Being of a certain age, Tarantino was the first director/screenwriter that I ever knew by name. He's still one of few that I bother to make note of, because he's the best. Yes, he references movies within his movies often, but who cares? I finally saw "Blue Velvet" the other day, a film from which I'd been told Tarantino borrowed for "Reservoir Dogs". The fact is, though, that "Blue Velvet" was largely boring, poorly acted, and sort of ran like an episode of some detective T. V. show. "Reservoir Dogs", however, ran like nothing I've seen before, or after. It took it's influences, and made them entertaining.

I took a semester of film studies as an undergraduate in the mid-2000s. Tarantino bashing was like a past time for the professors and the students who were majoring in film (I was only visiting). Can you imagine? One of the (if not the single) most influential film makers of our generation getting slammed on by some early-20s college students who were most likely going to end up filming car-dealership commercials? Why? Because it made them feel smart. If they could tear Tarantino apart, and especially if they could name all of his references, then they were just as smart as him (if, however, nowhere near as successful).

And just to illustrate how this works in application, the professor for my screenwriting class was, himself, a mildly successful screenwriter. His contribution to the art? "Flightplan", the abortion with Jodie Foster in which her kid "disappears" on a new-fangled jumbo-jet and everyone thinks she's crazy...I don't remember much else. So, yeah, Tarantino gets bashed by critics (who've done nothing), and other screenwriters who've done worse. People who like movies and don't feel the need to be seen as smarter than the film maker, tend to like Tarantino just fine.

Wow. "Tarantino's the best"? That's like looking at the history of western music and saying, "All I'm really aware of is No Doubt, but I really like their stuff and they're really successful, so they're the best."

I suggest you find a good video library and look up some Ford, Huston, Wilder, Hitchcock, Antonioni and Bergman. Clearly, you must have dozed off during that part of your film class, because if you'd seen any of their work, you'd know how ludicrous it is call Tarantino "the best."

Also, it's "pastime."

Olaf:

Wow. "Tarantino's the best"? That's like looking at the history of western music and saying, "All I'm really aware of is No Doubt, but I really like their stuff and they're really successful, so they're the best."

I suggest you find a good video library and look up some Ford, Huston, Wilder, Hitchcock, Antonioni and Bergman. Clearly, you must have dozed off during that part of your film class, because if you'd seen any of their work, you'd know how ludicrous it is call Tarantino "the best."

Also, it's "pastime."

Its not ludicrous to call Tarantino "the best" unless you can objectivly prove that he's not.

Why does a response to a 'Tarentino's the best' post have to be a 'no, he sucks' post. Grow up people. You can like him and he doesn't have to be the best, and you can dislike him and not have to be a douche about it. It's FILM for God's sake, people like different things. Get off your different colored high horses and pretend you remember what an opinion is.

Methinks Olaf had a nerve touched.

Yeah -- that sore spot left behind by the national lobotomy.

The best of our generation, in my opinion. And, the opposite of what you said is something like, "The Stones suck because they just ripped off all the old delta blues guys of the 30's and 40's." No, The Stones don't suck, and no, Howlin' Wolf isn't necessarily better than they are -- he just came first.

You know, the old "it's popular to bash XXX" argument is very tired. Whether or not it's popular has no bearing on whether the criticism is valid.

If a guy has made millions of dollars making films, it's safe to say he doesn't suck. Why, then, would people say he sucks, or is a hack, or whatever? Because they're jealous, and it makes them feel better to attack the talents others posses and which they lack.

Making millions is proof that someone doesn't suck?

Two words for you: Aaron Spelling.

I finally saw "Blue Velvet" the other day, a film from which I'd been told Tarantino borrowed for "Reservoir Dogs".

I've never heard anybody say Tarantino borrowed from "Blue Velvet" for "Reservoir Dogs" -- except for the fact that somebody loses an ear in each one, I can't see that the the two films have that much in common. QT lifted the plot for "Reservoir Dogs" from a Hong Kong action flick called "City on Fire". For some reason, many people pitched a fit about that. Personally, I like both films.

The fact is, though, that "Blue Velvet" was largely boring, poorly acted, and sort of ran like an episode of some detective T. V. show.

Hmm. Are you sure you were watching "Blue Velvet"? In any case, you're on shaky ground here -- it seems sort of silly to go ballistic on people for criticizing Tarantino, and then dismiss David Lynch with a wave of your hand.

If a guy has made millions of dollars making films, it's safe to say he doesn't suck.

Michael Bay says "Howdy".

If you're, like 28-32 and don't have love for 90210, then you were a seriously flawed kid.

I'd refer you to David Foster Wallace's rather long and intricate essay on David Lynch for the reference I was speaking about. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- and Wallace is smarter than your average "critic", so him saying it once is like 1000 lesser critical observers saying it.

I guess the statement about money earned equating to quality is probably never going to go over with people who see film as a high art form. To me, films (like any art) are given their value by the impact (positive and negative) that they art elicits in the public. Popular art (which film is, almost by definition) has to be measured to a great extent by how well the populous accepts it. Tarantino succeeds (and surpasses others mentioned in this thread) on that count.

Perhaps others were better on some technical measure. Perhaps some others did it first. But, Tarantino brought capital-F Film to the masses -- he brought the idea of subtext, and metaphor, and the value of dialog to an audience that grew up on "Pretty in Pink" and "The Breakfast Club". David Lynch made "Twin Peaks". I'll leave it for you to decide who has the better body of work, overall.

By the way, I read the article for myself, I really didn't need you to repeat the thing about the Hong Kong action flick, captain original.

It may be that your Film Studies prof was a frustrated and blocked artist/screenwriter. OTOH, some of the folks I've studied with aren't - with Emmies and Oscars on their mantles (well one of them lost his Oscar to the recent fires).

From them I've learned to look at composition, storyline, color, light etc. and in all these areas, Tarantino falls short. Compare just the cinematographic composition of something like SpiderMan to IB. In Spidey, composition helps tell the story. Lighting helps tell the story. Color helps tell the story.

In Inglorious Basterds, none of that is true. The Homages/quotes were almost always done better in their original. Tarantino is a bit like the the kid who upon seeing Duchamp's mustaching of the Mona Lisa seems to think that similar "desecration" of great works is similarly great, when in reality it is derivative of a creatively inspired derivative.

No Tarantino's appeal to "those of an age" has more to do with the importation of slasher brutality into supposedly mainstream cinema, than with any particularl brilliance. Overrated is generous

If you're, like 28-32

I'm not.

and don't have love for 90210,

I don't.

then you were a seriously flawed kid.

I was.