Ryan’s quote is really all that needs to be said about the state of QT as an allegedly talented filmmaker: “…unencumbered by any semblance of human compassion, logic and emotion…”
When he finally makes a movie where you actually feel pathos, I may pay attention.
Y’all remember Bergman vs. “Bergman” by Kent Jones. I think this upcoming season I’ll either need Spielberg vs. “Spielberg” or Tarantino vs. “Tarantino”. It’s gonna get ugly.
I actually agree that Tarantino should get an editor, this person he’s hiring now must be a yes-man. DJANGO does feel overlong on repeated viewings in ways that let’s say WOLF OF WALL STREET (a longer film) does not. I’m confident HATEFUL will be a tighter/smaller/more focused/genre defined venture than his last two. For one the budget per Wikipedia appears to be less than half that of DJANGO’s.
“I wish Tarantino would make a straight-up stone-cold dead serious horror movie.”
I think we’re on the same track here. I would like to see what he can do with either a comedy or drama with two or three complex characters, no eccentric cameos, and a theme that goes deeper than the surface (slavery is bad, Nazis must die, simple revenge stuff).
He’s a good writer loaded with good ideas, but he has no internal editor. Instead of creating a couple of complex characters with internal conflicts, he reverts to adding characters, usually quirky and often one-note, to portray a certain clever idea related to his main theme. Quirky and complex are not the same thing. This is what makes his films unique and fun in parts, but extremely episodic. Not that there’s anything wrong with doing that, but he repeats that style, film after film.
Tarantino has written and directed some of my favourite scenes of all time, but his films on the whole are less than the sum of their parts. Compare the weight of his films with those of the Coens or PT Anderson, both of whom like their off-the-wall characters, too. They manage to take their material to the next level, beyond the draft stage. When QT manages to do this, too, we’ll have something.
So I’m not really a Tarantino basher; I’m not hating, just waiting.
I like Tarantino over O Russell any day. At least Tarantino is trying to do something creative. He has some strengths—he really can build a tense scene. But again, he is sometimes brilliant and other times a rehash.
Waltz in IB was brilliant. Waltz in DU was Waltz in IB with a protagonist hat on. He was brilliant, but just a redo with a weaker character. (Landa will always be one of the best villains on screen.) And while talking about Django, I have always wondered why Schultz just didn’t go up to Candie and say, “Hello, I hear you have a slave that speaks fluent German. I am German, and I would love to have someone to converse in my native tongue.” It would have made the movie about 20 minutes long, but it is a major hole that bothered me throughout the film.
The other major issue I had with the film is the comedic aspects to the subject matter. I just couldn’t get into humor in the context of slavery.
I do have some hope for The Hateful Eight, though. I haven’t seen the leaked script, but from what I’ve heard it seems like a more original move…
I have high hopes for The Hateful Eight as well. Even if I’m not wild about Tarantino’s last two movies, I realize that mine is a minority opinion. And anyway, I really really like his first 3 films so the good already outweigh the bad.
I read part of the Hateful screenplay when it was first leaked, but stopped after the first 50 pages, or thereabouts, because I could tell it was a step up and didn’t want to ruin the whole movie for myself.
It seemed to me more genuinely a classic homage to the genre instead of some smirking riff. I’m optimistic!
Ahaaaa, I thought that may have been what you meant, Ryan, but I wasn’t sure.
I agree that Django was a disappointing move after Basterds – in my mind, it’s his least creative film, and also (therefore?) his worst. I do have some hope for The Hateful Eight, though. I haven’t seen the leaked script, but from what I’ve heard it seems like a more original move coming off of Django, repeated genre template notwithstanding. When I hear the plot and set-up, it almost sounds like one of those small-ensemble chamber pieces, something I can’t usually imagine Tarantino going for. Like obviously it’s homage to Stagecoach to some degree (or at least I think so), but I’m sort of curious to see what he does with it. Plus, it’s got a bangin’ cast. I guess we’ll see what happens.
(Thanks for your question, UBourgeois. You gave me a good reason to take another swing at explaining how I feel.)
What I’ve learned from you guys, people will respect you if you’re honest, and stick to what you believe in.
