Quentin Tarantino

[Doug]

After rewatching all of these films again, here's how I'm ranking them today:

1. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Kill Bill (Vol 1 & 2)
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. Jackie Brown
7. Django Unchained
8. The Hateful Eight
9. Death Proof

Whoa, really? I have to say I'm looking forward to this movie more than just about any movie this century, but I will have to wait until the blu-ray comes out. I just can't see setting aside four hours for it (factoring in drive time and all).

Also, like you, Matt, I don't rank his last two westerns very highly. I liked The Hateful Eight more than Django Unchained, but even it felt too much like Tarantino trying to out-Tarantino himself. Inglourious Basterds was great though and I've seen it many times. Still, Jackie Brown is my favorite.

And where would you rank True Romance? I still rank that way up there.

[Matt]

Whoa, really? I have to say I'm looking forward to this movie more than just about any movie this century, but I will have to wait until the blu-ray comes out. I just can't see setting aside four hours for it (factoring in drive time and all).

No, do it! It's worth the four hours.  I just saw it again at the Imax theater, and it wasn't nearly as fun strictly because it was a very empty theater. This is a cinema movie. It should be seen in the theater, and preferably surrounded by others who are really enjoying the movie. See if you can make it this weekend at like a 7:00 showing where it would have the most people. Since it's a long one, I'd seek out a theater with recliners and if you have food service, make it dinner/drinks and a movie. It's really worth it. You won't be sorry and feel it's time wasted. Reading reviews, I can tell that having a little knowledge of Manson and the family before the film really makes it that much more enjoyable. Since we're close in age and grew up Beatles fans, I'm sure you fit in with those who have that knowledge and will really enjoy it.

Also, like you, Matt, I don't rank his last two westerns very highly. I liked The Hateful Eight more than Django Unchained, but even it felt too much like Tarantino trying to out-Tarantino himself. Inglourious Basterds was great though and I've seen it many times. Still, Jackie Brown is my favorite.

And where would you rank True Romance? I still rank that way up there.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. I was actually watching The Hateful Eight this time around and thinking "holy crap this is wordy" and I've never thought that from Tarantino. And then the violence didn't work as well for me because he didn't make me dislike the characters enough that were on the receiving end of the violence.  Death Proof has lost some of the initial charm I felt when I first watched it, and is one where it doesn't improve with extra viewings. Django Unchained -- a really good, almost great movie, but doesn't live up to the high standards I have for Tarantino with the 6 films above it on my list. Losing his editor Sally Menke probably had a lot to do with Dhango Unchained and The Hateful Eight having the wrong feel. But, he definitely got it right back on track with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

I haven't seen True Romance in years. I'll watch it again and see where it ranks. I remember really liking it, but couldn't tell you anything about it until I see it again.

[AKA23]

I think of the films he's made that I've seen, which is definitely not all of them, I liked "Jackie Brown" the best. It was among the least violent, and it also had Robert Deniro 

[AKA23]

Also, Tony Scott directed "True Romance," not Quentin Tarantino, so it's not really a "Quentin Tarantino" film. He just wrote it. I think the director has a much stronger influence over the end product than the screenwriter does. The thing I remember most about it was the somewhat whimsical, quite memorable score by Hans Zimmer.

[Doug]

Also, Tony Scott directed "True Romance," not Quentin Tarantino, so it's not really a "Quentin Tarantino" film. He just wrote it. I think the director has a much stronger influence over the end product than the screenwriter does. The thing I remember most about it was the somewhat whimsical, quite memorable score by Hans Zimmer.

I assume you're just talking out loud since we know Tarantino didn't direct True Romance, but it is absolutely a Tarantino film, in the same way Being John Malcovich is a Charlie Kaufman film. It's the first film I saw by Tarantino and I loved it so much I was already looking forward to Pulp Fiction well before it was released. That's how impressed I was by the writing. Although Reservoir Dogs had been out for a little while, I wouldn't see it until after I'd seen Pulp Fiction. Natural Born Killers is not a Tarantino film, given he's disowned the film, though the original script is available for sale. The score for True Romance is great, but it owes a huge debt to the film Badlands.

