comment #1

SRCputt says ...

I haven't trusted Tarantino's judgement since he said over 10 years ago that Days of Thunder was one the ten best films of all time. OF ALL TIME?

comment #2

Aladdin Sane says ...

While I can totally see the original being worthless, I still have a bit of faith in Tarantino that he can make a good film.

comment #3

Balthazar says ...

Nice and interesting entry, Jeffrey. Thanks for sitting through that for us!

Clearly, it seems:

OK writing talent + Ability to mimic other directing styles + Steady diet of trash films from the 1960s and 1970s = Quentin Tarantino

Strong writing talent + Ability to mimic other directing styles while developing your own style as a director + Steady diet of the greatest films of all time, from all eras + A healthy dose of 1970s porn = Paul Thomas Anderson

Kind of brings some fresh insight to nuture vs. nature.

comment #4

Balthazar says ...

Days of Thunder isn't even in the list of ten best films starring Tom Cruise

comment #5

MickTravis says ...

I think he's taking it a little too seriously. IG is just another one of those bad movies QT saw as a kid and now he'll hopefully synthesize elements from it into a superior work.

What's amusing about the DVD is QT's interview with Castellari, where QT (swigging a Budweiser) dominates the conversation for the opening stretches, talking largely about himself and his work-in-progress. Oddly enough, when Castellari finally starts getting a word in edgewise ... I grew bored and wanted QT to take the wheel back.

comment #6

cjKennedy says ...

You weren't rooked. How did you not know going in what you were going to get?

comment #7

Walter Sobchak says ...

Thanks for the honesty. I find that most movies that are "so bad they're good" are actually so bad they're just plain bad.

Right now I can just hear QT's rambling, overly-enthusiastic, caffeine-fueled thesis on why it's an under-appreciated classic.

Now "The Room" on the other hand....Brilliant.

comment #8

Gaydos says ...

When you're ready, let's talk about the similarities between Spielberg and Tarantino. IE Saturday morning serials were basically crap turned into big budget entertainment via Indy, "Creature from the Haunted Sea" B movie monster drek became "Jaws" etc. We are now into our fourth generation, by my count, of filmmakers riffing on movies (Godard, Spielberg, Tarantino, everyone today). My defense of Spielberg and Tarantino: at least their movies are, at their best entertaining and they never made the mistake of falling for Stalin or Mao.

comment #9

lionsfan says ...

Respectfully, a movie like this one was best viewed at a "grind house" on 42nd Street with an "urban" audience. Maybe that is even the ONLY way in which to watch such a movie in order to gauge its true charms.. (Or in fact anything which starred Fred Williamson; I once saw him on a cold Wednesday at 10:30 AM personally shaking hands and handing out t-shirts on 42nd Street to the low-lifes and hard-core unemployables who'd just attended the first showing of his "Mr. Mean" starrer. This, too, is Taranino's true core audience, that and pale film students who have too much time on their hands and too much intellectualism to spare.)

comment #10

Reedyb says ...

Oh well. I have it sitting right here fresh from Netflix. I will give it a whirl, but won't stay with it if turns out I agree with your assessment, sir.

comment #11

Balthazar says ...

One difference between Spielberg and Tarantino, of course, is that Spielberg has only written a handful of his movies.

Tarantino is a talented writer. And he is a talented director. But he's never going to amount to much more than he is right now, if he continues to direct only his own material.

He needs to either write a great script and hand it off to another visionary, or take a great script by someone else and direct it.

comment #12

Geoff says ...

QT loves Days of Thunder?

comment #13

Intense Guy III says ...

"I haven't trusted Tarantino's judgement since he said over 10 years ago that Days of Thunder was one the ten best films of all time. OF ALL TIME?"

I think you're confusing Days of Thunder with Rolling Thunder.

comment #14

chicbn872 says ...

I have never subscribed to the "so bad, it's good" theory. If it's bad, it's bad.

I have a friend who felt this way about "Showgirls". Sorry...it's just flat out awful.

comment #15

Intense Guy III says ...

