With the upcoming Academy Awards, I suppose the best films of 2003 are on people's minds. I read many top-10 lists and was stunned to see Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Vol. 1 on quite a few. Frankly, it saddened me so many were bamboozled by such mediocrity. I'm sick of some tattooed-covered, baggy-pants-wearing kid telling me, "Dude, you just don't get Tarantino's humor." I argue Tarantino is one of the most overrated film directors of the last 10 years, or more accurately, the Joe Dante of the new millennium.
Tarantino's output has been shoddy over the past 12 years (he was a video store clerk in California before), with only four films as director and around five as writer. Of all of these mostly bad comic book fantasies, forced upon a desensitized public with agonizing machine-like precision, there is probably one good film in the bunch.
Tarantino films are defined as celebrations of pop culture, mimicking better films from past eras, with quirky dialogue straight from the blue glow of late-night television. They are reproductions of "B" movie situations with "A" movie budgets. Dine on cracker jacks while sipping champagne to get the proper idea.
A good film creates real people involved in dramatic situations, detailing the human experience while revealing emotional truths. A Tarantino film is about the hip experience, dealing with artificial truths, repackaging cliched characters (and forgotten actors) involved in contrived situations. Much like the diner where John Travolta and Uma Thurman dance in Pulp Fiction, a Tarantino film is a graffiti-covered Formica tabletop, with style over substance, lava lamps over candles, familiar over the new.
The Tarantino film by nature is offensively violent, to include men having ears cut off, heads blown away, stomachs cut open, eyes pulled out and arms cut off. Men are sodomized, tortured and murdered. There is almost always a moment when a character stands above a freshly killed body, discussing something trivial, completely unaware they have just ended someone's life.
His debut, 1992's Reservoir Dogs, has cool black suits, color-coded aliases and rivers of blood. It's an interesting film, with a lot of average actors, one good one (Harvey Keitel), and a story straight from the world of Mickey Spillane/John Woo. It has the emotional depth of a Quinn Martin production. But it's hip, it's always hip, with a soundtrack KTEL would froth over.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roland
I always heard that Reservoir Dogs was a total rip off of a Hong Flick. I even saw a VHS with Reservoir Dogs dialogue over a scene of the movie and it matched. Maybe it's not all true... I think he is a geek who got some girls now and wow does he think he is cool. And his dialogue... It can be good, but then it can sound like the Geek practicing what he would say to the cool kids while looking in the mirror on a saturday night with his doctor demento record playing in the background.
2 - Eric Olsen
While I agree with your overall assessment of Tarantino (haven't seen Kill Bill yet), I didn't like Jackie Brown as much as you did and I think Pulp Fiction is a classic. There are weak elements, but overall this is where his style comes together and works as a whole.
3 - Chris Kent
lol....Roland, I couldn't have said it better myself. The only problem is, I do the exact same thing!!
Eric,
I think Pulp Fiction displays some talent, but still a juvenile need to shock and surprise. The film is mean spirited in my opinion. There was an energy uncommon to many films, but the same energy was seen in Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill, the kind of energy akin to a kid playing with soldiers, only to drag his arm across the battlefield killing them all instantly. With Jackie Brown, he remained patient, and seemed to genuinely like the toys he was playing with.
4 - Dew
Since I fit all listed critieria:
"Dude, you really don't get Tarantino's humor."
Kill Bill was a lot to stomach but was beautiful all the same, different strokes for different folks, of course.
The only other Tarantino film I saw in completion was Dusk til Dawn and again, raw and beautiful. But as with all art, of course, you see what you want too.
5 - Eric Olsen
Dew, if you like QT's humor you will find Pulp fiction hilarious - check it out.
6 - Chris Kent
Dew,
I thought the first half of From Dusk Till' Dawn was interesting, but once again, Tarantino (and director Robert Rodriguez - a director who suffers from the same faults as Tarantino) ran their arms across the battlefield killing all the soldiers instantly. Rather than make a film about real people in dramatic situations, they lost interest and began blowing everyone away.
Eric,
Why must you corrupt Dew?! Tell him to go see Magnolia, it's a better film with a similar format.
7 - Eric Olsen
"her" - I find Pulp Fiction infinitely more interesting than Magnolia, which I would describe as the antithesis of PF: it has moments but doesn't hang together.
8 - Dew
Hi Chris, nice to meet you, a few thing on the agenda today:
First, Dew is all woman, don't worry about it, you didn't know. And yes I often refer to myself in the third person, it's a gift.
Secondly, Eric and I have similar corrupt tastes.
Thirdly, I tend to be a tad, different, I assume would be the word. I'm not interested in anything with Tom Cruise that isn't Mission Impossible.
I loved Dusk til Dawn for its quick wit in chaotic situations. I tend to be drawn to movies where the main characters have serious displacement disorders and find justification in their horrible acts. Kill Bill, Set it Off, Anything Else, American Pie, Dusk til Dawn, Natural Born Killers, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory just to name a few. I should probably raise the bar, but why?
:-)
Alrighty then Thanks for playing!
9 - Chris Kent
My apologies Dew.
Magnolia was a completely original film. I was engrossed throughout, and believe it to be a work of a completely original, if not brilliant talent raised on a bit more than bubble gum wrappers and poorly-dubbed Hong Kong trash epics. Magnolia covers family dynamics, death, dying, redemption, love, pain, rejection, companionship, anger - you name it. It was a beautiful, master work filled with an uncommon emotional depth seen in few films today.
