New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Quentin Tarantino will retire after next movie. You all agree with this? Do you like his movies. I love them, mostly; oddly, not Pulp Fiction as much. He wants to retire so he does not make bad movies. Why not make movies until you run out of ideas? A half assed Tarantino movie is better than most. All you others say Hell Yea!!  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
He's been saying this for years. I'm not convinced that he'll actually retire after his 10th movie but he's recently married and has a young child so if that's what he wants to do then I wouldn't disagree with his decision. I'd be disappointed that I wouldn't have new Tarantino movies to look forward to but I'd get over it. Besides, not directing movies does not necessarily mean he'd retire completely. He could still write screenplays for other directors. True Romance and From Dusk Til Dawn show what other directors can do with a Tarantino script. Plus, he has a 2 book deal with Harper Collins and I imagine he'll probably continue writing novels after that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Love his work and look forward to anything else he's into maybe he just needs a little break? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
l
|
Soderberg said the same thing. Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't believe he will never direct another movie after 'the tenth film by Quentin Tarantino'. Maybe he'll just write, or just produce, or both, or maybe he'll take a long break as many directors have done in the past. But nah, I don't believe he'll never direct again. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TrivialPursuit said: Soderberg said the same thing. You don't rate any of his movies? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GOOD this evil twat has already done enough damage | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
TruthBomb said: GOOD this evil twat has already done enough damage Fer sure. The ash in his wake is suffocating...whatever. If he does retire from directing, I'll look forward to whatever he decides to do. I'm sure he'll write in some capacity, which he's always proven he's got a great facility for. I'm eagerly awaiting the release of his 'once upon a time in Hollywood' novelization next week. It should make for great poolside reading. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Just read that Tarantino is Marc maron's guest on wtf tomorrow...maybe we'll get some answers. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmmaMcG said: He's been saying this for years. I'm not convinced that he'll actually retire after his 10th movie but he's recently married and has a young child so if that's what he wants to do then I wouldn't disagree with his decision. I'd be disappointed that I wouldn't have new Tarantino movies to look forward to but I'd get over it.
Besides, not directing movies does not necessarily mean he'd retire completely. He could still write screenplays for other directors. True Romance and From Dusk Til Dawn show what other directors can do with a Tarantino script. Plus, he has a 2 book deal with Harper Collins and I imagine he'll probably continue writing novels after that. The first thing you say is exactly what I was thinking. I'm a fan, but I can live with him not making movies anymore. And the first two were the best anyway. And if he keeps writing novels, I hope he will realize that there is a difference between writing novels and screenplays. I read the first chapter of the Once Upon a Time In Hollywood book and it reads like a longer version of the script of the film- which was quite long to begin with. I found it boring. [Edited 6/28/21 0:54am] [Edited 6/28/21 0:55am] If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger fool than I am. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TrivialPursuit said: Soderberg said the same thing. He is horrible and his movies are horrible. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
He'll probably get into TV and continue writing novels.
His movies are still great but they've been getting longer and longer since Sally Menke died. It wouldn't be that difficult for him to make the jump from mini-series like he's been doing with the extended cuts for Netflix into a full scale TV show.