Tarantino's Top Ten(From Halliwell's 1000)

1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Leone, 1966)
2. Rio Bravo (Hawks, 1959)
3. Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)
4. His Girl Friday (Hawks, 1939)
5. Rolling Thunder (Flynn, 1977)
6. They All Laughed (Bogdanovich, 1981)
7. The Great Escape (J Sturges, 1963)
8. Carrie (De Palma, 1976)
9. Coffy (Hill, 1973)
10. Five Fingers of Death (Chang, 1973)

comment #16

quitstaringatme says ...

I can't imagine how humorless one must be to not enjoy Showgirls. You need some joy in your life, chicbn872

comment #17

MilkMan says ...

Resevoir Dogs was uncanny. I wish QT would tap into the unheimlich some more, but he seems to be locked into a groove I don't quite understand. He has it within him to NOT be Russ Meyer, which is what I'm afraid he's going to become.

Anyone else read that Meyer bio by McDonough? It made me sad. The guy ended up in diapers in his Hollywood Hills home, surrounded by sleazy sychophants, still trying to get it up for his prosty nurse.

They All Laughed is worse than Days of Thunder. Except for Dorothy Stratten. I saw her in that movie and that's when Paul Snider made sense to me. Actually, he made sense to me vis a vis Roberts' performance (one of the great performances, ever, really), but seeing her move, seeing her in clothes, I suddenly understood why he had to kill her. You lose a woman like that, especially to a total douchebag like Bogdonanvich (essentially Snider with an education), and you've lost your shot at transcendence. It's how I felt when my high school sweetheart left me for a 37 year old man. Actually, we weren't even in high school anymore. But I wanted to pretend that we were. And sometimes I get the feeling that QT still wants to pretend that he's a kid, judging by the movies he's using for inspiration.

comment #18

nemo says ...

The hippest video store clerk on the planet.

comment #19

Count Thread says ...

Wells is wrong to slam QT for this. You see, QT is like BASF-- he doesn't make crap, he makes crap *better*.

How many horrible chopsocky movies were emulated in Kill Bill? How many awful movies inspired Pulp Fiction? How many terrible crime movies led to Reservoir Dogs, or lousy blaxploitation movies resulted in Jackie Brown?

We all bitch and whine for years in advance about how QT needs to be original, how he needs to move away from his parasitic synthesis of old bad genre flicks and ancient cliches. And then what happens? QT release his movie, a film inspired by some awful schlock, and all of a sudden, 90% of the audience eats it up.

That 10%? I can't talk to them. They'll never be happy with QT, no matter what he does. Fine, whatever, we lost them long ago.

Me? I don't care if the original Inglorious Bastards is terrible. OF COURSE it is. What QT is inspired to do from it, however, will probably be wonderfully entertaining, a great fun meal.

comment #20

Mr. Buckles says ...

Let's note that all of QT's major works were either written with someone or taken from someone else (I count Jackie Brown as his best or most "ma-toor" film). Read Rebels on the Backlot for some of the juicy coming up and burning bridges shenanigans.

I'm not sure that is the problem...

I recall a time about eight years ago when I was in a downward trend, well, to quote the poet Kid Rock, "I was trying different things and smoking funny things." I bloated up and started looking like QT actually - a skinny-fat pasty vampire of sorts who liked stuff and redbull vodkas.

My wife (girlfriend at the time) insisted I start hitting the gym with her. I almost died at first. However, about three months in, my ideas were better, I was more productive and I eventually placed in the semi's in Project Greenlight and then never wrote a screenplay again.

He needs rehabilitation:

This dude smokes way too much of the Pineapple Express. He needs to put down the bong and put on some Asics (all others are imitators), drop 30 and then do some travelling.

Also, I'm staging an intervention. QT needs a new best friend. We're trading Rodriguez for PT Anderson.

QT needs to talk less and listen more - straight dope from Mr. Miyagi - and no sweeping the leg.

Now, while he is a genius at casting and music, he needs to stop using the former as a crutch -- NO BRITNEY. There's nothing wrong with working with more great, exteemed actors - I would love to see Morgan Freeman get the QT makeover.

