Tarantino Movies, Ranked!

[Krachek]

The only I rewatch from time to time is Kill Bill 1 & 2.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Um .... I assume we hang out in different circles?

I honestly don't know what to say to this. I've never met a serious cinephile who doesn't appreciate Tarantino. I think that if you look around, you'll find a lot of very serious criticism that discussed all the reasons that he is considered such a great director, and will explain why people look forward to each of his movies.

Not sure what to say to this? If you look at the greatest directors, I don't know that he's Kurosawa. Or Renoir. Or Kubrick. Or Tarkovsky. Or Godard. Or Fellini. But he's in the conversation, and certainly among the best American directors.

 

[R_J_K75]

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

From the few movies from both of them I've seen I think that both of them continue to do the same thing over and over, and don't venture out of their comfort zones. At least if they did, I didn't notice. When you watch one of their movies, I think it's safe to say that generally speaking you know what you're going to get, which can be said for a lot of film makers. I guess if they're making money, they're doing something right. I mean AC/DC isn't going to switch gears after 50 years make a thrash record anytime soon. so if the formula works...

 

[payn]

Um .... I assume we hang out in different circles?

I honestly don't know what to say to this. I've never met a serious cinephile who doesn't appreciate Tarantino. I think that if you look around, you'll find a lot of very serious criticism that discussed all the reasons that he is considered such a great director, and will explain why people look forward to each of his movies.

Not sure what to say to this? If you look at the greatest directors, I don't know that he's Kurosawa. Or Renoir. Or Kubrick. Or Tarkovsky. Or Godard. Or Fellini. But he's in the conversation, and certainly among the best American directors.

More everybody thinks so but nothing specific. Look, I am not saying QT is the worst or even a bad director. I know he has a deep love for cinema and it shows. I appreciate that. I even pointed out he is one of the absolute best when it comes to tension and executing a scene to perfection. He just happens to also be seemingly incapable of making a good complete film.

 

[Reynard]

From the few movies from both of them I've seen I think that both of them continue to do the same thing over and over, and don't venture out of their comfort zones. At least if they did, I didn't notice. When you watch one of their movies, I think it's safe to say that generally speaking you know what you're going to get, which can be said for a lot of film makers. I guess if they're making money, they're doing something right. I mean AC/DC isn't going to switch gears after 50 years make a thrash record anytime soon. so if the formula works...

I think there is a difference between style and formula, and both filmmakers have a style but their individual filsm can diverge quite a lot in formula from one another.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

More everybody thinks so but nothing specific. Look, I am not saying QT is the worst or even a bad director. I know he has a deep love for cinema and it shows. I appreciate that. I even pointed out he is one of the absolute best when it comes to tension and executing a scene to perfection. He just happens to also be seemingly incapable of making a good complete film.

With the exception of Kill Bill (split into two volumes), I am not sure that I understand this. I think of all of his films as complete films; in fact, one of the distinguishing marks of a Tarantino film is that it often loops on itself, so that there are multiple "Chekov's Guns" and things that are shown in the beginning become important at the end.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think there is a difference between style and formula, and both filmmakers have a style but their individual filsm can diverge quite a lot in formula from one another.

I hadn't considered that but then again, I can only go on the films by both of them that I've seen which in the grand scheme of their filmographies isn't that much

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

.....I can't believe that this is, uh ..... happening.

As I have written, it's okay if Tarantino isn't your bag. But c'mon. M. Night? That's the comparator?

Yeah, Kubrick is all right, I guess, but he has the same problem as Uwe Boll.

 

[Reynard]

As I have written, it's okay if Tarantino isn't your bag. But c'mon. M. Night? That's the comparator?

Yeah, Kubrick is all right, I guess, but he has the same problem as Uwe Boll.

I did not say they were equivalent, I said they both had the same flaw. that's not the same thing.

 

[ART!]

Jackie Brown

That's all. Love this movie.

Not a fan otherwise. Oviously his stuff is well-wriiten and well-directed, and his casts are impeccable, but overall his approach feels incredibly indulgent to me. I don't love his work, and don't hate it - I've just learned his stuff's not for me.