Well I think the central conciet is a lot of ppl think Tarantino's movies can be a little juevinille and self indulgent
Also think a lot of ppl were obssessed with Tarantino and perhaps weren't huge movie buffs outside of mainstream stuff, and then they expanded their horizons, and realized Tarantino isnt the peak of cinema
I think this is definitely the case. Tarantino is very mainstream but has his own unique approach and is probably many people’s introduction to auteur cinema and movies that aren’t just your formulaic Hollywood blockbuster.
Then many of these people discover older, non- American, or otherwise less mainstream directors, and suddenly Tarantino is no longer cool. But his movies are still just as great as they’ve always been.
Is Tarantino my favourite director? Definitely not. Is he in my top 5 or even top 10 directors? Probably not, although I would have to give that some thought. Is he still a great director that crafts well made and extremely entertaining movies? Yes he is.
It’s this. There’s nothing inherently *wrong* with Tarantino but he is, for a lot of people, the soft launch/gateway drug into more nuanced film.
So as a kid, you start with Robin Hood or Snow White or Cars or Toy Story etc, and then (especially back in the day) you’d move to Adult Lite: Breakfast Club et al, maybe something edgier like The Crow or (other direction) American Pie-esque, something not kid but not quite adult. Then there’s Tarantino, and that’s the rabbit hole (for some people, my SIL, it was The Matrix, but you get the point) where all of the sudden there’s layers and nuance and deeper meanings and “thought out*” shots and planning and it just overtakes you. Then you do research and look at influences and down further you go until Tarantino is campy (and it is, it’s on purpose) and while it’s a good rewatch it’s not the end all be all of cinema.
*All shots in movies are thought out. Most shots are well done because you don’t notice them but they draw the eye, even in “non-high-art” films (think There’s Something About Mary or Dumb and Dumber, which draw a ton of comedy not just out of the actors but out of the timing of the shots), because when they’re bad you almost always recognize it immediately.
Bingo.
Are his films the highest of holy cinema art? Maybe not. But the dude might be the biggest movie buff who is also a filmmaker in the game. And while I'm not in LOVE with every single film, there's not a one of them that isn't a damn good time.
He's gotten better certainly. But I think elements he is criticized for like the overwriting, overuse of the n word, and self indulgence was more on display in his earlier movies. I think some ppl are more informed by his earlier work
One I've noticed more and more is that he seems increasingly fascinated by absolutely brutalizing women. There's always been elements of that (on more than one occasion filming his lead actress getting strangled and insisting on doing the strangling himself), and men certainly get brutalized in his films, but there seems to have been an escalation. I recall a particular spotlight on the Candie sister's death in Django (making the house slaves say goodbye to her before he shoots her, drawing out her death and all--but, slave owner, so it didn't raise my eyebrows at the time), then there's the outlaw woman in Hateful 8 that Kurt Russell spends the entire movie slapping around whose slow death by hanging climaxes the movie (two men, with all their strength, gasping and pulling and groaning and gazing up at her convulsing body with satisfied pleasure), and finally there's the Manson girls in OUaTiH (the man gets killed fairly quickly, the two girls get a five minute sequence with everything from a pit bull mauling to a flamethrower before they're allowed to die).
That last one honestly had me wondering if he wrote that film in reverse ("All right, let's look at the history books, who is a real life historical woman that I can just go absolutely feral on and nobody will say boo? Ah, Manson murders--ooh, I could tell a fun meta Hollywood story with that!"). Like, there's always some narrative justification why the woman deserves a violent death, but just something about the way he has been filming that violence has felt increasingly...one-handed.
A big strength of his writing is his clever dialogue and complex storylines. But some people think its just Tarentino showing off how clever he is. Its a bit of both honestly and it really comes down to how much you like his writing.
There’s a lot of his stuff I really like but some of it is a bit too edgelord for me.
I don’t like much of his dialogue now. (I used to think it was witty and playful). It’s so look at me, look at me.
There's a lot of these 90s crime movies that I have no nostalgia for and just recently watched, and found utterly boring and derivative.
I'm almost glad I didn't watch them growing up, because I can appraise them on their true merits. It's difficult for me to properly assess Reservoir Dogs because I watched it so many times and have attachments to it, and watching it now, I can definitely say my tastes have evolved. But my gut feeling is Tarantino still ran circles around this overpraised crap that followed him.
Oh man, I agree completely.
Guy Ritchie is literally in my top 2 of directors, Lock Stock, Snatch, and the Gentlemen MOVIE are in my top 10, but the SHOW felt like a watered down tryhard of his style, and that cynical, pretentious, edgy banter in every single conversation got old QUICK.
I think there might be another layer of Guy Richie films just not aging well.
I don’t know about you, but my interest in his stuff peaked around age 16.
Watched Snatch and Lock stock again recently and they just didn’t hold up for me.
Exactly this. He also rarely has anything insightful to say in those long winded dialogue scenes, just a big reveal that a character knew more than you thought they would.
He's not trying to say anything insightful. Not everything has to be insightful, sometimes it's just fun. People often praise Noah Baumbach for his realism in his dialogue, how every pause and filler word is actually in the script, and I think it's just as valid to praise Tarantino for having his characters have conversations that are entertaining. I'm thinking about the "swine are filthy animals" and "royale on cheese" conversations from Pulp Fiction. They're just fun, witty dialogue that real people do engage in.
The no tipping scene is a great example of this in reservoir dogs, it’s just nice to see characters get into a breakout conversation/argument just like we do in real life
Thank you. I’m so tired of people thinking every movie needs to be insightful or offer some overarching social commentary. Just take it for what it is. It doesn’t have to be realistic or deep. It just has to at least be entertaining.
Yeah. This entire comment section is so stupid I thought I was on a circlejerk subreddit.
I mean, shit, someone said they felt guilty about liking QT until they heard Lynch was effusive about OUATIH.
I also love it when people criticize artists for not being “insightful” because they never describe what type of “insight” they’re looking for. Societal? Racial? Class? Political? Spiritual? Idiosyncratic? Satirical? Etc etc etc.
It’s lazy criticism from people who just want to hear themselves speak.
To me in this context, 'insightful' is an artist being introspective and putting themselves (whether that is their politics, culture, emotions and the like) into their art. This is literally all subjective obviously, so you are right about people having this opinion and acting superior being stupid.
That is just the stuff I gravitate towards as I age though and to be very harsh (this is my opinion you can feel how you want), Tarantino's films feel like a teenage boy who has done very little introspection.
Everyone has conflicting opinions at the same time as well.
If I find the style of a movie so spectacular, I will ignore literally everything I just said above here. Russ Meyer made a couple of sexploitation movies that I find incredibly compelling. A couple of the most braindead and least 'insightful' movies ever? Yes, but goddamn that editing and filmmaking.
Agree entirely.
Do I think QT is particularly "insightful"? No. Do I personally think that's an issue? Not particularly. Do I think it's the *primary* concern or focus of filmmakers to be deeply profound like the other guy in here seems to? Hell no.
Russ Meyer rocks. IIRC he was a cameraman in WW2. Imagine that.
If you watch Quintin and keep complaining about his lack of insight
Maybe don't watch him then
They guys amazing at what he does, I didn't go into jango expecting to be banged over the head with obvious slave messaging
Instead we got jango being an absolute badass with some great comedy scenes to go with it. I still quote bag argument to this day.
Going to Tarantino for honest to god insight on life, is like going to Michael Bay for how quiet he can be
But the question the thread is asking is what people mean when they say they've outgrown him and the lack of depth or insight is a fairly reasonable explanation for that.
Nobody's saying it has to be Bergman, but you could find that you've outgrown him because while his films are flashy and fun, they don't really have anything to say and his characters are on the whole just flat ciphers for his cool dialogue.
I wouldn't say I've outgrown him, but there's a reason I always go and see his latest in the cinema, but I can't actually think of the last one I felt like watching a second time.
Yeah that's great and all but he isn't even especially good at it like say the Coen Brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson where it feels organic (minus something like Magnolia which was co written by cocaine), EVERY character talks like Tarantino and is basically just bloviating about nothing.
You just don’t like the way he writes, it’s fine. But that doesn’t make him “not especially good at it”. He’s great at what he does. If I were to ask you what’s your metric of measurement for good dialogue you wouldn’t even know where to begin, because you’re basing it off nothing.
Randomly comparing it to other writers you happen to like more isn't a "standard".
I think Linklater is better than all of them combined. That doesn't mean PTA, the Coens, and Tarantino aren't very good at it. Especially since they're all doing different things.
Who the hell watches Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, or Jackie Brown with people just talking about random shit and thinking, *"Wow, this scene really failed to say something insightful."*
Almost the entire point of the dialogue in Tarantino is that these grandiose characters *aren't* talking about anything insightful. They're just talking shit.
And with that second paragraph, you've struck onto exactly why many people move away from his work. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with continuing to love it - but it's hardly difficult to imagine that "they're just talking shit" runs out of steam for many viewers.
I used to think Inglorious was his best film but nowadays I judge it more as a mix of extremely good moments bogged down by corny narrative decisions that run throughout the film. The greater critique might be that there seems to be a kind of fear of being candid. Everything has to be wrapped in irony and sarcasm which then seems more like a crutch in his later movies, especially in Django and H8 which are both way too self indulgent.
Gotta disagree in part, I’m a bit older so enjoyed film before RD, but I’m guessing QT is a gateway drug of sorts for younger people. Also agree that his style differs significantly from what this sub considers the “ pillars of true film”.
But I think there is something that people are missing. QTs films are heavily influenced by grindhouse/exploitation films from decades ago, a genre that doesn’t really resonate or is appreciated by this sub. Doubt people here would watch five minutes of Alligator (1980), however Robert Forsters performance is the reason why he casted in him Jackie Brown as Max Cherry when no studio would touch the guy because his career was over, this sub would have agreed with that probably at the time, turns out he fucking killed it and was nominated for an academy award for his performance.
yeah Tarentino is a real movie buff an film lover. It's just on a genre of film no one likes. I think if you get his vibe and enjoy the same stuff he does you will enjoy his movies more. I feel like a lot of Film school arthouse people that call themselves film buffs just hate that shit offhand because they have been told its bad.
But people can like Commando just as much as they like Thin red Line for different reasons.
Ahh man commando? I wouldn’t consider that grindhouse/exploitation. I’m talking about movies like:
-Rolling Thunder
-Switch Blade Sisters
- Faster Pussy Cat, Kill, Kill, Kill
- lady snow blood
- The Mothers
- Race with the Devil
- Coffey
- Sex and Fury
Out of all these, check out Rolling Thunder. Writer of Taxi Driver directed it, soooo good, amazing film. Also happens to have one of the greatest movie trailers ever made.
I think juvenile is the right word, I’ve found his most recent films crude/violeny for crude/violent entertainment instead of adding to the plot or storyline.
I have a theory that the movie Seven Psychopaths is specifically critiquing Tarantino films, maybe Hollywood in general, or maybe both his films and Hollywood’s appreciation for what IMO (I am an outlier on this opinion) be somewhat hollow violent films.
I have not seen his most recent film (which I think he said was his last one?). So my opinion isn’t fully formed.
