[Jon L]

It seems like Tarantino simply let everything loose in a 2 hr 45 min ball of fire and blood.  While certainly attention-grabbing, a bit more care and cutting in the editing room would have been welcomed IMO. 

[decal]

Perhaps you were expecting an oscar winning movie ? 

[geowak]

Is'nt that what all QT movies are about?? Blood, guts and violence for sensational effect...

I never went to see a movie of his and thought to myself "Now this is going to be a cerebral movie"

[lokie]

Just listened to Tarantino's interview on PBR.

I am officially putting him in the scumbag bag.

I find it interesting how Hollywood Inc. will be glad to take credit for positive influences of virtuous movies (To Kill a Mockingbird), but when it comes to negative influences, like desensitizing the public to gun violence... they claim it doesn't have anything to do with "make believe". That does not make sense to me. 

[wushuliu]

The guy is a hack whose managed to convince some that there's more to his lack of originality auteur homage style than is really there. He's Robert Rodriguez with delusions of grandeur. That said I'd like to see Django at some point because DiCaprio looks like he's having a blast and Sam Jackson looks like he's decided not to phone it in for once.

[Rclark]

Tarantino is mediocre. His absolute greatest moment was "From Dusk Till Dawn". I saw that without knowing anything about the movie and it blew my mind with the sudden twist. So good, and so funny.

In fact I would give that movie 5 stars, just on the fact that I saw none of that coming.

That said, otherwise, his movies are drivel, but campy, B MOVIE drivel, and that alone makes them worth a watch.

However KILL BILL,..... BLLOOOOOOOOWWWS. I tried. I did. A few times. Powered down after ten minutes.

Death Proof was good, but enough with the dialogue. He thinks he's this king of writing dialogue, and he hasn't been any good at that since Pulp Fiction.

[sts9fan]

I like him a lot. I think Inglorious Basterds was pretty entertaining.
Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are classics.

[Davey]

I am officially putting him in the scumbag bag.

An excellent place for him!

Hollywood Inc. is the ultimate batch of hypocrites. 

Tarantino, James Cameron, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, the list goes on and on and on.
And don't even get me started on the MPAA. 

Cheers,

Dave.

[cab]

It is all about parody with QT....Kill Bill-70's kung fu movies: Django:  blaxpoitation...

[goldlizsts]

Is'nt that what all QT movies are about?? Blood, guts and violence for sensational effect...

I never went to see a movie of his and thought to myself "Now this is going to be a cerebral movie"

This Django cycle seemed to be a normal, NON-QT movie for say about 2/3 of it.  I actually was enjoying it, as the movie progressed in a very, very normal and fine ultra non-QT way.  Then, hell broke loose, QT showed up, and things went whaco, ketchup flying all over the place.  At the very end, it was over-stretched also.

[Folsom]

I can only think about his good movies. The notable ones are actually pretty big deals as far as movies go. Sometimes he makes garbage that is trying to be something, sometimes he makes near brilliant movies. The problem is the brilliance being far too pretentious for general audiences so he mixes them with gore. He cashes in at the box office, with nothing but blood and guts because people will watch it. He needs to either make very good, pretentious movies and let them be non-B non-gore, or make straight B movies. The mixing doesn't work when it is contrived. Pulp Fiction is exceptional because the gore and life styles fit so well. Inglorious Bastards was a stretch of acting and scene coherence, then it got stupid with gore.

His comments on Top Gun are pretty interesting.

[ajzepp]

QT keeps it fresh and interesting and I'll watch anything the guy puts out. Pulp Fiction is one of only about three movies that I watched once and then watched it again the same day. True Romance ranks up there as one of my all-time favorites, as well, due in large part to QT's excellent scripting. He directed Christoph Waltz in a manner that had me captivated for the entire duration of Inglorious Basterds.  I've seen the Kill Bill films several times and they still feel fresh and interesting to me even today. From Dusk Til Dawn, Resevoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, etc...the guy is one of the most polarizing, but also one of the most relevant filmmakers on earth and I look forward to every new project.

You go, QT

[bkatbamna]

Hard to say that QT keeps it "fresh and interesting".  He just keeps stealing scenes from other better directors who made better movies.