I am going to make QT sit down, perhaps Clockwork Orange style, and have a John Hughesfest. While I think his influence is wide and far enough, thank you, I do think QT would benefit a tinge from the sentimentality.

QT can not pick a movie unless it is in a different genre. You don'ta pick a new genre, you ain'ta gettin no greenlight (I want to see him take the RomCOm and turn it on its ear - perhaps True Romance did that but he didn't direct).

Lastly, let's get him a new writing partner, and if we can swing a deal, bring back Avery who will forever be changed but maybe in a good way.

Just sayin'

comment #21

BurmaShave says ...

I'm a pretty big fan of that still you posted.

comment #22

MilkMan says ...

I agree with Mr. Buckles.

Tarantino's problem seems to be with the company he keeps.

I get the feeling Tarantino has a hard time NOT being the smartest guy in the room when it comes to movies, so he surrounds himself with people who never challenge him.

He never has to rethink his aesthetic when he's sharing a Peanut Butter Blaster with Harry Knowles, or downing shots of Tequila with Rodriguez.

I'd like to know when was the last time someone DIDN'T laugh at something Tarantino said, the last time he was made to feel uncomfortable.

Tarantino needs a little more alienation in his life and a little less penetration.

Either way, garbage in, garbage out, and that's what the countless number of filmmakers who want to emulate Tarantino don't understand.

Tarantino has the magical ability to turn shit into art, almost like he's some kind of outsider artist who was lucky enough to be born in the South Bay instead of Tuscaloosa.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"We're trading Rodriguez for PT Anderson. "

I've always heard it said that Tarantino and PT Anderson are really close friends and part of QT's posse of filmmakers in LA (also present, Sofia Coppola). In fact, given that Rodriguez is based out of Texas, while QT and PTA live in LA, I'd guess that QT sees PTA more than he sees RR.

comment #24

Richardson says ...

"Strong writing talent + Ability to mimic other directing styles while developing your own style as a director + Steady diet of the greatest films of all time, from all eras + A healthy dose of 1970s porn = Paul Thomas Anderson"

I don't think that point is very well thought out, unless you're prepared to explain which of the multitude of Adam Sandler movies (PTA loves all of them) counts among the greatest films of all time. While I surely love 'Punch Drunk Love', I don't think you can say a movie equal parts inspired by 'The Waterboy' and Robert Altman's 'Popeye' is derived from the greatest films of all time. (I know, PTA claims there's some Tati in there, but I can't spot it at all.)

comment #25

Legowombat says ...

The thing I find odd about QT is that his tastes seem to have remained constant in his life.

I watched a *lot* of trash growing up that I adored at the time, but as an adult, the idea of having to sit through the endless 8-10 minute stalking scenes of Dario Argento or the near-incomprehensible plotting of Lucio Fulci just seems a guaranteed ticket for boredom.

There so many films and records that i've processed differently as an adult and no long find anything of value in, (and the occassional one I ignored as a kid and loved now, like Cronenberg's 'Dead Ringers'), that I've assumed that this constant re-evaluation is just a natural process of aging.

Why doesn't QT do this? And why do people in their late 20's and 30's keep bringing up Transformers and Star Wars? How does kid's cartoon plotting still hold their interest as Adults?

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

Maybe I'm just that much older, but I think of the things I liked as a kid and much as I may have enjoyed them then, if I seriously went around with a hardon for the Flintstones or Mad magazine or Space 1999 today, I'd shoot myself. I'm all for geek culture, but never growing up enough to see that crap is crap is just pathetic.

comment #27

va says ...

I am calling out DZ to comment -- no cut-and-paste stuff either , big guy (although I do admire how fast you perform that maneuver) - give me a good, long two-paragraph take on QT, a'la Mr. Buckles.....this thread is not complete without DZ! ----- BTW, I agree Buckles & Milkman....and I have nothing more insightful to say....

comment #28

corey3rd says ...

but QT's Basterds has nothing to do with the original. He's not remaking it. he's just swiping the title. This is like Cheaper By the Dozen.