[Gant]

Having a think about this.. I'll go

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill 1&2
Inglorious Basterds
Django
The Hateful Eight
Death proof 

[The Schofield Kid]

Tarantino Steals From Other Movies     

[Matt]

Tarantino Steals From Other Movies     

It's pretty funny that Tarantino partially steals the quote from Picasso "Good artists copy. Great artists steal". 

That was a good clip.

[Gant]

May I ask AKA... If you don't like violence in films how did you ever get into Clint Eastwood ?

[AKA23]

May I ask AKA... If you don't like violence in films how did you ever get into Clint Eastwood ?

Gant, this is a good and fair question. I think for me, the violence in Clint's films first of all always served the story. It was not the defining feature of the film. Clint always played character driven characters and directed character driven stories. His movies were never about the spectacle of filmmaking or how far he could push the envelope before he went too far. Quentin Tarantino's movie are all about the spectacle to me. The story is only there to serve the style which underpins them. It's a vehicle for the indulgence of Tarantino's revenge fantasy obsession. Tarantino's films are self-indulgent. Clint's films aren't. Tarantino continues to direct movies that thematically center on revenge fantasies. I'd love to be his psychiatrist, so that I could learn why. In addition, the level of violence in Tarantino's films is oppressive to me. I can't think of a single Clint Eastwood film that you could objectively say that about. 

Secondly, the nature of the violence is much tamer in even Clint's most violent film than it is in Quentin Tarantino's tamest movie. Quentin Tarantino's movies have a level of blood and gore and gratuitously styled violence that Clint never had in his films. There is simply no comparison whatsoever, in my opinion, between Clint and Quentin Tarantino. I also feel like Quentin Tarantino often exploits historical events in very crude ways ways that serve as a vehicle for his overly stylized, gratuitously violent films. I don't think you can say the same about Clint. To me, they are very different directors and filmmakers. I agree that Tarantino is a talented director. I just wish that he used those talents in a different way. His films celebrate, glorify, and trivialize the very worst of human nature to me. Clint never reveled in man's darkest impulses. He reflected upon them, he may have sometimes depicted them, but he never took any glee in doing so. Quentin Tarantino does, and to me, that's disturbing.

[Matt]

I actually agree with most of what AKA wrote above when comparing Tarantino to Clint, but I don't come to the same conclusions - but individual points are well made.

Gant, Doug, SK and anyone else who might be reading who has seen both directors' works -- how would you compare these two very different directors?

[KC]

Gant, this is a good and fair question. I think for me, the violence in Clint's films first of all always served the story. It was not the defining feature of the film. Clint always played character driven characters and directed character driven stories. His movies were never about the spectacle of filmmaking or how far he could push the envelope before he went too far. Quentin Tarantino's movie are all about the spectacle to me. The story is only there to serve the style which underpins them. It's a vehicle for the indulgence of Tarantino's revenge fantasy obsession. Tarantino's films are self-indulgent. Clint's films aren't. Tarantino continues to direct movies that thematically center on revenge fantasies. I'd love to be his psychiatrist, so that I could learn why. In addition, the level of violence in Tarantino's films is oppressive to me. I can't think of a single Clint Eastwood film that you could objectively say that about. 

Secondly, the nature of the violence is much tamer in even Clint's most violent film than it is in Quentin Tarantino's tamest movie. Quentin Tarantino's movies have a level of blood and gore and gratuitously styled violence that Clint never had in his films. There is simply no comparison whatsoever, in my opinion, between Clint and Quentin Tarantino. I also feel like Quentin Tarantino often exploits historical events in very crude ways ways that serve as a vehicle for his overly stylized, gratuitously violent films. I don't think you can say the same about Clint. To me, they are very different directors and filmmakers. I agree that Tarantino is a talented director. I just wish that he used those talents in a different way. His films celebrate, glorify, and trivialize the very worst of human nature to me. Clint never reveled in man's darkest impulses. He reflected upon them, he may have sometimes depicted them, but he never took any glee in doing so. Quentin Tarantino does, and to me, that's disturbing.

AKA, I think this is a brilliant post. You put your finger right on the difference between Tarantino and Eastwood. I've never heard anyone express that so well.

I must admit I haven't seen nearly all of Tarantino's work, but AKA pretty much lays out the reasons why I've never felt obliged to do so.

[Gant]

Very well answered AKA.. I was kinda kidding but your response has made me think about the comparisons.
When I was young Clints films were often thought of as extremely violent and were almost always R rated. Sudden Impact etc..

