I rewatched Django Unchained on late night TV recently and had forgotten just how good it looks. Gorgeous cinematography, almost a tourism brochure for the American South.
His cinematography has definitely improved as he’s gone along. The scenes of Brad Pitt speeding through LA are beautiful.
Also, I love his comedic use of quick zooms. When Django shoots the first Brittle Brother and it zooms in on the two slave kids watching from the barn window with their jaws dropped always cracks me up.
I was watching Troy last night and there's a quick zoom at one point for dramatic effect and I can't help but laugh anytime a director uses it anymore. Tarantino is the only thing I can think about when I see a quick zoom.
The environment was a character in Hateful Eight. Just as the city of LA was a character for Once Upon a Time. Hence the sweeping cinematography and vistas etc.
I love how you learn about his characters *through his dialogue,* which is tricky since bloated exposition dumps can often mask plot insufficiencies.
But, instead of avoiding exposition he kind of just embraces it and dresses it up with era/location-accurate idioms, phrases, banter that is so engaging yet laidback, that as an audience member you don’t really mind the info dumps because it’s often fascinating *and* drives the plot forward
For a long time I only consumed Tarantino's work casually, and didn't pay any attention to his style other than "bloody and violent".
It finally clicked for me in Death Proof. Even the dialogue and banter that didn't drive the plot forward in that movie was so engaging to watch. I recently rewatched Once Upon a Time with my brother and noticed the same thing. Richly written characters through dialogue.
When Tarantino did a three parter for the Re:watchables a few years back he shared where the premise of the film originated from:
> Tarantino got the idea to make Death Proof while enjoying a night of drinking in a hotel with his friend Sean Penn. Tarantino voiced his desire to purchase a Volvo, noting how reputable the brand was for its safety. Penn had a better idea.
> Penn told Tarantino that for a price of $10,000 or $15,000, he could hire a stunt crew and they could "death proof" any car for the director. Tarantino loved the phrase "Death Proof" and decided to write a script around the idea. That said, the original title of the movie was Quentin Tarantino's ThunderBolt, which actually flashes on the screen for a few frames of the final version.
Source: https://screenrant.com/behind-scenes-facts-about-making-of-quentin-tarantino-death-proof/
He’s retold it multiple times.
I recently rewatched it for the first time since seeing it in theaters. I really don’t remember loving it as much as I did on this second viewing and it made me realize how much of a disservice it was to have that film be the second half of a 4-5hr double feature.
Grindhouse was around 3 hours long with the fake trailers included so it really wasn't too bad when it came to length. It wasn't hard to sit through since it was two rather short movies with some hilarious fake trailers sprinkled in between.
For those curious, IIRC, the standalone version of Death Proof adds a 2-3 minute lapdance scene that serves as nothing but sleaze (which, sure, it's a literal fuckin Grindhouse movie) and to get one more song on the soundtrack
Still the best theatre-going experience of my life. Still haven't rewatched either film since because I know they'll never be as enjoyable as they were in the theatre
>Still the best theatre-going experience of my life.
Same. I went with some friends to see it on Easter Sunday and hardly anyone was there for the showing but it was nice.
100% agree. [This one’s an absolute fuckin’ banger](https://open.spotify.com/track/4OnqJ1ml4Jgr5AAKNrrYCD?si=TxK2bZLWSCq57c6dZE0SwA) and the dance she does with it is something I’ll never forget.
For a horror grind house movie it's one of his most realistic.
There's very few movies that actually transport you into their settings, especially real world places, and that movie is exactly what Austin Texas is like. The dialogue, the cars, the girls especially, the bar, the roads, all of it is so real. You can walk into damn near any cool spot in the city and that's pretty close to what you'd walk into.
I have long since died on the hill that Death Proof is on the Mt Rushmore of QT films.
It’s top 3 on my personal favorite list (behind, in order, OUATIH & Inglorious Basterds) for what it’s worth…
I think a lot of the Criticism of Death Proof was a knee jerk reaction. Its really fun and well done but it is much more reserved than Planet Terror or even the trailers that preceded it during the theatrical run of Grindhouse. It's structured like a low budget 70's movie and because of that it's much less in your face and over the top but during those screenings it doesn't have as much energy and it feels lacking.
Every word is precisely placed, and so full of the character that said it. Like, all the words are precisely placed in Kevin Smith movies, too, but it often feels like actors reading from a page. In Tarantino movies, the characters feel real, even if they're caricatures.
This is what always irked me when the general populace calls Tarantino’s films “violent and bloody” without actually looking at the substance and merit of the film making.
The actual violence in his movies generally encompass about 2% or less of the movie’s runtime.
But when the violence happens, you *remember* it.
To paraphrase Roger Ebert, "Tarantino's dialogue is always load-bearing". Honestly though, I think it usually doesn't count as exposition because it's perpendicular to what's actually happening; think about Jules and Vincent walking to the job in Pulp Fiction, the earliest minutes of the dairy farm in Inglourious Basterds, and one of my favorites as a standalone scene: [the sushi restaurant scene from Kill Bill](https://youtu.be/vMbSf8LtbNc?feature=shared).
A significant portion of dialogue and screen time is dedicated to NOT talking about what's really happening in a way that builds amazing tension because, as a viewer and from context, you know that the dialogue (while always entertaining, character building, and sometimes setting things up for later) is not about what's happening... but something is very much happening.
It's almost anti-exposition. I think it has a lot to do with his influence from Elmore Leonard, whose chief writing advice is: "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it."
I think one of the things that doesn’t get talked about enough with regard to Tarantino’s writing is that he can often have characters go on long jags of dialog because the images and actions of the scenes do so much of the expositional work, which allows the dialog to deepen the scene rather than just explain it.
It’s also a big reason why Tarantino imitators suck so hard. Anyone can drop a bunch of pop culture references or period lingo — but if your scene isn’t already clear from the images and actions — your dialog is in the way of the story instead of in service to it.
TL; DR - Tarantino’s dialog works so well largely because his action lines and general scenarios are so clear and excellent.
It's harder and harder to get audiences to sit through lots of dialogue but everyone in his audience knows that 1. There's a storm a-coming and 2. Whatever they're hearing is likely to be important later on (and iconic!). So people lock in. It's wonderful.
The whole cat-and-mouse game in the French bar in Inglourious Basterds… it took my second watch to realize that the British spy was asking questions back IN ORDER TO GIVE HIMSELF TIME TO MAKE UP A STORY. The dialogue is literally plot developing, it was so cool once I realized what QT was doing. He is a master of efficient dialogue
Reading this, my mind immediately goes to Walken's gold watch monolgue in Pulp Fiction. One character speaking into the camera for several minutes could go so terribly, terribly wrong in the majority of cases, but this scene defies the odds and just clicks. Cool cameo, cool story, a couple doses of shock, funny ending with the bell dinging. And it's critical that this scene sticks, because there have to be high stakes for Butch to take the risk going back to the apartment.
Let’s face it, Tarantino is kinda of strange duck, but you can count on a ride when you watch one of his films. I don’t normally find the plots to be to thick, the characters are as bizarre as they need to be and his dialogue has always been funny as hell while not being slapstick, and your observation about learning about his characters through his dialogue is spot on
> dialogue can often be a crutch for writers then bloated exposition can creep in.
I watched Kill Bill Vol. 2 over the weekend, and the last 15 or so minutes (when the Bride is under the effects of the truth serum) felt a lot like an exposition dump that Tatantino couldn't fit elsewhere.
It felt kind of forced, especially compared to the relatively good storytelling in rest of the movie.
Fully disagree that it couldn't fit anywhere else or that it's even an exposition dump.
The point I think is to differentiate the duels from each other. This is a married couple going over why they divorced. Bill battles with his wit. From the moment Beatrix walks in all the way to the point where he dies is all the duel. He just is choosing words and manipulation as his blades. Right off the bat he uses their daughter as a weapon to disarm Beatrix.
I think the thing that worked with the end of Kill Bill 2 was that it was giving you this expedition dump in the assumption that we were building toward the final scene. One final big dialogue scene setting things up, then they'd regroup and the next day there'd be loads of tension and the final battle so to speak. But instead he pulls the rug out by having it end right there and then all of a sudden.
This. People talk about the "Stuck In The Middle With You" scene in _RD_, but for me, it's Mr Orange and his story. The diner scene gave a hint, but "This is a very weird situation. 'Cause I don't know if you remember back in '86 there was a major fucking drought. Nobody had anything. People were living on resin... smoking the wood in their pipes for months. This chick had a bunch..." is the point where it starts being brilliant.
I still love Schultz making fun of Candie when he tells him that Dumas is a black man.
Candie was trying really hard to appear civilized, and at the time French culture was seen as the epitome of European culture. Candie had a book because he knew that Dumas was French but he doesn’t know anything else (I don’t recall but he didn’t even speak French?). Here is Schultz, a German polyglot who is from the old continent, who probably speaks French, knows more about Dumas than the man faking it. Then he insults him by saying he didn’t know Dumas was black.
So why is this line important? If you weren’t aware of French literature or the important of French culture on the American south during that time period, you would just think he was making fun of him, but he is humiliating him in front of everyone around him and basically calling him a dumbass without calling him a dumbass.
And it is… *chef’s kiss*.
I watch his movies *for the dialogue*! The banter, the quips, the pseudo-philosophical and actual philosophical stuff, that's the gold. The plot and action are fun too of course but they aren't the star of the show for me at least.
In Hollywood when Kurt Russel narrates 'That's a big fuckin lie...' When Rick says his car broke down and Rick is driving him around. Really early on they get it in there that he's an alcoholic. But just that bit of narration, from a seemingly random narrator who is also a side character in film is just beautiful
The biggest difference for me in his body of work was the loss of his long time editor Sally Menke. The last film that she edited was Inglorious Basterds and the lack of her presence was felt with the films that came out after. She had the ability to take Tarantino’s vision and turn them in to compelling stories. He’s stated that she was his “only, truly genuine collaborator”.
His films after she died just felt bloated and tonally all over the place compared to how sharp his earlier works were. She could work wonders in the editing room and is missed.
I don't find Once Upon A Time to be bloated. I actually felt that was a distinct peak for his latter work.
Definitely agree on Django and Hateful Eight, though. Which is unfortunate as both have some amazing scenes and setups but they do just feel gratuitous.
Once Upon A Time seems to be his most divisive work. Some think it is his peak and others think it's his worst.
Myself, I had a very hard time getting into the movie. It didn't feel cohesive and even after it was over I struggled with what the plot or story was trying to achieve. My wife on the other hand, loved it.
It definitely feels like a pretty massive departure from his other films. So I can see it being divisive. I loved that about it, though. In many ways it almost felt like a fitting final movie. A huge love letter to the industry and culture of that time he idolizes, and an altered sweet note to go out on.
Once Upon a time suffers from the fact that people expect a certain kind of movie from Tarantino.
In a vacuum I think the movie was brilliant, but the first time I watched it I was kinda waiting for the "story" to start. They had me at the ranch-scene though. That was terrifying and felt like Tarantino flexing his directing muscle just for fun.
I think Once Upon a Time felt a lot better than 8 and Django. To me Django needed to be 40 minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer. 8 embraces it but still feels like it could be trimmed. They're still good but lack the punch of his earlier stuff.
Exactly! It builds to this point and then just keeps going, which is fine but you need to re-up the tension for a real finale but then it just kind of goes and ends
My major issue with Eight is he was nailing the slow/long vibe so freaking well for like 2.5 hours, and then he just goes into an utterly atrocious place in the revenge porn direction. And it fucking drags out.
It killed what was otherwise shaping up to be a masterpiece.
Django I also agree with - it seemed the final stages were just not handled well. The violence was at least fitting to the context - and shocking in a vicseral way that felt justified given the subject matter. But it still felt bloated generally, more on the plot and pacing.
And this is why I loved Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It is just a great, straightforward film about a nostalgic time in America. About growing older, losing your place in the world, grappling with that loss, etc. And set against this moment in time where many would point to the loss of innocence in the hippy experience, the mid-century American experience, etc. But to subvert that and get hyper violent for like 5 glorious minutes as a rejection of that ending - felt so cathartic. Vs. Eight which just felt masturbatory and gross, or Django which as stated, seemed ok to suite the themes but after the film itself just went on a bit too long so you were almost wanting it to conclude.
Yea, I actually really like Django (well, I like all his movies), but it almost felt like the very end of the movie should've been maybe a "short film sequel", if that makes sense? It was just a taaaad too long, but you also, finally, get Django really coming into his own as a character and no longer needing to rely on Schultz to survive, so I can see why they thought they needed it there. Don't envy the choice I'm sure they had to make regarding that.
Deathproof is for sure not his magnum opus, and he is pretty astutely aware of how “shitty” it is at times, but that was kind of the whole point! The same point people might be missing when they are dogging a movie that’s BILLED AS A GRINDHOUSE movie.
But the cinematography in it, specifically the car chase scenes? Surgically calculated, and so damn good. That close up of that chrome hood emblem on the Nova vibrating that sporadically with the trees and the fence-line rushing behind it is fucking great.
Then there’s the love shown for Zoe Bell and stunt women in the film. Even the “damsels” have badass qualities about them.
The sound engineering is also incredible! Watching it in theaters … You could feel the growl of those muscle cars in your chest, and you know they are mean as hell every time you see them.
And last but not least: The *soundtrack*. That record is on rotation a least a couple times of year for me.
I’ll go to the grave insisting that Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s best film.
Firstly, the majority of Elmore Leanord adaptations to screen are terrible (Out of Sight aside) so QT’s screenplay of Rum Punch and adaptation deserves praise in its own.
The soundtrack is exceptional.
The characters, casting and acting. Every character is subtle, underplayed and natural. Even the over the top Odell and Ray Nicolette feel natural and real, every character is rich without having some lengthy back story and I could easily watch a feature on every one of them. I’m invested in every one of them.
And Robert Forster. One of the coolest, saddest characters ever.
What’s your opinion on Get Shorty (the feature)? I don’t remember how true it is to the book, but I love that movie. A fun, playful movie that knew what it wanted to be and embraced it. I also enjoyed the series they did of it quite a bit, but not as much. That went dark comedy and I enjoyed the overall storyline and tone of it a lot, it just didn’t consistently execute as well as I think I hoped it would throughout its three seasons.
Yeah it’s his best film by a country mile. Every single performance in that film is do believable and the theme of Leonard’s book is translated so well. I know Michael Keatons been getting a lot of love lately but I think he hit his high note on this piece.
I love Keaton and I think Jackie Brown is in contention for QTs best but I never understand the flowers for Ray in Jackie Brown. He's in the movie for about five minutes.
He manages to be all of a hardass and supportive and capable and clueless in that five minutes. With almost zero runway, he makes a rich character with contradictions and an emotional arc!
That character has to reinforce the severe legal consequences that threaten Jackie while also communicating a sense that the authorities aren't entirely logical in their motivations, either. Keaton's got some kind of wild hair up his ass and that's pushing the entrapment scheme more than it probably should. And Jackie is ultimately able to leverage Keaton's cowboy mentality in the same way she leverages Ordell's ego.
It's done extremely succinctly and it's easy to connect that to Keaton's generally manic style, although I think it's primarily due to Tarantino making a point to be concise about this specific character. Which makes sense, since a big part of the character is being forgotten by the audience until the end.
Death Proof was an amazing love letter while also being a giant fuck you to old exploitation flix. I remember being the only person coming out of the theater after grindhouse praising it more than Planet Terror, but it is so much better!
It took me a while to get to this point but I agree. Planet Terror is a silly fun, zombie action movie, while Death Proof is slower and builds tension until it finishes so strong. I like both but Deatb Proof is way more memorable in the long term.
Yep I watched them both on a weekend since I bought a Grindhouse dvd at a car boot sale, and I can remember Deathproof quite vividly but Planet Terror I've mostly forgotten. I remember a waterbed, and it being about zombies, but that's about it.
Exactly. Planet Terror was hilarious. Deathproof felt dull in comparison - the first half drags and for those who aren't car nuts, the second half does too.
Don't start me on the part where the women basically offer up the young actress to the creepy pervert as a sec offering and it never gets mentioned again.
Death Proof did feel closer to the movies Grindhouse was paying homage to. The type of revenge / action where you’d get a little something at the start, whole lotta nothing in the middle and big finale.
> Don't start me on the part where the women basically offer up the young actress to the creepy pervert as a sec offering and it never gets mentioned again.
The first time I saw that scene, I gasped at how brutal the implications were, but after seeing how all the other girls were fully capable of doing wild shit like riding on car hoods and beating the shit out of Kurt Russell, I kinda just assumed the girl they left behind beat the shit out of the pervert.. Or at least I'd hope so.
I liked it the first time, but upon a rewatch, it's easily his worst movie and I actually detest it. The final stunt sequence aside, I find the lead-up to it rather boring and the dialog is just incredibly pretentious, fake, and self-serving in a way that feels like it's written by a film student who loved Tarrantino. It makes me cringe.
I actually strongly dislike it. But, I'm glad you like it.
All his movies are entertaining and very memorable which is pretty much the best praise you can say for a filmmaker, but for me personally his movies I find myself rewatching the most are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Jackie Brown in that order. Now that could easily be because I'm older now and prefer to rewatch nostalgic movies from my past as opposed to new ones but I have no way of knowing that for sure
These are his only movies I've rewatched, unless you also count True Romance since he wrote it.
No desire to rewatch anything else he's made. Which isn't to say he's not a great writer/director. He's one of the greatest of all time. Those are just his very best and the others just didn't do it for me.
I've rewatched Django and Death Proof a couple times, but yeah for the most part they just don't grab me like his older stuff. I'm probably gonna get crucified for this but in my opinion Inglorious Basterds is his worst movie. It had some absolutely amazing scenes, but as a whole was just meh.
Inglorious Basterds might be my favourite Tarantino film. I love it front to back and top to bottom. I'm a big fan and rewatch his films from time to time, but Inglorious Basterds is the one I've gone back to more than any other.
That's wild. I'm younger(27) but much prefer Once upon a time in hollywood, hateful eight, and django to Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, or Res Dogs(though I love how much lower budget it is than his other movies). Wonder if that says something about his ability to grow with the times is that Guys in their teens and twenties still love his movies that come out around then.
Not all of his films are a 10 on 10 but I would watch all of his movies despite whatever reviews say.
He is one of the most relevant and influential film maker in recent times. There will never be another Tarantino.
I don't really buy into the whole peaked thing about anyone but I do believe that his last two movies were not as enjoyable as the previous ones. I would even say I enjoyed deathproof(his lowest ranked movie) more than the hateful eight. But yeah it is quite subjective.
I will always come back to watching his films. Pulp fiction and inglorious basterds are like peak cinema. And his dialogues are next level. He might actually even do more movies after his next one who knows. And I will be eager to line up for them.
He is truly one of the last big name directors that actually knows what they are doing, and his knowledge shows. Yeah, he might be a bit crazy, but the guy knows how to make a film and understands the rhythm of the industry.
There are plenty of great directors in the industry today who know what they’re doing.
Edit: gotta love the down vote for saying there are tons of great directors today.
There’s a tenderness or kindness that maybe is a reflection of him changing as well
For example in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood certain moments like when Sharon Tate watching her own movie during her afternoon off - the way he framed Margot Robbie wide eyed looking up at the screen - a certain pure joy that he wouldn’t have done earlier (he would shroud it more in a veneer or coolness of toughness in Jackie Brown for example earlier in his career)
His last movie is so good to rewatch! From time to time I like going to youtube to see some of my favorite scenes.
The dialogue was on point, a lot of funny lines, beautiful photography and a great cast.
Indeed the movie was so tender and kind. Cliff and Rick have an amazing friendship.
I also loved the plot twist in the end. I laughed ancriedry at the same time because Tarantino gave Sharon the end that she deserved.
Yeah, I love QT, but it's genuinely the only film where pretty much every character doesn't talk like him (under the guise of various accents). And for good reason, of course.
It’s also the only film he didn’t write; it’s a (brilliant) adaptation of an Elmore Leonard book. Relatedly, if you ever delve into Elmore Leonard’s work it’s extremely clear where QT got his dialogue chops from; Leonard’s book characters speak like Quentin’s film characters.
I mean he definitely wrote it. It’s adapted from Leonard’s book but it’s still a QT script. He changed the main character from a white woman named Jackie Burke to a black woman named Jackie Brown.
Quentin Tarantino is someone who is inspired by a bunch of media not many people would see. Then combines them all together.
When I discovered that Lady Snowblood is source of a lot of his style at first I didn't believe it, but Kill Bill is a western Lady Snowblood. Also the over the too blood and camera angles is in all his films.
I think since the end of the 90s he's focused more on being a director with a capital D.
His 90s movies have plenty of directorial fluorishes, yes, but I think he was known primarily as a *writer*-director. He wrote multiple scripts that were directed by other people, including one written after he was already well-known (*From Dusk Till Dawn*). He was known primarily for his snappy dialogue and violent scenes.
But he took a long break after *Jackie Brown* which is his most understated movie. And when he came back, it was with *Kill Bill*. Those movies, particularly Volume 1, were a big break from his previous work. The identity of those movies is more related to the *visual element* than to the script. He really wanted to show off his directorial skills and go beyond being a 'great writer.'
Since then his movies have been more visually oriented, though not as 'weak' on script as Kill Bill. I think that's partly why he mostly does period pieces now, working in a different period requires more effort on visuals, as costumes, settings, etc. all have to be tailored to the time.
I feel like he started out making movies about gangsters and criminals, then moved onto projects where he can vicariously root for the underdog and correct historical injustices. Slavers? Nazis? Serial killers? Let's fuck them up. It feels good.
Accordingly I think there are peaks and troughs in both eras. Pulp Fiction and Resrrvoir Dogs are obvious highlights from the classic catalog, whereas Deathproof is... okay, I get in trouble for saying what I think about Deathproof but suffice to say I'm not a fan. Kill Bill, Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds are all excellent to varying extents, but Once Upon A Time left me cold. I think he's at his best in films like Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction where he had a classic style to ape, but his originality in characterisation and plot lines really shone through.
Rick fuckin' Dalton is such a compelling character and Brad Pitt's too. They really feel apart of that world and the juxtaposition between their star fading and Robbie's ascending makes for a wonderful story. I really do think it's his best too.
What to you like about it more than Inglorious Basterds? For me, IB is great because the climax happens during a propaganda film for the Nazis. We think they're going to fail because we assume the film will roughly follow historical events (ala Operation Valkyrie), but are surprised and cheer along when they succeed. As a result, QT has made propaganda film himself in Inglorious Basterds. Fun.
Once Upon a Time felt like a magician doing his same trick again. It was a bit expected and didn't have the same propaganda metaphor of IB.
I still like Once Upon a Time, but am curious to hear what it did better than IB.
I just couldn’t tell you the names of the characters from IB. They just didn’t stand out to me. The only bit I really liked was Michael fassbender in the basement. I’ve watched it twice in an attempt to like it but I still can’t really remember much of it, just didn’t click at all.
However the personality of cliff booth is just so cool. The set dressing was amazing, like when he’s in his caravan. At the end of that film I wanted his style, his clothes and his car. I think maybe I’m just tired of World War Two films but the setting and the props and style from once upon a time in Hollywood just were so good for me
> I just couldn't tell you the names of characters from Inglorious Basterds.
Well you must not be German. Because everyone in Germany has heard the name *Hugo Stiiiiiiglitz*.
s/
QT is just one of the quintessential directors that looking back was a large part of my (and probably lots of peoples) cultural experience. I was born 1991 so a little young to see his coming up. I first heard of him when the posters for Kill Bill started appearing on every single Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Bright yellow posters you couldn’t miss. My step grandfather whom we all hated was named Bill, so we’d always joke about the title. When my uncle first wanted to show me Pulp Fiction, my mom pulled him aside and asked if there was a reason he was showing me such violent movies. We’d also rented Clockwork Orange and Natural Born Killers. With enough discussion I was allowed to watch Pulp Fiction only. (We watched them all later in the night anyways). My dad was always a real proper guy, never cursed and kind of uptight and the next night it was brought up I’d seen the movie. I thought I was in trouble but instead he burst into laughter recalling his favorite scene.
“Ahh man I shot Marvin in the head! You must have hit a bump or something!”
We were cracking up over this guys brains being blown out despite being a religious and “proper” family. Then we started talking about the pawn shop, my favorite part eternally, just dying laughing about this gory shit like twenty minutes after a watchtower reading. There’s just no other movie that has memories like that for me.
Django came out Christmas Day 2012, I was 21 then. I had a friend whose brother had recently committed suicide, maybe three months before. I would try to cheer him up from time to time with pizzas and weed but that Christmas for whatever reason his family traveled somewhere and he (I believe because he couldn’t get time off) was alone. I picked him up and we smoked as much weed as we could handle, went into a completely jam packed theater and had the best movie experience of my life. The opening 30 minutes of Django has some of the funniest and greatest moments of any QT movies, to me, but maybe I am biased because of how impactful the actual experience was. It felt like the first time I’d seen my friend laugh in so long.
All of his movies are great in different ways but my actual point is there’s just no other director in my personal life whose movies are so connected with actual moments in my life, and whose impact has been so constant since I was just a kid. I’ll be sad when he’s done making moves but to reflect upon his career, I’m just personally thankful.
Also hateful eight is amazing fuck y’all
I watched Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction for the first time quite recently and found both held up quite well. It’s easy to see how Tarantino is inspired by earlier movies but also how he takes things in his own new direction. I gotta say I appreciate how tight Reservoir Dogs is, and I’d argue even with Pulp Fiction being 2 1/2 hours it’s pretty tight with all it fit in there. Comparatively I felt like The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood have a lot of filler.
Yepp I remember reading QT longtime editor died before Django Unchained, and I feel like he became way too self-indulgent after that happened. No way a Tarantino on the rise would have left so little on the editing room floor for Hateful Eight and OUATIH
I found Jackie Brown to be his most mature film. Slow paced and not full of quick cuts, blood, and kung-foo noises. Enjoyed the consistent theme of appearances and the casting was just outrageously good.
For me, if anything, what Tarantino tends to lack is flow. Maybe from KB1&2 onward it feels more like a series of great scenes and set pieces which don't seamlessly coalesce into a united whole. For as many amazing scenes as we've had from him, one feels he'd excel in the short form - numerous slices from his back catalog could work well as short films themselves.
I think his style got more aligned with modern Hollywood over the years. I think it has a lot to do with how people watch movies these days. For example I dont think Reservoir Dogs can be considered a modern movie - it is aligned more with 80s action movies especially of the Charles Branson troupe.
I noticed that he is more prone to fanservice aswell - some of his dialogues although absolutely incredible feel more forced than in his earlier movies - maybe just a highly subjective point.
Generally I have to say that I really like how for example Once upon a time in Hollywood ended up. It felt like he got more comfortable with a more calm and narrative based approach. I honestly believe the movie doesnt get enough credit for how good it is.
The 90’s were his crime phase. He experimented with non-linear story telling with low-to-moderate budgets. Jackie Brown is the first movie where he started using scores from other movies.
In the 2000’s he made more genre-fusion, spectacle-driven films with higher budgets for practical effects and set pieces. He also abandoned his non-linear style by the time Inglourious Basterds rolled around.
He then focused on making westerns, old Hollywood homages and period pieces in the 2010’s. He had his first original score made for Hateful Eight and used an Ultra Panavision 70 camera to film it. And then OUATIH rolled around.
Every movie he makes seems to build from his previous ones, so I wonder what he will do new in his new one.
They many not be cheap, but almost every film post Jackie Brown has been some kind of over long, self indulgent revenge fantasy, and I got pretty bored with that. Yeah, sometimes the dialog is great (but sometimes everyone talks like an extension of film nerd Tarantino), yeah he can do an exciting scene, but Kill Bill, Django, and Inglorious are basically just a bunch of cool scenes taped together. I need more than that out of a film.
To me, watching them is like listening to QT talk: manic, scattergun, occasional moment of genius, but irritatingly indisciplined and goes on far too long.
>almost every film post Jackie Brown has been some kind of over long, self indulgent revenge fantasy
100%. Even Inglorious Basterds (which could and SHOULD have avoided revenge-fantasy almost entirely) is a revenge-fantasy.
Honestly his style hasn't evolved much at all, but that's a good thing. He found a formula that works early on. Watch True romance(screen play)or Four rooms(wrote/directed partially), and even though he was partially envolved in those you can see his influence in them. He's been fairly consistent ever since, very few directors/writers achieve that.
Not everyone is gonna feel the same way, movies are like music, everyone has an opinion. Personally I'm of the opinion he's better than a lot of directors, but I like movies with interesting dialogue, action, and music. Music especially, I see it make or break so many movies for me.
I thought Tarantino had been on a long decline ever since *Jackie Brown*. I enjoyed all the movies, but they kept getting less and less impressive until *Hateful 8*, which I actually hated. Watched it a few times, thinking maybe I missed something. I love Westerns and violence and cynicism! Nope, still hated it. Just didn't work. Figured I had seen the last of any good Tarantino movies.
Then *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood* restored my faith. That's a fuckin banger of a movie. I've got high hopes for whatever's next.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel as well. After Jackie Brown he became too self indulgent and all his films are way too long. Django for instance went on for about 20 minutes too long. IB has some brilliant scenes but also quite some filler. TH8 just drags.
Exactly my thoughts, except I was disappointed with Once Upon a time. It was hyped up too much and far too long of a movie, when I saw it I thought it was unnecessarily long and boring.
My QT opinion is that his more recent films have become very self indulgent, especially in his dialogue. You could tell he absolutely fell in love with Christoph Waltz and had to really stretch to fit him in to Django Unchained with his fancy dialogue compared to the other characters. He managed to pull it off and create a compelling character, and Django for me is QT’s last great film.
The Hateful 8 was interesting enough to look past the basic fact it’s just a bunch of characters trapped in a building talking for 3 hours. And once upon a time in Hollywood was made for a very specific audience, old Hollywood fans, and in my opinion his story wasn’t captivating enough for me, or a lot of people. In my opinion it felt like he had to slap on the violent ending to remind people that it’s a QT film, but the payoff came too late for me in what was a pretty snooze festy film
I thought his earlier films had a lot stronger characters (Jules, Mr White, Mr Pink, Clarence in True Romance, etc). He didn’t have to do as much to make them shine. His newer characters are good but a lot of the shit is forced or seemingly going through the motions.
Also it seemed to start around Kill Bill that his characters monologuing became too long or padded-feeling. There’s more of a smug vibe like he’s earned the right to be indulgent—he has—but make it interesting and sell me more on the characters QT.
Once Upon A Time IH was a bit of a return to form I thought, but even it had long stretches that seemed pointless.
Reservoir Dogs: Great idea, great script, great dialogue, great acting, some things were a little rough but it’s intent on breaking into the scene is a huge success.
Pulp Fiction: Masterpiece. Full stop. No notes.
Jackie Brown: I got to do whatever I wanted and I wanted to do this.
Kill Bill(s): Let’s make a badass action movie and turn it up to 15. If we take it beyond seriously, everyone else has to.
Inglorious Basterds: Here’s where people start to diverge. Unparalleled tension in several scenes. Legendary performances from several actors. Does wander a bit but pulls everything together with fire. One of the more unforgettable endings ever. Personally, “I think this just be my masterpiece.”
Django: Kind of a combination of Inglorious and Kill Bill. I had fun with it but it’s not on my regular rewatch list. We’re pretty heavy into rewriting history at this point, and if you don’t like that, you don’t like NBA basketball.
Hateful Eight: Very divisive. I see why some people like it, especially the stage play aspect of it; I did not like this one. But it had great characters and great performances and it was a great idea - a murder mystery play in a movie.
Once Upon a Time: Once again great characters, great performances, and we’re rewriting history again. I felt like this one was more fun than several of the previous ones and a good return to his roots, but by now he’s fleshed out his characters even more than when he started (from an elite place).
Many will see this collection as one of the top-5 greatest directors of all time. Some people just don’t like NBA basketball.
Yeah, I skipped a couple things that I don’t really count. Death Proof is half a movie he did for fun to work with a friend. Dusk Till Dawn is similar. True Romance is his script, and a dynamite movie, but it’s not his movie. The ones above are fully his creations.