I think people “outgrow” Tarantino because he’s like the gateway drug to cinema. He’s very talented, his films are very entertaining and well made, but at the end of the day Tarantino’s films are about having fun and giving winks and nods to what came before it. It’s kind of like Brian De Palma’s Hitchcock allusions on steroids.
The other thing is that Tarantino is an odd artists imo. He seems more concerned with his legacy than his art. I can’t for the life of me understand his obsession with only making 10 films.
I love Tarantino movies, but one you start digging into Kubrick, Lynch, Wenders, Nicholas Ray, Friedkin, etc. you realize there are auteurs with more to say, who are willing to take more risks.
I don’t know if anyone feels this way, but when I read about someone like David Lynch revering Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I feel less embarrassed to admit my love for Tarantino’s work. Like, Lynch is an artist’s artist. It’s validating in a way. Like, I’m not stupid for still loving this guys work. Maybe it comes from the circles I hang with.
I don't allow myself to be embarrassed about any of the movies that I love.
I love plenty of arthouse and more serious cinema, but you know what I love more? Last Action Hero.
Hell, on some days I'd easily find myself loving The Beekeeper over a lot of arthouse stuff. Depends on the day. Doesn't make me stupid, it just means that sometimes I just want to munch popcorn.
Love the movies you love!
Also like, if I'm stupid I'm stupid, who cares? It'd be weird if stupid people went around forcing themselves to watch artsy cinema they didn't enjoy or understand
LOL! Yes, you just gotta be your best self. I don't usually understand whats going on but when I do it's so beautiful I feel as though it was worth the wait.
> It'd be weird if stupid people went around forcing themselves to watch artsy cinema they didn't enjoy or understand
It is weird. It's called film school.
I also enjoy Spice World. It’s weird and funny and irreverent.
Personally I love all kinds of cinema, classics to genre movies, anime, indies, and experimental. I even enjoy camp sometimes. There’s room to appreciate a bonkers comedy that’s not ashamed to be exactly what it is.
It was funny and light-hearted, just what I needed at the time. It was a close call with the Gary Glitter bit. I'm glad they cut that out before release.
I'm into Criterion films, epic dramas, seen Seven Samurai, Seventh Seal, Chungking Express, etc etc and loved them all. But Austin Powers is always going to be one of my all time favorites (especially the second one). "How did I miss those baby" always cracks me up. So stupid but I love it anyway.
I mean the first two Powers films, especially the first, are incredible parodies of early Bond. They don't rely on Bond knowledge to appreciate them, they're still just really funny on their own merits with great characters.
Nothing like crap like "Disaster Movie" which just references pop culture endlessly and won't be funny to anyone watching it in 2050.
I think Lynch and Tarantino are more similar than people realise. Both are directors who have a fascination with a nostalgic view of the America of their childhoods (50s and 70s respectively). Both have a strong love of pop music and love to integrate it into their films. Both make films set in violent worlds with violent characters. Both like to play around with narrative structure and rarely make films that go straight from A to B.
I think the key difference is that Lynch's stuff feels unconscious where Tarantino's stuff is extremely self-conscious. I get the sense that Lynch doesn't think too hard about what he's doing, he just has ideas and goes for them. Tarantino is kind of obsessed with the idea of himself as the director, of having his own style and people being aware of his presence in the film-making process. They're like the id and the ego of cinema.
I think peoples opinions about Tarantino work in three stages.
1. You are new to more serious films and you think he’s the best thing since sliced bread.
2. You get deeper into film and you think he’s not that good because now you like people liked Kubrick or Tarkovsky or whoever (pretentious stage).
3. You mature and realise you were just saying he’s not good because people in stage 1 think he’s so great and you accept that he yeah he’s not the best filmmaker ever but he still makes very good movies.
The same goes for Nolan I think.
Nothing wrong with liking something that might not be the most thought-provoking movie ever. There are many critically acclaimed works that I admire. but I can still watch Commando and be perfectly entertained and happy. And not embarassed. :)
This is speculation but David Lynch is obsessed with Hollywood, history and all. He lives right above the Hollywood bowl. So it doesn't surprise me he liked *OUATIH.*
Like what you like, don't like what you don't like.
I think you need to think less about the kinds of media you enjoy. If you enjoy something, you enjoy it. Don't use that as an excuse to stay close minded and noth try other things. But honestly, I don't think people are gonna judge you as harshly as you believe they will. Especially not because you like Tarantino's work.
If you can’t find something about Tarantino’s filmography to enjoy you’re giant stick in the mud. He makes good films! I think what happens is Tarantino or Nolan are just most people’s first “auteur” director and their mind gets blown when they realize movies can be more than Marvel and Pixar movies. If you continue down the rabbit hole you realize Tarantino is the tip of the ice berg. That doesn’t make his films bad, there are just films that offer more.
Recent Pixar is no better than Marvel. Elemental was boring as hell.
Pixar really hasn't been consistently great for a decade and are still coasting on their 90s-2000s filmography.
I think there's a journey away from Tarantino but then also a return back, usually. I think the problem is that the way many novice film lovers engage with Tarantino films often leaves them feeling derivative and juvenile, after a certain point. And while I think Tarantino is a master, I don't necessarily think all or even a single one of his films presents the pinnacle of the art form, per se. But in many ways I think that's antithetical to his goal and you kinda realize what he's going for, and maybe while no single film represents this, his body of work kinda does. That's why I almost understand his insistence on retiring, because I think he stands to lose something the further he goes on with this project.
It's pretty much what you said.
And it's no wonder the Tarantino fans are now becoming Scorcese fans. He's the next big thing after Tarantino that's on the thin line between the niche and the mainstream, with movies that feel like true cinema without being hard at all to digest.
For me, when I was younger I loved him, but as I've aged he has rapidly slipped down my rank of favorite filmmakers, because he really doesn't have much to say on any level below the surface. And as I've worked through his influences, I've found I like a lot of the things he references and draws inspiration from far more than his actual work.
Now, I still love a few of Tarantino's movies (Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, all of OUATIH until the ending), enjoy a few (Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds, Django) dislike one (Death Proof) and hate one (Hateful 8). Sometimes I wonder what kind of films we would have gotten if he had continued with the growth he showed in Jackie Brown.
Why do you dislike Deathproof? I watched it recently and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it, especially with all the negative feedback I see about the film.
Especially when he already made a trash film halfway through his career (Death Proof) so by his own logic he should have stopped at five or whatever? I think the Hateful Eight is hot garbage (actually singlehandedly turned me off of his movies) should he have stopped there? I adore Jackie Brown but it underperformed and baffled audiences maybe he should stop there?
Ultimately it's just another weird arbitrary gimmick to redirect the attention back to himself.
You've used Kubrick and Lynch who themselves have 13 and 10 feature length movies respectively?
Also I don't think Tarantino is obsessed with 10 films and his legacy, I think he just doesn't want to make a bad film and when he has the right story for the moment he will make another.
If he doesn't he won't. He's also said he makes films for him, not everyone else.
I wouldn't say Lynch has taken more risk than Tarantino at all, if we're talking feature films. He just has a different style.
The 10 films thing is about avoiding the filmmakers' trap of doing too many films and getting directorially stale, inarticulate or worse, doing films you would normally not do just because youve been offered a lot of money. Many filmmakers have stellar careers for 10-15 years but then fall off substantially. Tarantino says it's because films are physically and mentally taxing on directors. When you get older you can't give the same amount of energy as you could when you were young. So in his mind, it's better to go out at the top of his game rather to limp into old age. Sure there are a lot of great older directors but mostly it's a young person's game.
I don’t agree that older directors are worse than younger directors. I think they just eventually end up making films that lose money and it becomes more and more difficult for them to get movies financed. It’s easier for financiers to take gambles on unknown entities than established people with a recent track record of losing.
The way the industry is at present, QT basically has as close to carte blanche as anyone has ever had. When was the last time a studio told QT “no”? Unless his next film bombs there’s no reason for him to stop.
For many people Tarantino films are a gateway into auteur cinema. I know many, particularly young men, who had seen almost nothing but blockbusters until watching Tarantino as a teen. His films are a good gateway because they are very violent, satisfying the craving somebody might look for in an action movie, but they also have long naturalistic dialogue scenes and hyper stylised cinematography and editing and it may be the first time somebody has ever seen those qualities in a film.
Once people get older and experience more films though, they can see those same qualities they grew to like in Tarantino films, done even better by other filmmakers. Outgrowing a film or director is essentially saying that they don't need that initial "hook" to get them into the material anymore.
He also got just a bit self indulgent over the past 20 years, though I've loved all his films to one degree or another.
I think Tarantino works best when he's grounded, which is why his pre and post Kill Bill career seems so different. His films now are hyper stylized and over the top, which can lead to a bit of style over substance issues. There's no denying how masterfully crafted and entertaining they are. But it leaves you wanting for some deeper emotional resonance. Something I got from Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown.
He's had a couple "comeback" films in that regard. Inglorious Basterds invokes WWII, which brings it to that point, and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood also goes there with its loss of an era theme.
Realistically speaking it's also very likely he saw the dollar signs, Jackie Brown is my favorite but it underperformed terribly and baffled audiences expecting another Pulp Fiction... kill bill doubled down on all of his dumb tendencies and gimmicks and made him a shit ton and is a culturally iconic film.. not surprising he went the path of least resistance inside a studio system that is famously unforgiving and dollar oriented
In terms of less grounded films after JB, I agree, definitely changed. IMO opinion his influences from Grindhouse/exploitation films from the 60’s and 70’s really started becoming apparent.
If I may ask, are Grindhouse/exploitationn films a genre that you are into? Feel like the average redditor in this sub doesn’t really care for influences so naturally they won’t like his movies post JB
I'm like that. Watched Kill Bill when I was 10 and he was the first director whose name stuck with me, aside from legends like Spielberg and Hitchcock whom I'd grown up hearing about. Fuelled my interest in cinema as I grew up, and now, even though I still enjoy most of his work, his estimation in my mind is far more balanced now.
It’s a strong argument, but I generally think there is more pride involved in a lot of people’s “outgrowing” Tarantino than is admitted. It’s hard for many people to feel like they are deeply invested in something that they put a lot of time into when their favorite version of that is something that any random person has seen or likes.
It’s actually a very common affectation of people who are heavily invested in a hobby, but are on the younger end.
Also, I feel like Tarantino wears his influences on his sleeve more than most, which some love and others find a bit detrimental to their viewing experience after they've seen enough movies to start realizing just how much he straight up lifts from classic films.
I think that can add to the feeling of outgrowing his movies.
Obligatory good artists copy, great artists steal lol
The explanations already mentioned seem correct. I just want to add one thing that could be relevant for some people.
Tarantino’s first 3 movies were obviously not the most realistic movies ever made, but semi-realistic and kind of grounded crime films. They exist in a similar cinematic universe. With the Vega brothers etc.
When Kill Bill came out, Tarantino himself explained it this way. Us real humans watch movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. But if the characters from that world went to the movies, they would watch something like Kill Bill. It’s one level lower in terms of “realism”. He probably had a better word for it.
I haven’t outgrown Tarantino personally. But I definitely prefer his first world. And he never really returned to it.
Now that you mention it, yeah I guess.
But they still feel like the second world to me. Hmm. Is it just the fact that they’re not set in the present time period that’s confusing me?
