TDGT - Round 1, Group L

[Sam]

Not that I'm saying we have a plethora of great film makers and Europe doesn't, but I've seen few European made films that I've really enjoyed verses American made films. This doesn't include the volumes of mindless dribble that people such as Ah-nold, Stallone (except the first two Rocky films and Copland), and other such action stars have put out, as well as the comic fodder that has been coming out for years from the likes of Seth Rogen, John Candy, and Bill Murray. There are some great films from the European sector, but for the most part I haven't enjoyed most that I've seen from the great European film makers verses the great American ones.

I can't discuss Russian films as the only Russian film I've seen that I know of was actually made by a Japanese director (Dersu Uzala by Akira Kurosawa and a wonderful film).

[candy]

i really hope QT doesn't win, but its edging that way. If you look at the other guys films they all seem to have a fairly broad film range, whereas QT seems to always favour the same formula. The only film i liked was dawn to dusk (possibly because it was an earlier film) i find his films to be very repetitive and vastly over-rated. Unfortunatley looking at this poll, i seem to be in the minority. (nothing new there though)

I went with AL, while i do rate MS, AL films - i just find them a more enjoyable watch

[Heather19]

I don't hate him, I just can't find anything in him. I don't like trash, especially trash that poses as something deep, important and culturally significant. I can enjoy sarcasm and deconstruction of genres (and values) - only for that long, and then I want something more of a movie, and that "more" is something he is just unable to give me. You can eat a cardboard cake for a while, and then you want something more nourishing. On the other hand, if I only want some entertainment, I'd rather watch a bona fide genre film, and if I want to enjoy some irony and black wit, I have the whole European (Russian including) tradition to choose from, you know, genuine stuff.

Fair enough
What do you think of him stylistically speaking? I love the way he composes his shots and the editing. Those are two of my favorite aspects of his films.


And Candy it was Robert Rodriguez that directed From Dusk Till Dawn. QT just wrote the script.

[Jean]

[
Fair enough
What do you think of him stylistically speaking? I love the way he composes his shots and the editing. Those are two of my favorite aspects of his films.

wellll... yes... and no... I like it some, but in the end I always get that feeling that I'm watching some very creative, very innovative commercial...

[Heather19]

Oh well, we'll just have to disagree on this one

[Jean]

I know... bears always disagree on Tarantino, even with the most beautiful, the most intelligent ladies...

[Heather19]

[Jean]

[candy]

And Candy it was Robert Rodriguez that directed From Dusk Till Dawn. QT just wrote the script.

ah! that explains a lot then

[pathoftheturtle]

Jean, can ask what it is you hate about Tarantino? Although I feel like I may have asked you this before

I don't hate him, I just can't find anything in him. I don't like trash, especially trash that poses as something deep, important and culturally significant. I can enjoy sarcasm and deconstruction of genres (and values) - only for that long, and then I want something more of a movie, and that "more" is something he is just unable to give me. You can eat a cardboard cake for a while, and then you want something more nourishing. On the other hand, if I only want some entertainment, I'd rather watch a bona fide genre film, and if I want to enjoy some irony and black wit, I have the whole European (Russian including) tradition to choose from, you know, genuine stuff.

All patently obvious. He's just a postmodern hack whose love of low-brow cinema is nowhere near as revolutionary as some like to think it is. Flash in the pan.

Woody Allen, now, is certainly a genius. Definitely a great screenwriter and a phenomenal wit. As a director... hit and miss. Some unquestionable successes, but not as consistent as Scorsese.

[Jean]

agree on both counts... still, voted for Allen, bears love geniuses, however inconsistent...

[pathoftheturtle]

Well said.
But Martin Scorsese is brilliant.

Hey, feev: I hate you.

[turtlex]

While I can understand how some people don't like him, I think it's a bit of a stretch calling Tarantino a "hack". I think he's a pretty good storyteller, and frankly, a lot better than some of the other directors that some folks have been gushing over in this poll.... which, I guess, is why I love these things so much.