Especially with FAANG throwing around as much money as they are. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Quentin told Marc he has 'no intention to quit making movies'. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TrivialPursuit said:
Reservoir Dogs was a small budget independent film with zero star power outside of Harvey Keitel. None of the other main actors in the movie were particularly well known at the time. Tarantino had never directed a feature film of that magnitude before so they were all just kind of learning as they went along. And despite all that I still think Reservoir Dogs is one of his best movies. Pulp Fiction is where Tarantino really started coming into his own. It's literally a pulp novel on the screen (hence the name) and is stuffed to the brim with big name actors giving career-best performances. It can be a bit hammy at times but that's all part of the fun of it. Jackie Brown is where things get interesting. It would have been so easy for Tarantino to churn out a Pulp Fiction 2 but going into almost blaxploitation movie territory was a massive gamble. And I think it paid off. Kill Bill Vol 1 holds a special place in my heart because of my long-held passion for Asian cinema. As a movie, it's pretty good. But in terms of action, it blows most other American action movies away. Most of the credit for that must go to Yuen Woo Ping but it was Tarantino's call to get him in to stage the fight scenes and sometimes being a good director is knowing when to step back and let an expert take over. Vol 2 was alright but it didn't have that same pull for me. Death Proof is where I began to worry that Tarantino had lost his spark. It was like a bad imitation of a Tarantino movie. Forced dialogue, shitty acting and practically non-existent plot. The only saving grace is the car chase and Kurt Russell. Crap movie, though. Inglorious Basterds was a proper return to form. The opening scene alone where Hans Landa is calmly interrogating a man suspected of harbouring Jews is pure Hitchcock. The tension, the suspense! And then we find out that Landa knows exactly what and who the man is hiding and our worst fears come to light in a most gruesome manner. His best movie in years. Django Unchained will probably be remembered by most as Tarantino's masterpiece. I wouldn't go that far if I'm honest but it is a fantastic piece of cinema. Everyone is on top form. It can be uncomfortable to watch at times but we can't pretend like these things never happened. And because it is so gruesome we can celebrate that bit more when the villains get their comeuppance. DiCaprio is a revelation, by the way. The Hateful Eight seems to be a very polarising movie. Some love it, some hate it. I love it. It's essentially a western Reservoir Dogs. Great performances all round and just like the opening scene in Inglorious Basterds, it's very Hitchcock-esque. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood is my favourite Tarantino movie. And not just because Timothy Olyphant is in it. It's like he's taken everything he's learned from his career and put it to use here. DiCaprio, once again, is fantastic. As is Brad Pitt. Their relationship is the absolute best "bromance" ever depicted on screen. Special mention too to Margot Robbie. Some say she wasn't given enough to do but that's bullshit. Her role in the movie is to provide the audience with a view into the life of Sharon Tate. And it's played perfectly. The twist is right up there with the very best of them, too. I can't wait for the longer cut of the movie and I'll be setting some time aside over the next few days to read the new novel. Also, I'd just like to give a special mention to True Romance. He may not have directed it but you can tell it's a Tarantino movie when you watch it. One of his best, for sure. [Edited 6/28/21 16:01pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Whatever he does, I hope he doesn't take real life events and slap a ridiculous ending on them. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PJMcGee said: Whatever he does, I hope he doesn't take real life events and slap a ridiculous ending on them. He's not a documentary filmmaker. He's under no obligation to present history as it happened in real life. James Cameron took artistic license with Titanic, Spielberg did it with Schindler's List, Soderbergh did it with Erin Brockovich. Most movies that are "based on a true story" are stuffed to the brim with whatever bullshit the writer/director thinks will make it a more interesting film. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmmaMcG said: TrivialPursuit said:
Reservoir Dogs was a small budget independent film with zero star power outside of Harvey Keitel. None of the other main actors in the movie were particularly well known at the time. Tarantino had never directed a feature film of that magnitude before so they were all just kind of learning as they went along. And despite all that I still think Reservoir Dogs is one of his best movies. Pulp Fiction is where Tarantino really started coming into his own. It's literally a pulp novel on the screen (hence the name) and is stuffed to the brim with big name actors giving career-best performances. It can be a bit hammy at times but that's all part of the fun of it. Jackie Brown is where things get interesting. It would have been so easy for Tarantino to churn out a Pulp Fiction 2 but going into almost blaxploitation movie territory was a massive gamble. And I think it paid off. Kill Bill Vol 1 holds a special place in my heart because of my long-held passion for Asian cinema. As a movie, it's pretty good. But in terms of action, it blows most other American action movies away. Most of the credit for that must go to Yuen Woo Ping but it was Tarantino's call to get him in to stage the fight scenes and sometimes being a good director is knowing when to step back and let an expert take over. Vol 2 was alright but it didn't have that same pull for me. Death Proof is where I began to worry that Tarantino had lost his spark. It was like a bad imitation of a Tarantino movie. Forced dialogue, shitty acting and practically non-existent plot. The only saving grace is the car chase and Kurt