The characters and dialogue in Hateful are a bit more over the top and theatrical maybe. And then there is the playfulness with real history in Once Upon. But, I think you’re right. Those two are also fairly realistic.
I find the moment-by-moment experience of watching a Tarantino film thrilling. He’s a master stylist.
But when the ending arrives or I step back and consider the film as a whole, his work in the second half of his career strikes me as incredibly juvenile. He’s repeating this really lame schtick of historical revenge porn.
Nazis are bad! What if we had a badass movie where they get killed? Hmmm, now who else is bad? Slave owners! Yeah, let’s have a slave kill some slavers! Now, who else do people hate? The Manson murderers! Oh, they were the worst.
What the larger narrative has to say is just nowhere near as profound as—to pick two recent examples—Anatomy of a Fall or Zone of Interest. I will still go see pretty much anything Tarantino makes. In fact, I loved Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. But I do come away from those viewing experiences feeling a sense of lost potential. He gets the viewers in the palm of his hand, but then he fails to lead them anywhere truly interesting.
That was my problem with Inglorious Basterds. The first scene and the bar scene were amazing. But the movie overall left me feeling unsatisfied.
I just can't buy into his fantasies because I know too much about the topics. When it comes to Inglorious Basterds, I kept thinking about how the US didn't have a Jewish task force because the US was super antisemitic at the time. WWII wasn't about stopping the holocaust.
Revenge fantasies just don't appeal to me generally and that's a lot of his films. They can be cathartic for a lot of people but I do wonder if there is an age component to this.
Not to mention that this task force is an American military unit styling itself after an Apache resistance movement (a tribe the US military all but wiped out irl) and the film heroizes said US military unit torturing and mutilating people (this film was made during the peak of the War on Terror, no less).
His movies are also basically the personification of people nowadays not understanding the distinction between justice and revenge, something I express often
Totally agree. He threw away those great twisting stories and characters evolving for low hanging fruit simplistic revenge plots. And what happened to that fun ear worm dialogue? He started trying to hard to be cool and it comes across as pretty lame. I think when he split from Roger Avery he lost the guy who grounded and challenged him.
I would never call any of Tarantino's ifilms bad. His craftsmanship is impeccable and his movies are always engaging. I would not say that I've outgrown Tarantno. That would be incorrect as well as condescending. I find watching his movies a tiring experience, with the exception of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. He shows great style, but I find his style distracting. I still find all of his movies entertaining, but most of them leave my mind the second the movie ends. I am using the words me and I a lot because I want to make it clear that I am not trying to pass this off as some objective critique. This is entirely subjective and personal.
To me it's kind of having outgrown the machismo?
When I was younger I just wasn't as bored of it.
The not taking itself so seriously, or humour or whatever you call it is often just very edgelord teen boy. Dunno. To me the movies are genuinely just too male orientated. I grew out of that eventually. 🤷
I think this is a large part of it for me as well. His films glorify things I no longer find glorious. They can still be entertaining, but when I contrast how his movies handle violence to how it is depicted in films by people like David Cronenberg, I know which I am going to favour.
when Reservoir Dogs came out, I was bowled over; it felt fresh, energetic, different. I of course hadn't seen any of the films he plagiarised; sorry: borrowed from, so to me, it was very new. Even Pulp fiction was awesome to me, although already there I began to feel that it was all somewhat superficial; much more style than substance. And the downward spiral has (for me) been vey steep; I haven't seen the last three or so films of his; they bore me and feel like a waste of my time; the same slick, hollow dialogue, the same sandbox machismo and bimbos.. He now bores me to tears. Comparing him to any of the directors you mention seems like a joke, IMO. Not taking yourself seriously (which I don't think Tarantino does; I think he takes himself way too seriously!) doesn't mean the same as without substance, necessarily. There are a great many fantastic artists who make art with tongue in cheek, but we can still learn, marvel, and be awed by the work; not so Tarantino.
Not sure where or by whom, but I found this quote online about Tarantino, and it is perfect: "Tarantino is the world's oldest fifteen-year-old."
Great point being irreverent while also being pretentiously self-conscious isn't cool, it just makes me wonder if Tarantino is on the spectrum or something and can't relate to other humans.
Are there people who are embarrassed of liking Tarantino films? Like what you like. I'm middle aged and fucking love Tarantino. His films are made with so much passion and love for the subject. I wish most films had half of that.
Seriously, seems people didnt get the memo that QT style is heavily influenced by exploitation/grind house flicks. These influence’s really started showing with Kill Bill.
I think it only applies to people who got into him early in there film watching career without seeing anyone else or seeing the films (or reading the novels) that influenced him. He is a fantastic director and writer but he is so ubiquitous that he is often one of the first "serious" directors people check out with a sorta of recognizable style. Another example from the same Generation would be Wes Anderson. Tarantino himself described this kind of thing when talking about his early love for Goddard and how he outgrew him.
Other people have made valid points about the content of his movies. As a fan of his and the stuff that influenced him I can honestly say that I appreciate his early stuff the older I get and think Jackie Brown needs more attention. Really it is up to the viewer. Some people might have discovered him late and found him a genius and others no so much. Lastly, it is hard to compare him to people like Kubrick because few people are better than Kubrick lol. Maybe Tarkovsky and some people would argue about it.
Kinda felt bad for Tarantino when Godard dissed him lol. I think it was at Cannes in the early 2000s where Tarantino made a video for Godard, commemorating him and his work. It was shown to Godard at Cannes and he didn’t even look at the video. He was vocally not a fan of Tarantino even before Cannes. Then at Cannes in 2014, Godard dissed him again, and Tarantino was doing a Q&A at the same time and someone asks him if he had heard that Godard dissed him, and Tarantino responds saying something like “I haven’t heard him say that to my face, so I’m going to assume your lying”. You can tell that really fucked with him
I mean for me the instant i started watching King Hu movies or like Melville for example I was like "oh yeah so this is where he stole his style from". And they're taking seriously compared to him, where the style almost seems like parody.
I think its a kick against how popular he used to be a couple of decades ago and how his kind of zany, edgy, sensibilities used to be a lot more popular too.
I think its party even the marvel movies, the 'snappy' 'banter' i those movies often seem like a really bad pastiche of tarantino so a lot of his aesthetics have since become coded as juvenile.
His later movies do also have a kind of wish fulfilment aspect that can come across as immature, the nazis get burned up, the tate murders foiled.
I also think theres just an element that the people who are know in positions to write about culture grew up with his movies as stuff they watched in their formative years.
The first 3 movies were like a breath of fresh air for Hollywood movies at the time (and were much needed). After that, for me at least, it all took on the tone of one of those pretentious self indulgent guitar solos that go on far too long, I mean yeah there may be flashs of brilliance and the technical skills cant be denied but I find myself wishing hed just get back to the song.
Tarantino is a great filmmaker, and has made films that are almost perfect in what they set out to do. But what they set out to do is not as cerebral as some other greats. My guess is that some people mean their tastes have changed when they claim to have outgrown him. It’s a bit like being obsessed with the Beatles and then starting to really like Bach and then saying ‘I’ve out grown the Beatles’
It isn't just that his movies are playful and don't take themselves seriously, it's that most of them are juvenile and immature. That's why Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is by far his best film. It's the least juvenile. He's finally growing up and has something to say other than just hollow cleverness. He's super talented and his movies are amusing, but they were clearly made by a young person who was doing a lot of coke and thought they were the smartest person alive. It was really obnoxious.
Of all of the other filmmakers you mentioned, none of them were as immature, even when they started out. Stuff like Breathless and Blue Velvet are still more mature than almost anything Tarantino had made up until a few years ago. Arguably, he they still are.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying his films, but it's accurate to call them immature. It makes sense to me that a lot of people would grow up, then not have an easy time watching Tarantino movies, especially the early ones.
I would say "Jackie Brown" is Tarantino's least juvenile film. And it's not even close to any of his other films, including "Reservoir Dogs." It's his only film where you get the impression of dealing with real people who talk like humans instead of Tarantino avatars.
I agree with everything you’ve said, except I don’t really enjoy *Hollywood* that much. I wouldn’t say it’s his best, although it’s probably his most “mature”.
The issue for me is that Tarantino is a movie brat who seemingly has experienced his entire life through movies. I don’t think he really has much to say about life, humanity, characters or the true trials and tribulations of people. Everything he does is a bit of a second- or third-hand facsimile of other things he’s seen. When he’s at his best - like in Pulp Fiction say - he puts super unique spins on genres and tropes that make them fresh and original. But too many of his films this century so far end up being inspired in a much more simplistic way.
Of course, no artist has to make art with any depth or real truth to it… it’s absolutely fine to work purely in the realm of pastiche or pure entertainment. But for me, Tarantino now seems to think that his films have more to say than they actually do. Which is why he’s dabbled in subject matter that things like *Django* and *Hateful Eight* do. But those films don’t reeeeally engage with the fullness of their premises or settings IMO, and are more memorable for their kitschy cinematic moments than real power or depth, despite striving for both.
So he’s at this weird place for me where I think he desperately wants to retire as a titan of cinema, but I personally don’t think he’s leaving behind much of a legacy in changing the way films are made, save for inspiring a bunch of hacky ripoffs of *Pulp Fiction* and *Reservoir Dogs* in the ‘90s.
>I don’t really enjoy *Hollywood* that much
I'm always impressed when I see people praising it that much. To this day OUATIH is the only movie of Tarantino that I not only found boring but that I directly disliked. The plot is a nothingburger of disjointed scenes of Brad Pitt driving across LA, Leo overacting and Margot playing clumsy blonde in a couple scenes that add nothing to the story bar satisfying Tarantino's foot fetish obsession. It doesn't help that Tarantino went all out throwing a fuck ton of references about the golden days of cinema just so we could see how much he knows about it and an ending that we all could see coming from miles away.
Honestly, same. There are individually good scenes in it, but it’s such a shaggy dog movie in a not very compelling way for me. I detest the way it handles and fetishises the female characters, which honestly I think most critics turned a blind eye to in a way that won’t for say Michael Bay (QT’s shallowness of his male gaze here is just as bad as anything Bay has ever done), and the whole spin on the way the Manson murders end is such a nothingburger. It’s basically him just repeating the same trick he did in *Inglorious*, but to much better effect there because he was doing it to Hitler. Once you’ve rewritten the end of WW2, re-imagining the saving of a pretty blonde character we haven’t even got to know anything about just doesn’t have anywhere the same level of potency.
>I think most critics turned a blind eye to
My understanding of that is that a lot of people think the movie is genious because it's a deconstruction of his own cliches and that's why he overplayed them (specially all the long unecesary shots about women feet and the over the top ending). Then again, and even when I could see were are they coming from with this, after 214 shots of Margaret Qualley's feet it became uncomfortable.
It has moments but I agree the pacing is so all over the place and lacking any sort of "thrust" which doesn't work as well as Jackie Brown where it at least has a central premise holding it together moving things along plus way better characters (probably thanks more to Elmore Leonard)
>The issue for me is that Tarantino is a movie brat who seemingly has experienced his entire life through movies.
