n anyone confirmm mme this? is tarantino just crazy? i mean hes a great director and all but in every interview ui've ever watched, its likes hes a 7 yr old on ecstacy. can anyone shed and light on this psycho?

He's a director. I think he's made five films in his career although maybe he's up to six.

He's hyper.

He likes music.

He's a shitty actor.

He has a small penis.

okie dokie

Just overrated.

And a copycat.

n anyone confirmm mme this? is tarantino just crazy? i mean hes a great director and all but in every interview ui've ever watched, its likes hes a 7 yr old on ecstacy. can anyone shed and light on this psycho?

It's very dangerous in our modern society to show focused enthusiasm and passion. It might be interpreted as a mental disease

he is an amazing guy who just likes to have fun

he isnt crazy i think hes brilliant at what he does

ok not a brilliant actor but not the worst (that will go to De Niro)

he directs amazing and wanderful films, pulp fiction being amoungst the best film ever, reseviovr dogs being the best ever

I like his movies because they aren't boring. He's odd, but what Hollywood person isn't. And he has a foot fetish, so he can't be all bad. ;)

I think he's the most overrated director in Hollywood. His movies say nothing about anything, and are visual trash with "hip" lines that serve little purpose and don't advance the plot an iota.

IHis movies say nothing about anything, and are visual trash with "hip" lines that serve little purpose and don't advance the plot an iota.

and with that he nailed down an important part of popular culture, and hence he is brilliant.

I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also really liked True Romance which he wrote but didn't direct. Dust till Dawn was pretty good too. But I wasn't too impressed by his latest movie (Kill Bill 1 and 2).

Just overrated.

And a copycat.


Peckinpah, Kubrick, Scorsese for teh win.

He doesn't have balls to be like Dario Argento or Takashi Miike, although he desperately wants that in his recent work.

He is different, yes, but he doesn't posses quality. He lacks ideas recently as well.

'Four Rooms' is his best work, but what I dislike is too much dialogue in his movies.

Fincher and Nolan are real daddies of modern American movie. Not Tarantino.
He belongs to the margins of safe and comfortable mainstream.

and with that he nailed down an important part of popular culture, and hence he is brilliant.

I think you're equating success with brilliance. He's obviously been successful. But brilliant? No way...

I think you're equating success with brilliance. He's obviously been successful. But brilliant? No way...

tarantino brilliant?? YEAH WAY!!!

I think you're equating success with brilliance. He's obviously been successful. But brilliant? No way...

No, his movies could have remained cult classics and they would still have nailed down aspects of the American society.

He has a small penis.
Source?

Source?

pics please

I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also really liked True Romance which he wrote but didn't direct. Dust till Dawn was pretty good too. But I wasn't too impressed by his latest movie (Kill Bill 1 and 2).

Didn't like Pulp Fiction, but LOVED Kill Bill

No, his movies could have remained cult classics and they would still have nailed down aspects of the American society.

Exactly, what aspects of American society do his films "nail down?"

I still maintain he's extremely overrated, and I tend to think most of the people who drool over his suspect body of work are movie geeks who should have gone to film school (and didn't) and people who mistake what's "cool" with what's art. Again, Tarantino's films say nothing. They have scant plots, too much dialogue and are filled with juvenile hyperbole and foolishness. I, for one, am tired of him (and the fan-boyish hype that surrounds him). And I yearn for the day when he won't be given millions of dollars to waste celluoid on good-looking girls who have machine guns for legs.

He visits small, independent cinemas 1000s of miles from home to talk about what he loves: films.

His films aren't breath-takingly original it's true but they're well-made and done out of love. The film world is a lot better with him than without.

I don't think so. I think his last flop, with the chick with the machine gun leg, was an abortion of a movie, which is why no one but his mindless acolytes saw it and enjoyed it. I think Kill Bill was an abortion of a movie. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are "good" movies, but they in no way deserve the lavish adoration and critical send-ups they constantly receive from the fan-boys and other popcorn devotees. Having cool soundtracks and filming the back of a person's head or a long winded conversation about foot massages isn't art and it isn't really notable.

He managed to create films that people hate.

That's brilliant.

He managed to create films that people hate.

That's brilliant.

Uwe Boll did the same.

maybe, but I never heard of him. (looked him up)

I think he's the most overrated director in Hollywood. His movies say nothing about anything, and are visual trash with "hip" lines that serve little purpose and don't advance the plot an iota.

Pulp Fiction is a classic, if you make one pulp fiction you can get away with a lot.