They All Laughed....I merely went meh.

comment #29

BurmaShave says ...

He took the '70s-ploitation genre and turned it into JACKIE BROWN, one of my favorite films, and certainly in my opinion his best. There's no reason he can't do the same with schlocky WWII. Remember, for all of our bitching, his track record is phenomenal. Even DEATH PROOF plays great on TV now.

comment #30

Balthazar says ...

1. Mr. Buckles: Fantastic post. Thank you.

2. Richardson: If you think Popeye + The Waterboy = Punch-Drunk Love ... Well, I respect your right to have your own opinion and interpretation, but I took away something vastly different than you from PDL. ... Beyond that, I was speaking more to PTA's overall film interest and knowledge. If you read the prefaces to his scripts and listen to his commentaries, you know he's a true international cinema buff on a whole other level than QT

comment #31

Richardson says ...

"If you think Popeye + The Waterboy = Punch-Drunk Love"

That's quite an "if". I'm glad I didn't say that. What I would say, though, much in line with what I did say, is that 'Popeye' and Adam Sandler movies as a whole are the two most overt influences on 'Punch Drunk Love'. [He's making a movie which is a (mostly) serious deconstruction on the sub-sub-sub-genre of comedy specific to Adam Sandler. By definition, the biggest influence on it is going to be Adam Sandler movies.]

"you know he's a true international cinema buff on a whole other level than QT"

I disagree, actually. I think he's the same exact kind of buff as Tarantino, one who has absorbed so much cinema that they deliberately try to bring up movies nobody else is talking about and intelligently discuss why the movie is worthwhile. And, in both cases, I find that, if you actually watch the movies, the "deep cuts" as it were, QT/PTA may be right about the specific thing they're talking about being unique (fact) and interesting (opinion), but the movie tends to be far less worthy. (I would put Eli Roth in there too, specific to shitty horror movies.)

Also, you shouldn't dismiss Tarantino's knowledge of foreign cinema. He's not as into it, obviously, but I've seen him discuss foreign films from time to time, and I'd bet he could, at the very least, hold his own with PTA on that front.

comment #32

BurmaShave says ...

Speaking of crap, why is HELL RIDE clogging up my two local pristine Landmark theaters? This is not an art film, it's a DTV, and I do hold Tarantino responsible. DC finally gets MAN ON WIRE though, I'm stoked.

comment #33

Edward says ...

This is one of those threads that makes HE a great place to be. Great discussion.

comment #34

atticusrex says ...

I've been to a few Tarantino film fests held from time to time in Austin. I can tell you that most of the films he shows from his collection that are from Italy or Spain and even the Philippines are not good movies at all. Some are campy yes but in truth are not something I would want to see again. That said as others here have already said... QT's talent is knowing the strength of ideas these movies put across however poorly and improving mightily upon them. I will look forward to QT's version of IB for I have every reason to believe it will kick fun ass!

A shout out to Balthazar: QT's first two scripts were made by other filmmakers... one destroyed his script: Natural Born Killers and the other is a masterpiece of it's genre: True Romance (Tony Scott's best film). QT has also adapted one of our greatest crime novelists Elmore Leonard with Jackie Brown and he produced the yet to be release Killshot also by Leonard.

IB is QT's first 'real' remake.

comment #35

Count Thread says ...

Please shut your mouth VA-- I for one enjoy a QT thread-- hell, ANY thread-- for once NOT being interrupted by that fucking retard.

Seriously, even saying his name is like calling Candyman into your life.

comment #36

frankbooth says ...

"QT needs a new best friend. We're trading Rodriguez for PT Anderson."

Great idea.

"I am going to make QT sit down, perhaps Clockwork Orange style, and have a John Hughesfest. While I think his influence is wide and far enough, thank you, I do think QT would benefit a tinge from the sentimentality."

Terrible idea.