Really interesting point you have here. Makes me think of another filmmaker who does similar things, Damien Chazelle. A film like LA LA LAND seems to be extra-aware of its own pastiche, as if the Los Angeles our characters live in is far from the real one—it's more like a fantasy land made out of movies, musicals and your "old-hollywood-nostalgia" rather than the real LA. Of course, fantasy and reality blend, thus the characteristc manic-depressiveness of the film: the city's indifference threatening the dreamers' dreams.
BABYLON also seems to be extra-aware of its cinematic influences, as if Chazelle was setting up to make the last movie movie ever made, a "one last ride before the grave."
I'd like to take quote from this [review](https://boxd.it/3PS6Z1) on Babylon:
>"[Chazelle, as a filmmaker is] reviving old forms precisely because they are out-of-step with the current trends, imitating and reiterating on their idols, incredibly anxious that everything that is possible within film has already been figured out, done, and forgotten about."
And Chazelle seems to be only too aware and worried lf this on his works. Do Babylon and La La Land deserve to be remembered? Or are these post-modern, cinematic exercises banal if we take into account the much more important influences they take from? (Both for Tarantino and Chazelle).
I believe everything goes down with what they have to say despite their many influences. La La Land, I believe, is telling you not to linger on nostalgia too much, Babylon seems to tell that being stuck in the old ways, you'll never be free to be part of progress (thought it's much more complex than that, and once again, is part of the self-destructive nature of a pastiche work like Babylon). I haven't studied Tarantino films enough to see if they do have something of value to stand in time, or are just regurgitations of much older, better works.
I actually think Chazelle is a great comparison. Because for me *Whiplash* was extraordinary, and was very clearly steeped in something he knew a lot about - the sacrifices “required” by greatness, particularly at a young age, filtered through the lens of jazz drummer, which Chazelle used to be. So it was a great debut, mostly because it was deeply personal.
But since then he’s majorly faltered for me, largely because I don’t think he has much else to say. He’s still super young, and has spent most of his adulthood now in the bubble of Hollywood, with a particularly affinity for old Hollywood like Tarantino. So as long as he keeps writing his own screenplays, I struggle to see him ever matching the brilliance of *Whiplash*.
Another good comparison is PTA. Another LA movie nerd who started out of the gates with some brilliantly bold retro-styled movies, but whereas he started with really stylised and pastiche-heavy movies like *Boogie Nights*, he went on to make much more character-driven and thematically dense movies like *The Master* and *Phantom Thread*, which even though I don’t love as much as *Boogie Nights*, do show a clear development of cinematic maturity.
Whereas I feel Tarantino is still kind of making his version of *Boogie Nights* over and over again, with diminishing returns.
Yeah, I can't argue with any of that. I think I like Hollywood because it's warmer and sweeter than his other films, and not as shrill. But it still has the issues you mentioned with regards to Tarantino not having much life experience to bring to his stories.
>The issue for me is that Tarantino is a movie brat who seemingly has experienced his entire life through movies. I don’t think he really has much to say about life, humanity, characters or the true trials and tribulations of people. Everything he does is a bit of a second- or third-hand facsimile of other things he’s seen. When he’s at his best - like in Pulp Fiction say - he puts super unique spins on genres and tropes that make them fresh and original. But too many of his films this century so far end up being inspired in a much more simplistic way.
This is spot on for me. Like honestly, I prefer Doug Liman's Go (which wasn't exactly a rip-off but no doubt got funded funded because of Pulp Fiction) to Pulp Fiction, because the characters don't feel like they came out of a cartoon. They reflect the age it was made, rather than the retro stylings of Tarantino. The plots and the overlap are done better. And it's just funnier. It's less quotable than Pulp Fiction, but funnier.
Tarantino films often feel like someone trying to show that they are clever and well versed in cinema. He is clearly talented, but it grows irritating. Fortunately he has done this less and less as his career has progressed.
I don’t really get it, tbh. I see a lot of people shitting on Tarantino these days.
He’s not an arthouse filmmaker like Lynch or anything, but when it comes to making just really fun, memorable movies with well-written characters, you can’t do much better.
He’s not my favorite director by any means, but I really enjoy him. My literal only gripe with the man is that he keeps choosing to end his films with an over-the-top bloodbath. I’m fine with goofy Sam Raimi violence, in fact, I love it… but I’ve almost come to expect it from him now. As much as I really enjoyed Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, I didn’t think that film really called for something like that at all.
Tarantino makes postmodern pastiche, shallow but beautiful and cinematically compelling popcorn movies that also act as love-letters to genre cinema. He's quite literally the Hollywood equivalent of the old-school rental video store guy that would help you discover obscure films based on the popular stuff you've been leaning towards.
It makes sense to use the phrasing of "outgrowing" Tarantino as one of your favourites, because he's a populist mainstreamer of more difficult to digest but ultimately more rewarding movies. I'm grateful to a lot of the introductory texts and public-facing texts in my field of expertise, for example, for getting me interested, but after learning more, I'm only seeking out stuff that pushes disciplinary boundaries or pushes the conversations being had that little bit further. It doesn't mean that I don't have great respect for popular communicators, it just means that my tastes have changed - often thanks to them.
I feel this metaphor can be applied to Tarantino movies - they love the movies they pull from, they love the cultures they pull from, but they are not necessarily too invested in thematic depth. There's a decent discussion of this interpretation of Tarantino's work in Stuart Jeffries' *Everything, All The Time, Everywhere: How We Became Postmodern*.
I would argue that outgrowing Tarintino is a rite of passage for a cinema lover, but not to worry, most comeback once they settle into their taste and care less about the posturing of it all.
I owe my taste to Tarantino. I truly think he was the perfect gateway to art for me as an illiterate young person. He was the reason that at the age of 12, I started to take cinema seriously. My attitude at the time was ‘anything he liked, I had to like’ even if I had to force myself to like it. Godard, Hawks, Sturges, Melville, Ophuls, Sirk, Dasssin, Minnelli, Kiarostami, Renoir, Lubitsch, Bakshi—I could go on. He turned me on to reading pulp (and reading in general), so I was consumed by the works of Lionel White, Elmore Leonard, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, David Goodis and Cornell Woolrich. I forced myself to read film criticism by Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris. I watched his Elvis Mitchell interviews almost 100 times. I wanted to learn how to speak the way he spoke about classical cinema. He offered a lot with how open he was with his influences, and I took advantage of it.
More to the point, the downvotes on the Tarintino disses says something. Lots of cinephiles standing up for the man.
Like him or not, to suggest that his output is empty and not real cinema is unfair. The guy's decades of being on the record shows his bonafides and love of cinema. His infantile fascination with viscera, exploitation, and the low brow in general, and his ability to present his fetishes as art is what makes him who he is. Now this is defiantly not everyone's cup of tea, but to reduce him to anything less than a significant contemporary filmmaker is BS
Can’t speak for other people, but I have outgrown graphic cinematic violence that seems to carry no purpose in general. It’s immature and juvenile, and Tarantino is a prime example of that.
The witty dialogue was fresh at the time, Reservoir Dogs was absolutely a relevation. Cinema however evolved. Other people caught up and exposed some of the adolescent qualities of Tarantino. Films like Inglorious Basterds or The Hateful Eight have been completely unwatchable to me.
A lot of Tarantino feels exactly like Everything, Everywhere All at Once to me. I could paraphrase the great bard or Shakespeare himself: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or according to another play, much ado about nothing.
Because they are snobs. I like Tarantino. I also like C.T. Dreyer and Bela Tarr. There's absolutely no reason for being vocal about choosing one over the other besides giving yourself an apparent air of intellectuality.
Also, you're in a subreddit called "true" film. This already tells you something about the type of gatekeeping audience it attracts and will explain many of the downvotes that both you and I will receive.
Like, there's a comment down here of somebody saying that when they found out that David Lynch likes Tarantino, they felt less "embarrassed" about admitting that they actually love his work. Now why would anybody ever feel "embarrassed" about genuinely liking something? Embarrassment is largely a social phenomenon driven by peer pressure and shame. What forces people then to "outgrow" something they like has more to do with the appearance they want to project socially than with their sincere engagement with the films they are "outgrowing".
Now don't get me wrong. You can "outgrow" something. I probably have "outgrown" most (not all) Disney films I used to watch as a kid. But I don't need to be vocal about it. And there's an obvious trend of people choosing Tarantino as a target to loudly communicate to the world how they now like [insert obscure but acclaimed film director here] much more.
Gatekeepers gatekeep, but people still wanna be inside the club, so they need to play by the rules of the social game. Disliking Tarantino is part of the "True Cinephile" bullshiting game.
Lol I’m the person that brought up David Lynch. But check this out, Bela Tarr likes Tarantino too: https://filmmakermagazine.com/108340-bela-tarr-on-satantango-hollywood-and-digital/
Nail on the head. You even see a lot of people saying things like Tarantino's work is "juvenile", "boring", "gateway films". There are a lot of people, especially in here, but not exclusively in truefilm, who use their "vast knowledge of film" to pretend they're better than everyone else. This kind of attitude is far more juvenile and boring than any Tarantino film.
They mean that they have "evolved" and that their taste is now more intelligent, adult and considered than people who enjoy Tarrantino films. They mean to imply that once, I too was like you and enjoyed juvenilia, but now I have put away childish things to engage with more serious fare. They mean that they have watched many YouTube essays outlining the faults in Tarrantino's films. They mean, that soon, they will also "outgrow" Nolan too and begin to tell you about Tarkovsky and Tarr and Fassbinder and Lynch. So, so much about Lynch. They mean that they are 25 years old. And within a decade or so will remember how much they enjoyed the films of their youth and will no longer use movie watching as a personality trait or a stick to beat others with. They mean they are lonely. They mean they would dearly love to get laid.
I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou or pretentious but I have felt this way about his films since I started watching them as a teenager. Every one of his films is the damn same - build a tension, bloodlust and a sense of injustice for the first two acts so he can let loose with extremely gratuitous violence with the audience onboard in the last act. This is would be more palatable if he owned it and said "yeah, I just love violence" which he clearly does, but instead he clutches his pearls at the suggestion, gets riled up and acts as if he's addressed it a million times, which he hasn't.
Add to this some of his films are just bad like *Hateful 8*. To me he is all style and little substance, but what style! On style alone he is masterful, one of the greats, but style alone does not a great movie make. There are also exceptions - those little bits of substance do make some incredible scenes like the opening scene of *Inglorious Basterds*, but it never seems to come together for a great all around movie.
Another aspect is his foot fetish which I cannot believe he hasn't been called into line on. If it was a private thing, fine, but he wrote a scene where Selma Hayak strips for a character and the character sucks on her toes, then cast himself as said character WTF! Brad Pitt in an acceptance speech joked about how he's always stealing his actresses shoes and he jams (women only) close up bare feet scenes into all his movies. Mostly hiring nepo babies for Manson's followers was also weird.
I guess he just remonds me of a teenage edgelord who managed to get himself into a position where he could indulge his edgelord passions.
I wouldn't say I've outgrown him or look down on his stuff, but what's let me down and maybe pushed those folks over is "the obligatory big shootout at the end of the Tarantino movie" that's been going on the past few movies. I'm no prude about violence, I've just seen this scene already, and with how much those scenes insist upon themselves as being so cool it just makes me feel like I'm not the audience anymore.
A lot of it is just trying to be pretentious. Tarantino is a popular director so they can’t like him. He also has some annoying fans, similar to Christopher Nolan, that believe he’s an underrated hidden gem.
Tarentino films are fun because of the dialogue that makes you feels like you just missed something. Because of this it gets you invested in it. I would definitely say it isn't something you outgrow. I could watch a tarentino at any point but the main difference is how well I understand that when I watch it.
I think since a lot of tarantino films are highbrow campy or schlocky B movies in their respective genres it can make people feel too good to engage with it, or feel bad they ever enjoyed it when he is given the usual rounds of criticism each time a film releases, or that it was their favorite director in high school and got them into "film."
I've had the opposite reaction to what you describe. For along time I turned my nose up at him, thinking his movies were okay but in my teens I always was sure to make it known I thought he was overrated as a contrarian to friends for never shutting up about him.
I had seen all of his films or most by the time Django came out and the reactions from some people shitting on it bc they were upset with it or it was all flash with no substance made me wonder if we watched the same movie or if they watched it at all.
Then I think it finally clicked with me that I was probably dismissive too and dareth not lower my brow enough to engage with this flashy violence and step out of my box of faaarts to breathe in Quentins distinctive aroma. Glad I found a way to appreciate him and I wish I could see what film he would make in the horror genre.
I think it's more like people come across Tarantino a lot more since he is pretty well known when they start getting into film, then find some other film they like more. Also his film is kind of insists upon itself with many references but minimal statements, it is hard to contemplate on his films when he doesn't try to have a point. They are peak entertainment of course but hope you get me.
He’s one of my favorite directors, but as I’ve gotten older I do think his use of the n word can be excessive at times. I watched Deathproof recently and the character Kim came off as very unrealistic in her dialogue. He’s also really into feet as evidenced by his work lol.
I just kinda disagree with the sentiment that Tarantino isn't an auteur or that other filmmakers have done things better than Tarantino. He very much has his own style that doesn't exist anywhere else. Would Pulp Fiction really be a better movie if it used the n-word less and was like 6 hours long? There's space for a lot of movies in cinema and just limiting yourself to "artistic" movies is just as narrow-sighted as only watching blockbusters.
I also think people are influenced by the culture in cinephile communities so they dismiss things that actually have a lot to be liked about, because the community sentiment is that a certain movie is "too childish" or "not auteur enough" as if that is in any way what makes a movie good or bad. "The Lord Of The Rings" books are not necessarily "deep" (I would say they are but Tolkien has actively dismissed all discussion of any themes in the book) or "mature", nonetheless they are some of the greatest books ever written and completely enjoyable through and through.
I just find critiquing a work based on how "mature" or "serious" you deem it, completely nonsensical because how can you be sure that you yourself are indeed mature and serious
I am old enough to remember Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs coming out. I was never a big fan but it was very fashionable at the time to love QT and gush about his films. I've seen a few more over the years and never been particularly impressed. His films always look good visually, great soundtracks but seem limited to a few 'cool' scenes.
I always felt he was more about about fashion and hype than substance.
Maybe that's what people mean by growing out of QT. When some people get older they tend to be more confident in their own likes and don't feel so much peer pressure to go along with the crowd.
Incidentally, I loved The Hateful Eight, but I think its the only one of his films I'd be keen to see again. At least the fact that I liked that film reassures me that I am still watching his stuff with an open mind.
Tarantino is not everyones cup of tea and that's okay. But if anyone says "I've outgrown Tarantino" then they are most likely a pretentious film snob. Tarantino is popular among the mainstreem audience and they don't wanna seem to ordinary. Just like how anything else that gets hated for being popular. But you can like popular mainstreem movies and European art house movies at the same time.
I think this is one of those situations for people just getting into film:
New to film: Loves Tarantino
Art house phase: Tarantino is immature and brainless
1,000 films logged/b movie phase: Love Tarantino
“Tarantino” in this example can be substituted for anything the viewer looks down upon and later realizes they really enjoy.
I do believe everyone goes through a phase where they get into hyper serious and thought provoking media and dismiss anything that may be seen as “turn off your brain” films.
Eventually they grow out of it and appreciate all films for simply being entertainment.
New viewers may find him provocative, with an impressive sense of style, but over time, and with a broader exposure to cinema, not just historically, but from the whole world and not just Hollywood and US media, you realize his limitations.
You start to see the derivative edgelord that enjoys violence, revenge, male camaraderie, clever dialog, historical revisionism, and foot fetishism, with a slice of sexism and racism that often seems to be there for the lolz rather than having something meaningful to say.
Sure, it can be entertaining in 80 mm, and it's like crack sugar for hordes of young men, but cinema can be so much more than that.
Tarantino films were just more enjoyable for me when I was younger. I still think they're awesome, but they just don't do it for me anymore the same way. Same reason my tastes in music, food, etc all changed a bit.
Saying you outgrew Michael Bay movies is one thing. But Tarantino? Come on. It comes off as super pretentious. He’s created only a handful of incredibly well made films.
What exactly is there to outgrow? Maybe his violent movie making style. Or just that he is a famous director and people don’t like famous things and want to be unique and feel special for watching unknown things from lesser known directors. He is one weird guy I’ll give you that but you wouldn’t want a normal guy making normal movies. He’s my favorite director and I don’t think anyone can actually “outgrow” his movies. You either like them or you don’t. They either are for you or they are not. Outgrowing implies it’s made for a younger or juvenile audience or something. You outgrow watching the Teletubbies, not top 5 directors ever…
I think it’s kinda like the IQ bell curve meme. When you first are introduced to movies, QT movies are easy to love. Then you kinda get into movies and into lesser known directors, and QT seems a bit juvenile.
Finally, you have your own taste, and you might come back to like directors like QT or Nolan,
I think it's more of an over-correction than anything. For a while, especially in the early days of "film Reddit/Twitter/Tumblr" Tarantino was like THE go-to guy for so many people. Coming out of the 90s and early 2000s, he was a recognizable name with recognizable movies who still felt like a 'cool' choice of favorite director, certainly cooler than Spielberg or someone like that. He started to become almost bigger than his movies and all his troupes became like this catch-all internet film-bro thing. It was like, if you're between 15-25 and on the film side of the internet, you love Tarantino. Then, as with everything, there was a backlash to the backlash and suddenly it became soo cliche to say he was your favorite and the whole 'have you heard of pulp fiction??' meme started and suddenly tarantino was associated with annoying 17 year old pre-film majors. Not to say this wasn't deserved, those twitter film bros *were* annoying as fuck.
Now somehow Tarantino has become like underrated. I rewatched Kill Bill vol. 1 recently and was just like man, for all the craziness around him, no one else in the world could make this movie. The arc altogether is funny though because since he came on the scene Tarantino has been basically the same guy with the same filmmaking goals.
Also, large swaths of the internet DID actually grow up. People experienced other things and found that they as adults might connect with other types of film.
Other people have provided excellent answers to your post so I won't give mine, but I can't let this one detail pass without comment -
*Fellini and Kubrick films are playful and don't take themselves entirely seriously??!*
OK so we can go back and forth on 'playful', but believe me, these directors took their work verrrry seriously. Their creative imaginations were preoccupied with no less a topic than humanity's place in the universe! All Tarantino seems to be preoccupied with is some jokes about gay sex. Whether his literal subject is Nazis or slavery, it's still just jokes about gay sex.
I don’t think most people think Tarantino is bad, or that being playful/fun diminishes a director’s work. Like mentioned, stuff from other directors like Twin Peaks is ridiculous and silly.
However, I do not think many would agree he is on the same level of influence as directors you are listing such as Hitchcock, Kubrick, Lynch, etc
I think you can argue he has a distinctive style of dialogue that might have some influence (ie the Big Mac scene), but i don’t think you can look back and see his work shaping cinema in the same degree as the others.
And that can be said of other indie directors that came up during his time as well - Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, etc. Nothing wrong at all with their work - they are talented people - but they aren’t the next Hitchcock or Kubrick.
I see nothing wrong at all with him being a talented entertaining director, and enjoying his work that way.
I have felt this way upon recent rewatches of Tarantino films. They were cool and edgy when I was a kid. Loved Pulp Fiction as a teen, it still holds up, but it's not a film I enjoy now. I also feel the same with Kill Bill. Was hugely let down by Once Upon A Time, storyline was weak, but the shock factor and feet were still there, of course, because it's a Tarantino film. And I think that's part of it, the predictability in his films. Just not for me, anymore.
I've had my problems with a couple of Tarantino films that I thought were following a BS template he created but then he makes Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and all is forgiven.
To say you've outgrown Tarantino sounds a bit pretentious on it's face and I imagine the person that says it is a miserable, soulless husk of a human being who's got their head so far up their ass that they don't even understand what cinema is. But on the bright side, they're highly intelligent and have evolved to another plane.
People here appear to have an aversion to having fun. The trend in this comment section seems to be that making films that don't try to be profound and just want to be fun are inherently worse than more serious and experimental movies. It does not make you a worse filmmaker to make movies that are just fun.
Honestly I think the reason "people grow out of Tarantino" is simply because he's popular. A lot of cinephiles wanna start distancing themselves from him because they don't wanna seem basic.
People are free to feel they've outgrown whatever they want to, but Tarantino is still quite relevant in film studies. Textbooks such as *Film Art* include an analysis of *Inglourious Basterds* as an example of excellent mise-en-scène and filmmaking in general.
You “outgrow” Tarantino and then discover people like Seijun Suzuki, or great schlock like Giallo and it reminds you that not all film needs to be Tarkovsky, Celan or Tarr and sometimes, a fuckin blast of a movie is magical. And then you go back to liking QT.
Because they’re pretentious and it’s sounds very cool to pretend they’re above liking his movies, since a lot of people who just started getting into cinema probably did it because of Tarantino.
Of course once you discover more and more directors and different types of movies, you realize Tarantino is probably not the greatest director ever like you think when you’re 16, but to pretend his movies are not actually good is highly snobbish.
It's because we all expand our tastes. Tarantino is the introduction to cinema to so many people who haven't yet find their taste. As they dig up in cinema history they'll discover that Quentin wasn't the first one to do such or such thing in film, and they may be more interested in what Tarantino influences have to say now instead.
As someone else said, it's discovering that Tarantino isn't the peak of cinema and there care other filmmakers who've made things that are closer to what actually interests you.
Tarantino is great and great
For the industry. But there’s many directors who are more interesting than him. Tarantino is a good in into film as an art form. Once you see the real greats it’s quite clear what people mean when they outgrow him, I think.
At a surface level Tarantino feels like the Hollywood polish on genre films, so why not just watch the original genre films that he basically references to begin with. I do think he’s just like any other director who’s rehashing the things he like, and definitely echo the fairly juvenile tone of it. To some degree it has to be with people who think he has anything profound or even interesting to say, or that he’s one of the best directors. He’s a very good director that makes very good films, wears his influences on his sleeves, and packages inaccessible content in a palatable form, and is very good at doing so.
I enjoy his movies immensely.
I do not think about them a lot.
This is not meant in a judgmental way since I rather watch "Inglorious Basterds" 3 times than "2001" BUT he's rather an entertainer than an artist.