Russell. Crap movie, though. Inglorious Basterds was a proper return to form. The opening scene alone where Hans Landa is calmly interrogating a man suspected of harbouring Jews is pure Hitchcock. The tension, the suspense! And then we find out that Landa knows exactly what and who the man is hiding and our worst fears come to light in a most gruesome manner. His best movie in years. Django Unchained will probably be remembered by most as Tarantino's masterpiece. I wouldn't go that far if I'm honest but it is a fantastic piece of cinema. Everyone is on top form. It can be uncomfortable to watch at times but we can't pretend like these things never happened. And because it is so gruesome we can celebrate that bit more when the villains get their comeuppance. DiCaprio is a revelation, by the way. The Hateful Eight seems to be a very polarising movie. Some love it, some hate it. I love it. It's essentially a western Reservoir Dogs. Great performances all round and just like the opening scene in Inglorious Basterds, it's very Hitchcock-esque. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood is my favourite Tarantino movie. And not just because Timothy Olyphant is in it. It's like he's taken everything he's learned from his career and put it to use here. DiCaprio, once again, is fantastic. As is Brad Pitt. Their relationship is the absolute best "bromance" ever depicted on screen. Special mention too to Margot Robbie. Some say she wasn't given enough to do but that's bullshit. Her role in the movie is to provide the audience with a view into the life of Sharon Tate. And it's played perfectly. The twist is right up there with the very best of them, too. I can't wait for the longer cut of the movie and I'll be setting some time aside over the next few days to read the new novel. Also, I'd just like to give a special mention to True Romance. He may not have directed it but you can tell it's a Tarantino movie when you watch it. One of his best, for sure. [Edited 6/28/21 16:01pm] Excellent review!  And I also love The Hateful Right.If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger fool than I am. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EmmaMcG said: PJMcGee said: Whatever he does, I hope he doesn't take real life events and slap a ridiculous ending on them. He's not a documentary filmmaker. He's under no obligation to present history as it happened in real life. James Cameron took artistic license with Titanic, Spielberg did it with Schindler's List, Soderbergh did it with Erin Brockovich. Most movies that are "based on a true story" are stuffed to the brim with whatever bullshit the writer/director thinks will make it a more interesting film. Interesting, sure, but not absurd fantasy. Also, do it once, okay; twice and it becomes a gimmick. Either trust yourself to tell a historical story accurately (with some artistic license, of course), or make up a new story. Finding a real story where real people got killed and saying, You know what would make the conclusion better? A blowtorch! That's just silly. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Hey, maybe he can film the events of 9/11, but someone on Flight 93 has a blowtorch in his carry-on! Or or maybe one of the kids in the Parkland shooting has a science project where he makes... a blowtorch! Yeah!!! That would rock. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If you haven't yet, check out Grindhouse. The Theatrical cut is exclusive to Blu-Ray.
Death Proof makes alot more sense in that context. Planet Terror is what people imagine when they think 70s exploitation movies. All thriller, no filler. Way over the top. Fun. Death Proof, on the other hand, IS a 70s exploitation movie. Warts and all. It follows the structure and rhythm and builds to one of the most impressive car chases ever filmed.
He nailed it but it's very hard to appreciate if you don't have a love of exploitation movies like he does.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The movie is a character piece. The ending is a what if.
What if the Manson family took on 2 men instead of it being an act of hippie on hippie violence? The real act was absurd. Tarantino took it to slapstick levels of absurd. (also if you didnt notice the flamethrower wasn't lol random, he established it near the beginning of the movie) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Strive said:
The movie is a character piece. The ending is a what if.
What if the Manson family took on 2 men instead of it being an act of hippie on hippie violence? The real act was absurd. Tarantino took it to slapstick levels of absurd. (also if you didnt notice the flamethrower wasn't lol random, he established it near the beginning of the movie) Just because something is established in a movie, it doesn't make it not stupid. If Tarantino established a giant bunny rabbit near the beginning of the movie, and that bunny later kills the bad guy, it's still stupid. (Wait, is that what happened in Donnie Darko? I really liked that movie.) And actually, he established the blowtorch in Inglourious Basterds, which makes it semi-interesting in an up-your-own-a-hole kinda way, but it is repetitive. Feels too similar. Which brings me to yeah, it's a what-if, just like Inglourious Basterds was, but that's a trick that you should only get to pull once. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Also, he gave a slave story a slapstick conclusion too. Yeah. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Leo's character learned to use it for an acting role. He had the movie prop in his garage. If anything it's more of a nod towards Shaun Of The Dead where Shaun unexpectedly gets attacked by zombies, breaks into the shed and finds a cricket bat. Except instead of the brutal reality of the characters dealing with act of smashing a zombie's head in with a cricket bat & shovel being the punchline, it's the climax of the absurity of what's taking place.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I wouldn't really call that slapstick. Django kills the owner, frees the girl slave and blows up the plantation mansion. It's happy ending but not as over the top as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was.