I may be a film masochist, but I honestly do really really like Quentin Tarantino movies. I know what to expect from them, and I like that. I like his crewd and lewd sense of humor when it comes to relationships and violence. He’s almost like a drug I need to get a fix on every once in a while.
I wish Tarantino would make a straight-up stone-cold dead serious horror movie.
I’m really tired of this string of Revisionist American History silliness that feels to me like expensive gory SNL skits that run on too long.
Sasha, Craig and I have talked about this on the podcasts. Though nobody is as irritated as I am by recent Tarantino movies, we do agree that he needs the wise advice of a first-class editor. We now see how shaggy and raggedy Django looks since Sally Menke was found dead in 2014.
Is the implication here that Tarantino checked out after Pulp Fiction?
Not at all. I like Pulp Fiction. I like Jackie Brown. I even admire some parts of Kill Bill 1 & 2.
But none of those was a financial jackpot for Tarantino. He was given a taste of Oscar clout with Pulp Fiction but he didn’t capitalize on that clout in any way that replicated Pulp Fiction’s success until he hit upon his new formula.
That formula: Anachronistic styles and tone-deaf jokester dialogue grafted onto “historical” fantasies of revenge and retribution.
sure, Pulp Fiction made a ton of money — for Harvey Weinstein. But Taratino didn’t get a fair share of that enormous wealth until Inglourious Basterds. Django was a worse movie, half as good and made twice as much.
So what’s the incentive to make another Jackie Brown? Make another great intelligent movie that earns less than $40 million? Or stick to the campy historical splatterfest formula and earn $400 million? The answer is evident, isn’t it?
Early Tarantino are some of my favorite films of the past 20 years. Recent Tarantino films are some of my least favorite films of the past 5 years (from a major director).
A brilliant movie like Jackie Brown: 1 Oscar nomination
Money-making template movies like Basterds and Django? 13 Oscar nominations
This is what I mean when I say the Oscars can encourage the worst tendencies in filmmakers. We’ve all seen what happens when a director tries to be Oscar friendly. It’s often a pathetic spectacle, right?
The more radically fascinating Tarantino chooses to be, the more his movies barely break even. The more predictably formulaic Tarantino chooses to be, the wealthier he gets.
hey, if that’s what he wants to do, fine with me. But I’m bored and repelled by what I (personally) see as facile vulgarity, these hoot-and-holler historical drag shows.
once they found the knack for tapping into mass audiences and found a lucky oscar rut, they decided to rest on their laurels, cash in, do basic variations of their comfy schtick, sit back in their repetitive rut and watch the money and industry appreciation roll in for their willingness to churn out product guaranteed to make the studios happy.
Is the implication here that Tarantino checked out after Pulp Fiction? Like, yes, Django was hardly more than Basterds transplanted to the West, but it’s a hard sell to claim that Basterds is just a cheap come-off of Pulp Fiction, given their broad formal and thematic differences, let alone Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, and that wonderful little experiment, Death Proof. Even as someone who thinks Tarantino is a seriously overpraised filmmaker (and pretty gross as a person usually), I do think the idea that he’s just made the same film his whole career falls flat, given how freely he usually jumps between genre and format, even as he maintains his signature style.
Rob.
You thought of Basterds while watching Django? Interesting. Perhaps if Waltz hadn’t been cast in the heroic role, it may not have bothered you so much. But I can’t imagine anyone else in that role but CW.
Having said that, I found both films equally engrossing on their own terms. The only thing I felt that was similar was the suspense factor . . . which is key to QT’s films and the very justified reason why I stated the comparison to Hitchcock earlier. I didn’t realize there were so many QT bashers out there. I really enjoy his films a lot. Vive la difference.
“directors who lend their name to such schlock as “Hot Tub Time Machine III”
If Tarantino makes that, I will see it for sure. Eight guys named for soap (Mr Ivory, Mr Dial, etc) and 2 or 3 killer chicks (one with a cast or prosthetic of some kind) all going after the elusive rubber ducky. Love it!
i can see that. you mean like if zombie hitchcock crawled out of his fetid grave and mindlessly chased boxoffice bucks unencumbered by any semblance of human compassion, logic and emotion?
🙂
in truth, I truly see Tarantino choosing to ride the same boat O. Russell has boarded. at one time they were both exciting, imaginative and innovative filmmakers. but that was not the path to millionaire money or oscar glory. once they found the knack for tapping into mass audiences and found a lucky oscar rut, they decided to rest on their laurels, cash in, do basic variations of their comfy schtick, sit back in their repetitive rut and watch the money and industry appreciation roll in for their willingness to churn out product guaranteed to make the studios happy. it’s happened to dozens, hundreds of talented directors over many decades. it’s one of the very worst things the oscars do to filmmakers, and it’s been baked into the whole oscar system ever since louis b mayer invented it: reward moviemakers for making mountains of money and give them a lifestyle cushy enough to help them accept the way hollywood needs to corral their talents.
While Tarantino does have some suspenseful moments in his films, I would hardly call him a modern Hitchcock. In my opinion, his direction is the same just about every time. I know there’s going to be extremely witty yet somewhat anachronistic dialogue which must include several monologues, a orgiastic scene of violence, and an old school soundtrack. Sometimes this works—Basterds—and sometimes its pointless—Django. The latter felt like a rehash of the former just with a different setting. Even Waltz’s character is essentially the same with the major exception of going from antagonist to protagonist. I could not get Basterds out of my head while watching Django. That’s the problem with his direction. I never feel that when I am watching North by Northwest that I am continually thinking of any of The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo, or the Wrong Man.
I don’t think Tarantino has “slipped into a pattern” at all. I think that it is simply his style of directing which helps to put his stamp on every film he’s done. That’s okay with me. It’s rather incredible, really, when you consider the different material he’s used (for Inglourious Basterds / Django Unchained / Pulp Fiction / Kill Bill / Reservoir Dogs) . . . these movies are all gloriously different (time, locale, actors / approach to the story, albeit similar themes about good and evil explored in all his movies). He’s a master of suspense. He’s a modern-day Hitchcock. The guys who really fall into the pattern are the numerous directors who lend their name to such schlock as “Hot Tub Time Machine III” (not even sure it’s been made yet . . . but I bet they’re in a Hollywood board room this very minute discussing development of this kind of crap cinema.)
I’m really looking forward to QT’s new movie . I just think the guy consistently makes good movies. Bloody? yes. Suspenseful? always. Inspired directing? usually surprises me with the risks he takes. And just an aside . . . and for what it’s worth . . . . and I know I’m in the minority . . . but I also happen to feel personally that the guy is smart, funny, stylish and very sexy.
Tarantino has slipped into a pattern, Al, so reviews and comments I see here from certain people (you know who you are 🙂 ) would be the only indicator to me that he’s done something truly original, at this point.
Steve, I’m curious what will be the possible circumstances that would make you go to see this.
What if it gets nominated for Best Picture?
What if it gets rave reviews?
What if your friends ask you to go see it?
🙂
Eight men in a pissing contest. Instead of being named with colours, it’s in period drag. Django meet Reservoir Dogs, probably with a little Basterd/Pulp quippery and some B-movie soundtrack sampling.
Been there, Quentin. I could be wrong, and will admit it if I am, but I really think I’ve seen this already.
Exactly Jamdentel!! Oh well, it still gets me excited, and it’s already #1 on my must-see for 2015. I know there was a few problems with Django Unchained, but I loved that one, and this seems like it could be similar, so that makes me wonder all the more. I just wonder if there will be any tie-ins to the Django Unchained mythology.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
I wish Tarantino would make a straight-up stone-cold dead serious horror movie.
That would be a very interesting move for him. I hope he does it someday.
Very excited for this! Django Unchained is easily Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction so I’m ready for another great movie from him.
Ryan’s quote is really all that needs to be said about the state of QT as an allegedly talented filmmaker: “…unencumbered by any semblance of human compassion, logic and emotion…”
When he finally makes a movie where you actually feel pathos, I may pay attention.