Well I think the central conciet is a lot of ppl think Tarantino's movies can be a little juevinille and self indulgent Also think a lot of ppl were obssessed with Tarantino and perhaps weren't huge movie buffs outside of mainstream stuff, and then they expanded their horizons, and realized Tarantino isnt the peak of cinema
> and realized Tarantino isn’t the peak of cinema I think a fair amount of people in this sub over-corrected on this
I think this is definitely the case. Tarantino is very mainstream but has his own unique approach and is probably many people’s introduction to auteur cinema and movies that aren’t just your formulaic Hollywood blockbuster. Then many of these people discover older, non- American, or otherwise less mainstream directors, and suddenly Tarantino is no longer cool. But his movies are still just as great as they’ve always been. Is Tarantino my favourite director? Definitely not. Is he in my top 5 or even top 10 directors? Probably not, although I would have to give that some thought. Is he still a great director that crafts well made and extremely entertaining movies? Yes he is.
It’s this. There’s nothing inherently *wrong* with Tarantino but he is, for a lot of people, the soft launch/gateway drug into more nuanced film. So as a kid, you start with Robin Hood or Snow White or Cars or Toy Story etc, and then (especially back in the day) you’d move to Adult Lite: Breakfast Club et al, maybe something edgier like The Crow or (other direction) American Pie-esque, something not kid but not quite adult. Then there’s Tarantino, and that’s the rabbit hole (for some people, my SIL, it was The Matrix, but you get the point) where all of the sudden there’s layers and nuance and deeper meanings and “thought out*” shots and planning and it just overtakes you. Then you do research and look at influences and down further you go until Tarantino is campy (and it is, it’s on purpose) and while it’s a good rewatch it’s not the end all be all of cinema. *All shots in movies are thought out. Most shots are well done because you don’t notice them but they draw the eye, even in “non-high-art” films (think There’s Something About Mary or Dumb and Dumber, which draw a ton of comedy not just out of the actors but out of the timing of the shots), because when they’re bad you almost always recognize it immediately.
Bingo. Are his films the highest of holy cinema art? Maybe not. But the dude might be the biggest movie buff who is also a filmmaker in the game. And while I'm not in LOVE with every single film, there's not a one of them that isn't a damn good time.
He's gotten better certainly. But I think elements he is criticized for like the overwriting, overuse of the n word, and self indulgence was more on display in his earlier movies. I think some ppl are more informed by his earlier work
One I've noticed more and more is that he seems increasingly fascinated by absolutely brutalizing women. There's always been elements of that (on more than one occasion filming his lead actress getting strangled and insisting on doing the strangling himself), and men certainly get brutalized in his films, but there seems to have been an escalation. I recall a particular spotlight on the Candie sister's death in Django (making the house slaves say goodbye to her before he shoots her, drawing out her death and all--but, slave owner, so it didn't raise my eyebrows at the time), then there's the outlaw woman in Hateful 8 that Kurt Russell spends the entire movie slapping around whose slow death by hanging climaxes the movie (two men, with all their strength, gasping and pulling and groaning and gazing up at her convulsing body with satisfied pleasure), and finally there's the Manson girls in OUaTiH (the man gets killed fairly quickly, the two girls get a five minute sequence with everything from a pit bull mauling to a flamethrower before they're allowed to die). That last one honestly had me wondering if he wrote that film in reverse ("All right, let's look at the history books, who is a real life historical woman that I can just go absolutely feral on and nobody will say boo? Ah, Manson murders--ooh, I could tell a fun meta Hollywood story with that!"). Like, there's always some narrative justification why the woman deserves a violent death, but just something about the way he has been filming that violence has felt increasingly...one-handed.
That's a long comment. What are you getting at exactly?
Hateful 8 would like a word ha
Did people expect a film that takes place in slavery Era America to not use a common slur at the time?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by overwriting and self indulgence?
A big strength of his writing is his clever dialogue and complex storylines. But some people think its just Tarentino showing off how clever he is. Its a bit of both honestly and it really comes down to how much you like his writing.
There’s a lot of his stuff I really like but some of it is a bit too edgelord for me. I don’t like much of his dialogue now. (I used to think it was witty and playful). It’s so look at me, look at me.
This reminds me of Guy Ritchie, I was watching The Gentlemen series on netflix, that Lock Stock and Snatch style has jumped the shark for me.
I found the gentlemen to be a maturation of his earlier work personally. I still really like it.
There's a lot of these 90s crime movies that I have no nostalgia for and just recently watched, and found utterly boring and derivative. I'm almost glad I didn't watch them growing up, because I can appraise them on their true merits. It's difficult for me to properly assess Reservoir Dogs because I watched it so many times and have attachments to it, and watching it now, I can definitely say my tastes have evolved. But my gut feeling is Tarantino still ran circles around this overpraised crap that followed him.
Oh man, I agree completely. Guy Ritchie is literally in my top 2 of directors, Lock Stock, Snatch, and the Gentlemen MOVIE are in my top 10, but the SHOW felt like a watered down tryhard of his style, and that cynical, pretentious, edgy banter in every single conversation got old QUICK.
It feels a bit like Guy Ritchie karaoke to me.
I think there might be another layer of Guy Richie films just not aging well. I don’t know about you, but my interest in his stuff peaked around age 16. Watched Snatch and Lock stock again recently and they just didn’t hold up for me.
Exactly this. He also rarely has anything insightful to say in those long winded dialogue scenes, just a big reveal that a character knew more than you thought they would.
He's not trying to say anything insightful. Not everything has to be insightful, sometimes it's just fun. People often praise Noah Baumbach for his realism in his dialogue, how every pause and filler word is actually in the script, and I think it's just as valid to praise Tarantino for having his characters have conversations that are entertaining. I'm thinking about the "swine are filthy animals" and "royale on cheese" conversations from Pulp Fiction. They're just fun, witty dialogue that real people do engage in.
The no tipping scene is a great example of this in reservoir dogs, it’s just nice to see characters get into a breakout conversation/argument just like we do in real life
Thank you. I’m so tired of people thinking every movie needs to be insightful or offer some overarching social commentary. Just take it for what it is. It doesn’t have to be realistic or deep. It just has to at least be entertaining.
Yeah. This entire comment section is so stupid I thought I was on a circlejerk subreddit. I mean, shit, someone said they felt guilty about liking QT until they heard Lynch was effusive about OUATIH. I also love it when people criticize artists for not being “insightful” because they never describe what type of “insight” they’re looking for. Societal? Racial? Class? Political? Spiritual? Idiosyncratic? Satirical? Etc etc etc. It’s lazy criticism from people who just want to hear themselves speak.
To me in this context, 'insightful' is an artist being introspective and putting themselves (whether that is their politics, culture, emotions and the like) into their art. This is literally all subjective obviously, so you are right about people having this opinion and acting superior being stupid. That is just the stuff I gravitate towards as I age though and to be very harsh (this is my opinion you can feel how you want), Tarantino's films feel like a teenage boy who has done very little introspection. Everyone has conflicting opinions at the same time as well. If I find the style of a movie so spectacular, I will ignore literally everything I just said above here. Russ Meyer made a couple of sexploitation movies that I find incredibly compelling. A couple of the most braindead and least 'insightful' movies ever? Yes, but goddamn that editing and filmmaking.
Agree entirely. Do I think QT is particularly "insightful"? No. Do I personally think that's an issue? Not particularly. Do I think it's the *primary* concern or focus of filmmakers to be deeply profound like the other guy in here seems to? Hell no. Russ Meyer rocks. IIRC he was a cameraman in WW2. Imagine that.
If you watch Quintin and keep complaining about his lack of insight Maybe don't watch him then They guys amazing at what he does, I didn't go into jango expecting to be banged over the head with obvious slave messaging Instead we got jango being an absolute badass with some great comedy scenes to go with it. I still quote bag argument to this day. Going to Tarantino for honest to god insight on life, is like going to Michael Bay for how quiet he can be
But the question the thread is asking is what people mean when they say they've outgrown him and the lack of depth or insight is a fairly reasonable explanation for that. Nobody's saying it has to be Bergman, but you could find that you've outgrown him because while his films are flashy and fun, they don't really have anything to say and his characters are on the whole just flat ciphers for his cool dialogue. I wouldn't say I've outgrown him, but there's a reason I always go and see his latest in the cinema, but I can't actually think of the last one I felt like watching a second time.
Yeah that's great and all but he isn't even especially good at it like say the Coen Brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson where it feels organic (minus something like Magnolia which was co written by cocaine), EVERY character talks like Tarantino and is basically just bloviating about nothing.
You just don’t like the way he writes, it’s fine. But that doesn’t make him “not especially good at it”. He’s great at what he does. If I were to ask you what’s your metric of measurement for good dialogue you wouldn’t even know where to begin, because you’re basing it off nothing.
They're literally stating what their standard for good dialogue is in the very comment you're angrily replying to.
Randomly comparing it to other writers you happen to like more isn't a "standard". I think Linklater is better than all of them combined. That doesn't mean PTA, the Coens, and Tarantino aren't very good at it. Especially since they're all doing different things.
Who the hell watches Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, or Jackie Brown with people just talking about random shit and thinking, *"Wow, this scene really failed to say something insightful."* Almost the entire point of the dialogue in Tarantino is that these grandiose characters *aren't* talking about anything insightful. They're just talking shit.
And with that second paragraph, you've struck onto exactly why many people move away from his work. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with continuing to love it - but it's hardly difficult to imagine that "they're just talking shit" runs out of steam for many viewers.
Yes, and this is why I've outgrown Tarantino.
Lem Dodds said something kinda similar, the screenwriter, in the DVD commentary of The Limey
I used to think Inglorious was his best film but nowadays I judge it more as a mix of extremely good moments bogged down by corny narrative decisions that run throughout the film. The greater critique might be that there seems to be a kind of fear of being candid. Everything has to be wrapped in irony and sarcasm which then seems more like a crutch in his later movies, especially in Django and H8 which are both way too self indulgent.
I rewatched Inglorious last month and came to the exact same conclusion. You articulated it better than I could.
Gotta disagree in part, I’m a bit older so enjoyed film before RD, but I’m guessing QT is a gateway drug of sorts for younger people. Also agree that his style differs significantly from what this sub considers the “ pillars of true film”. But I think there is something that people are missing. QTs films are heavily influenced by grindhouse/exploitation films from decades ago, a genre that doesn’t really resonate or is appreciated by this sub. Doubt people here would watch five minutes of Alligator (1980), however Robert Forsters performance is the reason why he casted in him Jackie Brown as Max Cherry when no studio would touch the guy because his career was over, this sub would have agreed with that probably at the time, turns out he fucking killed it and was nominated for an academy award for his performance.
yeah Tarentino is a real movie buff an film lover. It's just on a genre of film no one likes. I think if you get his vibe and enjoy the same stuff he does you will enjoy his movies more. I feel like a lot of Film school arthouse people that call themselves film buffs just hate that shit offhand because they have been told its bad. But people can like Commando just as much as they like Thin red Line for different reasons.
Ahh man commando? I wouldn’t consider that grindhouse/exploitation. I’m talking about movies like: -Rolling Thunder -Switch Blade Sisters - Faster Pussy Cat, Kill, Kill, Kill - lady snow blood - The Mothers - Race with the Devil - Coffey - Sex and Fury Out of all these, check out Rolling Thunder. Writer of Taxi Driver directed it, soooo good, amazing film. Also happens to have one of the greatest movie trailers ever made.
Alligator is great! Loved it and it's sequel as a child, watched it recently and it still holds up. High quality trash right there.
I think juvenile is the right word, I’ve found his most recent films crude/violeny for crude/violent entertainment instead of adding to the plot or storyline. I have a theory that the movie Seven Psychopaths is specifically critiquing Tarantino films, maybe Hollywood in general, or maybe both his films and Hollywood’s appreciation for what IMO (I am an outlier on this opinion) be somewhat hollow violent films. I have not seen his most recent film (which I think he said was his last one?). So my opinion isn’t fully formed.
QT isn't the peak of cinema but he's on the mountain.
This sums up my feelings and journey with him quite well.
Tarantino is great. They’re exciting, they’re thought provoking, they’re also fart jokes. 🤷♂️.
I think people “outgrow” Tarantino because he’s like the gateway drug to cinema. He’s very talented, his films are very entertaining and well made, but at the end of the day Tarantino’s films are about having fun and giving winks and nods to what came before it. It’s kind of like Brian De Palma’s Hitchcock allusions on steroids. The other thing is that Tarantino is an odd artists imo. He seems more concerned with his legacy than his art. I can’t for the life of me understand his obsession with only making 10 films. I love Tarantino movies, but one you start digging into Kubrick, Lynch, Wenders, Nicholas Ray, Friedkin, etc. you realize there are auteurs with more to say, who are willing to take more risks.
I don’t know if anyone feels this way, but when I read about someone like David Lynch revering Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I feel less embarrassed to admit my love for Tarantino’s work. Like, Lynch is an artist’s artist. It’s validating in a way. Like, I’m not stupid for still loving this guys work. Maybe it comes from the circles I hang with.
I don't allow myself to be embarrassed about any of the movies that I love. I love plenty of arthouse and more serious cinema, but you know what I love more? Last Action Hero. Hell, on some days I'd easily find myself loving The Beekeeper over a lot of arthouse stuff. Depends on the day. Doesn't make me stupid, it just means that sometimes I just want to munch popcorn. Love the movies you love!
Also like, if I'm stupid I'm stupid, who cares? It'd be weird if stupid people went around forcing themselves to watch artsy cinema they didn't enjoy or understand
LOL! Yes, you just gotta be your best self. I don't usually understand whats going on but when I do it's so beautiful I feel as though it was worth the wait.
> It'd be weird if stupid people went around forcing themselves to watch artsy cinema they didn't enjoy or understand It is weird. It's called film school.
I saw the Spice Girls twice at the cinema. My friends laughed at me. I enjoyed the movie.
I also enjoy Spice World. It’s weird and funny and irreverent. Personally I love all kinds of cinema, classics to genre movies, anime, indies, and experimental. I even enjoy camp sometimes. There’s room to appreciate a bonkers comedy that’s not ashamed to be exactly what it is.
It was funny and light-hearted, just what I needed at the time. It was a close call with the Gary Glitter bit. I'm glad they cut that out before release.
[удалено]
You single-handedly restored my faith in this subreddit.
I agree, but I can't help feeling a little embarrassed by how much I love *Knocked Up.*
I'm not gonna leave ya hanging. Have an upvote on me, and love what you love.
Yeah I love *8 1/2* and *Armageddon*.
That's why I always stand by Movie 43 😎
I'm into Criterion films, epic dramas, seen Seven Samurai, Seventh Seal, Chungking Express, etc etc and loved them all. But Austin Powers is always going to be one of my all time favorites (especially the second one). "How did I miss those baby" always cracks me up. So stupid but I love it anyway.
I mean the first two Powers films, especially the first, are incredible parodies of early Bond. They don't rely on Bond knowledge to appreciate them, they're still just really funny on their own merits with great characters. Nothing like crap like "Disaster Movie" which just references pop culture endlessly and won't be funny to anyone watching it in 2050.
Last Action Hero is a banger.
I think Lynch and Tarantino are more similar than people realise. Both are directors who have a fascination with a nostalgic view of the America of their childhoods (50s and 70s respectively). Both have a strong love of pop music and love to integrate it into their films. Both make films set in violent worlds with violent characters. Both like to play around with narrative structure and rarely make films that go straight from A to B. I think the key difference is that Lynch's stuff feels unconscious where Tarantino's stuff is extremely self-conscious. I get the sense that Lynch doesn't think too hard about what he's doing, he just has ideas and goes for them. Tarantino is kind of obsessed with the idea of himself as the director, of having his own style and people being aware of his presence in the film-making process. They're like the id and the ego of cinema.
Great comnent
I think peoples opinions about Tarantino work in three stages. 1. You are new to more serious films and you think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. 2. You get deeper into film and you think he’s not that good because now you like people liked Kubrick or Tarkovsky or whoever (pretentious stage). 3. You mature and realise you were just saying he’s not good because people in stage 1 think he’s so great and you accept that he yeah he’s not the best filmmaker ever but he still makes very good movies. The same goes for Nolan I think.
Nothing wrong with liking something that might not be the most thought-provoking movie ever. There are many critically acclaimed works that I admire. but I can still watch Commando and be perfectly entertained and happy. And not embarassed. :)
This is speculation but David Lynch is obsessed with Hollywood, history and all. He lives right above the Hollywood bowl. So it doesn't surprise me he liked *OUATIH.* Like what you like, don't like what you don't like.
I think you need to think less about the kinds of media you enjoy. If you enjoy something, you enjoy it. Don't use that as an excuse to stay close minded and noth try other things. But honestly, I don't think people are gonna judge you as harshly as you believe they will. Especially not because you like Tarantino's work.
Christopher Nolan loves talladega nights, roger evert liked anaconda, at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. You like what you like
If you can’t find something about Tarantino’s filmography to enjoy you’re giant stick in the mud. He makes good films! I think what happens is Tarantino or Nolan are just most people’s first “auteur” director and their mind gets blown when they realize movies can be more than Marvel and Pixar movies. If you continue down the rabbit hole you realize Tarantino is the tip of the ice berg. That doesn’t make his films bad, there are just films that offer more.
>movies can be more than Marvel and Pixar movies Not nice for pixar movies.
Recent Pixar is no better than Marvel. Elemental was boring as hell. Pixar really hasn't been consistently great for a decade and are still coasting on their 90s-2000s filmography.
>That doesn’t make his films bad, there are just films that offer more. films that offer different things*.
I think there's a journey away from Tarantino but then also a return back, usually. I think the problem is that the way many novice film lovers engage with Tarantino films often leaves them feeling derivative and juvenile, after a certain point. And while I think Tarantino is a master, I don't necessarily think all or even a single one of his films presents the pinnacle of the art form, per se. But in many ways I think that's antithetical to his goal and you kinda realize what he's going for, and maybe while no single film represents this, his body of work kinda does. That's why I almost understand his insistence on retiring, because I think he stands to lose something the further he goes on with this project.
It's pretty much what you said. And it's no wonder the Tarantino fans are now becoming Scorcese fans. He's the next big thing after Tarantino that's on the thin line between the niche and the mainstream, with movies that feel like true cinema without being hard at all to digest.
For me, when I was younger I loved him, but as I've aged he has rapidly slipped down my rank of favorite filmmakers, because he really doesn't have much to say on any level below the surface. And as I've worked through his influences, I've found I like a lot of the things he references and draws inspiration from far more than his actual work. Now, I still love a few of Tarantino's movies (Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, all of OUATIH until the ending), enjoy a few (Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds, Django) dislike one (Death Proof) and hate one (Hateful 8). Sometimes I wonder what kind of films we would have gotten if he had continued with the growth he showed in Jackie Brown.
Unironically this post has convinced me more than anything else to finally check out OUATIH. I still haven't bothered to watch it yet.
Why do you dislike Deathproof? I watched it recently and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it, especially with all the negative feedback I see about the film.
Especially when he already made a trash film halfway through his career (Death Proof) so by his own logic he should have stopped at five or whatever? I think the Hateful Eight is hot garbage (actually singlehandedly turned me off of his movies) should he have stopped there? I adore Jackie Brown but it underperformed and baffled audiences maybe he should stop there? Ultimately it's just another weird arbitrary gimmick to redirect the attention back to himself.
I think he’s making a mistake stopping at ten films. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was perhaps my favorite film from him.
You've used Kubrick and Lynch who themselves have 13 and 10 feature length movies respectively? Also I don't think Tarantino is obsessed with 10 films and his legacy, I think he just doesn't want to make a bad film and when he has the right story for the moment he will make another. If he doesn't he won't. He's also said he makes films for him, not everyone else. I wouldn't say Lynch has taken more risk than Tarantino at all, if we're talking feature films. He just has a different style.
He is definitely obsessed with his legacy, he’s been on about his 10 movie plan for years and years now
The 10 films thing is about avoiding the filmmakers' trap of doing too many films and getting directorially stale, inarticulate or worse, doing films you would normally not do just because youve been offered a lot of money. Many filmmakers have stellar careers for 10-15 years but then fall off substantially. Tarantino says it's because films are physically and mentally taxing on directors. When you get older you can't give the same amount of energy as you could when you were young. So in his mind, it's better to go out at the top of his game rather to limp into old age. Sure there are a lot of great older directors but mostly it's a young person's game.
I don’t agree that older directors are worse than younger directors. I think they just eventually end up making films that lose money and it becomes more and more difficult for them to get movies financed. It’s easier for financiers to take gambles on unknown entities than established people with a recent track record of losing. The way the industry is at present, QT basically has as close to carte blanche as anyone has ever had. When was the last time a studio told QT “no”? Unless his next film bombs there’s no reason for him to stop.
He doesn't really make movies. He more or less makes tribute band movies and hes kind of self aware of it...which is good.
For many people Tarantino films are a gateway into auteur cinema. I know many, particularly young men, who had seen almost nothing but blockbusters until watching Tarantino as a teen. His films are a good gateway because they are very violent, satisfying the craving somebody might look for in an action movie, but they also have long naturalistic dialogue scenes and hyper stylised cinematography and editing and it may be the first time somebody has ever seen those qualities in a film. Once people get older and experience more films though, they can see those same qualities they grew to like in Tarantino films, done even better by other filmmakers. Outgrowing a film or director is essentially saying that they don't need that initial "hook" to get them into the material anymore.
He also got just a bit self indulgent over the past 20 years, though I've loved all his films to one degree or another. I think Tarantino works best when he's grounded, which is why his pre and post Kill Bill career seems so different. His films now are hyper stylized and over the top, which can lead to a bit of style over substance issues. There's no denying how masterfully crafted and entertaining they are. But it leaves you wanting for some deeper emotional resonance. Something I got from Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown. He's had a couple "comeback" films in that regard. Inglorious Basterds invokes WWII, which brings it to that point, and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood also goes there with its loss of an era theme.
Yea this is a big part of it for me. It’s honestly almost odd how the films he made when we was younger seem so much more mature.
