Kill Bill Killed QT!

[echo_bravo]

Originally Posted by Potter82

By the way, something else Tarantino is great at besides dialogue - creating and sustaining suspense. He could make a kick-ass thriller if he wanted to.

Agreed! You really dont hear too much praise regarding his ability to create tension/suspense.

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by Pentangeli

For me, QT has made three good films: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Jackie Brown. In those three, I empathized with the characters, I cared about them. And also the uncertainty of their outcome, the unpredictable storyline, greatly contributes to this. Once you establish that relationship between character and audience, you can then build various essential components of a good crime film, particularly suspense and intrigue.

Some people may have empathized with the Bride, but for me she was suffocated beneath an insurmountable wave of over-stylized filmmaking and a predictable screenplay. Unlike in RD and PF -- where predicting the outcome was extremely difficult, due to the multiple protagonists and an uncertainty of who the goodies and badies were -- here in Kill Bill, we have one protagonist, and all the characters are clearly identified in terms of who's side they're on. We know the Bride will survive at the end, we know she will succeed, there was no other alternative. In this sense, the Bride becomes an Indiana Jones or Superman type character, we know she will win in the end. This somewhat invincibility special power is what makes Kill Bill lack suspense and intrigue, and all we have left is an exercise in discovering her methods of revenge.

Perhaps this is also a valid critique of the predictablity of most, if not all, action films.

I don't know how I missed this the first time around. I could have saved myself some time, just quoted you and said I agreed. You said much of what I went on to say, but earlier and more succinctly.

Originally Posted by APzombie

Your opinions are always one of the most respected to me QUENTIN, and most of the time i fully agree with you (Pulp Fiction is still my favorite 90's films and my favorite QT film) but i think you are a part of that second group i was talking about, the kind of film goer that can't possibly rank an excellent action movie or an amazing genre film in the same level as an accessible captivating drama, or crime drama. Many people think genre is beneath a so-called "masterpiece" mantra. Coming from a filmmaker who thinks The Matrix, Speed, Audition, Supercop and Shaun of the Dead were amongst the very best film of the last decade, i think QT believes he's at the top of his game.

Perhaps this is true to an extent, but I look at it from a different perspective. Rather than like a personal failing "can't possibly rank...", I think it's that my taste runs to movies where I can relate to and therefore care more about the characters. The movies I love most, for the most part, are the compelling stories of character's I believe and am invested in. I tend not to like fantasy, blockbuster action movies, horror, etc because in these genres the characters are usually either secondary to plot machinations, genre expectations, or are so larger-than-life and absurdly conceived that I never buy that they're human beings, so I don't give a shit what happens to them. I do think dramas, in one form or another, provide the greatest possibility to be effective and excellent because they're by nature built around characters and their conflicts and stories. On the flip side, zombie films for instance, no matter how good they are as zombie movies (and Romero's Dawn is about perfect as far as I'm concerned), can't achieve the level of greatness that a movie less constrained by genre expectations can. The characters by necessity aren't going to get as much play, and it's a requisite that there will be lots of scenes of faceless zombies eating people. Working within the confines of a genre, particularly lesser genres (like exploitation movies Tarantino's been wallowing in) stunts creativity, amplifies superficiality, and is naturally less engaging to me.

That's a good point about what Tarantino likes though. For someone who thinks Shaun of The Dead, The Matrix, Speed and Supercop (all of them good for what they are in my estimation) were the best movies of the last 25 years, I'm sure he considers himself on top of his game. He's making truly excellent versions of such movies, they just aren't movies that interest me nearly as much as stuff like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction. Knowing what he's capable of, it's impossible for me not to have very high expectations and hold him to a high standard, subsequently feeling let down when he decides to make another genre exercise about other movies he likes rather than something as fresh and original as he's capable of about fascinating people I care about.

That said, as disappointing as his movies have been in the 2000s ranked against what he can do, both Kill Bills made my year-end top ten list and I hold them in high esteem. Just as movies I greatly enjoy that occasionally transcend their genre limitations, rather than full fledged masterpieces. In part, Tarantino (like Scorsese, Lee, Stone, the Coens, and many others) suffers from the expectations he's given us with his best work, so when he's merely good and still better than most, it nonetheless pales in comparison to his finest achievements.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally Posted by LordSimen

Counting the times I've caught it on television, around 13-15. Just counting the times I've watched it on DVD, 7-8 times.

You've seen a film you don't really like over 20 times?

[LordSimen]

Originally Posted by DaMovieMan

You've seen a film you don't really like over 20 times?