Bergman vs “Bergman”
Spielberg vs “Spielberg”
Tarantino vs “Tarantino”
Batman vs “Superman”
Y’all remember Bergman vs. “Bergman” by Kent Jones. I think this upcoming season I’ll either need Spielberg vs. “Spielberg” or Tarantino vs. “Tarantino”. It’s gonna get ugly.
I actually agree that Tarantino should get an editor, this person he’s hiring now must be a yes-man. DJANGO does feel overlong on repeated viewings in ways that let’s say WOLF OF WALL STREET (a longer film) does not. I’m confident HATEFUL will be a tighter/smaller/more focused/genre defined venture than his last two. For one the budget per Wikipedia appears to be less than half that of DJANGO’s.
I must say that I love all his films.
The most encouraging sign of all: two people who seem to be sick to death of the recent Tarantino rut are Harvey Weinstein and Tarantino himself.
“I wish Tarantino would make a straight-up stone-cold dead serious horror movie.”
I think we’re on the same track here. I would like to see what he can do with either a comedy or drama with two or three complex characters, no eccentric cameos, and a theme that goes deeper than the surface (slavery is bad, Nazis must die, simple revenge stuff).
He’s a good writer loaded with good ideas, but he has no internal editor. Instead of creating a couple of complex characters with internal conflicts, he reverts to adding characters, usually quirky and often one-note, to portray a certain clever idea related to his main theme. Quirky and complex are not the same thing. This is what makes his films unique and fun in parts, but extremely episodic. Not that there’s anything wrong with doing that, but he repeats that style, film after film.
Tarantino has written and directed some of my favourite scenes of all time, but his films on the whole are less than the sum of their parts. Compare the weight of his films with those of the Coens or PT Anderson, both of whom like their off-the-wall characters, too. They manage to take their material to the next level, beyond the draft stage. When QT manages to do this, too, we’ll have something.
So I’m not really a Tarantino basher; I’m not hating, just waiting.
I like Tarantino over O Russell any day. At least Tarantino is trying to do something creative. He has some strengths—he really can build a tense scene. But again, he is sometimes brilliant and other times a rehash.
Waltz in IB was brilliant. Waltz in DU was Waltz in IB with a protagonist hat on. He was brilliant, but just a redo with a weaker character. (Landa will always be one of the best villains on screen.) And while talking about Django, I have always wondered why Schultz just didn’t go up to Candie and say, “Hello, I hear you have a slave that speaks fluent German. I am German, and I would love to have someone to converse in my native tongue.” It would have made the movie about 20 minutes long, but it is a major hole that bothered me throughout the film.
The other major issue I had with the film is the comedic aspects to the subject matter. I just couldn’t get into humor in the context of slavery.
I do have some hope for The Hateful Eight, though. I haven’t seen the leaked script, but from what I’ve heard it seems like a more original move…
I have high hopes for The Hateful Eight as well. Even if I’m not wild about Tarantino’s last two movies, I realize that mine is a minority opinion. And anyway, I really really like his first 3 films so the good already outweigh the bad.
I read part of the Hateful screenplay when it was first leaked, but stopped after the first 50 pages, or thereabouts, because I could tell it was a step up and didn’t want to ruin the whole movie for myself.
It seemed to me more genuinely a classic homage to the genre instead of some smirking riff. I’m optimistic!
Ahaaaa, I thought that may have been what you meant, Ryan, but I wasn’t sure.
I agree that Django was a disappointing move after Basterds – in my mind, it’s his least creative film, and also (therefore?) his worst. I do have some hope for The Hateful Eight, though. I haven’t seen the leaked script, but from what I’ve heard it seems like a more original move coming off of Django, repeated genre template notwithstanding. When I hear the plot and set-up, it almost sounds like one of those small-ensemble chamber pieces, something I can’t usually imagine Tarantino going for. Like obviously it’s homage to Stagecoach to some degree (or at least I think so), but I’m sort of curious to see what he does with it. Plus, it’s got a bangin’ cast. I guess we’ll see what happens.
(Thanks for your question, UBourgeois. You gave me a good reason to take another swing at explaining how I feel.)
What I’ve learned from you guys, people will respect you if you’re honest, and stick to what you believe in.
I may be a film masochist, but I honestly do really really like Quentin Tarantino movies. I know what to expect from them, and I like that. I like his crewd and lewd sense of humor when it comes to relationships and violence. He’s almost like a drug I need to get a fix on every once in a while.
I wish Tarantino would make a straight-up stone-cold dead serious horror movie.
I’m really tired of this string of Revisionist American History silliness that feels to me like expensive gory SNL skits that run on too long.
Sasha, Craig and I have talked about this on the podcasts. Though nobody is as irritated as I am by recent Tarantino movies, we do agree that he needs the wise advice of a first-class editor. We now see how shaggy and raggedy Django looks since Sally Menke was found dead in 2014.
Is the implication here that Tarantino checked out after Pulp Fiction?
Not at all. I like Pulp Fiction. I like Jackie Brown. I even admire some parts of Kill Bill 1 & 2.
But none of those was a financial jackpot for Tarantino. He was given a taste of Oscar clout with Pulp Fiction but he didn’t capitalize on that clout in any way that replicated Pulp Fiction’s success until he hit upon his new formula.
That formula: Anachronistic styles and tone-deaf jokester dialogue grafted onto “historical” fantasies of revenge and retribution.
sure, Pulp Fiction made a ton of money — for Harvey Weinstein. But Taratino didn’t get a fair share of that enormous wealth until Inglourious Basterds. Django was a worse movie, half as good and made twice as much.
So what’s the incentive to make another Jackie Brown? Make another great intelligent movie that earns less than $40 million? Or stick to the campy historical splatterfest formula and earn $400 million? The answer is evident, isn’t it?
Early Tarantino are some of my favorite films of the past 20 years. Recent Tarantino films are some of my least favorite films of the past 5 years (from a major director).
A brilliant movie like Jackie Brown: 1 Oscar nomination
Money-making template movies like Basterds and Django? 13 Oscar nominations
This is what I mean when I say the Oscars can encourage the worst tendencies in filmmakers. We’ve all seen what happens when a director tries to be Oscar friendly. It’s often a pathetic spectacle, right?
The more radically fascinating Tarantino chooses to be, the more his movies barely break even. The more predictably formulaic Tarantino chooses to be, the wealthier he gets.
hey, if that’s what he wants to do, fine with me. But I’m bored and repelled by what I (personally) see as facile vulgarity, these hoot-and-holler historical drag shows.
once they found the knack for tapping into mass audiences and found a lucky oscar rut, they decided to rest on their laurels, cash in, do basic variations of their comfy schtick, sit back in their repetitive rut and watch the money and industry appreciation roll in for their willingness to churn out product guaranteed to make the studios happy.
Is the implication here that Tarantino checked out after Pulp Fiction? Like, yes, Django was hardly more than Basterds transplanted to the West, but it’s a hard sell to claim that Basterds is just a cheap come-off of Pulp Fiction, given their broad formal and thematic differences, let alone Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, and that wonderful little experiment, Death Proof. Even as someone who thinks Tarantino is a seriously overpraised filmmaker (and pretty gross as a person usually), I do think the idea that he’s just made the same film his whole career falls flat, given how freely he usually jumps between genre and format, even as he maintains his signature style.
Vive la difference.
Absolutely. Cheers.
Rob.
You thought of Basterds while watching Django? Interesting. Perhaps if Waltz hadn’t been cast in the heroic role, it may not have bothered you so much. But I can’t imagine anyone else in that role but CW.
Having said that, I found both films equally engrossing on their own terms. The only thing I felt that was similar was the suspense factor . . . which is key to QT’s films and the very justified reason why I stated the comparison to Hitchcock earlier. I didn’t realize there were so many QT bashers out there. I really enjoy his films a lot. Vive la difference.
“directors who lend their name to such schlock as “Hot Tub Time Machine III”
If Tarantino makes that, I will see it for sure. Eight guys named for soap (Mr Ivory, Mr Dial, etc) and 2 or 3 killer chicks (one with a cast or prosthetic of some kind) all going after the elusive rubber ducky. Love it!
He’s a modern-day Hitchcock.
i can see that. you mean like if zombie hitchcock crawled out of his fetid grave and mindlessly chased boxoffice bucks unencumbered by any semblance of human compassion, logic and emotion?