And I don't like all his stuff, but did and do enjoy Pulp Fiction. It's a movie I can watch again and again. I don't find it at all subtle, or nuanced, but it's a well told story, and very re-watchable. Ditto Resevoir Dogs.

And let's not forget Inglourious Basterds.

Do I think he's as good as Scorsese? No. Not at all. Or even, Woody Allen. But I also know that as much as I love Woody Allen, Woody Allen could not have directed Pulp Fiction.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Tarantino has an incredible ability for writing entertaining dialogue. I don't watch a QT movie to have some philosophical breakthrough of enlightenment, I watch them to be entertained....and I find his films to be very entertaining.

[fernandito]

Tarantino has an incredible ability for writing entertaining dialogue. I don't watch a QT movie to have some philosophical breakthrough of enlightenment, I watch them to be entertained....and I find his films to be very entertaining.

This man speaks the truth.

[DoctorDodge]

Tarantino has an incredible ability for writing entertaining dialogue. I don't watch a QT movie to have some philosophical breakthrough of enlightenment, I watch them to be entertained....and I find his films to be very entertaining.

That makes him a great scriptwriter BC, but does it make him a good director?

Don't get me wrong, I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also liked the Kill Bill movies a lot. Death Proof? Not too bad, but far from his best.

But Inglourious Basterds? Can't stand that film. Watched it, and it was like he couldn't decide between making a serious war film with great dialogue, or a "so bad it's good" piece of trash to enjoy like old grindhouse war movies. And as for that ending? No thanks! That's what marked him down a lot, imo. I enjoy a lot of films purely to be entertained, too. Hell, my favourite tv show is nothing but a piece of great, fun entertainment. Inglourious Basterds didn't entertain me at all, I'm afraid.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Tarantino has an incredible ability for writing entertaining dialogue. I don't watch a QT movie to have some philosophical breakthrough of enlightenment, I watch them to be entertained....and I find his films to be very entertaining.

That makes him a great scriptwriter BC, but does it make him a good director?

Don't get me wrong, I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also liked the Kill Bill movies a lot. Death Proof? Not too bad, but far from his best.

But Inglourious Basterds? Can't stand that film. Watched it, and it was like he couldn't decide between making a serious war film with great dialogue, or a "so bad it's good" piece of trash to enjoy like old grindhouse war movies. And as for that ending? No thanks! That's what marked him down a lot, imo. I enjoy a lot of films purely to be entertained, too. Hell, my favourite tv show is nothing but a piece of great, fun entertainment. Inglourious Basterds didn't entertain me at all, I'm afraid.

I agree that being a great scriptwriter does not correspond to being a great directer. (just look at King) But, I still think that QT is a good director.

[Heather19]

I don't see how Tarantino can be considered a hack? I can see people not enjoying his films, we can't all have the same taste in films, but that's a bit strong.

[Brice]

Tarantino has an incredible ability for writing entertaining dialogue. I don't watch a QT movie to have some philosophical breakthrough of enlightenment, I watch them to be entertained....and I find his films to be very entertaining.

That makes him a great scriptwriter BC, but does it make him a good director?

Don't get me wrong, I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also liked the Kill Bill movies a lot. Death Proof? Not too bad, but far from his best.

But Inglourious Basterds? Can't stand that film. Watched it, and it was like he couldn't decide between making a serious war film with great dialogue, or a "so bad it's good" piece of trash to enjoy like old grindhouse war movies. And as for that ending? No thanks! That's what marked him down a lot, imo. I enjoy a lot of films purely to be entertained, too. Hell, my favourite tv show is nothing but a piece of great, fun entertainment. Inglourious Basterds didn't entertain me at all, I'm afraid.

Well, that's easy it's an homage to the old grindhouse war movies. In fact everything he does is homage to grindhouse and b movies and very specific sub genre films. They are not meant to be serious really ...except as far as the films he was paying homage to take themselves seriously no matter how preposterous the circumstances of the story. It's all tongue in cheek I believe.