Where did I say I did not like the movie? Also, where did I say I've seen it over 20 times?

[BubbaStrangelove]

I think Quentin is saying the characters beyond Jackie Brown are not as easy to relate to. Even with people being drug dealers and hitmen in PF, they still did goofy stuff that you'd expect anyone to do and talked about stuff like what kind of drinks they serve at McDonalds. It's like they are faulted in a human way. Whereas, at least in Kill Bill, the characters are in much ways larger than life. Their weaknesses aren't as much human conditions as they are traits that would fit on a bio card. I think for me, that's why the ending to Volume 1 brings so much emotional weight to the story. It's in those closing moments when I think, "Shit just got real!"

Originally Posted by bigred760

I don't think any of QT's movies "killed" QT. Tarantino has always been about style, his personal style. Whether it's been the heavy dialogue, the eccentric characters, the bouncing back-and-forth storyline, whatever . . . it's been his stylized movie.

Yes, I think it would be more fair to say over exposure and unrealistic expectations killed mass audience appreciation for his films.

[Tweek]

Originally Posted by LordSimen

Where did I say I did not like the movie? Also, where did I say I've seen it over 20 times?

He added the number of times you said that you've watched it on tv and dvd.

[LordSimen]

Originally Posted by Tweek

He added the number of times you said that you've watched it on tv and dvd.

But I said "counting" the times I watched it on television, meaning that first number is my DVD viewings AND my television viewings.

[BubbaStrangelove]

It's good that you cleared that up LordSimen. The fact that you've seen it about 13 times and not about 20 times is a pivotal point. This may help to gain more insight into where you are coming from in your statements. You keep explaining these things, and we'll try. *puts on tux and lights a cigarette* Oh lord we'll try, to carry on. A gathering, of angels, appeared... Above my head! They sang, to me! ...this song of hope, and THIS is what they said. They said, "Come sail away... come sail away... come sail away, with me."

[vesaker]

Originally Posted by BubbaStrangelove

You keep explaining these things, and we'll try. *puts on tux and lights a cigarette* Oh lord we'll try, to carry on. A gathering, of angels, appeared... Above my head! They sang, to me! ...this song of hope, and THIS is what they said. They said, "Come sail away... come sail away... come sail away, with me."

ahahahaha, classic.

But in his defense he was just defending himself from a claim by someone who miss read what he said to being with.

[Ayestrain]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

No, I don't think so.

O-Ren Ishii, Vernita Green, Elle Driver, Gogo Yubari, Hatori Hanzo, Pai Mei, etc. are none of them characters. They're caricatures, the types of outsized and ridiculous writer's constructs you'd find in comic books and superhero stories. There's no flesh and blood, no believability in the slightest to them. They don't behave anything like human beings. I'd argue Budd, Esteban Vihaio, and Beatrix in some scenes but not most, are the only genuine characters in that movie. The only ones who resemble anything relatable or believable.

Death Proof had zero such characters and was his worst movie as a result.

Inglourious Basterds had only the recent father German soldier, the French dairy farmer hiding Jews, and, maybe, Archie Hicox. The rest of the cast is of caricature archetypes with humorously absurd and outsized dialogue and actions, with the kind of mythologies built around them usually found in fantasy or children's stories.

Jackie Brown, Ordell Robie, Louis Gara, Max Cherry, Vincent Vega, Butch Coolidge, Jules Winnfield, Mr. Orange, Mr. Pink, Mr. White, Nice Guy Eddie. These are all human beings. Tarantino may spice things up by having an outsized caricature in a film, like The Wolf or Mr. Blonde, but even they are invested with a strong sense of believability and Keitel and Madsen are restrained, playing them as a normal guy who's really good at a messy job and a pretty amoral criminal whose an opportunist but not a supervillain, not THE WOLF and MR. BLONDE (with lightning shooting off their names and porno sound effects) with all the mythology and ridiculousness that could entail. Pulp Fiction wouldn't and couldn't be a masterpiece if it was populated solely with characters like The Wolf, nor Reservoir Dogs with only Mr. Blondes. But even those characters were more believable and human than anything in the Kill Bills, Death Proof, or Basterds. If the movies and people in them aren't grounded in any way, it's all just an empty genre exercise, not a compelling story about people.



Pot

While I agree in part, and you make a good case, you're neglecting to mention one of QT's best character creations in years, Basterds' "Jew Hunter" Col. Hans Landa. He never came off as a caricature to me.

I don't get the contrarian fascination with Jackie Brown--it was very run of the mill. It took a simple crime story and made it overly complex IMO. Granted, I haven't seen it in close to a decade so I should watch it again.