Hollywood's conclusion is meant to be comedic climax. It joyously pisses on the myth of the Manson family and makes them a complete joke. (That's not really getting into the two main characters, their arc is very important, but I'm just sticking to the fight scene. Any great movie has multiple layers. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
)
|
Flamethrower! Yes, thank you. Sorry, I saw both movies once. You have to admit, they are very similar scenes. DiCaprio's character's character kills Nazis, right? So they both involve killing Nazis, and there's a lot of fire. You know Tarantino was winking at the audience there. And yeah, the only real slapstick in Django that I recall is someone getting shot and flying backwards as if pulled by bungee cords. While strangely amusing, it detracted from the drama of the scene, and really, the whole movie - for me. (Not a movie I will ever see again, by the way. Two scenes I found truly sickening. Yes, that shit happened, and I'm glad I saw it once, but not again. Interestingly, he was smart enough to do the Reservoir Dogs trick of not showing you the really gruesome stuff. But you hear everything.) |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
QT's rewriting of history is not a gimmick that he should pull only once; what he does is create an alternative reality where everybody who was ever oppressed, like women, blacks and jews fight back. It's like saying, in my world, the good guys win and they shoot the bad guys. Yes, we all know that the South lost the Civil War and that Hitler lost WW2, but dammit, let it be a former slave who kills the slave owner, let it be a jew who kills Hitler! It's a form of setting things right, a form of saying, this is how it should have gone. It's the ultimate Hollywood fantasy. Or Hollywood justice. And it's part of the fun, I went to Once Upon a Time In Hollywood thinking, what twist is he going to give to the story this time?
[Edited 6/29/21 8:23am] [Edited 6/29/21 8:24am] [Edited 6/29/21 8:32am] [Edited 6/29/21 8:33am] If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger fool than I am. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PJMcGee said: Hey, maybe he can film the events of 9/11, but someone on Flight 93 has a blowtorch in his carry-on! Or or maybe one of the kids in the Parkland shooting has a science project where he makes... a blowtorch! Yeah!!! That would rock. I'd definitely pay good money to see a 9/11 movie where Steven Seagal or somebody happened to be on the plane and prevents the crash. Throw in some cool one liners and funny quips and you've got the recipe for fantastic 90s-style action thriller. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SantanaMaitreya said: QT's rewriting of history is not a gimmick that he should pull only once; what he does is create an alternative reality where everybody who was ever oppressed, like women, blacks and jews fight back. It's like saying, in my world, the good guys win and they shoot the bad guys. Yes, we all know that the South lost the Civil War and that Hitler lost WW2, but dammit, let it be a former slave who kills the slave owner, let it be a jew who kills Hitler! It's a form of setting things right, a form of saying, this is how it should have gone. It's the ultimate Hollywood fantasy. Or Hollywood justice. And it's part of the fun, I went to Once Upon a Time In Hollywood thinking, what twist is he going to give to the story this time? [Edited 6/29/21 8:23am] [Edited 6/29/21 8:24am] [Edited 6/29/21 8:32am] [Edited 6/29/21 8:33am] All fairytales start with "Once Upon A Time...". The movie's title is a nice reference to the works of Sergio Leone and possibly Tsui Hark but it also tells you that this is a fairytale. A Hollywood set fairytale but a fairytale nevertheless. It's pure fantasy. And all the better for it. If the movie had ended with Sharon Tate getting brutally murdered it would have felt like a complete betrayal to what preceded it. That isn't the story Tarantino wanted to tell and frankly, it's not the story I wanted to be told. In Tarantino's ending, the bad guys get what they deserve and the heroes live happily ever after. Just like how a proper fairytale should end. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |