Is Tarrentino over-rated?

[RobertScorpio]

The problem seems to be people expect high art out of the guy, or want him to grow up. That's not the point. Tarantino makes fun, violent, schlocky movies. You ever love it or you don't.

I've loved all his movies. I think anyone who considers him one of the greatest directors ever is overating him, but his current popularity and success is more than well deserved. I vote no

Well said. It sounds like a lot of people on here just don't get his style, or what he's trying to do with his movies.

I see Tarantino as kind of like an Elmore Leonard. He's not after anything terribly deep or profound with his stories-- he just wants to take the audience on a fun ride with some interesting and unpredictable characters.

That's not to say he's not a real filmmaker though. All you have to do is look at the opening scene in Inglourious Basterds to see that he KNOWS how to move the camera and tell a story.

That scene is proof enough for me that he is in NO way overrated.

He's been doing that kind of filming since 'Dogs. So no, I disagree. He is the Orson Wells of his time. He made a great movie, Pulp Fiction (not his first, but to the movie public, it might as well have been) and he's been trying to recapture that success again..and hasn't.

He is good...not great. And he definately is full of him self; imo.

Rob

 

[Kegg]

So no, I disagree. He is the Orson Wells of his time. He made a great movie, Pulp Fiction (not his first, but to the movie public, it might as well have been) and he's been trying to recapture that success again..and hasn't.

If you mean he's the Orson Welles in that Orson Welles made just one good movie... well... I'd disagree with that.

I think Touch of Evil is amazing and Lady from Shanghai is deliriously hypnotic (he acts very well in both also, though his Irish brogue in Shanghai is preposterous), and he's got more than a few other good films to his name.

 

[davejames]

I agree Pulp Fiction is his greatest, but that doesn't mean his others aren't still pretty damn good.

Hell, even if you took Pulp OUT of the equation and left him with just Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Basterds, he's still have more to be proud of than most directors out there.

 

[davejames]

He's been doing that kind of filming since 'Dogs. So no, I disagree. He is the Orson Wells of his time. He made a great movie, Pulp Fiction (not his first, but to the movie public, it might as well have been) and he's been trying to recapture that success again..and hasn't.

Oh and considering Basterds outdid Pulp Fiction at the box office (and is being talked about for several Oscars next year), I'd say he HAS recaptured that success.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes. I mean, I like his movies but I don't love them.


And his characters are pretty much all of the same stock variety. They're all shady, violent, anti-hero criminals who make their own rules. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But it gets tiresome. The Robert Forrester character from Jackie Brown was probably the best character he ever wrote because he was just a normal, well-meaning guy as opposed to being an over the top anti-hero.

And John Ford mostly did movies about cowboys. And Hitchcock mostly did killers and spies and intrigue. And Woody Allen does neurotic New Yorkers.

A lot of directors stick to their own pet genres. Tarantino likes crime stories. Fine. No rule that says he has to do family films and musicals, too.

 

[Davros]

He hasn't made a bad movie yet.

 

[Kirkman1987]

Yes. I mean, I like his movies but I don't love them.


And his characters are pretty much all of the same stock variety. They're all shady, violent, anti-hero criminals who make their own rules. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But it gets tiresome. The Robert Forrester character from Jackie Brown was probably the best character he ever wrote because he was just a normal, well-meaning guy as opposed to being an over the top anti-hero.

And John Ford mostly did movies about cowboys. And Hitchcock mostly did killers and spies and intrigue. And Woody Allen does neurotic New Yorkers.

A lot of directors stick to their own pet genres. Tarantino likes crime stories. Fine. No rule that says he has to do family films and musicals, too.

Well said. Most of the great directors stick to one type of story. I'll add Sergio Leone and David Lynch as guys who largely stick to thier thing.