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

"It's just third-rate crap in every way imaginable way. I'm talking lazy and sometimes ludicrously bad performances, unconvincing violence, way-too-bright lighting, dubbed dialogue, absurd haircuts, zero character involvement, careless plotting, and rifle fire that sounds like amplified cap guns."

So it's like Fulci's Zombie?

Gaydos: "My defense of Spielberg and Tarantino: at least their movies are, at their best entertaining and they never made the mistake of falling for Stalin or Mao."

So 1941 and Casper are entertaining? And they didn't need Stalin and Mao, since they have their own egos.

Balthazar: "Tarantino is a talented writer. And he is a talented director."

If cutting and pasting=talent, then sure.

Milkman: "Resevoir Dogs was uncanny."

For a remake.

"Either way, garbage in, garbage out, and that's what the countless number of filmmakers who want to emulate Tarantino don't understand."

You don't seem to get that QT is an emulator, too.

"He has it within him to NOT be Russ Meyer, which is what I'm afraid he's going to become."

Meyer never took himself seriously.

Count: "How many horrible chopsocky movies were emulated in Kill Bill?"

So Lady Snowblood and Battle Royale are horrible chopsocky movies?

"How many awful movies inspired Pulp Fiction? "

Band of Outsiders is awful?

"How many terrible crime movies led to Reservoir Dogs, or lousy blaxploitation movies resulted in Jackie Brown?"

So Pelham is terrible and Jackie Brown is no longer an Elmore Leonard adaptation with Pam Grier as the lead?

"QT release his movie, a film inspired by some awful schlock, and all of a sudden, 90% of the audience eats it up."

Then you obviously weren't in the U.S. when they released Grindhouse in theaters.

"That 10%? I can't talk to them. They'll never be happy with QT, no matter what he does. Fine, whatever, we lost them long ago."

That 10% consists of the people who were plagiarized by QT.

Lego: "And why do people in their late 20's and 30's keep bringing up Transformers and Star Wars?"

Beats me. I stopped with TF Headmasters, and was a bigger Indy fan than SW fan.

va: I think Mgmax pretty much summed up what I had to say, though I disagree with Walt that there are no good "bad-good" movies. It's just that the trash QT likes is generally different from what the rest of us enjoy. It's generally as awful as "Cave Dwellers" and "Manos", not as whimsical, but half-baked, as "Plan 9". People are saying RR is the problem, but "Planet Terror" proves he's a lot hipper than QT when it comes to b-flicks.

I think the only reason QT even name-drops some occasionally familiar grindhouse or artsy productions- like "The Mack" and "Hero"-is to make people think he has a sense of culture. But he really should be writing from experience; and the only way he can do that is by getting out of his basement and taking a real break from film-making-not just trying to look for the right time to make a "comeback". He's set for life, so I don't really see the point in just wasting time going to film festivals, and not someplace fun and exciting. Jeff doesn't just waste time reporting all day, so why does QT continue to waste time looking at film reels all day?

comment #38

frankbooth says ...

Ten ways in which Pulp Fiction is just like Band of Outsiders:

1. People dance.

2. A woman blinks her eyes.

3. A gun is fired.

4. A man falls down

5.Things happen in the daytime.

6. Thing happen at night.

7. Ving Rhames gets hit by a car.

8. Bruce Willis kills someone with a sword.

9. Travolta goes to the bathroom.

10. Taylor finds the Statue of Liberty blown up.

But don't quote me on those last four.

comment #39

va says ...

sorry count thread, that you got your cut/paste DZ, but I got two salient graphs of logic in his post - thanks DZ, Mgmax, and others for a great thread on QT -

comment #40

Ogami Itto says ...

DZ: "So Lady Snowblood and Battle Royale are horrible chopsocky movies?"

Lady Snowblood has horrible fight choreography (although Meiko Kaji is quite lovely) and an awful sequel, and Battle Royale -- though not a chopsocky movie -- was just terrible. Kinji Fukasaku has done much better work in the past (like Battles Without Honour and Humanity).

DZ: "Band of Outsiders is awful?"