[wushuliu]

The problem is the brilliance being far too pretentious for general audiences so he mixes them with gore. He cashes in at the box office, with nothing but blood and guts because people will watch it. He needs to either make very good, pretentious movies and let them be non-B non-gore, or make straight B movies.

LOL, 'Very good, pretentious movies'. Thing is he can not do either, he can only mix both. That's the extent of his range - pretentious B-movies. He doesn't do violence and gore because people will watch but because that's a part of the genre he admires and it's what he's good at. He has very little range (there's a reason he can cross characters and histories in his film universe - it all takes place on the same plane). He just makes exploitation films for 'film lovers' aka B movies with styles and scenes ripped from other films. Any brilliance is built on the work of greater filmmakers. Steven Soderberg does the same thing, but better. Much. Much. Better. THAT's what you call range. Tarantino could never do The Informant, Kafka, and Haywire.

That said QT does get good performances and at least he knows his limitations - but boy is he overrated. Doesn't hurt that the Weinsteins have mastered promoting his work - which is more than can be said for any other filmmaker they work with.

[ajzepp]

So is anyone else going to actually talk about DJANGO? I'd love to hear more about this film (non-spoilers, please).

I'm really thinking I may head to the theater on Monday. 

[Chazro]

I enjoy QT's work, I have no qualms about violence in movies.  I also very much enjoy westerns, from B&W John Wayne's thru Deadwood, it's a favorite genre.  That said, after reading all the hoopla about the 'N-word' I was leaning against seeing it.  I was gifted a book of movie passes so I went to go catch the new Tom Cruise flick and at the last minute decided to chk out Django.  Theater was packed, 50-50 black/white audience, I'll admit to wondering during previews if it might get weird but Igottatellya, by the end of the movie the Afro-americans were calling out encouragements and basically dialoging with the screen!  It was a pissa!, I had a great time.  As far as the movie goes, I enjoyed it a LOT more than Inglorious Basterds, what can I say?  The use of the 'N word' was a non-issue, didn't sound forced to me.  I lived in rural Georgia for a decade and all I can say is I've heard worse, FAR worse.  People spoke/speak that way, unfortunate but true.  QT didn't invent this language.  That Spike Lee, whose work I enjoy but uses the SAME language, has a problem seems a tad hypocritical.  As good as Christoph Waltz was in 'Basterds' (he won a boatload of awards) I think he's better in Django!  This fine cast (as was the case in Basterds) felt like they had a blast.  QT's  made 2 movies where historically oppressed people get some payback.  What's next?     

[ajzepp]

  As good as Christoph Waltz was in 'Basterds' (he won a boatload of awards) I think he's better in Django! 

Wow!! Now THAT is a big statement! I really can't wait to see it now...

[JerryLove]

It seems like Tarantino simply let everything loose in a 2 hr 45 min ball of fire and blood.  While certainly attention-grabbing, a bit more care and cutting in the editing room would have been welcomed IMO.

Actually, he did quite a bit of cuts in response to test audiences after what had been the director's cut. Apparetly the early violence was too traumatizing to get the cheers he wanted at the end so he toned it down a little.

[wilsynet]

Hard to say that QT keeps it "fresh and interesting".  He just keeps stealing scenes from other better directors who made better movies.

Isaac Newton once said that if he has seen further than others, it's because he stood on the shoulders of giants.  Then there's this thing that Piccaso used to say that Steve Jobs repeated famously: "Good artists borrow; great artists steal.  And at Apple we've always been shameless about our stealing."

Whether you think QT is brilliant or not, it's hard to argue with his success.  There are a lot of detractors of Apple too, but once again, it's hard to argue with their success in re-shaping the computer industry in the 70s and 80s, and then the music and mobile industries in the last 5 years.

Some of Tarantino's films will be remembered for a long time.

[Gopher]

I watched it last night with a friend and had a great time.  It was well acted, well paced with a fun soundtrack and the right amount of comedy and over the top ness to smile and laugh St otherwise sensitive subject matter, with enough authenticity not to make light of it.

I think QTs flicks are for more about the story telling then the content and I'm OK with that.