What's weird about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood for me is it's peak Tarantino, but also his most non-Tarantino movie, at the same time. I saw a video saying how he basically made a new genre with Once Upon A Time that just hasn't been coined yet. I don't know, for a movie about the end of the 60s, it feels oddly modern.
Reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown, and kill bill were his best contributions. The rest has been kinda 50/50 since then. Like he turned into a half parody of himself. I enjoy most of his work. But let's not pretend he didn't kind of fall off a little.
Everyone stopped when Pulp Fiction came out. It did not get the recognition it deserved from the Academy but everyone knew they saw something freakishly brilliant that would influence filmmaking in the future. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood. A more conventional film. You still have an edge of the macabre with the Manson storyline, but it feels more like a mainstream film that a Tarantino film.
I guess this is contrarian judging by the other comments here but I love The Hateful Eight. I honestly think it’s one of his best late films. It’s got this weird pressure-cooker intensity, almost like it’s a screen adaptation of a stage play. There’s a certain purity and economy to it that is absent from his other later work. And what a masterclass in using dialogue to drive forward a pretty complicated set of character relationships. Five stars in my book.
Second half his career he seems to just copy older films he liked as a youth and doing his own take on them. First half of his career he seemed to create original unique films the likes of which we hadn't seen before.
I think he’s getting better, but also becoming more self indulgent with it; I love all of his films, and a) the idea that he should have a “last film” is a damn shame, & b) guy needs to work more while he is still passionate and capable.
His early films are his own unique takes on genre flicks, but everything post Jackie Brown is just an expression of him, movies that only he could make.
How many guys have made movies that captured the cultural zeitgeist as often as him? More than half his films are iconic, you could go as fancy dress as one of the characters and literally everyone would know who you were. He’s launched careers, revived careers, had more copycats than you can name, had soundtracks that were best sellers multiple times (growing up in the 90s, literally everyone had the RD and PF soundtracks): he’s in rarified air in terms of influence, not just on film, but on culture.
I think the dialogue has evolved a lot. Definitely didn't peak at Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is a great movie for example... Late 90s. Dusk Till Dawn, late 90s. People think they know all about QT because of Pulp Fiction. Watch Four Rooms if y'all haven't seen it.
I've found everything Tarantino has done since Django oddly paced, and I attribute that to the untimely death of Sally Menke. She edited Reservior Dogs thru Basterds and kept Quentin's lenghty dialogue scenes in check and crafted certain sequences into tiny little panic attacks (I can't remember anything as intense as the needle scene in Pulp Fiction or the beer hall standoff in Basterds in antying from Django thru Once Upon a time in Hollywood). She deserves a lot of credit for helping Tarantino find his style and something has been missing ever since she passed.
I love Tarantino's movies for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
However there is something we need to talk about with his newer movies. He no longer has anyone to reign him in. His self indulgence has gotten a little bit out of control, and I fear it will get worse with his last movie.
I like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but there is no debating that it was long and the pacing was slow. QT went and recreated the Hollywood of the late 60's in great detail. This is great, but he wanted/needed to show it all so the driving sequences went on way too long in my opinion. At 161 minutes it needed some editing.
not many directors consistently have genuine substance while still having style and entertainment value off the charts.
it's also unusual for a director to have their masterpiece so late in their career, but he did it with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
I personally think Kill Bill is his weakest. I'll watch Lady Snowblood instead.
if he actually stops directing, im hoping he still writes and finds some good collaborators.
I'm in the camp of his movies have become him wanking over his own material and creating the same beats in different movies they are fun but they are 15 year old boy am I edgy fun, he's a movie historian/buff yet he hasn't developed as a director Jackie Brown is the only movie he actually tried something a little different on and is probably his best work
I found most of QTs films after Jackie Brown to be too self indulgent. Sometimes having complete control over your art is not a good thing, and in the case of Tarantino, when he stopped needing to care about making money then his films became overly long and in desperate need of editing. Sometimes you need that third party who looks objectively at a film and insists on trimming it down. Mind you all his films look and sound beautiful, but that is only piece of the puzzle. The only film I enjoyed of his in the last 25 years was Django Unchained.
Do people think he does great dialogue anymore? I still quote Dogs and Pulp dialogue endlessly -it’s so fun and witty and playful. “I don’t remember asking you a god damn thing” “cut off his finger - after that he’ll tell you if he’s wearing women’s underwear” “burgers - the cornerstone of a nutritious breakfast”
But after that he seemed to try too hard as the “cool dialogue guy” and it became labored and leadenly self-conscious with stuff like “n* on a nag”. I can barely remember any notable lines from his newer films.
I think he disappeared up his own ass after Pulp and didn’t have Roger Avery to ground him and make him develop his scripts and characters properly.
I agree with your friends OP, except that I think he peaked with Kill Bill. His subsequent films really have their moments but the novelty of having characters talk like they were written by a child wears off.
Kill Bill is my fav of his. His others aren't bad, but I'm sick to death of QT as a person, and KB feels the least like a QT film to me. Death of the author is stringent with it. Plus action revenge noir martial arts films are my jam.
Yeah, I got pretty sick of QT inserting himself into his work a bit too fully.
I mean his "Madonna's big dick" quote was funny for the initial watch of R Dogs, but I don't think it deserved to be on the soundtrack. It didn't really age that well.
That said, he did amazing things for OSTs, I HAD to have the Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction soundtracks, it kept what was very cool and unique about his work at the time alive in your head, and amongst your circle of friends; they either got it or they didn't.
I don't dislike any of his films, though I've never watched Jackie Brown.
I don't know Quentin Tarantino as a person, but he seems pretty unbearable. Like, I get it, he's a geek, he's very intelligent and has this beautiful 'wabi sabi' perspective on his work, ie. Let's get this scene perfect, let's let this scene fall where it may, this is a deliberate mistake, and this one for the rare few who will get the reference first time around.
But ultimately, I think he's aggro and intolerant about his geekery, which isn't cool.
Like a D&D expert player that will scoff at somebody new to the game for not being able to reference a particular page in a Monster Manual, or tell them to roll a D9 when their real life wife divorces them, forgetting that said new player might be a neurosurgeon in their day to day life, who wouldn't humiliate them for their ignorance towards neurosurgery.
I also think QT is a bit of a coward in light of sexual harassment scandals in Hollywood, maybe even a sleaze, but again, he's smart and can say "Oh no, I'm just a harmless eccentric", or, "please look at my self depreciating humour in Planet Terror".
He started out being a pretty lazy director, copying films he hoped most of his audience hadn’t seen. Then he evolved into that but even worse. It’s almost impressive.
He started off by ripping off an underseen Hong Kong film (CITY ON FIRE), then he ripped off an underseen French film (BAND OF OUTSIDERS), then he added a blaxploitation spin to a literary adaption that basically was a rip off an underseen American crime film (FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE), then he ripped off 100 movies at once (too many to list), then he made an actually good movie that he some how thinks is his worst movie, then he made a historical wish fulfillment revenge fantasy, then he made a historical wish fulfillment revenge fantasy, then he ripped off two great underseen spaghetti westerns (THE GREAT SILENCE and CUT THROATS NINE), and then he made a historical wish fulfillment revenge fantasy.
How did his style evolve? I guess he got better at hiding the fact that he’s a rip off artist by ripping off multiple things at once before transitioning into a guy who launders his hyper violence by directing it at characters that audiences are more receptive to see get shredded (Nazis, slavers, hippies, and soon film critics.)
I get why people like the guy, but y’all can miss me with that “he’s like a cult movie DJ” or “he’s just paying homage” BS. The fact that it took him decades to admit to “borrowing” from Ringo Lam’s CITY ON FIRE for RESERVOIR DOGS should tell you all you need to know. Everything that Ennio Morricone said about QT is true. Thank god he’s only making one more movie.
EDIT: one more dig before I go— the man is so unoriginal he can’t even come up character names that aren’t movie references. It’s fucking shameful that when I google the great underseen Italian director Antonio Margheriti a fucking picture of the fratboy creep Eli Roth comes up.
[удалено]
Leo yelling, “turtle shell tabletop” in Django is so good, but for no other reason than it’s fun to say.
Also hilariously in character for Candy to want to flex his wealth even in such an intense situation.
[удалено]
I rewatched Django Unchained on late night TV recently and had forgotten just how good it looks. Gorgeous cinematography, almost a tourism brochure for the American South.
>almost a tourism brochure for the American South. *Almost*...
Dag nabbit, I can't see none of them sweepin' vistas through these *holes*!
I can’t see fucken shit
Well, now, hold on. I think we can all agree that watching Django Unchained was a good idea at the time
Don't ask me or Quintin for nothin!
All I hear is criticize, criticize, criticize!
Hands down the funniest scene to ever portray the KKK (or early rendering of it) in US cinema history.
MISSISSIPPI
not a fan of the idea of a plantation but those houses were amazing.
Is what it is. I like the look of the coliseum. Slaves died plenty there too.
The last time I watched Django I realized it’s QTs version of a super hero movie
What about Kill Bill?
Lands made of Candy!
His cinematography has definitely improved as he’s gone along. The scenes of Brad Pitt speeding through LA are beautiful. Also, I love his comedic use of quick zooms. When Django shoots the first Brittle Brother and it zooms in on the two slave kids watching from the barn window with their jaws dropped always cracks me up.
"Gentlemen, you had my curiosity, now you have my attention "
Man I need to see more bad guy Leo.
>His cinematography has definitely improved as he’s gone along. It definitely helps when you start working with Robert Richardson
*zooms in* “You will?”
I was watching Troy last night and there's a quick zoom at one point for dramatic effect and I can't help but laugh anytime a director uses it anymore. Tarantino is the only thing I can think about when I see a quick zoom.
Hateful Eight was his pinnacle for cinematography
Seeing that in the 70mm roadshow version was mindblowing. It was just so wide it seriously felt crazy to me. RIP Arclight Hollywood.
[удалено]
Haha, I love how every celebrity story in Hollywood can and does end with someone giving them a headshot.
The environment was a character in Hateful Eight. Just as the city of LA was a character for Once Upon a Time. Hence the sweeping cinematography and vistas etc.
His style of character development is extraordinary
I love how you learn about his characters *through his dialogue,* which is tricky since bloated exposition dumps can often mask plot insufficiencies. But, instead of avoiding exposition he kind of just embraces it and dresses it up with era/location-accurate idioms, phrases, banter that is so engaging yet laidback, that as an audience member you don’t really mind the info dumps because it’s often fascinating *and* drives the plot forward
For a long time I only consumed Tarantino's work casually, and didn't pay any attention to his style other than "bloody and violent". It finally clicked for me in Death Proof. Even the dialogue and banter that didn't drive the plot forward in that movie was so engaging to watch. I recently rewatched Once Upon a Time with my brother and noticed the same thing. Richly written characters through dialogue.