Also, I really don't get any connection whatsoever to Orson Welles. Welles was only a big shot for a short period of time. Most of his success was on radio and the stage. Citizen Kane, his first feature, was a flop, and for most of the rest of his life, Welles lived a very depressing life, consisting of whoring out his soul and energy on televsion ads and cameos that were embarrassingly beneath a man of his talent and intellect, just so he could raise money for one of his ideas.

It's been 15 years since Pulp Fiction, and Tarantino has made several of the most popular and successful films of recent times. Tarantino, at this moment, can likely make any film he wants, no questions asked. I can't see this changing in the future, he's largely gotten more successful ($$$ not quality) over time.

The only simularities I see to the two men is huge egos and their status of being young boy wonder overnight sensations.

The real question is, what would Welles Think of Tarantino.

He would Love him imo. Welles himself got by in his day by shocking the public. He produced shakespere with black actors or set in Nazi Germany and filled them with violence. The man did War of the worlds, Magic Tricks, and produced a controversial film about a real and powerful figure.

In that way, They were both flashy.

ok, maybe they're a bit more alike than I will admit. But my point is that thier career paths can not be compared at all. Tarantino will prove popular overtime.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I say he is over-rated..way over-rated.

He's not over-rated. You just don't like his movies. Which is fine, but lots of people disagree with you.

 

[Mr. B]

This guy was a flash in the pan as far as I'm concerned... Pulp Fiction was good and everything else is crap... as for the man himself, total asshole.

 

[Thrall]

And John Ford mostly did movies about cowboys. And Hitchcock mostly did killers and spies and intrigue. And Woody Allen does neurotic New Yorkers.

A lot of directors stick to their own pet genres. Tarantino likes crime stories. Fine. No rule that says he has to do family films and musicals, too.

I hear what you're saying, but it's different with him. Most directors will branch out occasionally. James Cameron mostly does Sci Fi/Action movies, but he still directed Titanic. Akira Kurosawa mostly did Samurai films, but he still did Dreams. Even when he does branch out, it's still more of the same. Even in his WW2 movie he had to show the main characters as a bunch of anti-hero thugs. American Soldiers. In WW2. The most clear cut, good guy vs bad guy battle one can do. Even with that Brad Pitt and his goon squad would fit easily into any other film he's done. His characters are completely interchangeable. Their plot to kill Nazi's was essentially just another crime caper.

 

[Deckerd]

But what about Christoph Waltz? His performance was a career high and utterly made the movie. I've never seen a tour de force like that in any movie ever.

 

[Kegg]

I hear what you're saying, but it's different with him. Most directors will branch out occasionally. James Cameron mostly does Sci Fi/Action movies, but he still directed Titanic. Akira Kurosawa mostly did Samurai films, but he still did Dreams.

Kurosawa actually did a fairly large amount of contemporary dramas in addition to period pieces (many of which are among his best loved films, like Ikiru, probably my favourite film of all time). Samurai flicks tended to do better box office business, though.

Yasujiro Ozu, on the other hand? He made an endless series of interchangeable films depicting dailiness and mundane activities and, aside from his very first picture, never left that box. He's also a genius and hellfire to anyone who says otherwise.

Tarantino has more flexibility than, say, Ozu in that he does hyperviolent movies about all sorts of topics - in premise and era, Reservoir Dogs and Inglourious Basterds don't have anything in common. It's the Tarantino touch that gives them the similarity they've got - turning an operation in World War II to 'a crime caper', as you put it.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Tarantino certainly has signature touches that he's brought to all of his films, particularly in his way with dialogue, but he's branched out a bit more than people give him credit for. Jackie Brown may have been his third crime film in a row, but it's very different in tone and theme to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and the hyper-stylized blend of genres in Kill Bill marked a departure from his earlier crime films.

 

[Deckerd]

And who could forget the 'Poncho' two-parter in CSI?

 

[Greg Cox]

And John Ford mostly did movies about cowboys. And Hitchcock mostly did killers and spies and intrigue. And Woody Allen does neurotic New Yorkers.