I'm gonna dwell on this comparison some more..

Just as a side thought... Did Clint vote for Pulp Fiction at Cannes some years back ?

 

[AKA23]

Very well answered AKA.. I was kinda kidding but your response has made me think about the comparisons.
When I was young Clints films were often thought of as extremely violent and were almost always R rated. Sudden Impact etc..

I'm gonna dwell on this comparison some more..

Just as a side thought... Did Clint vote for Pulp Fiction at Cannes some years back ?

I remember him saying in an interview that he did not.

[Doug]

Matt, may I ask what it is about Ounce Upon a Time in Hollywood that you like so much? I did get to see it and I'm just not getting the love. So it's a love letter to 1969 Hollywood, but what else is it? It spends over 2 hours on character development leading up to the climatic scene that frankly feels really silly. I did like it, but it feels like Tarantino threw out all sense of conventional pacing, and there's zero plot, and really not much of a story. I'll watch it again and maybe it'll click with me on a second viewing.

[Matt]

Matt, may I ask what it is about Ounce Upon a Time in Hollywood that you like so much? I did get to see it and I'm just not getting the love. So it's a love letter to 1969 Hollywood, but what else is it? It spends over 2 hours on character development leading up to the climatic scene that frankly feels really silly. I did like it, but it feels like Tarantino threw out all sense of conventional pacing, and there's zero plot, and really not much of a story. I'll watch it again and maybe it'll click with me on a second viewing.

Sure.   The "love letter to 1969 Hollywood" is something I read in almost every review of this movie, and it's true, but I don't care about that. What I loved is the character development and the story, so we're 180 degrees away from each other on these points because I do love the plot (there is one) and I loved loved the ending, which I didn't think felt silly at all.

SPOILERS BELOW:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Like Inglourious Basterds the ending is an alternate reality of a true event:  the Manson murders, which leaves Sharon Tate and her baby safe and well (along with her house guests and we can assume the LaBianca's the next night). The reason I've said this movie is so much more satisfying if you really knew a lot about these killings is because there is such a sadness for how that beautiful woman was killed, and her legacy just as a murder victim in one of the most gruesome killings of all time, it just makes her such a tragic figure. So as the story progressed closer to that fateful day, and you're expecting this angelic sweet woman to be brutally killed (8 months pregnant) the tension was building all along to that night. And then, he changed the outcome, and it felt amazing -- a surge of adrenaline and as much euphoria as I think it's possible to feel in a movie theater watching a fictional film. So, I loved the plot -- I loved the acting. I loved the character development. I loved the set, the dialogue (not too heavy this time), and everything about it.  I'm surprised you didn't because I know you've enjoyed some of his films, and I think this is his best. The violence is not too much in this one. I thought the film was very balanced for Tarantino -- not heavy in any area, which I can criticize Tarantino for in his other films. So I rate it 10/10.

[Gant]

Totally agree, it gave us another perspective on Sharon Tate, it was a celebration of her beauty and talent. I loved the scenes with her in the cinema watching her own film with an audience..

[Matt]

And mixed in with all that drama and heaviness as we head toward the night of the killings, we have some hilarious scenes. My favorite is the Bruce Lee fight scene with Cliff.  "Let me just say, nobody beat the $#!t out of Bruce." This was laugh-out-loud funny, and another scene where those who are familiar with the real people being portrayed in the film get paid off in spades, because he was dead-on as Bruce Lee.  Also loved the scene with Rick Dalton talking to his young co-star before they shoot their scene together. And the bit at the end where Cliff is trying to remember Tex Watson's name "No it was dumber than that".

"I'm as real as a donut, Motherf***er"

 

To me, it was one of the most "kick-ass" fun and entertaining films I've seen.

To touch on more about that awesome ending: Rick Dalton going back for the blow torch scene, and then describing it to Jay Sebring afterwards! "Like the one in 14 Fists of McCluskey"?  "That exact one -- I still had it, sitting in the garage!"      Hilarious stuff.

[Gant]

Yeah, I loved all those scenes you describe.. Lots of real laugh out loud moments..
A freind of mine' car was used in some scenes. I liked how all the car engines were high in the mix, reminded me a little of Bullitt...

Kick ass and entertaining absolutely..

[Christopher]

Gant, how did your friend's car get in the movie?