I think he's the most overrated director in Hollywood. His movies say nothing about anything, and are visual trash with "hip" lines that serve little purpose and don't advance the plot an iota.
You don't always want brain food, do you. Sometimes you want a nice Royale with cheese, yum yum. Anyway, I think the plotlines in Pulp Fiction mesh brilliantly. Ditto the rarely-mentioned and much-underrated Jackie Brown.

You don't always want brain food, do you. Sometimes you want a nice Royale with cheese, yum yum. Anyway, I think the plotlines in Pulp Fiction mesh brilliantly. Ditto the rarely-mentioned and much-underrated Jackie Brown.
Jackie Brown was exactly how movie should look like, but audience and critics expected new Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
That's why this movie was underestimated.
Yes. Four Rooms, then Jackie Brown.

Same happened (or will happen) with Fincher's Zodiac. Everyone expected new chiller from his cuisine , but he disappointed all, except himself and true movie fans.

Jackie Brown was bloated and ultimately uninteresting. What was the point of the movie? What did it say? Was it entertaining? Funny? Action-packed? I say no to any and all of the above. Look, I'm not arguing that every movie has to be "brain food," but Tarantino isn't Jerry Bruckenheimer. In other words, he's not making mindless fun. And what's more, the critics don't treat his films that way, either. They treat Tarantino as though he is making manna from heaven. So I think we should seriously assess his movies, and I think when we do, they fail to impress at almost every yardstick.

Jackie Brown was bloated and ultimately uninteresting. What was the point of the movie? What did it say? Was it entertaining? Funny? Action-packed? I say no to any and all of the above. Look, I'm not arguing that every movie has to be "brain food," but Tarantino isn't Jerry Bruckenheimer. In other words, he's not making mindless fun. And what's more, the critics don't treat his films that way, either. They treat Tarantino as though he is making manna from heaven. So I think we should seriously assess his movies, and I think when we do, they fail to impress at almost every yardstick.

yes i go agree jackie brown not his best film

I pay no mind to the critics. I very much enjoy his mindless fun.

I very much enjoy his mindless fun.

is that why you enjoy sciforums?

I really liked Quentin, when he worked for Blockbuster video as a clerk. This second job as a director, I am not so sure...

madan:

I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also really liked True Romance which he wrote but didn't direct. Dust till Dawn was pretty good too. But I wasn't too impressed by his latest movie (Kill Bill 1 and 2).


Same. I really enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but the Kill Bills were ho hum.

madan:


Same. I really enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but the Kill Bills were ho hum.

the thing with the kil bill films is that they were not suppose to be taken seriously, and neither was from dusk till dawn

The dialogue he writes is strange and stylized, and he is personally very animated, (which is a fine thing for a director). I like his movies, Death Proof was great!

Jackie Brown was bloated and ultimately uninteresting. What was the point of the movie? What did it say? Was it entertaining? Funny? Action-packed? I say no to any and all of the above. Look, I'm not arguing that every movie has to be "brain food," but Tarantino isn't Jerry Bruckenheimer. In other words, he's not making mindless fun. And what's more, the critics don't treat his films that way, either. They treat Tarantino as though he is making manna from heaven. So I think we should seriously assess his movies, and I think when we do, they fail to impress at almost every yardstick.

You're taking it too far the other way; you have yet to point out what's so bad about Tarantino, only that people like him.

Funny story-
I went to see Hostel (the FBI had confiscated my snuff films, so it was the only way I was going to be able to jerk off that day. also, the pound was closed, and they know me there anyway, and disguises take so long to put on), and some college age fucks were all excited about "oh man, did you hear Quentin Tarantino directed this?"

Not. They put his name on it so it would sell more tickets.
And it worked.

I think I specifically described why I didn't like Jackie Brown by asking pointed questions and responding negatively to them. I think most of those criticisms could be attached to his other movies. I've also reiterated the following, in one guise or another, several times in this thread: His movies aren't "about" anything, and they say nothing to me. They're empty, visual extravaganzas. Nothing more.

I don't think they claim to be anything more.

Indeed, they revel in being triumphs of style over substance. Junk food that melts on the tongue but which won't spoil your dinner.

Tarantino...

IS A GOD!:D:D

Tarantino...

IS A GOD!:D:D
Pssst... Religion forum is in that direction.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_apr2001/KeepLeft.jpg

Beware of atheists! They're lurking everywhere!

1. Your obsession with mentioning the media craze around Tarantino in nearly every post makes it somewhat obvious that your opinion is more reactionary than unbiased. Don't blame Tarantino for the love people have of Tarantino.