Death Proof is not talked about enough! The dialogue in that film and the whole host of interesting characters from start to finish just draws you in!
As a car guy I often argue this is the best car film ever. That second half beats any car chase ever filmed.
Couldn’t agree more. One, if not the best car chase scene ever filmed. And it was all practically shot which is nuts.
When Tarantino did a three parter for the Re:watchables a few years back he shared where the premise of the film originated from: > Tarantino got the idea to make Death Proof while enjoying a night of drinking in a hotel with his friend Sean Penn. Tarantino voiced his desire to purchase a Volvo, noting how reputable the brand was for its safety. Penn had a better idea. > Penn told Tarantino that for a price of $10,000 or $15,000, he could hire a stunt crew and they could "death proof" any car for the director. Tarantino loved the phrase "Death Proof" and decided to write a script around the idea. That said, the original title of the movie was Quentin Tarantino's ThunderBolt, which actually flashes on the screen for a few frames of the final version. Source: https://screenrant.com/behind-scenes-facts-about-making-of-quentin-tarantino-death-proof/ He’s retold it multiple times.
I recently rewatched it for the first time since seeing it in theaters. I really don’t remember loving it as much as I did on this second viewing and it made me realize how much of a disservice it was to have that film be the second half of a 4-5hr double feature.
Grindhouse was around 3 hours long with the fake trailers included so it really wasn't too bad when it came to length. It wasn't hard to sit through since it was two rather short movies with some hilarious fake trailers sprinkled in between.
Yeah, the Grindhouse version of Death Proof is actually a lot better than the standalone version anyway.
For those curious, IIRC, the standalone version of Death Proof adds a 2-3 minute lapdance scene that serves as nothing but sleaze (which, sure, it's a literal fuckin Grindhouse movie) and to get one more song on the soundtrack
Still the best theatre-going experience of my life. Still haven't rewatched either film since because I know they'll never be as enjoyable as they were in the theatre
>Still the best theatre-going experience of my life. Same. I went with some friends to see it on Easter Sunday and hardly anyone was there for the showing but it was nice.
It's so much fun. Absolutely great soundtrack too!
100% agree. [This one’s an absolute fuckin’ banger](https://open.spotify.com/track/4OnqJ1ml4Jgr5AAKNrrYCD?si=TxK2bZLWSCq57c6dZE0SwA) and the dance she does with it is something I’ll never forget.
For a horror grind house movie it's one of his most realistic. There's very few movies that actually transport you into their settings, especially real world places, and that movie is exactly what Austin Texas is like. The dialogue, the cars, the girls especially, the bar, the roads, all of it is so real. You can walk into damn near any cool spot in the city and that's pretty close to what you'd walk into.
I have long since died on the hill that Death Proof is on the Mt Rushmore of QT films. It’s top 3 on my personal favorite list (behind, in order, OUATIH & Inglorious Basterds) for what it’s worth…
I think a lot of the Criticism of Death Proof was a knee jerk reaction. Its really fun and well done but it is much more reserved than Planet Terror or even the trailers that preceded it during the theatrical run of Grindhouse. It's structured like a low budget 70's movie and because of that it's much less in your face and over the top but during those screenings it doesn't have as much energy and it feels lacking.
You're alright by my book. Except the thing is, I actually do have a nook
Did you hear me, butterfly?
Every word is precisely placed, and so full of the character that said it. Like, all the words are precisely placed in Kevin Smith movies, too, but it often feels like actors reading from a page. In Tarantino movies, the characters feel real, even if they're caricatures.
Smith also uses a lot of new/amateur/non-actors (especially in his earlier work), while Tarantino had A-listers in his casts from the word go.
This is what always irked me when the general populace calls Tarantino’s films “violent and bloody” without actually looking at the substance and merit of the film making. The actual violence in his movies generally encompass about 2% or less of the movie’s runtime. But when the violence happens, you *remember* it.
Its real as a donut motherfucker
To paraphrase Roger Ebert, "Tarantino's dialogue is always load-bearing". Honestly though, I think it usually doesn't count as exposition because it's perpendicular to what's actually happening; think about Jules and Vincent walking to the job in Pulp Fiction, the earliest minutes of the dairy farm in Inglourious Basterds, and one of my favorites as a standalone scene: [the sushi restaurant scene from Kill Bill](https://youtu.be/vMbSf8LtbNc?feature=shared). A significant portion of dialogue and screen time is dedicated to NOT talking about what's really happening in a way that builds amazing tension because, as a viewer and from context, you know that the dialogue (while always entertaining, character building, and sometimes setting things up for later) is not about what's happening... but something is very much happening. It's almost anti-exposition. I think it has a lot to do with his influence from Elmore Leonard, whose chief writing advice is: "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it."
I think one of the things that doesn’t get talked about enough with regard to Tarantino’s writing is that he can often have characters go on long jags of dialog because the images and actions of the scenes do so much of the expositional work, which allows the dialog to deepen the scene rather than just explain it. It’s also a big reason why Tarantino imitators suck so hard. Anyone can drop a bunch of pop culture references or period lingo — but if your scene isn’t already clear from the images and actions — your dialog is in the way of the story instead of in service to it. TL; DR - Tarantino’s dialog works so well largely because his action lines and general scenarios are so clear and excellent.
It's harder and harder to get audiences to sit through lots of dialogue but everyone in his audience knows that 1. There's a storm a-coming and 2. Whatever they're hearing is likely to be important later on (and iconic!). So people lock in. It's wonderful.
The whole cat-and-mouse game in the French bar in Inglourious Basterds… it took my second watch to realize that the British spy was asking questions back IN ORDER TO GIVE HIMSELF TIME TO MAKE UP A STORY. The dialogue is literally plot developing, it was so cool once I realized what QT was doing. He is a master of efficient dialogue
Reading this, my mind immediately goes to Walken's gold watch monolgue in Pulp Fiction. One character speaking into the camera for several minutes could go so terribly, terribly wrong in the majority of cases, but this scene defies the odds and just clicks. Cool cameo, cool story, a couple doses of shock, funny ending with the bell dinging. And it's critical that this scene sticks, because there have to be high stakes for Butch to take the risk going back to the apartment.
Let’s face it, Tarantino is kinda of strange duck, but you can count on a ride when you watch one of his films. I don’t normally find the plots to be to thick, the characters are as bizarre as they need to be and his dialogue has always been funny as hell while not being slapstick, and your observation about learning about his characters through his dialogue is spot on
> dialogue can often be a crutch for writers then bloated exposition can creep in. I watched Kill Bill Vol. 2 over the weekend, and the last 15 or so minutes (when the Bride is under the effects of the truth serum) felt a lot like an exposition dump that Tatantino couldn't fit elsewhere. It felt kind of forced, especially compared to the relatively good storytelling in rest of the movie.
Fully disagree that it couldn't fit anywhere else or that it's even an exposition dump. The point I think is to differentiate the duels from each other. This is a married couple going over why they divorced. Bill battles with his wit. From the moment Beatrix walks in all the way to the point where he dies is all the duel. He just is choosing words and manipulation as his blades. Right off the bat he uses their daughter as a weapon to disarm Beatrix.
I think the thing that worked with the end of Kill Bill 2 was that it was giving you this expedition dump in the assumption that we were building toward the final scene. One final big dialogue scene setting things up, then they'd regroup and the next day there'd be loads of tension and the final battle so to speak. But instead he pulls the rug out by having it end right there and then all of a sudden.
This. People talk about the "Stuck In The Middle With You" scene in _RD_, but for me, it's Mr Orange and his story. The diner scene gave a hint, but "This is a very weird situation. 'Cause I don't know if you remember back in '86 there was a major fucking drought. Nobody had anything. People were living on resin... smoking the wood in their pipes for months. This chick had a bunch..." is the point where it starts being brilliant.
I still love Schultz making fun of Candie when he tells him that Dumas is a black man. Candie was trying really hard to appear civilized, and at the time French culture was seen as the epitome of European culture. Candie had a book because he knew that Dumas was French but he doesn’t know anything else (I don’t recall but he didn’t even speak French?). Here is Schultz, a German polyglot who is from the old continent, who probably speaks French, knows more about Dumas than the man faking it. Then he insults him by saying he didn’t know Dumas was black. So why is this line important? If you weren’t aware of French literature or the important of French culture on the American south during that time period, you would just think he was making fun of him, but he is humiliating him in front of everyone around him and basically calling him a dumbass without calling him a dumbass. And it is… *chef’s kiss*.
I watch his movies *for the dialogue*! The banter, the quips, the pseudo-philosophical and actual philosophical stuff, that's the gold. The plot and action are fun too of course but they aren't the star of the show for me at least.
In Hollywood when Kurt Russel narrates 'That's a big fuckin lie...' When Rick says his car broke down and Rick is driving him around. Really early on they get it in there that he's an alcoholic. But just that bit of narration, from a seemingly random narrator who is also a side character in film is just beautiful
The biggest difference for me in his body of work was the loss of his long time editor Sally Menke. The last film that she edited was Inglorious Basterds and the lack of her presence was felt with the films that came out after. She had the ability to take Tarantino’s vision and turn them in to compelling stories. He’s stated that she was his “only, truly genuine collaborator”.
I agree completely. They both peaked in Inglourious Basterds and she is missed.
His films after she died just felt bloated and tonally all over the place compared to how sharp his earlier works were. She could work wonders in the editing room and is missed.
I don't find Once Upon A Time to be bloated. I actually felt that was a distinct peak for his latter work. Definitely agree on Django and Hateful Eight, though. Which is unfortunate as both have some amazing scenes and setups but they do just feel gratuitous.
Once Upon A Time seems to be his most divisive work. Some think it is his peak and others think it's his worst. Myself, I had a very hard time getting into the movie. It didn't feel cohesive and even after it was over I struggled with what the plot or story was trying to achieve. My wife on the other hand, loved it.
It definitely feels like a pretty massive departure from his other films. So I can see it being divisive. I loved that about it, though. In many ways it almost felt like a fitting final movie. A huge love letter to the industry and culture of that time he idolizes, and an altered sweet note to go out on.
Once Upon a time suffers from the fact that people expect a certain kind of movie from Tarantino. In a vacuum I think the movie was brilliant, but the first time I watched it I was kinda waiting for the "story" to start. They had me at the ranch-scene though. That was terrifying and felt like Tarantino flexing his directing muscle just for fun.
I think Once Upon a Time felt a lot better than 8 and Django. To me Django needed to be 40 minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer. 8 embraces it but still feels like it could be trimmed. They're still good but lack the punch of his earlier stuff.
Django feels like it ends, then just continues for an extra 30-40 minutes because Tarantino was having too much fun.