🙂
in truth, I truly see Tarantino choosing to ride the same boat O. Russell has boarded. at one time they were both exciting, imaginative and innovative filmmakers. but that was not the path to millionaire money or oscar glory. once they found the knack for tapping into mass audiences and found a lucky oscar rut, they decided to rest on their laurels, cash in, do basic variations of their comfy schtick, sit back in their repetitive rut and watch the money and industry appreciation roll in for their willingness to churn out product guaranteed to make the studios happy. it’s happened to dozens, hundreds of talented directors over many decades. it’s one of the very worst things the oscars do to filmmakers, and it’s been baked into the whole oscar system ever since louis b mayer invented it: reward moviemakers for making mountains of money and give them a lifestyle cushy enough to help them accept the way hollywood needs to corral their talents.
He’s a modern-day Hitchcock.
LOLOLOLOLOL
While Tarantino does have some suspenseful moments in his films, I would hardly call him a modern Hitchcock. In my opinion, his direction is the same just about every time. I know there’s going to be extremely witty yet somewhat anachronistic dialogue which must include several monologues, a orgiastic scene of violence, and an old school soundtrack. Sometimes this works—Basterds—and sometimes its pointless—Django. The latter felt like a rehash of the former just with a different setting. Even Waltz’s character is essentially the same with the major exception of going from antagonist to protagonist. I could not get Basterds out of my head while watching Django. That’s the problem with his direction. I never feel that when I am watching North by Northwest that I am continually thinking of any of The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo, or the Wrong Man.
I don’t think Tarantino has “slipped into a pattern” at all. I think that it is simply his style of directing which helps to put his stamp on every film he’s done. That’s okay with me. It’s rather incredible, really, when you consider the different material he’s used (for Inglourious Basterds / Django Unchained / Pulp Fiction / Kill Bill / Reservoir Dogs) . . . these movies are all gloriously different (time, locale, actors / approach to the story, albeit similar themes about good and evil explored in all his movies). He’s a master of suspense. He’s a modern-day Hitchcock. The guys who really fall into the pattern are the numerous directors who lend their name to such schlock as “Hot Tub Time Machine III” (not even sure it’s been made yet . . . but I bet they’re in a Hollywood board room this very minute discussing development of this kind of crap cinema.)
I’m really looking forward to QT’s new movie . I just think the guy consistently makes good movies. Bloody? yes. Suspenseful? always. Inspired directing? usually surprises me with the risks he takes. And just an aside . . . and for what it’s worth . . . . and I know I’m in the minority . . . but I also happen to feel personally that the guy is smart, funny, stylish and very sexy.
Steve, Rob, I’ve been in denial since after Kill Bill. I guess I just go for it regardless. I’m a film masochist.
“Tarantino has slipped into a pattern”
Yup. Sometimes that pattern works (Basterds) and sometimes it doesn’t (Django). Most of the time it feels like the same film.
Tarantino has slipped into a pattern, Al, so reviews and comments I see here from certain people (you know who you are 🙂 ) would be the only indicator to me that he’s done something truly original, at this point.
“Nominated for Best Picture”? (um, no)
Steve, I’m curious what will be the possible circumstances that would make you go to see this.
What if it gets nominated for Best Picture?
What if it gets rave reviews?
What if your friends ask you to go see it?
🙂
Eight men in a pissing contest. Instead of being named with colours, it’s in period drag. Django meet Reservoir Dogs, probably with a little Basterd/Pulp quippery and some B-movie soundtrack sampling.
Been there, Quentin. I could be wrong, and will admit it if I am, but I really think I’ve seen this already.
Embed updated. This new one should play trouble-free.
It’s private, apparently.
Says I have to sign in?
Exactly Jamdentel!! Oh well, it still gets me excited, and it’s already #1 on my must-see for 2015. I know there was a few problems with Django Unchained, but I loved that one, and this seems like it could be similar, so that makes me wonder all the more. I just wonder if there will be any tie-ins to the Django Unchained mythology.
You got my hopes up. This is just the old teaser we got around Christmas. Come on, Quentin, give us some actual footage!