2. You mention confusing "cool" with "art". Without getting into an endless debate about what art is, you really just don't understand what he's going for, or you don't like it. Pulp Fiction is a great example of the intertwining of cool and art; a movie that utilizes the standards of cool from every decade since the fifties. That is cool. What's artistic is that he managed to effortlessly and believably unite all these different images of American Cool without making it seem forced.

3. You have a superiority complex or your head too far up your ass if you think art or movies have to "say something". They're suppose to be entertainment. If you can't enjoy the dialogue and the imagery and the action, then I feel bad for you. They're highly enjoyable films with good conversation, good acting, out-of-the-norm plots and stunning visuals.

4. To the fan-boys (and yes, you sound more like a fan-boy than the Tarantino fans in here do) who say "fuck Quentin, he stole all that stuff from other directors".

What are you, retarded?

It's called homage. Maybe you've seen the Simpsons episode where Chester gets his money from inventing Itchy? And at the end Roger Meyers Jr. stands up and rants about how every artist steals from someone?

Tarantino isn't 'stealing' because that would mean he's attempting to pass it off as entirely his own. He's not doing that. He's outwardly asking the audience to notice the beauty and intelligence of other people's ideas. Many artists have done this over the years in their own work, and most of the film director's Tarantino brings attention to did the same thing to their idols.

5. It was predictable that many people would despise him after Grindhouse came out, so I can't get too stuffy about it. I was shocked that so many people who've never seen a grindhouse horror movie thought they would like it just because it was tarantino/rodriguez. If you didn't grow up loving those kinds of movies, why the fuck did you go? Did you think they were going to call a movie Grindhouse and make it anything but a throwback to 70s Z-grade horror flicks? If you weren't entertained by those movies what on earth made you think you would be entertained by this one???

I loved it, both movies. But I've always loved cheap, shitty, blood-filled horror flicks.

6. Bruckheimer sucks major balls and the fact that you associate his name with good-cheap movies is telling.

Con Air
Armageddon
Enemy of the State
Gone in Sixty Seconds
Coyote Ugly
Pearl Harbor
Pirates of the Caribbean
National Treasure

Are all some of the worst movies I've ever seen. Well, maybe Pirates isn't actually that low, but it was very far from deserving praise. The rest of them are actually near the bottom of my pile out of every movie I've ever seen. How on earth can you equate this man with any positive word?

Granted he did Top Gun and Blackhawk Down, which were both entertaining. But one of those was 20 years ago and the other was a fluke.

7. Nolan is not a godsend and I don't understand the hype. I like his films. Memento was okay but kind of over-rated, Insomnia was worth watching, the Prestige was decent. But none of these were shocking in any way.

8. You seem like an angry little man. I guess my best advice is just don't watch his movies any more.

I should add that Nolan's Batman was outstanding and I'm very excited for the next one.

I can tell I iritated you, which probably isn't hard to do. Regardless, I feel like responding to some of your crass remarks.

1. Your obsession with mentioning the media craze around Tarantino in nearly every post makes it somewhat obvious that your opinion is more reactionary than unbiased. Don't blame Tarantino for the love people have of Tarantino.

How can a reaction not be reactionary? How can an opinion not be biased? But let's leave those puzzles of logic aside for a moment and try to deal with what little substance your post leaves us. I'm not blaming Tarantino for the fandom he has inspired. Nor do I blame him for the rave reviews he gets, regardless of what he produces. What I am doing is questioning the two and wondering whether the merits of his work equal the attention (and the bloated budgets) that is part and parcel to it. In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no.

2. You mention confusing "cool" with "art". Without getting into an endless debate about what art is, you really just don't understand what he's going for, or you don't like it. Pulp Fiction is a great example of the intertwining of cool and art; a movie that utilizes the standards of cool from every decade since the fifties. That is cool.

That's your opinion of cool, which is fine. However, one could equally argue that chucking "cool" things into movies is the exact opposite of cool. That is, cool should be cool without trying too hard to be cool. Or something like that. My greater point is that cool isn't usually art. Miami Vice was cool, but it isn't necessarily being held up as a cultural piece of art from the 80s, nor should it be.

What's artistic is that he managed to effortlessly and believably unite all these different images of American Cool without making it seem forced.

That sounds like he's nothing more than a visual DJ, splicing other peoples' tunes into something people can dance to. That's a skill, but again, is it one that warrants all this lavish praise?

