I've seen all his works except Basterds (which I plan to see soon).

The reason I like Tarantino isn't because of the violence, or even the dialogue, or the pop culture references. I like him because of his patience. There's something about all his films that say, "Hey, I'm making a real movie here, so either pay attention, or get out." He has some of the most deliberate pacing I've seen since Kubrick. Every movie of his could be 30 minutes shorter, which I don't think is an insult. Even during the slowest parts of Death Proof, you know it's going somewhere and there will be a payoff. Most modern films don't give us a chance to anticipate anything. It's all just action-action-mini climax-action-action-major climax - resolution. His films just feel weightier (a word?) and more significant to me. No, he's not my favorite filmmaker, but he is one whose style I like a lot.

His films just feel weightier (a word?) and more significant to me

have you heard of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

"have you heard of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?"

New clothes? He's been a major player in film for 17 years. People who are just entering college were barely even born when Reservoir Dogs came out. Call him what you will, but he isn't a fad.

Browzer:

"have you heard of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?"

New clothes? He's been a major player in film for 17 years. People who are just entering college were barely even born when Reservoir Dogs came out. Call him what you will, but he isn't a fad.

i see you haven't (chuckle)

however, I recognize in his work a strong desire to make his movies the best that they can be. In a world of businessmen (who make a product no better than it needs to be to sell), he is a true craftsman (someone who makes his work as great as it can be). How good that is is up for debate (as I said, I am not a fan of his work), but he deserves credit for being that good.

. . . we were never convinced there were clothes. We just thought--and still think--he was wearing crazier underwear. Sometimes that's enough.

People are always defending bullshit on the "it's just entertainment" defense. Comparing Tarantino to Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher might be seen as setting the bar too low, and that may be so; I'm certainly not going to waste much energy comparing him to Charlie Kauffman or John Sayles (let alone a Jean-Pierre Melville, an Akira Kurosawa, or a Francois Truffaut), because I already know he'd come up short. But I go to a Tarantino film for the same reason the gearheads see a Bay film, and unlike Bay, Tarantino can deliver those goods--the raised pulse, the giggle every time someone gets shot or the clever one-liner emerges--to people who've actually seen good movies, or to arthouse fags like me who just wanted to take a breather for a few hours.

As far as whether his fans project content onto his movies . . . maybe, but not in the way you might think. I think what's most telling is that all of his characters are rather like him (and, in turn, like a lot of his audience): oversaturated with culture both high and low, attention-span challenged, locquacious to a fault, simultaneously too smart and not smart enough for their own good. I think there's a wish-fulfillment element to it, a fantasy wherein the lives of comic-book geeks and film nerds are filled with violence and adventure that they're barely smart enough to survive, and that they often survive via what I call stoner luck, the blessing of haplessness. And for his fans, the wish-fulfillment drops to another level: they might spend their lives working retail or low-level admin., hard-drives filled with half-finished screenplays and political manifestos . . . but maybe, just maybe, they'll get to be the next Quentin Tarantino.

ayalonValley:

Browzer:

"have you heard of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?"

New clothes? He's been a major player in film for 17 years. People who are just entering college were barely even born when Reservoir Dogs came out. Call him what you will, but he isn't a fad.

i see you haven't (chuckle)

I see you have very low reading comprehension (chuckle)

Tarantino is not some fresh young pup who is getting universal acclaim. He has been around for awhile, and has many detractors. It is hardly verboten to criticize him. I have more than a few friends who hated Kill Bill, and they feel quite comfortable about stating that opinion. Comparing Quentin - who has 7 major films under his belt and many vocal critics - to the naked Emperor and his cowed followers is just silly.

Maybe if you expressed your thoughts with more than a poorly punctuated sentence it would be easier to decipher your gibberish. Better yet, don't bother.

Tarantino is not some fresh young pup who is getting universal acclaim

who said anything about new/old? the Emperor was not a spring chicken either...

I have more than a few friends who hated Kill Bill

yes. we have read the " i have ___ friends" (fill in the blanks) before. not impressed.

