My problem with Tarantino

[Hypoxia]

Is anyone forced to watch?

Can we find the EXIT or BACK?

"This way to the Egress."
--PT Barnum

I have no Tarantino problem.

I saw PULP FICTION. It was enough.

Is this a First World Problem?

 

[latecomer91364]

Flawed

I think this is a worthy post. Tarantino can be brilliant, but also self-indulgent, and of course it's his right to be whatever he wants to be. I believe, that as an auteur, he's got nobody telling him when he's going off track, or maybe he's not willing to listen. He's in such a revered place for many, that they will defend even the weakest of his work.

This is only my opinion, but except for the first car wreck, the first 45 minutes of Death Proof is basically a few characters that never really develop, prattling on about nothing - there is very little there that adds to character or story, just blah-blah-blah. The movie is partially saved by the state of the art car sequence at the end. For me, his weakest work.

I just saw The Hateful Eight last weekend. Again, about the first 45 minutes moves SO SLOW it's excruciating. We get a thimbleful of character development in a bucket full of talk - more characteristics than character, and OMG how everybody prattles on! It's great when it finally gets going.

Tarantino is gifted in creating memorable situations and images - he's more of a shooter (even though his DP is in charge of the camerawork, the director calls the shots). His stuff is cool and usually gripping to watch, but he does go astray often.

I didn't much like Pulp Fiction when I first saw it - full of very cool bits, but way short of a coherent whole. I felt that he didn't end it, he just ran out of film. I've since liked it more, but it's still a classic example of style over substance. Granted, Tarantino is overflowing with style, which is what keeps me coming back.

My favorites are Reservoir Dogs and Inglourious Bastards (however he spells it). To me, they are the most concise and disciplined. I think he's better when there's enough complexity to the story that he's required to more actively service the plot.

Yes, he can laugh all the way to the bank, and nobody has to buy a ticket, but any member of any audience should feel free to critique.

My $ .02

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I think this is a worthy post. Tarantino can be brilliant, but also self-indulgent, and of course it's his right to be whatever he wants to be. I believe, that as an auteur, he's got nobody telling him when he's going off track, or maybe he's not willing to listen. He's in such a revered place for many, that they will defend even the weakest of his work.

This is only my opinion, but except for the first car wreck, the first 45 minutes of Death Proof is basically a few characters that never really develop, prattling on about nothing - there is very little there that adds to character or story, just blah-blah-blah. The movie is partially saved by the state of the art car sequence at the end. For me, his weakest work.

I just saw The Hateful Eight last weekend. Again, about the first 45 minutes moves SO SLOW it's excruciating. We get a thimbleful of character development in a bucket full of talk - more characteristics than character, and OMG how everybody prattles on! It's great when it finally gets going.

Tarantino is gifted in creating memorable situations and images - he's more of a shooter (even though his DP is in charge of the camerawork, the director calls the shots). His stuff is cool and usually gripping to watch, but he does go astray often.

I didn't much like Pulp Fiction when I first saw it - full of very cool bits, but way short of a coherent whole. I felt that he didn't end it, he just ran out of film. I've since liked it more, but it's still a classic example of style over substance. Granted, Tarantino is overflowing with style, which is what keeps me coming back.

My favorites are Reservoir Dogs and Inglourious Bastards (however he spells it). To me, they are the most concise and disciplined. I think he's better when there's enough complexity to the story that he's required to more actively service the plot.

Yes, he can laugh all the way to the bank, and nobody has to buy a ticket, but any member of any audience should feel free to critique.

My $ .02

I agree with you wholeheartedly about Death Proof. I love the second half but the first group just doesn't get to me at all.

However I think the problem the The Hateful Eight is that it has an unneeded flashback that should have been cut. I figured all of that stuff out on my own. He gave us enough clue that he didn't need to fill in the specifics like that. Remove that part and I think the movie would have been brilliant.

I don't care for Inglorius Bastards though. It's not that I have problems with the movie. I don't. It's just not my thing.

And I love his other directed works through and through.

 

[latecomer91364]

Absolutely

I agree with you wholeheartedly about Death Proof. I love the second half but the first group just doesn't get to me at all.

However I think the problem the The Hateful Eight is that it has an unneeded flashback that should have been cut. I figured all of that stuff out on my own. He gave us enough clue that he didn't need to fill in the specifics like that. Remove that part and I think the movie would have been brilliant.

I don't care for Inglorius Bastards though. It's not that I have problems with the movie. I don't. It's just not my thing.

And I love his other directed works through and through.

About the flashback in The Hateful Eight: unnecessary to the story, and really didn't offer any exposition we weren't already figuring out for ourselves, or that couldn't easily have been incorporated in the dialogue moving forward. It's there for more movie and more violence (never have a problem with that).

I like Inglorious as a reasonably concise, coherent whole, but honestly didn't respond to the rewriting of history as fantasy aspect.

Overall, I find his work enjoyable, but sometimes exasperating.