3. You have a superiority complex or your head too far up your ass if you think art or movies have to "say something".

Leaving the current location out of my head out of it, I never said movies have to say something, but if they want to be taken seriously, that is if they want to be seen as something more than an idle distraction, it certainly helps if they do.

They're suppose to be entertainment.

Agreed, hence my point about Bruckenhiemer, who on his day, can be immensely entertaining. But again, my point is that people don't go to Tarantino films to be entertained, or at least his movies don't seem structured to be the sort of delicious eye candy that a summer blockbuster is.

If you can't enjoy the dialogue and the imagery and the action, then I feel bad for you. They're highly enjoyable films with good conversation, good acting, out-of-the-norm plots and stunning visuals.

I enjoy dialogue and imagery and action, but again, there needs to be some coherant point to them for me to really be wowed by a director's combination of them. Otherwise, I see it and shrug and move on. You think his films are "highly enjoyable." I do not. I think they're full of conversations that don't need to take place, bloated and ridiculous plots. Visually, I can't think of any scene he's directed that's stood out in my mind as brilliant, either.

5. If you didn't grow up loving those kinds of movies, why the fuck did you go? Did you think they were going to call a movie Grindhouse and make it anything but a throwback to 70s Z-grade horror flicks? If you weren't entertained by those movies what on earth made you think you would be entertained by this one???

I didn't go. The entire idea looked like a juvenile waste of time to me.

6. Bruckheimer sucks major balls and the fact that you associate his name with good-cheap movies is telling.

Con Air
Armageddon
Enemy of the State
Gone in Sixty Seconds
Coyote Ugly
Pearl Harbor
Pirates of the Caribbean
National Treasure

Are all some of the worst movies I've ever seen. Well, maybe Pirates isn't actually that low, but it was very far from deserving praise. The rest of them are actually near the bottom of my pile out of every movie I've ever seen. How on earth can you equate this man with any positive word?

Because most of those movies are fun to watch. They're empty distractions. A good time. Nothing more. I don't think Bruck has a talent for anything other than making the equivilent of beach reading, which is fine with me. I read trashy books sometimes, too. The point is that he isn't held in such critical awe by America and the film buffs, but Tarantino is, so shouldn't T. be held to a higher standard?

I should add that Nolan's Batman was outstanding and I'm very excited for the next one.
Next one?

i saw hostel 2 last night, tarantino defiantly had more to do with that one then he did the first one, the second was a lot more blood thirsty and nasty, because there is one thing he does good and that is blood

I can tell I iritated you, which probably isn't hard to do. Regardless, I feel like responding to some of your crass remarks.

Don't start a pissing contest online, it's unbecoming.

How can a reaction not be reactionary? How can an opinion not be biased? But let's leave those puzzles of logic aside for a moment and try to deal with what little substance your post leaves us. I'm not blaming Tarantino for the fandom he has inspired. Nor do I blame him for the rave reviews he gets, regardless of what he produces. What I am doing is questioning the two and wondering whether the merits of his work equal the attention (and the bloated budgets) that is part and parcel to it. In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no.

Okay, I'll put it this way... your reaction to the movie should not include a reaction to the critical acclaim. Reactions to art should be to the art and not to the culture surrounding.

And yes, opinions can have more or less bias. For instance, a racist person's opinion of a black man's character would be more bias than mine or, I presume, yours.

That's your opinion of cool, which is fine. However, one could equally argue that chucking "cool" things into movies is the exact opposite of cool. That is, cool should be cool without trying too hard to be cool. Or something like that. My greater point is that cool isn't usually art. Miami Vice was cool, but it isn't necessarily being held up as a cultural piece of art from the 80s, nor should it be.

On the contrary, Miami Vice (not the recent movie) is quite often held up as being archetypal of the notions of cool art from the 80s. It fits in very perfectly with other art forms and their modes of expression from that time period.

As well, I can't honestly believe that a person could watch all of Tarantino's flicks and think he simply copied and pasted everything. If you can't note the originality in any of that, I think you've simply blinded yourself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've just seen very few movies that have the same style and flow as Reservoir Dogs, very few films with the mode of story telling that Pulp Fiction uses and not a single other movie in history that manages to effectively and effortlessly cross Hong Kong 70s Raymond Chow with samurai flicks and John Wayne Westerns like Kill Bill. Perhaps you know more about the Chow/Samurai/Western film genre than I do, but the only trace elements of such a cross I've ever seen have been in Japanese films, and even these are loathe to commit much attention to 70's Hong Kong. So Kill Bill exemplifies originality as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention Tarantino's specific use of colours is very distinct from most Japanese films (of which Kill Bill took a lot of it's heritage) and entirely different than Westerns. His use of feminine imagery and soft colours in blood-fight scenes is something that is almost completely unused in American movies, though the over-riding yellow theme of the first film is certainly in homage on some level to Bruce Lee. Take from that also his long-shots such as the transition from the upper room of the bar/restaurant in the first film down to the bathroom where Uma is hiding and find for me another American film that has such a shot.