It may have been groundbreaking in its day, but it hasn't aged very well. It's basically Godard riffing on Hollywood crime movies and American pop culture in general (sounds familiar).

DZ: "So Pelham is terrible and Jackie Brown is no longer an Elmore Leonard adaptation with Pam Grier as the lead?"

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three was excellent, which I doubt the remake will be.

The Pam Grier comment makes no sense.

DZ: "That 10% consists of the people who were plagiarized by QT."

It's okay for artists to use ideas originated by other artists. There's no law that says once an idea has been used once, that's it. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg wouldn't have careers without their "plagiarism."

comment #41

Ogami Itto says ...

Oh, and Ringo Lam's City on Fire is truly awful. QT's "remake" improved on the original immeasurably.

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

Itto: "Lady Snowblood has horrible fight choreography"

It's not an action movie. But hey, I guess slashing someone's skin off in Kill Bill counts as "choreography".

"and an awful sequel,"

Well, I guess the same can be said about KB.

"and Battle Royale -- though not a chopsocky movie -- was just terrible. Kinji Fukasaku has done much better work in the past (like Battles Without Honour and Humanity)."

I'm not really sure *why* it's "terrible", but maybe it just needs the Larry Clark touch of statuatory rape. Or maybe the kids just need to be wise-cracking and savvy youngsters featured in Clueless and Juno. Don't leave me hanging on how it can be improved, and how Fukasaku "sold out", even though it's got an 8.0 on IMDB and is getting a Hollywood remake!

"It may have been groundbreaking in its day, but it hasn't aged very well."

Was it supposed to have aged well? I thought that was the point of Godard's work-to express whatever was on his mind at the time-like the Beatles.

"It's basically Godard riffing on Hollywood crime movies and American pop culture in general (sounds familiar)."

If you think that's all it is, then you really haven't seen the movie.

"The Taking of Pelham One Two Three was excellent, which I doubt the remake will be."

Why? You seemed to like the RD remake.

"The Pam Grier comment makes no sense."

My point is that Pam Grier is the only real blaxploitation reference in Jackie Brown.

"George Lucas and Steven Spielberg wouldn't have careers without their "plagiarism."'

George and Steven gave back to the people who made them successful. When is QT going to fund Ringo Lam's Kagemusha?

"Oh, and Ringo Lam's City on Fire is truly awful."

Because the actors are Asian.

"QT's "remake" improved on the original immeasurably."

By making the actors white.

comment #43

Cadavra says ...

There's nothing wrong with remaking a crappy movie to produce a superior version. The trick is to make sure your remake isn't crappy in a different way. I'm hoping the failure of GRINDHOUSE has let the air out of QT's balloon a little and that he'll now refocus on entertaining the audience and not just himself.

comment #44

Gaydos says ...

Now I've had my initiation and I've been D.Z.'ed and I'm part of the gang. Just like in that Taylor Hackford film, "Blog In, Blog Out."

So I write, "at their best, Spielberg and Tarantino make entertaining movies."

So D.Z. challenges what I wrote and cites "1941" and "Caspar," ie, Spielberg's worst.

Dyslexia? Chowderheadixia?

I assume he does this to everyone which is why everyone here wants to get him out on the playground and give him pink belly.

I'm just sayin', I get it. Now I get it. I really get it.

Is there a known antidote?

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

Gaydos: Actually, you said their movies are, "at their best", entertaining. You didn't say, when the directors are at their best, they make good movies. Pronouns, man.

comment #46

bluefugue says ...

I never really get the Tarantino bashing. If he didn't grow up on a steady diet of schlock films, he wouldn't be Tarantino. He grew out of a particular mulch and carved out his own place in pop culture, and he has the best ear for dialogue this side of Mamet. Pulp Fiction is immortal, and Jackie Brown and Kill Bill Part 2 are impressive films. I like P.T. Anderson fine, but I don't think Tarantino would be improved by being more like him...

comment #47

D.Z. says ...

blue: The bashing comes from his refusal to give credit where it's due, and his inability to do anything but remake said schlock.