Tarantino Movies, Ranked!

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

Well, no.

If you want to know the actual issue with M. Night, it's this.

He made it big with the "twist" (Sixth Sense). Unfortunately, a twist is not something that you can bank on as a director, and it's also not something visual (a directing style).

Since then, he has repeatedly tried to recapture that twist magic, with mostly unfortunate returns. You don't see, e.g., David Fincher say, "Fight Club had a twist. I'm just doing twists from now on!"

But the issue with him is that while he is a serviceable director (it isn't easy to direct films!) he isn't actually particularly good. Even his biggest breakout hit, Sixth Sense, isn't that great in terms of direction; if you watch it again, you will see that. He does have a good eye for some shots, but there's nothing about his films that makes you credit the direction and cinematography; in addition, there are particular choices made that are often baffling.

It's a bizarre comparison.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Fair.

If there is a criticism of Tarantino that I think is accurate, it's definitely indulgent. Whether that makes for better or worse films is an open question, but it certainly means that there are more feet than necessary.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

I don’t think that’s true at all - I remember people talking at great length about the editing of Pulp Fiction and how the particular timeline he uses allows the entire story to work. I remember talking about how much he grew as a director with Jackie Brown in allowing the movie to be about these characters rather than the violence. I still think it’s one of the best movies based on Elmore Leonard’s work (besides Out of Sight) that I’ve seen. A lot of my criticism of QT comes from his later work not his earlier stuff and frankly, that tracks with a lot of famous directors.

 

[payn]

I don’t think that’s true at all - I remember people talking at great length about the editing of Pulp Fiction and how the particular timeline he uses allows the entire story to work. I remember talking about how much he grew as a director with Jackie Brown in allowing the movie to be about these characters rather than the violence. I still think it’s one of the best movies based on Elmore Leonard’s work (besides Out of Sight) that I’ve seen. A lot of my criticism of QT comes from his later work not his earlier stuff and frankly, that tracks with a lot of famous directors.

Nobody was figurative I know folks do, but many fans do not.

I agree with you that some directors don't get better with age. I read the other Day about Ridley Scott regretting not doing the Bladerunner sequel, and frankly, im A-ok with that.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

There is no clear line from his first few films to Inglorious Basterds.

You can see continuities between Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, and Death Proof -- they all share tropes and a love of the 70s and 70s film, and constitute a groundbreaking body of work that foregrounded all sorts of storytelling techniques that he may not have invented, but he certainly mainstreamed. I'd suggest no director has been able to cast his films so consistently with excellent actors who he gets to do unexpected and career-making things.

Basterds takes all that and shows how much range he does in fact have: no one could have seen this film coming, and being so capable, and so grounded, and (with its willingness to deviate from history) so surprising.

And, once he's done that (and detoured into a couple of Westerns), he circles back to the 70s with OUATIH, supposedly to do a historical event, and Basterds has primed us all so that we have no idea what might happen, even if we know the story well. The traces of the earlier work are there, even if it's understated like Jackie Brown. But again, I don't think anyone had a clear idea going in what it would be.

 

[Reynard]

Well, no.

If you want to know the actual issue with M. Night, it's this.

He made it big with the "twist" (Sixth Sense). Unfortunately, a twist is not something that you can bank on as a director, and it's also not something visual (a directing style).

Since then, he has repeatedly tried to recapture that twist magic, with mostly unfortunate returns. You don't see, e.g., David Fincher say, "Fight Club had a twist. I'm just doing twists from now on!"

But the issue with him is that while he is a serviceable director (it isn't easy to direct films!) he isn't actually particularly good. Even his biggest breakout hit, Sixth Sense, isn't that great in terms of direction; if you watch it again, you will see that. He does have a good eye for some shots, but there's nothing about his films that makes you credit the direction and cinematography; in addition, there are particular choices made that are often baffling.

It's a bizarre comparison.

I think you have a very specific opinion and not a lot of room to see other perspectives. I think MNS's best film is Unbreakable which absolutely shows his style and excellent camera work. But my point was that both directors create films with great moments -- Tarrantino's is more dialogue, MNS's is more shot composition -- but that don't necessarily come together a greater than the sum of their parts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don’t think that’s true at all - I remember people talking at great length about the editing of Pulp Fiction and how the particular timeline he uses allows the entire story to work. I remember talking about how much he grew as a director with Jackie Brown in allowing the movie to be about these characters rather than the violence. I still think it’s one of the best movies based on Elmore Leonard’s work (besides Out of Sight) that I’ve seen. A lot of my criticism of QT comes from his later work not his earlier stuff and frankly, that tracks with a lot of famous directors.

I think that most people think that Tarantino's movies changed, with Death Proof as the dividing line (pre- and post- Death Proof).

Some are massive fans of the pre-DP movies, others of the post-DP movies. I'm in the middle. I think that Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are flawless. But I also think the same of Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds. Which is why they are my top four movies.

....but they are very different.

ETA- And while I was typing this, @Kobold Stew said the same thing, better!

 

[R_J_K75]

Basterds takes all that and shows how much range he does in fact have: no one could have seen this film coming, and being so capable, and so grounded, and (with its willingness to deviate from history) so surprising.

Ive not seen this one. I think someone left it at my house or someone gave it to me, so I have it but never watched it. Perhaps I'll dig it out next time I'm bored and looking for something to watch.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think you have a very specific opinion and not a lot of room to see other perspectives. I think MNS's best film is Unbreakable which absolutely shows his style and excellent camera work. But my point was that both directors create films with great moments -- Tarrantino's is more dialogue, MNS's is more shot composition -- but that don't necessarily come together a greater than the sum of their parts.

Tarantino writes great dialogue, but it's not just the dialogue. At all. The visual analogies and homages are both playful and inventive.

I think Unbreakable was a fine film. But look at the entirety of Night's oeuvre. I'll give you Unbreakable.

Does QT have an After Earth?
The Happening?
Lady in the Water?
Glass?
....THE LAST AIRBENDER?

If someone was to tell you (other than a "twist") to define the directing of M. Night, how would you do it?

 

[orangefruitbat]

Ok. My order:

10. Death Proof. Good, but the only one I generally don't bother to rewatch.

9. The Hateful Eight. A pretty good movie, but seems to lack some of the snap or playfulness of the others.

8. Jackie Brown. I like it, but I think of this a Leonard Elmore movie, not a Tarantino movie.

7. Kill Bill Vol. 2. Some great sequences, but not as strong as vol. 1

6. Django Unchained. The continuation of Tarantino's historical revisionism. I probably need to watch this one again.

5. Kill Bill Vol. 1. Amazing fight sequences and cinematography in this one.

4. Inglorious Basterds. Only Tarantino would go F*ck it, I'm killing Hitler at the end so I can have a proper movie ending.

3. Reservoir Dogs. What a debut! Great dialog and acting.

2. Pulp Fiction. The masterpiece, I can't really add anything to the comments.

1. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. A love letter to American cinema and clearly a passion project for Tarantino. The completion of Tarantino's cheerful rewriting of history for the purpose of movie storytelling. My personal favourite. Would also recommend reading Tarantino's novelization, which expands and enriches the story in some surprising ways.