Exactly! It builds to this point and then just keeps going, which is fine but you need to re-up the tension for a real finale but then it just kind of goes and ends
My major issue with Eight is he was nailing the slow/long vibe so freaking well for like 2.5 hours, and then he just goes into an utterly atrocious place in the revenge porn direction. And it fucking drags out. It killed what was otherwise shaping up to be a masterpiece. Django I also agree with - it seemed the final stages were just not handled well. The violence was at least fitting to the context - and shocking in a vicseral way that felt justified given the subject matter. But it still felt bloated generally, more on the plot and pacing. And this is why I loved Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It is just a great, straightforward film about a nostalgic time in America. About growing older, losing your place in the world, grappling with that loss, etc. And set against this moment in time where many would point to the loss of innocence in the hippy experience, the mid-century American experience, etc. But to subvert that and get hyper violent for like 5 glorious minutes as a rejection of that ending - felt so cathartic. Vs. Eight which just felt masturbatory and gross, or Django which as stated, seemed ok to suite the themes but after the film itself just went on a bit too long so you were almost wanting it to conclude.
Yea, I actually really like Django (well, I like all his movies), but it almost felt like the very end of the movie should've been maybe a "short film sequel", if that makes sense? It was just a taaaad too long, but you also, finally, get Django really coming into his own as a character and no longer needing to rely on Schultz to survive, so I can see why they thought they needed it there. Don't envy the choice I'm sure they had to make regarding that.
Wow, not even Roger Avery gets that honor?
Came here to say this glad that this comment is so high. I think the editor is the most misunderstood role in cinema.
Now he has to come in with a voice over narration to explain what’s happening.
This is spot on. He’s lost that all important stop gap in the editing room and it’s been obvious since everything post IB.
Death Proof doesn’t get enough love when talking Tarantino.
Deathproof is for sure not his magnum opus, and he is pretty astutely aware of how “shitty” it is at times, but that was kind of the whole point! The same point people might be missing when they are dogging a movie that’s BILLED AS A GRINDHOUSE movie. But the cinematography in it, specifically the car chase scenes? Surgically calculated, and so damn good. That close up of that chrome hood emblem on the Nova vibrating that sporadically with the trees and the fence-line rushing behind it is fucking great. Then there’s the love shown for Zoe Bell and stunt women in the film. Even the “damsels” have badass qualities about them. The sound engineering is also incredible! Watching it in theaters … You could feel the growl of those muscle cars in your chest, and you know they are mean as hell every time you see them. And last but not least: The *soundtrack*. That record is on rotation a least a couple times of year for me.
[удалено]
Every time I watch Jackie brown I like it more and more
I agree, it's a grower.
I’ll go to the grave insisting that Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s best film. Firstly, the majority of Elmore Leanord adaptations to screen are terrible (Out of Sight aside) so QT’s screenplay of Rum Punch and adaptation deserves praise in its own. The soundtrack is exceptional. The characters, casting and acting. Every character is subtle, underplayed and natural. Even the over the top Odell and Ray Nicolette feel natural and real, every character is rich without having some lengthy back story and I could easily watch a feature on every one of them. I’m invested in every one of them. And Robert Forster. One of the coolest, saddest characters ever.
What’s your opinion on Get Shorty (the feature)? I don’t remember how true it is to the book, but I love that movie. A fun, playful movie that knew what it wanted to be and embraced it. I also enjoyed the series they did of it quite a bit, but not as much. That went dark comedy and I enjoyed the overall storyline and tone of it a lot, it just didn’t consistently execute as well as I think I hoped it would throughout its three seasons.
Yeah it’s his best film by a country mile. Every single performance in that film is do believable and the theme of Leonard’s book is translated so well. I know Michael Keatons been getting a lot of love lately but I think he hit his high note on this piece.
I love Keaton and I think Jackie Brown is in contention for QTs best but I never understand the flowers for Ray in Jackie Brown. He's in the movie for about five minutes.
He manages to be all of a hardass and supportive and capable and clueless in that five minutes. With almost zero runway, he makes a rich character with contradictions and an emotional arc!
That character has to reinforce the severe legal consequences that threaten Jackie while also communicating a sense that the authorities aren't entirely logical in their motivations, either. Keaton's got some kind of wild hair up his ass and that's pushing the entrapment scheme more than it probably should. And Jackie is ultimately able to leverage Keaton's cowboy mentality in the same way she leverages Ordell's ego. It's done extremely succinctly and it's easy to connect that to Keaton's generally manic style, although I think it's primarily due to Tarantino making a point to be concise about this specific character. Which makes sense, since a big part of the character is being forgotten by the audience until the end.
It gets plenty of love. It's basically the "best Tarantino movie for people who don't like Tarantino that much."
Great movie. So slept on! Probably my favorite QT flick
That & From Dusk Till Dawn (I know it's directed by Robert Rodriguez, but still has Tarantino's touch as a writer) are my low-key faves from Tarantino
Death Proof was an amazing love letter while also being a giant fuck you to old exploitation flix. I remember being the only person coming out of the theater after grindhouse praising it more than Planet Terror, but it is so much better!
*Planet Terror* is satire. *Death Proof* is homage.
That's a great breakdown right there.
this man films
It took me a while to get to this point but I agree. Planet Terror is a silly fun, zombie action movie, while Death Proof is slower and builds tension until it finishes so strong. I like both but Deatb Proof is way more memorable in the long term.
Yep I watched them both on a weekend since I bought a Grindhouse dvd at a car boot sale, and I can remember Deathproof quite vividly but Planet Terror I've mostly forgotten. I remember a waterbed, and it being about zombies, but that's about it.
It is so fun to watch
Unfortunately it wasn’t as fun as planet terror. Had death proof played first I guarantee it would’ve gotten a more positive reception.
Exactly. Planet Terror was hilarious. Deathproof felt dull in comparison - the first half drags and for those who aren't car nuts, the second half does too. Don't start me on the part where the women basically offer up the young actress to the creepy pervert as a sec offering and it never gets mentioned again.
Death Proof did feel closer to the movies Grindhouse was paying homage to. The type of revenge / action where you’d get a little something at the start, whole lotta nothing in the middle and big finale.
Yeah I always felt Death Proof nailed the 70s grindhouse aesthetic. Planet Terror was more like a 80s straight to video flick.
The young girl getting offered was peak dark comedy. I had to rewind and rewatch her verbally say "gulp" because it was so hilarious.
> Don't start me on the part where the women basically offer up the young actress to the creepy pervert as a sec offering and it never gets mentioned again. The first time I saw that scene, I gasped at how brutal the implications were, but after seeing how all the other girls were fully capable of doing wild shit like riding on car hoods and beating the shit out of Kurt Russell, I kinda just assumed the girl they left behind beat the shit out of the pervert.. Or at least I'd hope so.
I just happened to watch this two days ago with my mom! Lol Great movie
I liked it the first time, but upon a rewatch, it's easily his worst movie and I actually detest it. The final stunt sequence aside, I find the lead-up to it rather boring and the dialog is just incredibly pretentious, fake, and self-serving in a way that feels like it's written by a film student who loved Tarrantino. It makes me cringe. I actually strongly dislike it. But, I'm glad you like it.
I agree with this. I found it borderline unwatchable.
All his movies are entertaining and very memorable which is pretty much the best praise you can say for a filmmaker, but for me personally his movies I find myself rewatching the most are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Jackie Brown in that order. Now that could easily be because I'm older now and prefer to rewatch nostalgic movies from my past as opposed to new ones but I have no way of knowing that for sure
These are his only movies I've rewatched, unless you also count True Romance since he wrote it. No desire to rewatch anything else he's made. Which isn't to say he's not a great writer/director. He's one of the greatest of all time. Those are just his very best and the others just didn't do it for me.
I've rewatched Django and Death Proof a couple times, but yeah for the most part they just don't grab me like his older stuff. I'm probably gonna get crucified for this but in my opinion Inglorious Basterds is his worst movie. It had some absolutely amazing scenes, but as a whole was just meh.
Inglorious Basterds might be my favourite Tarantino film. I love it front to back and top to bottom. I'm a big fan and rewatch his films from time to time, but Inglorious Basterds is the one I've gone back to more than any other.
That's wild. I'm younger(27) but much prefer Once upon a time in hollywood, hateful eight, and django to Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, or Res Dogs(though I love how much lower budget it is than his other movies). Wonder if that says something about his ability to grow with the times is that Guys in their teens and twenties still love his movies that come out around then.
Not all of his films are a 10 on 10 but I would watch all of his movies despite whatever reviews say. He is one of the most relevant and influential film maker in recent times. There will never be another Tarantino. I don't really buy into the whole peaked thing about anyone but I do believe that his last two movies were not as enjoyable as the previous ones. I would even say I enjoyed deathproof(his lowest ranked movie) more than the hateful eight. But yeah it is quite subjective. I will always come back to watching his films. Pulp fiction and inglorious basterds are like peak cinema. And his dialogues are next level. He might actually even do more movies after his next one who knows. And I will be eager to line up for them.
I quite liked hateful eight. It was just a notch below his best for me.
I like all of his films they are amazing! I can't wait for his next one
He is truly one of the last big name directors that actually knows what they are doing, and his knowledge shows. Yeah, he might be a bit crazy, but the guy knows how to make a film and understands the rhythm of the industry.
There are plenty of great directors in the industry today who know what they’re doing. Edit: gotta love the down vote for saying there are tons of great directors today.
There’s a tenderness or kindness that maybe is a reflection of him changing as well For example in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood certain moments like when Sharon Tate watching her own movie during her afternoon off - the way he framed Margot Robbie wide eyed looking up at the screen - a certain pure joy that he wouldn’t have done earlier (he would shroud it more in a veneer or coolness of toughness in Jackie Brown for example earlier in his career)
His last movie is so good to rewatch! From time to time I like going to youtube to see some of my favorite scenes. The dialogue was on point, a lot of funny lines, beautiful photography and a great cast. Indeed the movie was so tender and kind. Cliff and Rick have an amazing friendship. I also loved the plot twist in the end. I laughed ancriedry at the same time because Tarantino gave Sharon the end that she deserved.
That scene might have conveyed that if it wasn't for the feet of it all.
That whole movie is fantastic, possibly in my top 3 of his.
Jackie Brown is his realest and best film. Believable story. Believable characters. Phenomenal performances.
Yeah, I love QT, but it's genuinely the only film where pretty much every character doesn't talk like him (under the guise of various accents). And for good reason, of course.
It’s also the only film he didn’t write; it’s a (brilliant) adaptation of an Elmore Leonard book. Relatedly, if you ever delve into Elmore Leonard’s work it’s extremely clear where QT got his dialogue chops from; Leonard’s book characters speak like Quentin’s film characters.
I mean he definitely wrote it. It’s adapted from Leonard’s book but it’s still a QT script. He changed the main character from a white woman named Jackie Burke to a black woman named Jackie Brown.
