Quentin Tarantino

Pulkp Fiction...I have the movie poster overlooking my PC desk...

I voted for Jackie Brown, which was a decent movie. Reservoir Dogs was a huge disappointment to me, I maybe waited too much from it, as I like Harvey Keitel very much. Haven't watched the others, they don't seem very interesting to me.

Running for cover...

I think the main idea in the movies of this guy are the aestethics of the scenes he makes. They don't appeal to me, so it's quite difficult for me to like them. I'm also not very interested of pulp literature, so the scripts he uses for his films seem silly to me.

"Pulp Fiction", but they're all great.

JACKIE BROWN ALL THE WAY! What a great film. Not nearly appreciated as much as it should be. Excellent excellent and excellent. That is what Jackie Brown is.

stripthesoul wrote: Honestly, I really want to hear from one of you guys why everyone finds Tarantino so wonderful.  I have done extensive reading about film and have taken classes on film study, and I even make some shorts myself, and I honestly don't find Tarantino even remotely interesting.  His films are just glorified violence.  I don't mind violence if it contributes to the plot, but Tarantino's films have terrible plots.  Violence is fine as a means to an end of creating a meaningful movie that displays the harsh realiities of life, but for Tarantino, violence is the end in and of itself, which is what I object to.  His storylines are uninteresting, his characters are not well developed, and he does not use any innovative filming techniques.  Personally, I think foreign directors are far better than Americans at the moment, but if you're looking for an innovative American filmmaker, I highly recommend Darren Aronofsky.  His two movies, Pi and Requiem for a Dream, certainly don't shy away from harsh realities, but they have memorable stories and characters in a way that Tarantino never will.  He also uses an interesting montage technique to show drug abuse in Requiem for a Dream.  Why is it that everyone thinks Tarantino is such a genius?  Is it just society's fascination with violence for its own sake?

Many people study music endlessly to the nth degree and they find nothing interesting about rock and roll or other genres. That doesn't mean they're right or that they have some sort of...power that makes them a more discerning source for what is good or bad.

There isn't that much violence in his films, compared to the English Patient or I don't know The 40-Year Old Virgin. Yes they are more violent than those two, but really there's not much in there you wouldn't see in any other action movie and even a good portion of dramas. Jackie Brown was especially toned down compared to his other films (however that is not why it is great). I wouldn't say his use of violence is glorified either. Look at something like Saw or to be more extreme Ichi the Killer. There you have violence that could be considered glorified, but I mean if you get stabbed with a sword you will bleed. If you get your limbs cut off, you will bleed. You also clearly have a different interpretation of violence for use in film. Many directors do. Tarrantino's films do not center on violence and when there is violence it certainly contributes to the plot. A man is shot. That character dies because he was shot. BOOM. Story development.

His stories are very interesting because they involve many aspects of revenge, betrayal, in-depth discussions, people you wouldn't want to be involved with, good vs. evil, among many. Sounds like he uses pretty much all the things that any other notable director would. The difference between someone like Kubrick or Godard with Tarrantino is that Tarrantino has an appreciation for all types of films. More notably Kung fu, Samurai, Horror, Western, and Blaxploitation films. All genres that have great elements and movies to go with.

Maybe Tarrantino doesn't use "innovative techniques" but how many directors really do? And there is a time and place for innovation. If he needed to be innovative he probably could figure something out.

Aronofsky is good, but he is a completely different kind of filmmaker from Tarrantino. I'd also say his films are just as violent as Tarrantino's he just doesn't show blood quite as much. Arronofsky isn't that innovative though. He's clever, but so is Tarrantino.

Also not all movies are about or supposed to be about "the harsh realities of life". That would be lame. And sure there are plenty of great foreign directors, but there are plenty of great American directors too. I find foreign cinematography (like in the Wong Kar-Wai films) to have a slight step up on America's, but that doesn't mean we don't have just as many great filmmakers.

Reservoir Dogs, no contest. After that one, he started believing his own hype. Pulp Fiction felt like a student film stretched out to feature length and given an A-list budget. Jackie Brown was okay but nothing special. Kill Bill is kinda fun because it's such a bloated vanity project but would have been much more entertaining had it been half as long and much cheaper... hey, wait a second, now I'm basically describing Neil Marshall's Doomsday. 

crimhead wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: I voted Resevoir Dogs,I love that movie.And honestly,I really wouldn't call Jackie Brown a masterpiece. But it has that great scene in the kitchen. You know which one I'm talkin bout. I went with the Dogs. Great movie,great cast.

kibble_alex wrote: Pulp Fiction for me.But if Sin City was on there, i'd vote for that. I dunno why, i just love the movie, it's very clever IMO.

Tarrantino only had a directing part in the car scene. The rest was all Rodriguez.

BroSpence wrote: kibble_alex wrote: Pulp Fiction for me.But if Sin City was on there, i'd vote for that. I dunno why, i just love the movie, it's very clever IMO. Tarrantino only had a directing part in the car scene. The rest was all Rodriguez.

damn, you learn something new every day

well then it's settled, Pulp it is.

kibble_alex wrote: BroSpence wrote: kibble_alex wrote: Pulp Fiction for me.But if Sin City was on there, i'd vote for that. I dunno why, i just love the movie, it's very clever IMO. Tarrantino only had a directing part in the car scene. The rest was all Rodriguez. damn, you learn something new every day well then it's settled, Pulp it is.

Forgot to add that Frank Miller had some directing duties too.

I think he did do some directing though. A-rod and Tarrantino dropped their director's guild membership because of the credit or something like that. Miller is directing a new movie by himself based on one of his graphic novels.