To my thinking a great director is one who achieves what he intended to achieve with his story. It should, but doesn't have to be especially entertaining. How close the finished product is to his intent should be the determinant. Tarantinino just makes fun movies paying homage to movies that are below most people's radar If you wanna' understand Tarantino's intent with Inglorious Basterds go See Ilsa, She Wolf Of The SS. You still might not appreciate it, but you'll surely see what he was doing and as I see it he did it well...whether you feel his pursuit was a worthwhile one is another matter.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Nicely put Brice.

[DoctorDodge]

On the sheer dumb yet awesome entertainment factor, especially when making homages to old grindhouse movies, I'd say Robert Rodriguez is much better when it comes to making those kind of films than Tarantino. Take a look at Grindhouse - Planet Terror included everything a good grindhouse movie should include: over the top gore, over the top and badly edited action, a stupid plot, and hot babes with plenty of shots of them conveniently bending over before getting killed off in a really nasty way. That's what I'd consider a great grindhouse movie: it didn't take itself too seriously, it knew what it was, and it was even funny.

Then watch Death Proof. Sure, it's also got hot babes getting bumped off in a...slightly nasty way, and it had a bit of a dumb plot, but...for me, there wasn't enough OTT gore. There wasn't enough badly edited action. For me, it didn't work nearly as well as a grindhouse film because Tarantino kept putting in his own rather unique style to it, which is giving character's a ton of dialogue and trying to keep our interest in who these characters are and what they do, and I personally feel that it just didn't work as well for a grindhouse movie. It was just taken a little bit too seriously in Tarantino's case, I feel. Ironically, Tarantino's own Kill Bill films, even with their hefty dialogue, feel much closer to being true grindhouse movies, imo.

The same complaints go to Inglourious Basterds as well: too much dialogue, not enough action. But then, I haven't seen that many grindhouse war movies, so I can't really judge. Still, it didn't work for me as an entertaining film or a serious film.

[Still Servant]

so am I... I think

but Allen hasn't gotten a single vote yet, and it is just wrong

Consider that wrong righted, Jean!

in the end bears went with Allen, too

Jean, can ask what it is you hate about Tarantino? Although I feel like I may have asked you this before

I don't hate him, I just can't find anything in him. I don't like trash, especially trash that poses as something deep, important and culturally significant. I can enjoy sarcasm and deconstruction of genres (and values) - only for that long, and then I want something more of a movie, and that "more" is something he is just unable to give me. You can eat a cardboard cake for a while, and then you want something more nourishing. On the other hand, if I only want some entertainment, I'd rather watch a bona fide genre film, and if I want to enjoy some irony and black wit, I have the whole European (Russian including) tradition to choose from, you know, genuine stuff.

I find it kind of offensive to call QT's films trash. I really like his movies. What does that make me if I like trash?

If you don't like him fine. To call his films trash is a little much.

Honestly, I can't understand anybody picking Woody Allen over QT or Scorsese

[Jean]

I am sorry Still Servant! I didn't use the word "trash" as an offense, but as a specification of genre, I thought it was used in English, too!

It is very important to me that this point be heard now. I was not intending to abuse Mr.Tarantino, or any of his admirers.

The term "trash" (трэш) is widely used in Russian film criticism to denote a particular genre of movies (marked by postmodernist disintegrations of values treated with black gory humor), and it doesn't have any disrespectful connotations, the genre being acclaimed by many. It's only now - thanks to you - that I found out that it wasn't used in English. I am deeply sorry.

grrrr... I knew that not being a native speaker of English would some day let me down...

Really, guys. I do respect other people's tastes, and I do respect my friends. I thought you knew.

[Brice]

The russian use of trash is equivalent or at least similar to what we call b movies I believe...or at least a subgenre of such.

[Jean]

I am not sure. It refers to arthouse too (oops, now I don't know whether there is such a concept...)