Pulp Fiction also has multiple, interlocking characters, but I could not identify with any of them, and thought all of the situations were contrived and hollow. I was bored by Pulp Fiction, but inspired by Magnolia.......
10 - Chris Kent
Dew,
Tom Cruise had little to do with why Magnolia was good. In fact, he has a very small, supporting role. I also think all the characters in this film have supreme displacement disorders.....but they deal with real situations.
Willy Wonka is a classic, no doubt....
11 - Eric Olsen
I, on the other hand, found Magnolia stilted, melodramatic, and tedious. I could relate to most of the characters in Pulp Fiction at one point in time or another in the film, which was why the conflict felt so real even in highly stylized settings.
I often recognize more of myself in a cartoon than in an earnest straight depiction. I'M A FREAK.
12 - Craig Lyndall
As Kevin Smith said, PTA needs to meet a freaking editor or something. It was too long and tedious. That being said, I still liked the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman was really good.
Tom Cruise was a real minor part of that movie.
13 - Chris Kent
lol.....Ok Eric, I give up!!
14 - Dew
No problem Chris!
You raised a very valid point though you could not identify with any of the charcters and I think that is what plays a major role in anything we consider artful or worthy. How it applies to us? I have a very quick tongue and I love characters with the same, I enjoy an occasional curse word now and then, although I am attempting to break the habit. I tend to like 'tortured souls' so to speak because I choose to still see the human side in them. Simplistic issues tend to be redundant and boring to me, all of this is partially due to the fact that at 25 I have seen hella drama in my life.
My point is that Quetin, probably is just the geek who got girls but he told a story that millions have found something within to hold on to, that alone makes him talented.
15 - Chris Kent
Dew,
We have all been around the block a few times, so I can relate. The only truly tortured souls I have ever seen in a Quentin Tarantino film was that of bail bondsman Max Cherry in Jackie Brown, and Tarantino didn't even write that character. I argue all Tarantino characters are two dimensional. They are born of comic book mentality, belonging more so in an animated film rather than live action. They are cartoons, cliched, as unbelievable as Batman and Robin.
16 - Dew
What about Black Mumba/The Bride in Kill Bill?
It was interesting to me how the killers infected with maternal instincts somewhat softened their homicidal demeanor.
The way she stood their and attempted to rationalize with this child the cold blooded murder of her mother, if thats not tortured what is? What in her mind allowed her to rationalize that behavior as acceptable? It was because she was driven to gain the ends... Human qualities. Just like Max saw a better way of life and a new girlfriend, which was cute by the way.
17 - TDavid
I'm not a Tarantino fan either. Haven't liked much of his output to date.
18 - Chris Kent
I argue that the scene was interesting only because it was surreal and unbelievable, not because there were any dimesnions or emotional truths even remotely touched upon.
In reality, the child would have run, the child would have cried. Instead, the character stood over a freshly killed body, and tried to comfort the newly orphaned child. It was a contrived, unbelievable situation. Now there was a connection, since she had lost her own daughter, so essentially she was speaking to her dead daughter. It's a scene that has been filmed hundreds of times since the days of silent cinema.
There is nothing cute about Kill Bill. Finding Nemo is cute. Kill Bill had a few too many decapitations to be considered cute. It's a bad "B" movie forced down the unsuspecting throats of "A" moviegoers....
19 - Chris Kent
Thanks TDavid.
20 - Dew
The most interesting thing to me is that you are taking away too much from the child. I believe, for whateverr reason, there would have been a large number of children who would have just stood there. Even if for no other reason than shock.
Although I do appreciate your perspective.
21 - Chris Kent
I am not used to people being so polite in here Dew...:)
I say the scene would not have worked had the child NOT been standing there, ghost-like. Which was how the connection was made with her lost daughter. We are analyzing what is one of the few good scenes in the film. I think it was contrived, but we'll agree to disagree....
22 - Particleman
I disgaree with pretty much everything you say here, but what lies at the crux of the issue is your attitude towards film. This isn't Shakespeare, man, this is modern film. You're not going to find thespians and meaningful life discussions every where you turn.
"A good film creates real people involved in dramatic situations, detailing the human experience while revealing emotional truths."
You sound like a disgruntled film professor.
Also, as one will find in music, art involves ripping off other artists. Every band has in some way or another ripped off a bunch of other bands.
"Dine on cracker jacks while sipping champagne to get the proper idea."
And now you sound like an elitist.
23 - Chris Kent
Particleman,
"Dine on cracker jacks while sipping champagne......"
If there's a single line that defines Tarantino more, I haven't heard one yet.
Shakespeare and modern film are both forms of entertainment for the masses - William in his day, Tarantino in ours. Why not expect a high quality of drama in the entertainment we consume? Why not insist on emotional truth rather than one comic book film after another?
24 - Al Barger
Comic books cannot contain emotional truth?
25 - Chris Kent
Good point Al. I have friends with huge rooms filled with comics since childhood, so I will not touch that argument.
I suppose my frustration with Tarantino is that it is abundantly clear the man is loaded with talent. So I suppose it frustrates me that he does not aim higher. He has the talent to do it. Why waste it on films like Kill Bill? For example Spike Lee. All of his films aim high. Even with his bad films (what few there are), one can't help but respect their intentions.
At this moment in Tarantino's career, he followed his best film with his worst film.
What inspires a great filmmaker? The written word? A great book? Their own life's experience? Or other movies? Filmmakers whose only inspiration is other films, I argue, are emotionally bankrupt.