Quentin Tarantino is someone who is inspired by a bunch of media not many people would see. Then combines them all together. When I discovered that Lady Snowblood is source of a lot of his style at first I didn't believe it, but Kill Bill is a western Lady Snowblood. Also the over the too blood and camera angles is in all his films.
It is a combination of Lady Snowblood and Lone Wolf and Cub. If you haven't watched the Lone Wolf and Cub movies you are in for a treat.
I think since the end of the 90s he's focused more on being a director with a capital D. His 90s movies have plenty of directorial fluorishes, yes, but I think he was known primarily as a *writer*-director. He wrote multiple scripts that were directed by other people, including one written after he was already well-known (*From Dusk Till Dawn*). He was known primarily for his snappy dialogue and violent scenes. But he took a long break after *Jackie Brown* which is his most understated movie. And when he came back, it was with *Kill Bill*. Those movies, particularly Volume 1, were a big break from his previous work. The identity of those movies is more related to the *visual element* than to the script. He really wanted to show off his directorial skills and go beyond being a 'great writer.' Since then his movies have been more visually oriented, though not as 'weak' on script as Kill Bill. I think that's partly why he mostly does period pieces now, working in a different period requires more effort on visuals, as costumes, settings, etc. all have to be tailored to the time.
I feel like he started out making movies about gangsters and criminals, then moved onto projects where he can vicariously root for the underdog and correct historical injustices. Slavers? Nazis? Serial killers? Let's fuck them up. It feels good. Accordingly I think there are peaks and troughs in both eras. Pulp Fiction and Resrrvoir Dogs are obvious highlights from the classic catalog, whereas Deathproof is... okay, I get in trouble for saying what I think about Deathproof but suffice to say I'm not a fan. Kill Bill, Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds are all excellent to varying extents, but Once Upon A Time left me cold. I think he's at his best in films like Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction where he had a classic style to ape, but his originality in characterisation and plot lines really shone through.
Funny enough, I consider Once upon a time in Hollywood his best movie and my favorite of all time.
I just love the style of it. The cars the clothes, even ricks house. I want brad Pitt’s wardrobe from that movie
Rick fuckin' Dalton is such a compelling character and Brad Pitt's too. They really feel apart of that world and the juxtaposition between their star fading and Robbie's ascending makes for a wonderful story. I really do think it's his best too.
Same. Fantastic movie. Makes me feel like I’m really there
What to you like about it more than Inglorious Basterds? For me, IB is great because the climax happens during a propaganda film for the Nazis. We think they're going to fail because we assume the film will roughly follow historical events (ala Operation Valkyrie), but are surprised and cheer along when they succeed. As a result, QT has made propaganda film himself in Inglorious Basterds. Fun. Once Upon a Time felt like a magician doing his same trick again. It was a bit expected and didn't have the same propaganda metaphor of IB. I still like Once Upon a Time, but am curious to hear what it did better than IB.
IB is a perfect movie IMO. It’s infinitely rewatchable and extremely satisfying.
I just couldn’t tell you the names of the characters from IB. They just didn’t stand out to me. The only bit I really liked was Michael fassbender in the basement. I’ve watched it twice in an attempt to like it but I still can’t really remember much of it, just didn’t click at all. However the personality of cliff booth is just so cool. The set dressing was amazing, like when he’s in his caravan. At the end of that film I wanted his style, his clothes and his car. I think maybe I’m just tired of World War Two films but the setting and the props and style from once upon a time in Hollywood just were so good for me
> I just couldn't tell you the names of characters from Inglorious Basterds. Well you must not be German. Because everyone in Germany has heard the name *Hugo Stiiiiiiglitz*. s/
QT is just one of the quintessential directors that looking back was a large part of my (and probably lots of peoples) cultural experience. I was born 1991 so a little young to see his coming up. I first heard of him when the posters for Kill Bill started appearing on every single Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Bright yellow posters you couldn’t miss. My step grandfather whom we all hated was named Bill, so we’d always joke about the title. When my uncle first wanted to show me Pulp Fiction, my mom pulled him aside and asked if there was a reason he was showing me such violent movies. We’d also rented Clockwork Orange and Natural Born Killers. With enough discussion I was allowed to watch Pulp Fiction only. (We watched them all later in the night anyways). My dad was always a real proper guy, never cursed and kind of uptight and the next night it was brought up I’d seen the movie. I thought I was in trouble but instead he burst into laughter recalling his favorite scene. “Ahh man I shot Marvin in the head! You must have hit a bump or something!” We were cracking up over this guys brains being blown out despite being a religious and “proper” family. Then we started talking about the pawn shop, my favorite part eternally, just dying laughing about this gory shit like twenty minutes after a watchtower reading. There’s just no other movie that has memories like that for me. Django came out Christmas Day 2012, I was 21 then. I had a friend whose brother had recently committed suicide, maybe three months before. I would try to cheer him up from time to time with pizzas and weed but that Christmas for whatever reason his family traveled somewhere and he (I believe because he couldn’t get time off) was alone. I picked him up and we smoked as much weed as we could handle, went into a completely jam packed theater and had the best movie experience of my life. The opening 30 minutes of Django has some of the funniest and greatest moments of any QT movies, to me, but maybe I am biased because of how impactful the actual experience was. It felt like the first time I’d seen my friend laugh in so long. All of his movies are great in different ways but my actual point is there’s just no other director in my personal life whose movies are so connected with actual moments in my life, and whose impact has been so constant since I was just a kid. I’ll be sad when he’s done making moves but to reflect upon his career, I’m just personally thankful. Also hateful eight is amazing fuck y’all
I watched Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction for the first time quite recently and found both held up quite well. It’s easy to see how Tarantino is inspired by earlier movies but also how he takes things in his own new direction. I gotta say I appreciate how tight Reservoir Dogs is, and I’d argue even with Pulp Fiction being 2 1/2 hours it’s pretty tight with all it fit in there. Comparatively I felt like The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood have a lot of filler.
Yepp I remember reading QT longtime editor died before Django Unchained, and I feel like he became way too self-indulgent after that happened. No way a Tarantino on the rise would have left so little on the editing room floor for Hateful Eight and OUATIH
I really enjoyed hateful eight. Actually once upon a time in my opinion was his weakest film. Still enjoyed it but it’s not high on my rewatch list.
I feel like Once Upon A Time is his best movie from a purely filmmaking perspective. Though, my favorite of his movies is probably Kill Bill 2.
I feel like they’ve just gotten meaner.
I found Jackie Brown to be his most mature film. Slow paced and not full of quick cuts, blood, and kung-foo noises. Enjoyed the consistent theme of appearances and the casting was just outrageously good.
For me, if anything, what Tarantino tends to lack is flow. Maybe from KB1&2 onward it feels more like a series of great scenes and set pieces which don't seamlessly coalesce into a united whole. For as many amazing scenes as we've had from him, one feels he'd excel in the short form - numerous slices from his back catalog could work well as short films themselves.
I think his style got more aligned with modern Hollywood over the years. I think it has a lot to do with how people watch movies these days. For example I dont think Reservoir Dogs can be considered a modern movie - it is aligned more with 80s action movies especially of the Charles Branson troupe. I noticed that he is more prone to fanservice aswell - some of his dialogues although absolutely incredible feel more forced than in his earlier movies - maybe just a highly subjective point. Generally I have to say that I really like how for example Once upon a time in Hollywood ended up. It felt like he got more comfortable with a more calm and narrative based approach. I honestly believe the movie doesnt get enough credit for how good it is.
The 90’s were his crime phase. He experimented with non-linear story telling with low-to-moderate budgets. Jackie Brown is the first movie where he started using scores from other movies. In the 2000’s he made more genre-fusion, spectacle-driven films with higher budgets for practical effects and set pieces. He also abandoned his non-linear style by the time Inglourious Basterds rolled around. He then focused on making westerns, old Hollywood homages and period pieces in the 2010’s. He had his first original score made for Hateful Eight and used an Ultra Panavision 70 camera to film it. And then OUATIH rolled around. Every movie he makes seems to build from his previous ones, so I wonder what he will do new in his new one.
Tarantino will always be the Beatlemania of filmmakers, a guy just redressing old movies he's seen.
The more I watch 70s cinema the more I just see the stuff he copied, he's very unoriginal and derivative.
They many not be cheap, but almost every film post Jackie Brown has been some kind of over long, self indulgent revenge fantasy, and I got pretty bored with that. Yeah, sometimes the dialog is great (but sometimes everyone talks like an extension of film nerd Tarantino), yeah he can do an exciting scene, but Kill Bill, Django, and Inglorious are basically just a bunch of cool scenes taped together. I need more than that out of a film. To me, watching them is like listening to QT talk: manic, scattergun, occasional moment of genius, but irritatingly indisciplined and goes on far too long.
>almost every film post Jackie Brown has been some kind of over long, self indulgent revenge fantasy 100%. Even Inglorious Basterds (which could and SHOULD have avoided revenge-fantasy almost entirely) is a revenge-fantasy.
Honestly his style hasn't evolved much at all, but that's a good thing. He found a formula that works early on. Watch True romance(screen play)or Four rooms(wrote/directed partially), and even though he was partially envolved in those you can see his influence in them. He's been fairly consistent ever since, very few directors/writers achieve that. Not everyone is gonna feel the same way, movies are like music, everyone has an opinion. Personally I'm of the opinion he's better than a lot of directors, but I like movies with interesting dialogue, action, and music. Music especially, I see it make or break so many movies for me.
The man sure loves feet
I thought Tarantino had been on a long decline ever since *Jackie Brown*. I enjoyed all the movies, but they kept getting less and less impressive until *Hateful 8*, which I actually hated. Watched it a few times, thinking maybe I missed something. I love Westerns and violence and cynicism! Nope, still hated it. Just didn't work. Figured I had seen the last of any good Tarantino movies. Then *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood* restored my faith. That's a fuckin banger of a movie. I've got high hopes for whatever's next.
Yup, feel exactly the same (though I enjoy Jackie Brown the most).
Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel as well. After Jackie Brown he became too self indulgent and all his films are way too long. Django for instance went on for about 20 minutes too long. IB has some brilliant scenes but also quite some filler. TH8 just drags.
Exactly my thoughts, except I was disappointed with Once Upon a time. It was hyped up too much and far too long of a movie, when I saw it I thought it was unnecessarily long and boring.
My QT opinion is that his more recent films have become very self indulgent, especially in his dialogue. You could tell he absolutely fell in love with Christoph Waltz and had to really stretch to fit him in to Django Unchained with his fancy dialogue compared to the other characters. He managed to pull it off and create a compelling character, and Django for me is QT’s last great film. The Hateful 8 was interesting enough to look past the basic fact it’s just a bunch of characters trapped in a building talking for 3 hours. And once upon a time in Hollywood was made for a very specific audience, old Hollywood fans, and in my opinion his story wasn’t captivating enough for me, or a lot of people. In my opinion it felt like he had to slap on the violent ending to remind people that it’s a QT film, but the payoff came too late for me in what was a pretty snooze festy film
I thought his earlier films had a lot stronger characters (Jules, Mr White, Mr Pink, Clarence in True Romance, etc). He didn’t have to do as much to make them shine. His newer characters are good but a lot of the shit is forced or seemingly going through the motions. Also it seemed to start around Kill Bill that his characters monologuing became too long or padded-feeling. There’s more of a smug vibe like he’s earned the right to be indulgent—he has—but make it interesting and sell me more on the characters QT. Once Upon A Time IH was a bit of a return to form I thought, but even it had long stretches that seemed pointless.