A lot of directors stick to their own pet genres. Tarantino likes crime stories. Fine. No rule that says he has to do family films and musicals, too.

I hear what you're saying, but it's different with him. Most directors will branch out occasionally. James Cameron mostly does Sci Fi/Action movies, but he still directed Titanic. Akira Kurosawa mostly did Samurai films, but he still did Dreams. Even when he does branch out, it's still more of the same. Even in his WW2 movie he had to show the main characters as a bunch of anti-hero thugs. American Soldiers. In WW2. The most clear cut, good guy vs bad guy battle one can do. Even with that Brad Pitt and his goon squad would fit easily into any other film he's done. His characters are completely interchangeable. Their plot to kill Nazi's was essentially just another crime caper.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you just don't like anti-hero thugs. Which is fine. I prefer horror movies to Mafia flicks myself. But the fact that Tarantino gravitates to this sort of charcter doesn't mean he's a bad director. Heck, Robert E. Howard mostly wrote brawny barbarian types, while H. P. Lovecraft only wrote about unspeakable horrors. Good artists tend to write what about what interests them. That's how it works.

 

[davejames]

I hear what you're saying, but it's different with him. Most directors will branch out occasionally. James Cameron mostly does Sci Fi/Action movies, but he still directed Titanic. Akira Kurosawa mostly did Samurai films, but he still did Dreams. Even when he does branch out, it's still more of the same. Even in his WW2 movie he had to show the main characters as a bunch of anti-hero thugs. American Soldiers. In WW2. The most clear cut, good guy vs bad guy battle one can do. Even with that Brad Pitt and his goon squad would fit easily into any other film he's done. His characters are completely interchangeable. Their plot to kill Nazi's was essentially just another crime caper.

I think it was established pretty well that this was a separate, specially-formed mercenary group and not part of the regular military.

And in any case, most of those characters were so cartoonishly over the top I don't know how anyone could take any of it that seriously to begin with.

And I would argue Cameron and those other directors put their unique stamp on EVERY movie they do. No matter what the subject matter, a Cameron movie always looks and feels like a Cameron movie (same with Spielberg or Ridley Scott). It's actually something to be admired I think. The reason I go see his and Tarantino's movies is BECAUSE they have such distinct and original styles.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Oh and considering Basterds outdid Pulp Fiction at the box office (and is being talked about for several Oscars next year), I'd say he HAS recaptured that success.

I'm pretty sure Basterds only outgrossed Pulp Fiction by about $10 million or so. And PF came out 15 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, I don't think Basterds even comes close to the amount of money PF made.

FYI, Pulp Fiction was nominated for 7 Oscars and won 1. So I don't think the fact that Basterds is "being talked about" for next year's Oscars makes it better or equal in quality with PF.

He's not over-rated. You just don't like his movies. Which is fine, but lots of people disagree with you.

Isn't "I don't like his movies, but lots of people disagree with me" just another way of saying "I think he's overrated"?

 

[Harvey]

Not only has Inglourious Basterds only outgrossed Pulp Fiction by only ten million dollars (unadjusted for inflation), but it also has played in twice as many theatres as Pulp Fiction ever did at one time.

But as much as I love having all this information at my finger-tips, I sort of hate how these discussions can devolve into box office numbers.

 

[Greg Cox]

The interesting question is, are directors who stick to one style and genre somehow inferior to directors who dabble in multiple genres? To my mind, not necessarily.

I mean, it's great that Robert Wise could direct scifi, horror, historicals, and musicals, and do a first-rate job on all them, but does that make him a better director than, say, Hitchcock, who pretty much stuck to thrillers? Or Tarantino, who likes giddy crime stories and exploitation flicks?

Versatility is a virtue, but it's not the only virtue.

And does anyone really want Tarantino to direct a romantic comedy or whatever?

 

[Kegg]

And does anyone really want Tarantino to direct a romantic comedy or whatever?

He should direct a romantic comedy about antiheroes who shoot people up. It'd be the ultimate date movie.