so long as I ignore the person I find QT the filmmaker to consistently at least be making films worth talking about even if I increasingly find him to be more of a stepping stool to talking about genres that worth studying independently.

[domino harvey]

01 Kill Bill Vol 1
02 Kill Bill Vol 2
03 Pulp Fiction
04 Reservoir Dogs
05 Inglourious Basterds
(CSI episode)
06 Django Unchained
07 Jackie Brown
08 Death Proof

[matrixschmatrix]

Fuck it man, let's go listing

1. Jackie Brown
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Kill Bill Parts 1-2
4. Django Unchained
5. Reservoir Dogs
6. Inglourious Basterds
7. Death Proof

(Though this feels a bit inaccurate, since I really love Reservoir Dogs, just I guess ever so slightly less than what's above it.)

[Jeff]

I swear this is the tenth or eleventh time this has come up

There is extensive discussion of Tarantino's auteurism, whether his movies are just "for fun," vengeance themes, and ranking his work in the Django Unchained thread.

[FrauBlucher]

If I created a QT list I would include one John Ford film just for the hell of it .

[knives]

I suppose just to drive Matt insane. I find myself equally ambivalent for Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs though.

Django Unchained
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill
Reservoir Dogs
Inglourious Basterds
Death Proof

[hearthesilence]

No rankings, but Pulp Fiction is the masterpiece. Jackie Brown isn't, but it's a very good anomaly. Those are the first two I'd watch again.

Inglorious Basterds has a lot to admire in terms of craft - brilliant, long scenes like the opening and the basement bar - and there's a great cast, my favorites being Brad Pitt and especially Christoph Waltz, but again, some of it leaves a really bad taste.

I actually get bored with long stretches of Reservoir Dogs, but a lot of it's still entertaining. Both Kill Bill films are mixed affairs for me.

I'm not a fan of Django Unchained and I really hate Death Proof.

[Murdoch]

Pulp Fiction is the only Tarantino film I return to with any kind of regularity. The rest I find to be fun popcorn flicks which I enjoy upon release but haven't felt any reason to return to. The Grindhouse features I can't imagine seeing in any other way than in a packed theater with the faux-trailers in between them.

[FrauBlucher]

No rankings, but Pulp Fiction is the masterpiece.

Yeah, I agree with this.


I did enjoy the Kill Bills for their over-the-top cartoonishness.

[flyonthewall2983]

1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Jackie Brown
4. Kill Bill 1 & 2
5. Inglorious Basterds

[Mr Sausage]

Matt's going to have a fit when he reads this thread.

Anyone looking for depth (god, these spatial metaphors...) in Tarantino's recent output is going to be increasingly disappointed. He's becoming more and more a stylist, taking form itself as the subject of his movies. Those who think Jackie Brown is his best film do so mainly because its subject matter is more traditional: character oriented, introspective, classically dramatic, sense of people dealing with relatable, real-world problems. That's to say, it's much more like a regular dramatic film. It's more palatable and more likely to strike the viewer as serious or adult (for reasons that have as much to do with convention as anything else).

Tarantino's recent movies are more flattened and exaggerated because his subject matter is no longer about people dealing with problems in a classically dramatic setting. His subject matter is now about how drama is presented. We're not really watching people deal with problems, we're watching how we're watching people deal with problems. The manner is the matter. Even the unexpected moments of real drama are placed so that you'll be reminded of how this or that particular genre style doesn't usually contain those kind of emotions--which is just one more way to make style your subject.

This pastiche style isn't just a way to pay homage: it's a summing up of a whole tradition. I'm pretty sure that Tarantino is in competition with all of those genre movies; he's creating the final summation of the genre film, movies that encompass the entirety of the tradition, all of its typical themes, styles, characters, plots, ect., and at the same time playing with the conventions just enough to make them his own, adding the elements that were always missing. He's putting a capstone on genre cinema. His project is a bit like John Milton's was in Paradise Lost, another work that obsessively quotes and references the epic tradition with the explicit (tho' failed) intention of overgoing it. Tarantino has set his sights much, much lower (genre is easier to trump than epic), so he has a chance of succeeding, I guess, even if he's 1/5 the artist Milton is.

Pulp Fiction is still my favourite of his movies, and I don't really like his later films all that much. But unlike that poster way above, I'm convinced that these latter films ought to be treated very seriously.

[Jeff]

You're right, of course, Sausage, but I do also think that Tarantino has a discernible point of view on vengeance, and that theme runs through the majority of his work. I offered my take on that here.

[knives]

Though I think Sausage that even by that measure, which I agree with you on, he's not alone or even the most effective. Gore Verbinski's last two films for example seem riding that same boat and though they have their problems I think for the most part create a greater effect than Tarantino has in part because Verbinski isolates the ideas even more exclusively in filmic terms. I get the sense from Django Unchained that his use of genre is meant to continue the idea of audience blame that is shown at the climax of Basterds. Alternatively I thought that The Lone Ranger more directly is looking at the 'blood' of the language of film itself and seems to be wanting to end the genre because it sees it as an aid to genocide.

[Mr Sausage]

Yeah, my post left a lot out. Tarantino has not abandoned more traditional themes entirely, you're right. But the way he places those moments are usually surprising and also function as part of the thematic focus on style.

I think, too, that he's probably examining the worth/attraction of cinematic vengeance more than its practical, real-world variation, hence he so often examines it in the context of genre. He's plainly interested in what it means to want to watch someone achieve violent revenge (as opposed to what it means to want to achieve it yourself--tho' there's some of that, too). But his take on revenge is a bit difficult to pin down because it can be alternately juvenile/frivolous and adult/serious depending on the scene.

[Mr Sausage]

Though I think Sausage that even by that measure, which I agree with you on, he's not alone or even the most effective. Gore Verbinski's last two films for example seem riding that same boat and though they have their problems I think for the most part create a greater effect than Tarantino has in part because Verbinski isolates the ideas even more exclusively in filmic terms. I get the sense from Django Unchained that his use of genre is meant to continue the idea of audience blame that is shown at the climax of Basterds. Alternatively I thought that The Lone Ranger more directly is looking at the 'blood' of the language of film itself and seems to be wanting to end the genre because it sees it as an aid to genocide.

Haven't seen Verbinski's movies, but I can say that Tarantino doesn't want to end genre or criticize it into extinction (his project isn't moralistic). Tarantino wants to make other genre films unnecessary. He wants his movies to be the apotheosis of the genre film.

[dustybooks]

I tend to find that people who generally seem to dislike Tarantino's work consider it his best film, and those who like his work consider it his worst. A generalization, of course, as everyone's taste is different, but certainly something I've noticed over the years.

Quite accurate in my view. I just saw Jackie Brown for the first time last year and it's the first time I've liked one of his movies -- which I don't say to be flippant here but to give credence to your thought! Something about his work just fundamentally doesn't work for me, but that one did. Mysteries of life I guess.

[knives]

I agree, and it's hard to tell where Verbinski is as this side is just two films old and related exclusively to the western. What I meant was that Tarantino seems to be finding his genre exercises as a way to show the audience its flaws in viewing so that it will observe further films in said genre in an entirely different way. So I don't think he necessarily wants to affect future endeavors of genre so much as make viewing a new experience (which is just as full of gull and daring I suppose). With Verbinski I think he's aiming to reach, maybe not an apotheosis but certainly, a point where the genre must be killed before revival so as to purge itself from an ugly history. He seems to be blaming the western (in book and film) for continuing certain mentalities of racism.