Death Proof I also haven't seen in a while, and only once, but I remember really liking the first half, it's only the second half that drags the movie down.

I don't think any of his particular movies 'killed' QT--he's still Tarantino the film dork (and like his latter films Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction had their share of dorky references to TV and movie--but yes somehow there did feel like there were realistic characters inhabiting those movie worlds). There was a sense after the box office failure of "Grindhouse" that QT had fallen off. Maybe everyone's just gotten over-familiar with his style.

I wonder what he's going to make next----if he'd ever actually make the Vega Brothers movie that's been proposed.

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by Ayestrain

While I agree in part, and you make a good case, you're neglecting to mention one of QT's best character creations in years, Basterds' "Jew Hunter" Col. Hans Landa. He never came off as a caricature to me.

I don't get the contrarian fascination with Jackie Brown--it was very run of the mill. It took a simple crime story and made it overly complex IMO. Granted, I haven't seen it in close to a decade so I should watch it again.

Death Proof I also haven't seen in a while, and only once, but I remember really liking the first half, it's only the second half that drags the movie down.

I don't think any of his particular movies 'killed' QT--he's still Tarantino the film dork (and like his latter films Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction had their share of dorky references to TV and movie--but yes somehow there did feel like there were realistic characters inhabiting those movie worlds). There was a sense after the box office failure of "Grindhouse" that QT had fallen off. Maybe everyone's just gotten over-familiar with his style.

I wonder what he's going to make next----if he'd ever actually make the Vega Brothers movie that's been proposed.

While I agree that Hans Landa is certainly one of Tarantino's best character creations (second only to Budd for my money in his 2000s oeuvre), I disagree that he isn't a caricature. He's a fascinating, calculating, wonderfully acted villain I couldn't take my eyes off of... that doesn't mean he doesn't behave distinctly like an especially "written" and implausible bad guy caricature though, rather than a human being. I loved watching him, he's the best thing in Basterds, but while he's certainly got a more believable and tangible sense of humanity to him than Aldo Raine or Hitler for instance, he still doesn't feel real to me. I will admit though, beyond the Basterds crew I mentioned in my previous post, he comes the closest and I don't think it's problematic or detrimental to the movie that he isn't given more human characteristics, so it's a fair point anyway.

I assure you I'm not being contrarian. I saw Jackie Brown when it came out and fell in love. As a whole, it fell just shy of Pulp Fiction, but it was then and is now his most intelligent, mature, well-acted, perfectly paced, and moving (well, it's the only one that really touches me emotionally) film. "Run of the mill" kind of shocks me. I don't think there's anything run of the mill about the picture, and it features several of my favorite Tarantino moments where he successfully accomplishes a tight rope walk much of his later work fails to. The scene of Ordell talking Beaumont to his death first with indignation then with promises of chicken and waffles, for instance, is long and wordy (a problem of many scenes in DP and IB) but it grips me the whole way through. It's clever and funny, but there's a very keenly felt sense of tension, suspense, and unpredictability to the scene and it's fucking beautifully captured in a minimal number of incredibly well-composed shots. Max Cherry and Jackie Brown have the best and most honest relationship I've seen Tarantino capture between any two characters and I'm actually attached and invested, rather than "just" fascinated by their stories. I think it's stylish in all the right ways, regularly hilarious, smart, unpredictable, and also features QT's best soundtrack. It's a perfect example and blending of all the things Tarantino does well. Give it another chance, I think almost all of Tarantino's work benefits from repeated viewings.

In Death Proof, I didn't believe anything that came out of any female character's mouth the entire movie. It's got a lot of strong visuals and a couple great sequences, as his movies always do, but the script and many of the performances are cringe-worthy to me.

I will hold out hope that he returns to making movies about humans, maybe even adult ones, and Inglourious Basterds was better than I expected and definitely worth seeing, no matter how flawed. I just worry that after the underperformance of Jackie Brown with fans and at the box-office, and then the relative success of Kill Bill, he's decided to play it safe by giving fanboys what they want rather than the best work he's capable of.

A Vega Brothers movie won't happen for practical reasons. In 1995, maybe he could have done a prequel. But he's said he wouldn't cast anyone in the roles but Madsen and Travolta and they'd have to be playing younger than they did in 17 and 15 years ago respectively. It'd take some Benjamin Button shit to pull that off and he's notorious for tossing out ideas he never really develops. I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Ayestrain]

^ Thanks for the considered response. I'll give Jackie Brown another try..

[cloneofkelso]

The man can do no wrong!He's a theatrical genius!