That sounds like he's nothing more than a visual DJ, splicing other peoples' tunes into something people can dance to. That's a skill, but again, is it one that warrants all this lavish praise?

He is a visual DJ, but I've pointed out at least three examples off the top of my head of quite original and gorgeous visual use. To me, nearly each shot of the Kill Bill films (which, as works of art, I find to be superior to Pulp Fiction) is an absolute joy to watch. Even with the sound off - and to ignore his remarkable use of soundtrack would be absurd - and ignoring the plot, each individual frame is beautiful to me. I can't say I've ever seen a Bruckheimer film with a single beautiful picture.

But again, my point is that people don't go to Tarantino films to be entertained, or at least his movies don't seem structured to be the sort of delicious eye candy that a summer blockbuster is.

Neither I nor he can be held for other people's stupidity. I ranted about the moron fan-boys who went to Grindhouse expecting to like it, did I not? I do think some people hold it in a different esteem than it should be held; as if he's some deeply philosophic film-maker or some shite like that. I don't think they praise him too much, just that they praise the wrong aspects. And Grindhouse was the perfect thesis comment on this. For some reason, idiots who never enjoyed gore-slash-stupid-50-cents-on-a-tuesday horror movies seemed to think this would be different because Quentin made it. I can't imagine what they were thinking.

I enjoy dialogue and imagery and action, but again, there needs to be some coherant point to them for me to really be wowed by a director's combination of them.

Pulp Fiction did have many points, though. The struggle for Willis' character to decide how to end his career, and Wallas' talk to him about pride. Not only this conversation but the theme of pride was persistent throughout the film. Or take the general theme of redemption and look at each and every character in the entire movie and how they deal with loss, suffering and possible redemption, then look at their outcomes. I'm sorry but you were shutting off your brain if you didn't find themes and exploration in that film.

Kill Bill is also as much a morality tale as any Japanese samurai flick. It deals with all the same themes. And if your response to this is "well then it ain't original" - then yeah, neither is any of the samurai flicks made in the last 40 years, but you still love them, don't you? And the earliest ones, the great Kirasawa who I'm sure you love, was simply rehashing themes from earlier Japanese drama. So then he wasn't original... You see where this leads to?

I didn't go. The entire idea looked like a juvenile waste of time to me.

Good you didn't go then! But you do sound like you've an awfully high opinion of your own aesthetics and not an ounce of understanding that there are other aesthetics grading lines out there. I remember once having pride in the notion that I had a small and select line of aesthetic ideals and thinking that the highest philosophic standpoint to reach.

Now, I wish I could enjoy more and more. I wish I understood the attraction to death metal, I really do, but I just can't seem to get my brain into the right place to derive pleasure from it. But I am quite happy that I can appreciate the fun in mindless zombie movies.

Because most of those movies are fun to watch.

Horseshit. I'll leave Pirates out of it because I can understand someone liking it, just not loving it.

But the rest of those movies are absolutely terrible. The plot reads like the story on the back of a cereal box, the dialogue is entirely fake and inhuman, the story is predictable and lame and rehashed, the visuals are useless and the acting is almost always pure crap. They are cookie-cutter movies.

One critic use to put it that they simply don't go far enough (or anywhere) in any direction. It's like eating three loaves of white bread to watch one of those movies. At least zombie flicks have shit blowing up all over the place and hilariously bad mistakes to cringe over.

In short, his movies have: bad acting, but not the worst; big explosions, but not the biggest; bad plots, but not so awful that you laugh; no originality, but no good copying either; bad music; predictability to the point of not needing to see the movie to know what happens...

Pearl Harbour is a good example, as is National Treasure. Just painful to watch. Coyote Ugly? Please.

He's a very talented director, and all his films (I haven't seen the latest though) are great.

As for his interview style, yes, it's weird, but it means he's just very enthusiastic and excited by his stuff. I think that's a good thing and, frankly, it's also very sexy.

I guess some clerk at my local store put Death Proof out too early, it isn't being released on DVD (according to Amazon) until monday!