Tarantino Movies, Ranked!

[Reynard]

I think Tarantino films often have great moments but are not often great movies. The opening sequence of Inglorious Bastards, for example, is superb writing and film making. The rest is okay, I guess.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think Tarantino films often have great moments but are not often great movies. The opening sequence of Inglorious Bastards, for example, is superb writing and film making. The rest is okay, I guess.

Yeeeeah…I can’t deny the guy is a really smart filmmaker but so much of his work are really homages to grindhouse or very specific parts of pop culture that picking out what is truly his work that the audience is connecting with gets unclear to me. Like in Inglorious Basterds, there’s a tense scene in the theater with this awesome score and I suddenly realize “oh wait, this is exact same scene and music from another war movie - Kelly’s Heroes.” So he literally lifted the same tension and the same music for his own war movie. He does this naughty word A LOT.

 

[Deset Gled]

So he literally lifted the same tension and the same music for his own war movie. He does this naughty word A LOT.

To be fair, cinema does this a lot. Have you seen the comparisons of the Star Wars trench run to The Dam Busters? Or the opening of Lion King to Kimba the White Lion? The lines between trope, homage, and stealing are so thin in Hollywood they're practically nonexistent.

Regardless of how you view this, I think at the very least Tarantino gets credit for doing it well.

 

[TiQuinn]

To be fair, cinema does this a lot. Have you seen the comparisons of the Star Wars trench run to The Dam Busters? Or the opening of Lion King to Kimba the White Lion? The lines between trope, homage, and stealing are so thin in Hollywood they're practically nonexistent.

Regardless of how you view this, I think at the very least Tarantino gets credit for doing it well.

He does it very well, and he does it from unexpected movies, so it's clearly a labor of love as well as deep knowledge of cinema, but for me, he does it so often, it can be a little distracting. Let's put it this way: I wouldn't want to binge his movies one after the other.

 

[Ryujin]

I used to really like his stuff. I just can't watch it anymore, after the guitar incident.

 

[MGibster]

executed scenes in each that get confused for being a worthwhile viewing.

He’s good at building tension but can’t make a move that’s worth viewing? That makes no sense.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Problem is his movies are crap with 1-2 expertly executed scenes in each that get confused for being a worthwhile viewing.

.... okay. This cannot be left unremarked upon.

There's a story I use. I was eating at a Japanese restaurant on a date; at another table was a boisterous group of younger individuals. At one point, one of the individuals who was loudly trying to impress the rest of the table about his knowledge of Japanese cuisine (which seemed to go a little further than the California roll, but not as far as sashimi or udon) started talking about how much he loved sushi and Japanese food, and how much better it was than the terribly pretentious food at other places.

At that point, he said, "What have the French ever done for world cuisine, anyway?" Not with irony, either.

That's become kind of an joke with people I know moving forward- the idea that people get so enthusiastic about something that they don't realize the things they still don't know.

I think that food (like most tastes) has both a subjective and an objective component, but we tend to confuse the two things. For example, a dish can be made well or poorly, the ingredients can be fresh or off, the price is what it is and so on.

It's the same with film. A person can like, or dislike, Wes Anderson, or P.T. Anderson, or Kubrick, or Tarantino. Heck, a person can watch Citizen Kane and say, "Eh, I don't get the fuss. What has Orson Welles ever done for cinema, anyway?"

And that's fine! But I have to draw the line when people say that they aren't good filmmakers. They may not be to your taste, but there is a reason that they are so important. Tarantino's movies are amazing in many ways, and I could write (OH I CAN WRITE!) about the dialogue, the music, the cinematography, the playful homage, the deeper themes, and the postmodern use of low and high culture. I can wax eloquently about how some of it is so smart, and some of it is so dumb that it actually circles back to being smart.

But in the end, if it's not for you, it's not for you. That doesn't mean that it's not important, and that Tarantino is not one of the best and most important directors of our lifetime.

 

[R_J_K75]

"Reach into the bag and pull out my wallet."
"How do I know which wallet is yours."
"It's the one that says morally wrong birthing person engaged in intercourse on it."

Or you could take a page out of the "Die Hard" TV overdubs, "You know the one that says bad Mr. Falcon!!"

To be fair, cinema does this a lot. Have you seen the comparisons of the Star Wars trench run to The Dam Busters?

Yes, I have, I've seen the whole movie when I was younger. The "Dam Busters" is the movie Pink is watching in Pink Floyds the Wall movie.

 

[Reynard]

He’s good at building tension but can’t make a move that’s worth viewing? That makes no sense.

A good film has to be more than the sum of its parts. His often aren't. M. Night Shamalan has the same problem.

 

[payn]

.... okay. This cannot be left unremarked upon.

There's a story I use. I was eating at a Japanese restaurant on a date; at another table was a boisterous group of younger individuals. At one point, one of the individuals who was loudly trying to impress the rest of the table about his knowledge of Japanese cuisine (which seemed to go a little further than the California roll, but not as far as sashimi or udon) started talking about how much he loved sushi and Japanese food, and how much better it was than the terribly pretentious food at other places.

At that point, he said, "What have the French ever done for world cuisine, anyway?" Not with irony, either.

That's become kind of an joke with people I know moving forward- the idea that people get so enthusiastic about something that they don't realize the things they still don't know.

I think that food (like most tastes) has both a subjective and an objective component, but we tend to confuse the two things. For example, a dish can be made well or poorly, the ingredients can be fresh or off, the price is what it is and so on.

It's the same with film. A person can like, or dislike, Wes Anderson, or P.T. Anderson, or Kubrick, or Tarantino. Heck, a person can watch Citizen Kane and say, "Eh, I don't get the fuss. What has Orson Welles ever done for cinema, anyway?"

And that's fine! But I have to draw the line when people say that they aren't good filmmakers. They may not be to your taste, but there is a reason that they are so important. Tarantino's movies are amazing in many ways, and I could write (OH I CAN WRITE!) about the dialogue, the music, the cinematography, the playful homage, the deeper themes, and the postmodern use of low and high culture. I can wax eloquently about how some of it is so smart, and some of it is so dumb that it actually circles back to being smart.

But in the end, if it's not for you, it's not for you. That doesn't mean that it's not important, and that Tarantino is not one of the best and most important directors of our lifetime.

Funny thing about QT, nobody ever talks about his work individually to defend it. Its always analogies about French food or associating but never comparing to the best directors.