[BubbaStrangelove]

Inglourious Basterds Killed The Thesis Of This Thread!

[CyclicNightmare]

Not really. He mentions it in his original post.

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

While I agree that Hans Landa is certainly one of Tarantino's best character creations (second only to Budd for my money in his 2000s oeuvre), I disagree that he isn't a caricature. He's a fascinating, calculating, wonderfully acted villain I couldn't take my eyes off of... that doesn't mean he doesn't behave distinctly like an especially "written" and implausible bad guy caricature though, rather than a human being. I loved watching him, he's the best thing in Basterds, but while he's certainly got a more believable and tangible sense of humanity to him than Aldo Raine or Hitler for instance, he still doesn't feel real to me. I will admit though, beyond the Basterds crew I mentioned in my previous post, he comes the closest and I don't think it's problematic or detrimental to the movie that he isn't given more human characteristics, so it's a fair point anyway.

I assure you I'm not being contrarian. I saw Jackie Brown when it came out and fell in love. As a whole, it fell just shy of Pulp Fiction, but it was then and is now his most intelligent, mature, well-acted, perfectly paced, and moving (well, it's the only one that really touches me emotionally) film. "Run of the mill" kind of shocks me. I don't think there's anything run of the mill about the picture, and it features several of my favorite Tarantino moments where he successfully accomplishes a tight rope walk much of his later work fails to. The scene of Ordell talking Beaumont to his death first with indignation then with promises of chicken and waffles, for instance, is long and wordy (a problem of many scenes in DP and IB) but it grips me the whole way through. It's clever and funny, but there's a very keenly felt sense of tension, suspense, and unpredictability to the scene and it's fucking beautifully captured in a minimal number of incredibly well-composed shots. Max Cherry and Jackie Brown have the best and most honest relationship I've seen Tarantino capture between any two characters and I'm actually attached and invested, rather than "just" fascinated by their stories. I think it's stylish in all the right ways, regularly hilarious, smart, unpredictable, and also features QT's best soundtrack. It's a perfect example and blending of all the things Tarantino does well. Give it another chance, I think almost all of Tarantino's work benefits from repeated viewings.

In Death Proof, I didn't believe anything that came out of any female character's mouth the entire movie. It's got a lot of strong visuals and a couple great sequences, as his movies always do, but the script and many of the performances are cringe-worthy to me.

I will hold out hope that he returns to making movies about humans, maybe even adult ones, and Inglourious Basterds was better than I expected and definitely worth seeing, no matter how flawed. I just worry that after the underperformance of Jackie Brown with fans and at the box-office, and then the relative success of Kill Bill, he's decided to play it safe by giving fanboys what they want rather than the best work he's capable of.

A Vega Brothers movie won't happen for practical reasons. In 1995, maybe he could have done a prequel. But he's said he wouldn't cast anyone in the roles but Madsen and Travolta and they'd have to be playing younger than they did in 17 and 15 years ago respectively. It'd take some Benjamin Button shit to pull that off and he's notorious for tossing out ideas he never really develops. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Right on. I agree with you whole heartedly about Jackie Brown. While Pulp Fiction is my favorite of all time and definitely my favorite Tarantino picture, (and I am very green at this blogging about movies thing) Jackie Brown ranks as my second favorite. I read the book "Rum Punch" by Elmore Leonard before I saw the movie and I think he captured the characters in the book perfectly. It's almost as if Elmore Leonard wrote Ordell Robie for Sam Jackson. Granted QT took some creative liberties with the story but when hasn't that happened in a book adaptation?

As for Kill Bill killing Quentin Tarantino...I don't have the movie reviewing chops that the rest of you have (believe me reading these posts are making my head spin; opening me up to things I've never thought of before and I appreciate it) but I have really loved all of his movies. Death Proof is my least favorite but I won't split hairs, I still thought it was good. And I've never been jonesing for some kinda action packed extravaganza since Bill. Most of the violence in his movies have always been implied anyway. You don't actually see Marvin's head explode like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. There's not a lot of shoot 'em up action in Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown. Before watching a QT movie for the first time I usually just throw out what I know and enjoy the experience. Can't really enjoy a movie if I'm constantly comparing throughout. Just my two cents. Maybe one cent in the haphazard way that I express my thoughts. But don't be too rough on me...it's my sixth time.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally Posted by CyclicNightmare

Not really. He mentions it in his original post.

I believe you overestimate my seriousness when I refer to the subject of this rant as a thesis.

[CyclicNightmare]

Everything on the internet is serious.

[vesaker]

Originally Posted by CyclicNightmare

Everything on the internet is serious.

Rather.