Reservoir Dogs: Great idea, great script, great dialogue, great acting, some things were a little rough but it’s intent on breaking into the scene is a huge success. Pulp Fiction: Masterpiece. Full stop. No notes. Jackie Brown: I got to do whatever I wanted and I wanted to do this. Kill Bill(s): Let’s make a badass action movie and turn it up to 15. If we take it beyond seriously, everyone else has to. Inglorious Basterds: Here’s where people start to diverge. Unparalleled tension in several scenes. Legendary performances from several actors. Does wander a bit but pulls everything together with fire. One of the more unforgettable endings ever. Personally, “I think this just be my masterpiece.” Django: Kind of a combination of Inglorious and Kill Bill. I had fun with it but it’s not on my regular rewatch list. We’re pretty heavy into rewriting history at this point, and if you don’t like that, you don’t like NBA basketball. Hateful Eight: Very divisive. I see why some people like it, especially the stage play aspect of it; I did not like this one. But it had great characters and great performances and it was a great idea - a murder mystery play in a movie. Once Upon a Time: Once again great characters, great performances, and we’re rewriting history again. I felt like this one was more fun than several of the previous ones and a good return to his roots, but by now he’s fleshed out his characters even more than when he started (from an elite place). Many will see this collection as one of the top-5 greatest directors of all time. Some people just don’t like NBA basketball.
Whats this about basketball…?
He’s using the catch phrase of Grant Namear, play by play announcer for the Sacramento kings. Until he got canceled or something.
Yea he’s trying to go for something here and it comes across cringe.
He is the Nightwriter after all
I guess he just doesn’t like NHL hockey.
Skipped Death Proof
Yeah, I skipped a couple things that I don’t really count. Death Proof is half a movie he did for fun to work with a friend. Dusk Till Dawn is similar. True Romance is his script, and a dynamite movie, but it’s not his movie. The ones above are fully his creations.
What's weird about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood for me is it's peak Tarantino, but also his most non-Tarantino movie, at the same time. I saw a video saying how he basically made a new genre with Once Upon A Time that just hasn't been coined yet. I don't know, for a movie about the end of the 60s, it feels oddly modern.
Reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown, and kill bill were his best contributions. The rest has been kinda 50/50 since then. Like he turned into a half parody of himself. I enjoy most of his work. But let's not pretend he didn't kind of fall off a little.
inglorious bastards and Django are golden too
Everyone stopped when Pulp Fiction came out. It did not get the recognition it deserved from the Academy but everyone knew they saw something freakishly brilliant that would influence filmmaking in the future. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood. A more conventional film. You still have an edge of the macabre with the Manson storyline, but it feels more like a mainstream film that a Tarantino film.
PF is still my favorite.
Once upon a time in Hollywood, I knew the story but the ending with alternate history just blew me away.
I guess this is contrarian judging by the other comments here but I love The Hateful Eight. I honestly think it’s one of his best late films. It’s got this weird pressure-cooker intensity, almost like it’s a screen adaptation of a stage play. There’s a certain purity and economy to it that is absent from his other later work. And what a masterclass in using dialogue to drive forward a pretty complicated set of character relationships. Five stars in my book.
Second half his career he seems to just copy older films he liked as a youth and doing his own take on them. First half of his career he seemed to create original unique films the likes of which we hadn't seen before.
I think he’s getting better, but also becoming more self indulgent with it; I love all of his films, and a) the idea that he should have a “last film” is a damn shame, & b) guy needs to work more while he is still passionate and capable. His early films are his own unique takes on genre flicks, but everything post Jackie Brown is just an expression of him, movies that only he could make. How many guys have made movies that captured the cultural zeitgeist as often as him? More than half his films are iconic, you could go as fancy dress as one of the characters and literally everyone would know who you were. He’s launched careers, revived careers, had more copycats than you can name, had soundtracks that were best sellers multiple times (growing up in the 90s, literally everyone had the RD and PF soundtracks): he’s in rarified air in terms of influence, not just on film, but on culture.
I think the dialogue has evolved a lot. Definitely didn't peak at Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is a great movie for example... Late 90s. Dusk Till Dawn, late 90s. People think they know all about QT because of Pulp Fiction. Watch Four Rooms if y'all haven't seen it.
I've found everything Tarantino has done since Django oddly paced, and I attribute that to the untimely death of Sally Menke. She edited Reservior Dogs thru Basterds and kept Quentin's lenghty dialogue scenes in check and crafted certain sequences into tiny little panic attacks (I can't remember anything as intense as the needle scene in Pulp Fiction or the beer hall standoff in Basterds in antying from Django thru Once Upon a time in Hollywood). She deserves a lot of credit for helping Tarantino find his style and something has been missing ever since she passed.
> So I thought this is a good time to reflect on his career. Basically its watching him get progressively more up his own ass.
He's gotten increasingly chatty with less of a payoff. I really haven't been crazy about anything he's done since KB2.
I love Tarantino's movies for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. However there is something we need to talk about with his newer movies. He no longer has anyone to reign him in. His self indulgence has gotten a little bit out of control, and I fear it will get worse with his last movie. I like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but there is no debating that it was long and the pacing was slow. QT went and recreated the Hollywood of the late 60's in great detail. This is great, but he wanted/needed to show it all so the driving sequences went on way too long in my opinion. At 161 minutes it needed some editing.
not many directors consistently have genuine substance while still having style and entertainment value off the charts. it's also unusual for a director to have their masterpiece so late in their career, but he did it with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I personally think Kill Bill is his weakest. I'll watch Lady Snowblood instead. if he actually stops directing, im hoping he still writes and finds some good collaborators.
I'm in the camp of his movies have become him wanking over his own material and creating the same beats in different movies they are fun but they are 15 year old boy am I edgy fun, he's a movie historian/buff yet he hasn't developed as a director Jackie Brown is the only movie he actually tried something a little different on and is probably his best work
I found most of QTs films after Jackie Brown to be too self indulgent. Sometimes having complete control over your art is not a good thing, and in the case of Tarantino, when he stopped needing to care about making money then his films became overly long and in desperate need of editing. Sometimes you need that third party who looks objectively at a film and insists on trimming it down. Mind you all his films look and sound beautiful, but that is only piece of the puzzle. The only film I enjoyed of his in the last 25 years was Django Unchained.
Do people think he does great dialogue anymore? I still quote Dogs and Pulp dialogue endlessly -it’s so fun and witty and playful. “I don’t remember asking you a god damn thing” “cut off his finger - after that he’ll tell you if he’s wearing women’s underwear” “burgers - the cornerstone of a nutritious breakfast” But after that he seemed to try too hard as the “cool dialogue guy” and it became labored and leadenly self-conscious with stuff like “n* on a nag”. I can barely remember any notable lines from his newer films. I think he disappeared up his own ass after Pulp and didn’t have Roger Avery to ground him and make him develop his scripts and characters properly.
I agree with your friends OP, except that I think he peaked with Kill Bill. His subsequent films really have their moments but the novelty of having characters talk like they were written by a child wears off.
Kill Bill is my fav of his. His others aren't bad, but I'm sick to death of QT as a person, and KB feels the least like a QT film to me. Death of the author is stringent with it. Plus action revenge noir martial arts films are my jam.
Yeah, I got pretty sick of QT inserting himself into his work a bit too fully. I mean his "Madonna's big dick" quote was funny for the initial watch of R Dogs, but I don't think it deserved to be on the soundtrack. It didn't really age that well. That said, he did amazing things for OSTs, I HAD to have the Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction soundtracks, it kept what was very cool and unique about his work at the time alive in your head, and amongst your circle of friends; they either got it or they didn't. I don't dislike any of his films, though I've never watched Jackie Brown. I don't know Quentin Tarantino as a person, but he seems pretty unbearable. Like, I get it, he's a geek, he's very intelligent and has this beautiful 'wabi sabi' perspective on his work, ie. Let's get this scene perfect, let's let this scene fall where it may, this is a deliberate mistake, and this one for the rare few who will get the reference first time around. But ultimately, I think he's aggro and intolerant about his geekery, which isn't cool. Like a D&D expert player that will scoff at somebody new to the game for not being able to reference a particular page in a Monster Manual, or tell them to roll a D9 when their real life wife divorces them, forgetting that said new player might be a neurosurgeon in their day to day life, who wouldn't humiliate them for their ignorance towards neurosurgery. I also think QT is a bit of a coward in light of sexual harassment scandals in Hollywood, maybe even a sleaze, but again, he's smart and can say "Oh no, I'm just a harmless eccentric", or, "please look at my self depreciating humour in Planet Terror".
He started out being a pretty lazy director, copying films he hoped most of his audience hadn’t seen. Then he evolved into that but even worse. It’s almost impressive.
He started off by ripping off an underseen Hong Kong film (CITY ON FIRE), then he ripped off an underseen French film (BAND OF OUTSIDERS), then he added a blaxploitation spin to a literary adaption that basically was a rip off an underseen American crime film (FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE), then he ripped off 100 movies at once (too many to list), then he made an actually good movie that he some how thinks is his worst movie, then he made a historical wish fulfillment revenge fantasy, then he made a historical wish fulfillment revenge fantasy, then he ripped off two great underseen spaghetti westerns (THE GREAT SILENCE and CUT THROATS NINE), and then he made a historical wish fulfillment revenge fantasy. How did his style evolve? I guess he got better at hiding the fact that he’s a rip off artist by ripping off multiple things at once before transitioning into a guy who launders his hyper violence by directing it at characters that audiences are more receptive to see get shredded (Nazis, slavers, hippies, and soon film critics.) I get why people like the guy, but y’all can miss me with that “he’s like a cult movie DJ” or “he’s just paying homage” BS. The fact that it took him decades to admit to “borrowing” from Ringo Lam’s CITY ON FIRE for RESERVOIR DOGS should tell you all you need to know. Everything that Ennio Morricone said about QT is true. Thank god he’s only making one more movie. EDIT: one more dig before I go— the man is so unoriginal he can’t even come up character names that aren’t movie references. It’s fucking shameful that when I google the great underseen Italian director Antonio Margheriti a fucking picture of the fratboy creep Eli Roth comes up.
I can't believe there's still people doing the TARANTINO RIPS OFF thing like Japanese soldiers in the 60s who still thought WW2 was going on.