A Genius in our Time - Discuss

[Canalman]

Reservoir Dogs was refreshing to say the least when released first. Excellent first film which was never matched imo.
Cannot for the life of me see why everyone raves about Pulp Fiction....... just don't rate it at all.
First hour or so of Django Unchained was excellent, it faded badly after that but still a good film imvho and his best since RDs.

Having said that his films are interesting if nothing else. Music in them usually very good if somewhat odd at times.

[Hardy]

Mad as a blue weasel.

[easytiger95]

No internal logic to his films at all - everyone who says he is paying homage to grindhouse films etc fails to notice that these B movies though cheap and full of gimmicks still had a semblance of narrative coherence. the thing was after Pulp Fiction (which I loved) where he played with the timeline to great effect, he then thought he could do that and more in each film - hence the garish unreality of Kill bill, the killing of Hitler in "inglorious Basterds", the ridiculous escape and shoot out at the end of Django Unchained. Imagine the film "Basterds" could have been if he had played it straight instead of going for cheap laughs all the time? It's most obvious influence is "The Dirty Dozen", which is hilarious for the first hour, until it gets deadly serious in the second half - so when they start getting knocked off, it actually packs a punch. QT has lost the knack of making us care for his characters - remember how stange and disconcerting it was to see Vincent Vega killed halfway through Pulp?

In fact check out "Django" with Franco Nero - yes, it may be kitschy now, but in its own time and on its own merit, it is a brilliant spaghetti Western - and there is no one mugging for the camera, no arched eyebrows, no meta references - it stays true to itself. Whereas "Django Unchained" is a modern film pretending to be a spaghetti Western, whilst fetishing the slave trade. It is a film about the 1970s, rather than the 1860s. I don't like to be po faced, but I think the theme of slavery should be more than a convenient prop for a postmodern buddy movie pastiche.

For all the talk of his script writing "dialogue" skills, he can only write "set pieces" instead of scenes - everything always leads to a payoff, which makes you sick or makes you laugh, or both. He doesn't write dialogues anymore like the "Big Mac/Amsterdam" scene in Pulp Fiction. He writes monologues for a series of characters/ciphers who are all QT by proxy.

His most emotionally affecting and heart felt work was the script he wrote for "True Romance" and didn't direct himself - and of his own efforts as a director, I think his most coherent and satisfying film is "Jackie Brown" - and that was based on Elmore Leonard's "Rum Punch."

It is the law of diminishing returns - he became worshipped so early in his career and he has never heard the word "no" - so now it is a spiral of self indulgence. He says that he re-imagines history - I think it is perilously close to an insult of history. I'd be on Spike Lee's side when it comes to QT, but with a touch of regret at such talent being wasted.

[Hardy]

Or, to put it another way ... mad as a blue weasel.

[easytiger95]

 

[Hardy]

he became worshipped so early in his career and he has never heard the word "no" - so now it is a spiral of self indulgence.

Seriously, though, this is exactly what I think too. I said something like it here one time.

[ONeill]

Same thing happened Jesus.

[armaghniac]

Bollix. Jesus didn't leave home until He was 30.

[lawnseed]

The smiths.. Morris and marr genii together. Seminal band fantastic sound. Still sounds great after 20 years.

[BarryBreensBandage]

No internal logic to his films at all - everyone who says he is paying homage to grindhouse films etc fails to notice that these B movies though cheap and full of gimmicks still had a semblance of narrative coherence. the thing was after Pulp Fiction (which I loved) where he played with the timeline to great effect, he then thought he could do that and more in each film - hence the garish unreality of Kill bill, the killing of Hitler in "inglorious Basterds", the ridiculous escape and shoot out at the end of Django Unchained. Imagine the film "Basterds" could have been if he had played it straight instead of going for cheap laughs all the time? It's most obvious influence is "The Dirty Dozen", which is hilarious for the first hour, until it gets deadly serious in the second half - so when they start getting knocked off, it actually packs a punch. QT has lost the knack of making us care for his characters - remember how stange and disconcerting it was to see Vincent Vega killed halfway through Pulp?

In fact check out "Django" with Franco Nero - yes, it may be kitschy now, but in its own time and on its own merit, it is a brilliant spaghetti Western - and there is no one mugging for the camera, no arched eyebrows, no meta references - it stays true to itself. Whereas "Django Unchained" is a modern film pretending to be a spaghetti Western, whilst fetishing the slave trade. It is a film about the 1970s, rather than the 1860s. I don't like to be po faced, but I think the theme of slavery should be more than a convenient prop for a postmodern buddy movie pastiche.

For all the talk of his script writing "dialogue" skills, he can only write "set pieces" instead of scenes - everything always leads to a payoff, which makes you sick or makes you laugh, or both. He doesn't write dialogues anymore like the "Big Mac/Amsterdam" scene in Pulp Fiction. He writes monologues for a series of characters/ciphers who are all QT by proxy.

His most emotionally affecting and heart felt work was the script he wrote for "True Romance" and didn't direct himself - and of his own efforts as a director, I think his most coherent and satisfying film is "Jackie Brown" - and that was based on Elmore Leonard's "Rum Punch."

It is the law of diminishing returns - he became worshipped so early in his career and he has never heard the word "no" - so now it is a spiral of self indulgence. He says that he re-imagines history - I think it is perilously close to an insult of history. I'd be on Spike Lee's side when it comes to QT, but with a touch of regret at such talent being wasted.

Interesting stuff Tiger, but can I ask, why would you want a Tarantino film to be 'like' the Dirty Dozen, or to 'stay true to itself' (whatever the f**k that means). Can you not just let it be a Tarantino film - for Christ sake it is all over pitched over exaggerated, comical when it should be serious, but is that not Tarantino?
And I am sorry I don't know my most 'satisfying' Tarantino film (wtf?!!) And pastiche? Is that not a kind of nut? 

[brokencrossbar1]

You on the whiskey again?

[BarryBreensBandage]

You on the whiskey again?

No, rather worringly sober and concerned that I am caught in some post modern buffoonery!

[BarryBreensBandage]

The smiths.. Morris and marr genii together. Seminal band fantastic sound. Still sounds great after 20 years.

Good Call

[brokencrossbar1]

You on the whiskey again?

No, rather worringly sober and concerned that I am caught in some post modern buffoonery!

Well then just get out the whiskey!!!

[BarryBreensBandage]

You on the whiskey again?

No, rather worringly sober and concerned that I am caught in some post modern buffoonery!

Well then just get out the whiskey!!!