Comparing Quentin - who has 7 major films under his belt and many vocal critics - to the naked Emperor and his cowed followers is just silly

i think it's dead on. the vocal critics just add to his "mytique". the fact is, he has a legion of fanatic devotees like you who devour every new film with a desperate need to find "meaning", "pace" or other crap.

don't bother

usually i don't, but it's a slow day. my punctuation, or lack of, should not be the issue, but go ahead if it makes you feel superior.

however, I recognize in his work a strong desire to make his movies the best that they can be

there must an Oscar category for "strong desire to make a good film"!

we were never convinced there were clothes.

i have spoken to people who would kill you for uttering such blasphemy. who are "we"?

Michael Bay Joel Schumacher Charlie Kauffman John Sayles Jean-Pierre MelvilleAkira Kurosawa Francois Truffaut

is this the entire list? just wanted to make sure

Tarantino can deliver those goods--the raised pulse, the giggle every time someone gets shot or the clever one-liner emerges

one or two films maybe, after that it's tedious repeat. especially when his scripts have deteriorated, IMHO of course, to a point it insults me to watch

As far as whether his fans project content onto his movies . . . maybe, but not in the way you might think

a good analysis, but at the risk of repeating myself, you know who do i speak of. or should

I didn't name every director who's ever made a film. It's possible I could, but I doubt it would get us anywhere. :) All I meant to illustrate is that if you compare him to art-film directors (hell, let's throw in Ozu, Wenders, and Fellini, if it'll make you feel better), he's something of a shallow sensationalist; if you compare him to career entertainers (uh . . . Spielberg, Simon West, Nora Ephron), he looks a bit more like an auteur. He rides the razor's edge of pop and art, like a Peter Jackson, a Christopher Nolan, a Stephen Soderberg. He's shallower than the last two, crueler than the first, but for sheer entertainment, I have no problem with putting him in their company.

"We," in this case, would include most everyone I know. Granted, "we" are mostly engaged in theatrical endeavor ourselves, so we know an entertainment when we see it, and would consider ourselves lucky to get paid for having as much fun as Quentin and the actors in his flicks seem to be having.

one or two films maybe, after that it's tedious repeat. especially when his scripts have deteriorated, IMHO of course, to a point it insults me to watch

First of all, if there was anything H about your O, your tone might be less declarative. No need for pretense here. :)

Second, fair enough, if that's your finding. Tarantino movies come out infrequently enough that I'm generally ready for more of the same since last I got any of it.

@ayalonValley: ZING!

...Crueler than Peter Jackson? You haven't seen Meet The Feebles Have you? ;)

No criticism from me though. I like Kurosawa Akira, but I also love Tarantino. Kurosawa ain't makin' films these days though (although I would be very, very impressed if he released a new one now, given his current state!), and Tarantino is. I may not 'get' all the insider pop-cultural references, but I find his films consistently enjoyable. ...Which is what I ask from a piece of entertainment.

And Kill Bill 1 & 2? Loved 'em, own copies, and went out and rented Battle Royale, Lady Snowblood, the entire Lone Wolf & Cub series, and even a few Sonny Chiba films after I saw it. It re-engaged my interest in entire genres of film that I had managed to forget about. So I approve. If that makes me a shallow, rabid fan-boy, I'm cool with that.

Shubniggurat:

...Crueler than Peter Jackson? You haven't seen Meet The Feebles Have you? ;)

Holy Mother of Jesus, Osiris and Shiva, that movie was CRACKED!!! Between that and Dead Alive, Jackson is screwier than Tarantino ever dreamed of being.

Anyway. QT is VERY good at what he does, and what he does is pay hommage to movies and genres he loves. He mashes them all up and regurgitates them into something the same, but different. And it's a lot of fun.

Yeah, I've seen Meet the Feebles. Maybe I should say Tarantino is more consistently cruel than Jackson. Even Dead Alive was ultimately a sweet fable about family and young love. And flesh-eating zombies.

Agreed all around (though I don't know if we need limit our fealty to living directors). I, too, really enjoy Kill Bill (both volumes). On the matter of its genre origins, have you seen Sex and Fury? Fun stuff. Well worth it, if only for the bathhouse seen, in which the female protagonist fights off dozens of yakuza men with a samurai sword in the snow . . . in the buff. Circa '73, or so. God, I love the Japanese.