Your Favourite Tarantino Movie (revised)

[JWPlatt]

I think Bea will need to die at the hands of the kid in Kill Bill Vol 3. But I think it would have to play out kind of like Highlander might where a third character is introduced as the real antagonist. Bea would take the hit fore the kid, and the kid would perform Bea's coup de grâce, but only to defeat the antagonist. The kid wins, Bea does with honor, and the antagonist dies.

 

[Susannah Dean]

Death Proof!!!!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm hoping he does make Kill Bill Vol 3 because I'm 90% sure it will be about Vernita Green's daughter trying to get revenge on Bea.

[...]

As I mentioned in the other thread I like his earlier genre play movies more than I like his later revenge porn movies.

Anyone else see the glaring contradiction here?




(Hint: KB1 is by far the revenge porniest of Tarantino's films to date, as is, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, KB as a whole.)

I see the apparent conversation, but it's only 'Revenge porn' if it's revenge for me. I have prior emotional investment in getting revenge against Hitler and slave owners. I have no prior emotional in Bea getting revenge against Bill.

I totally expect Bea to die, but I also expect Ms Green's revenge to extend to BeBe and there will be a lot of Bea trying to end the cycle of revenge at her own death.

 

[Lonemagpie]

A Kill Bill 3 would seem more than a little superfluous, given that, well, Bill already got killed in Part 2. And the actor's dead as well, so he can't come back.

 

[BigJake]

Does anyone seriously believe Tarantino will truly make a Vol. 1 bit player the star of a third installment?

Given how careful he was to flag that up as a possible future plot in the scene where the Bride kills Vernita Green, yes I think it's quite possible he'd go that route. If nothing else than precisely because it would be supposed insane by normal Hollywood logic and Tarantino delights in proving that he can pull things off that other filmmakers wouldn't even try.

(It would have to be called something other than "Kill Bill," of course. I don't think anyone's actually expecting it to literally be called Kill Bill vol. 3.)

Glad to see an actual vote for Death Proof, thank you Susanna Dean!

 

[JWPlatt]

...precisely because it would be supposed insane by normal Hollywood logic...

...I don't think anyone's actually expecting it to literally be called Kill Bill vol. 3...

And by your own logic, precisely why Tarantino will name it Kill Bill Volume 3.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

1) Pulp Fiction
2) Kill Bill Volume 1
3) Django Unchained
4) Kill Bill Volume 2
5) Reservoir Dogs
6) Inglorious Basterds
7) Death Proof
8) Jackie Brown
9) Sin City
10) Four Rooms

 

[BigJake]

...precisely because it would be supposed insane by normal Hollywood logic...

...I don't think anyone's actually expecting it to literally be called Kill Bill vol. 3...

And by your own logic, precisely why Tarantino will name it Kill Bill Volume 3.

Heh. Could be. But I don't think he's perverse enough to keep a name that doesn't make sense; that sounds more like what a typical studio would do for the sake of "brand recognition."

 

[iguana_tonante]

I still haven't seen Inglorious and Django yet. But for me it's hard to beat Kill Bill, vol 1. It touches me in all the right places.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Does anyone seriously believe Tarantino will truly make a Vol. 1 bit player the star of a third installment?

Given how careful he was to flag that up as a possible future plot in the scene where the Bride kills Vernita Green, yes I think it's quite possible he'd go that route. If nothing else than precisely because it would be supposed insane by normal Hollywood logic and Tarantino delights in proving that he can pull things off that other filmmakers wouldn't even try.

Didn't he specifically state that he actually filmed a few extra scenes with the girl precisely for that reason? To use in the future installment once she's all grown up.

 

[Push The Button]

True Romance and Basterds for me.

 

[EnriqueH]

Does anyone seriously believe Tarantino will truly make a Vol. 1 bit player the star of a third installment?

Given how careful he was to flag that up as a possible future plot in the scene where the Bride kills Vernita Green, yes I think it's quite possible he'd go that route. If nothing else than precisely because it would be supposed insane by normal Hollywood logic and Tarantino delights in proving that he can pull things off that other filmmakers wouldn't even try.

(It would have to be called something other than "Kill Bill," of course. I don't think anyone's actually expecting it to literally be called Kill Bill vol. 3.)

Glad to see an actual vote for Death Proof, thank you Susanna Dean!

Did he say he would use the same actress?

 

[Gaith]

I still haven't seen Inglorious and Django yet. But for me it's hard to beat Kill Bill, vol 1. It touches me in all the right places.

The whole Crazy 88s sequences indeed feels like an exercise in touching. By which I mean QT metaphorically abusing himself in a cinematic context.



When it comes to the guy, I think San Francisco Chronicle Mick Lasalle pretty has had a pretty good lock on him. From his KB1 review:

[Tarantino] has flair. He knows where to place a camera and how to maximize tension and take moments to the extreme. But with "Kill Bill," we realize that his flash and panache are in the service of absolute emptiness. This puerile, ugly fantasy is the sad but unmistakable product of a consciousness not worthy of serious attention.

[...] Tarantino's inspiration is coming secondhand, not from life but from fantasy, and from other people's fantasies, to boot. Once it was possible to assume that Tarantino's pop culture references were an ironic critique on the barrenness of media-age culture, but there's no mistaking it now: Tarantino's work is not a commentary on the barrenness. It is the barrenness.



​

Lasalle on KB2:

All of Tarantino's strengths and weaknesses can be found in "Vol. 2." As a thinker, as a philosopher, just as someone responding to life on earth, Tarantino is a cipher. He has nothing to say, and in the few places in which he seems to invest in the emotional reality of his characters, it's as pathetic to witness as the sight of some mentally arrested adult conversing with a stuffed animal. Yet, in terms of pure filmmaking skill, how many directors can lay a glove on this guy?



​

And here he responds to Basterds:

It's not enough to say that "Inglourious Basterds" is Quentin Tarantino's best movie. It's the first movie of his artistic maturity, the film his talent has been promising for more than 15 years. The picture contains all the things his fans like about Tarantino - the wit, the audacity, the sudden violence - but this movie's emotional core and bigness of spirit are new.


​

All the reviews are well worth reading. Lasalle is one of the best film writers around, and has been for a long time.

 

[BigJake]

^ His response to KB1 seemed way over-harsh to me, but I do like his writing. His review of Django Unchained is also excellent.

 

[BigJake]

A couple I missed:

Didn't he specifically state that he actually filmed a few extra scenes with the girl precisely for that reason? To use in the future installment once she's all grown up.

Didn't know that, but it certainly sounds like something he might do.

Did he say he would use the same actress?

No idea. I suppose he could, though there are any number of actresses he could use just as easily.

I still haven't seen Inglorious and Django yet.

You definitely owe it to yourself, IMHO. I think they live up to the assessment of being the two films that definitively prove Tarantino has fully matured as a filmmaker with interesting things to say.