VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Tarantino stopped being watchable or relevant years ago :/ Anyway, nothing will ever rival Leone, and the addition of Tarantino's dialogue style will only hobble the thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AHIMSA* View Post

I came to the thread seeing only part of the name...I was hoping it was Christopher Walken!
I was thinking the same exact thing!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Regardless of earlier comments, I am super jazzed about this! Also, Tarantino is no longer relevant? Then who is? I can count on one hand the number of people who's films are consistantly original and entertaining. Tarantino is in these ranks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUgugalizer View Post

Regardless of earlier comments, I am super jazzed about this! Also, Tarantino is no longer relevant? Then who is? I can count on one hand the number of people who's films are consistantly original and entertaining. Tarantino is in these ranks.
I'd hardly call his films original, even the ones I like. He's constantly vamping on existing styles - someone (might have been Henry Rollins?) made the point that he's a cinematic DJ at this point, remixing old themes and ideas for a modern audience.
Totally agree that the number of brilliant directors is shrinking though. Aronofsky has one more hit or he's out. Both the Wrestler and Black Swan were plodding behemoths sapped of all passion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,664 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

I'd hardly call his films original, even the ones I like. He's constantly vamping on existing styles - someone (might have been Henry Rollins?) made the point that he's a cinematic DJ at this point, remixing old themes and ideas for a modern audience.
Totally agree that the number of brilliant directors is shrinking though. Aronofsky has one more hit or he's out. Both the Wrestler and Black Swan were plodding behemoths sapped of all passion.
We'll have to agree to disagree on both Tarantino and Aronofsky I guess


As far as remixing old themes goes, that's what literally EVERYONE does. Even Kurosawa was borrowing ideas from Billy Wilder and other great filmmakers of the time. There are no original ideas, Tarantino is just much more honest about his references and he takes old ideas and really runs with them. He just isn't for everyone of course, he has a super abrasive style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

We'll have to agree to disagree on both Tarantino and Aronofsky I guess


As far as remixing old themes goes, that's what literally EVERYONE does. Even Kurosawa was borrowing ideas from Billy Wilder and other great filmmakers of the time. There are no original ideas, Tarantino is just much more honest about his references and he takes old ideas and really runs with them. He just isn't for everyone of course, he has a super abrasive style.
I think that the argument of 'everyone steals' is a pretty weak one personally, because while it is true that everyone is influenced, I think that there are those who rather than mirroring or being influenced by, outright lift large portions of their films from others. Kill Bill 1 & 2, although I enjoy them, are very guilty of this, and I think overstep from, 'tribute' to 'limping along on another's work.' Before KB, Tarantino was good, but Inglorious... and Death Race were both very poor imo, and I don't trust him not to just run with existing characters from spag westerns in this new project.
But yea, it isn't his abrasive style that I don't like. My favourite films include the works of Tsukamoto Shinya XD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,577 Posts
Tarantino is one of those amoral splat-pack directors like Rob Zombie that doesn't give a **** about the effect his so called art has on the culture he lives in, as long as it makes money. Gratuitous violence (particualrly against woman) isn't a problem to those tools as long as they're making money. I lost respect for Tarantino after Reservoir dogs.

Gratutituous violence is a terrible thing in real life so I certainly don't want to see it glamourised by dickhead directors who fill their movies with it because they lack the imagination to write interesting scripts that can stand up on their own without it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishani View Post

Tarantino is one of those amoral splat-pack directors like Rob Zombie that doesn't give a **** about the effect his so called art has on the culture he lives in, as long as it makes money. Gratuitous violence (particualrly against woman) isn't a problem to those tools as long as they're making money. I lost respect for Tarantino after Reservoir dogs.

Gratutituous violence is a terrible thing in real life so I certainly don't want to see it glamourised by dickhead directors who fill their movies with it because they lack the imagination to write interesting scripts that can stand up on their own without it.
I think you make a good point in defining the glamourisation (or aestheticisation) of violence as the problem, and not representations of violence in of themselves. I think that if Hell were a movie, it would be directed by Tarantino, written by Joss Whedon and involve Michael Bay at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Both in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, he is clearly glamorizing violence, but at the same time both films are well written and mark out a unique style for him, through their combination of the gritty reality of crime with the (at times comical) mundane dialog, lots of pop culture references, eclectic soundtracks, etc. The style of dialog from both works has been copied by a lot of crime films since IMO, and while I don't doubt that a lot of films before those two have experimented with time structures, PF was still pretty innovative in that regard, at least as far as more recent Hollywood movies are concerned.

However, I don't know if anything he's done since really compares to those two, although I haven't seen Basterds yet. I disliked Jackie Brown the most, I guess because it's such a normal, "adult" film and lacks not just the adolescent excess of the previous films but their style as well, which made them distinct from other films.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Both in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, he is clearly glamorizing violence, but at the same time both films are well written and mark out a unique style for him, through their combination of the gritty reality of crime with the (at times comical) mundane dialog, lots of pop culture references, eclectic soundtracks, etc. The style of dialog from both works has been copied by a lot of crime films since IMO, and while I don't doubt that a lot of films before those two have experimented with time structures, PF was still pretty innovative in that regard, at least as far as more recent Hollywood movies are concerned.

However, I don't know if anything he's done since really compares to those two, although I haven't seen Basterds yet. I disliked Jackie Brown the most, I guess because it's such a normal, "adult" film and lacks not just the adolescent excess of the previous films but their style as well, which made them distinct from other films.
Jackie Brown was ALL style! Maybe it's because I adore old blaxploitation films, but that's the best Tarantino film imo. Gave Pam Grier her career back! Blaxploitation is something difficult to do well in the modern day, and I think Tarantino actually struck the balance. Utter dross like Black Dynamite annoys me, but Jackie Brown just had something about it.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top