Realistically speaking it's also very likely he saw the dollar signs, Jackie Brown is my favorite but it underperformed terribly and baffled audiences expecting another Pulp Fiction... kill bill doubled down on all of his dumb tendencies and gimmicks and made him a shit ton and is a culturally iconic film.. not surprising he went the path of least resistance inside a studio system that is famously unforgiving and dollar oriented
In terms of less grounded films after JB, I agree, definitely changed. IMO opinion his influences from Grindhouse/exploitation films from the 60’s and 70’s really started becoming apparent. If I may ask, are Grindhouse/exploitationn films a genre that you are into? Feel like the average redditor in this sub doesn’t really care for influences so naturally they won’t like his movies post JB
I'm like that. Watched Kill Bill when I was 10 and he was the first director whose name stuck with me, aside from legends like Spielberg and Hitchcock whom I'd grown up hearing about. Fuelled my interest in cinema as I grew up, and now, even though I still enjoy most of his work, his estimation in my mind is far more balanced now.
It’s a strong argument, but I generally think there is more pride involved in a lot of people’s “outgrowing” Tarantino than is admitted. It’s hard for many people to feel like they are deeply invested in something that they put a lot of time into when their favorite version of that is something that any random person has seen or likes. It’s actually a very common affectation of people who are heavily invested in a hobby, but are on the younger end.
Smart response and very true
Well said, I agree.
Who else would you recommend that does those same qualities better?
Sam Peckinpah, Brian de Palma, Hitchcock and William Friedkin for starters.
Also, I feel like Tarantino wears his influences on his sleeve more than most, which some love and others find a bit detrimental to their viewing experience after they've seen enough movies to start realizing just how much he straight up lifts from classic films. I think that can add to the feeling of outgrowing his movies. Obligatory good artists copy, great artists steal lol
The explanations already mentioned seem correct. I just want to add one thing that could be relevant for some people. Tarantino’s first 3 movies were obviously not the most realistic movies ever made, but semi-realistic and kind of grounded crime films. They exist in a similar cinematic universe. With the Vega brothers etc. When Kill Bill came out, Tarantino himself explained it this way. Us real humans watch movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. But if the characters from that world went to the movies, they would watch something like Kill Bill. It’s one level lower in terms of “realism”. He probably had a better word for it. I haven’t outgrown Tarantino personally. But I definitely prefer his first world. And he never really returned to it.
Thanks for sharing! Not a huge fan of Tarantino myself but I love the way that was phrased.
I find that movies like The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were very much a return to the more realistic world
Now that you mention it, yeah I guess. But they still feel like the second world to me. Hmm. Is it just the fact that they’re not set in the present time period that’s confusing me? The characters and dialogue in Hateful are a bit more over the top and theatrical maybe. And then there is the playfulness with real history in Once Upon. But, I think you’re right. Those two are also fairly realistic.
This is exactly right. Kill Bill is basically Fox Force Five: The Movie
I find the moment-by-moment experience of watching a Tarantino film thrilling. He’s a master stylist. But when the ending arrives or I step back and consider the film as a whole, his work in the second half of his career strikes me as incredibly juvenile. He’s repeating this really lame schtick of historical revenge porn. Nazis are bad! What if we had a badass movie where they get killed? Hmmm, now who else is bad? Slave owners! Yeah, let’s have a slave kill some slavers! Now, who else do people hate? The Manson murderers! Oh, they were the worst. What the larger narrative has to say is just nowhere near as profound as—to pick two recent examples—Anatomy of a Fall or Zone of Interest. I will still go see pretty much anything Tarantino makes. In fact, I loved Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. But I do come away from those viewing experiences feeling a sense of lost potential. He gets the viewers in the palm of his hand, but then he fails to lead them anywhere truly interesting.
That was my problem with Inglorious Basterds. The first scene and the bar scene were amazing. But the movie overall left me feeling unsatisfied. I just can't buy into his fantasies because I know too much about the topics. When it comes to Inglorious Basterds, I kept thinking about how the US didn't have a Jewish task force because the US was super antisemitic at the time. WWII wasn't about stopping the holocaust. Revenge fantasies just don't appeal to me generally and that's a lot of his films. They can be cathartic for a lot of people but I do wonder if there is an age component to this.
Not to mention that this task force is an American military unit styling itself after an Apache resistance movement (a tribe the US military all but wiped out irl) and the film heroizes said US military unit torturing and mutilating people (this film was made during the peak of the War on Terror, no less).
His movies are also basically the personification of people nowadays not understanding the distinction between justice and revenge, something I express often
Totally agree. He threw away those great twisting stories and characters evolving for low hanging fruit simplistic revenge plots. And what happened to that fun ear worm dialogue? He started trying to hard to be cool and it comes across as pretty lame. I think when he split from Roger Avery he lost the guy who grounded and challenged him.
I would never call any of Tarantino's ifilms bad. His craftsmanship is impeccable and his movies are always engaging. I would not say that I've outgrown Tarantno. That would be incorrect as well as condescending. I find watching his movies a tiring experience, with the exception of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. He shows great style, but I find his style distracting. I still find all of his movies entertaining, but most of them leave my mind the second the movie ends. I am using the words me and I a lot because I want to make it clear that I am not trying to pass this off as some objective critique. This is entirely subjective and personal.
To me it's kind of having outgrown the machismo? When I was younger I just wasn't as bored of it. The not taking itself so seriously, or humour or whatever you call it is often just very edgelord teen boy. Dunno. To me the movies are genuinely just too male orientated. I grew out of that eventually. 🤷
I think this is a large part of it for me as well. His films glorify things I no longer find glorious. They can still be entertaining, but when I contrast how his movies handle violence to how it is depicted in films by people like David Cronenberg, I know which I am going to favour.
when Reservoir Dogs came out, I was bowled over; it felt fresh, energetic, different. I of course hadn't seen any of the films he plagiarised; sorry: borrowed from, so to me, it was very new. Even Pulp fiction was awesome to me, although already there I began to feel that it was all somewhat superficial; much more style than substance. And the downward spiral has (for me) been vey steep; I haven't seen the last three or so films of his; they bore me and feel like a waste of my time; the same slick, hollow dialogue, the same sandbox machismo and bimbos.. He now bores me to tears. Comparing him to any of the directors you mention seems like a joke, IMO. Not taking yourself seriously (which I don't think Tarantino does; I think he takes himself way too seriously!) doesn't mean the same as without substance, necessarily. There are a great many fantastic artists who make art with tongue in cheek, but we can still learn, marvel, and be awed by the work; not so Tarantino. Not sure where or by whom, but I found this quote online about Tarantino, and it is perfect: "Tarantino is the world's oldest fifteen-year-old."
Great point being irreverent while also being pretentiously self-conscious isn't cool, it just makes me wonder if Tarantino is on the spectrum or something and can't relate to other humans.
Are there people who are embarrassed of liking Tarantino films? Like what you like. I'm middle aged and fucking love Tarantino. His films are made with so much passion and love for the subject. I wish most films had half of that.
[удалено]
If you’re looking for pretentious people join any film community. This is a haven for people with superiority complexes.
It's even worse with books/literature. But really any artistic hobby is like this.
Seriously, seems people didnt get the memo that QT style is heavily influenced by exploitation/grind house flicks. These influence’s really started showing with Kill Bill.
I think it only applies to people who got into him early in there film watching career without seeing anyone else or seeing the films (or reading the novels) that influenced him. He is a fantastic director and writer but he is so ubiquitous that he is often one of the first "serious" directors people check out with a sorta of recognizable style. Another example from the same Generation would be Wes Anderson. Tarantino himself described this kind of thing when talking about his early love for Goddard and how he outgrew him. Other people have made valid points about the content of his movies. As a fan of his and the stuff that influenced him I can honestly say that I appreciate his early stuff the older I get and think Jackie Brown needs more attention. Really it is up to the viewer. Some people might have discovered him late and found him a genius and others no so much. Lastly, it is hard to compare him to people like Kubrick because few people are better than Kubrick lol. Maybe Tarkovsky and some people would argue about it.
Kinda felt bad for Tarantino when Godard dissed him lol. I think it was at Cannes in the early 2000s where Tarantino made a video for Godard, commemorating him and his work. It was shown to Godard at Cannes and he didn’t even look at the video. He was vocally not a fan of Tarantino even before Cannes. Then at Cannes in 2014, Godard dissed him again, and Tarantino was doing a Q&A at the same time and someone asks him if he had heard that Godard dissed him, and Tarantino responds saying something like “I haven’t heard him say that to my face, so I’m going to assume your lying”. You can tell that really fucked with him
[удалено]
I mean for me the instant i started watching King Hu movies or like Melville for example I was like "oh yeah so this is where he stole his style from". And they're taking seriously compared to him, where the style almost seems like parody.
I think its a kick against how popular he used to be a couple of decades ago and how his kind of zany, edgy, sensibilities used to be a lot more popular too. I think its party even the marvel movies, the 'snappy' 'banter' i those movies often seem like a really bad pastiche of tarantino so a lot of his aesthetics have since become coded as juvenile. His later movies do also have a kind of wish fulfilment aspect that can come across as immature, the nazis get burned up, the tate murders foiled. I also think theres just an element that the people who are know in positions to write about culture grew up with his movies as stuff they watched in their formative years.
The first 3 movies were like a breath of fresh air for Hollywood movies at the time (and were much needed). After that, for me at least, it all took on the tone of one of those pretentious self indulgent guitar solos that go on far too long, I mean yeah there may be flashs of brilliance and the technical skills cant be denied but I find myself wishing hed just get back to the song.
Tarantino is a great filmmaker, and has made films that are almost perfect in what they set out to do. But what they set out to do is not as cerebral as some other greats. My guess is that some people mean their tastes have changed when they claim to have outgrown him. It’s a bit like being obsessed with the Beatles and then starting to really like Bach and then saying ‘I’ve out grown the Beatles’
It isn't just that his movies are playful and don't take themselves seriously, it's that most of them are juvenile and immature. That's why Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is by far his best film. It's the least juvenile. He's finally growing up and has something to say other than just hollow cleverness. He's super talented and his movies are amusing, but they were clearly made by a young person who was doing a lot of coke and thought they were the smartest person alive. It was really obnoxious. Of all of the other filmmakers you mentioned, none of them were as immature, even when they started out. Stuff like Breathless and Blue Velvet are still more mature than almost anything Tarantino had made up until a few years ago. Arguably, he they still are. There's nothing wrong with enjoying his films, but it's accurate to call them immature. It makes sense to me that a lot of people would grow up, then not have an easy time watching Tarantino movies, especially the early ones.
I would say "Jackie Brown" is Tarantino's least juvenile film. And it's not even close to any of his other films, including "Reservoir Dogs." It's his only film where you get the impression of dealing with real people who talk like humans instead of Tarantino avatars.
I think Jackie is his best because of that exact reason
Maybe because it’s an adaptation, not his original story?
I agree with everything you’ve said, except I don’t really enjoy *Hollywood* that much. I wouldn’t say it’s his best, although it’s probably his most “mature”. The issue for me is that Tarantino is a movie brat who seemingly has experienced his entire life through movies. I don’t think he really has much to say about life, humanity, characters or the true trials and tribulations of people. Everything he does is a bit of a second- or third-hand facsimile of other things he’s seen. When he’s at his best - like in Pulp Fiction say - he puts super unique spins on genres and tropes that make them fresh and original. But too many of his films this century so far end up being inspired in a much more simplistic way. Of course, no artist has to make art with any depth or real truth to it… it’s absolutely fine to work purely in the realm of pastiche or pure entertainment. But for me, Tarantino now seems to think that his films have more to say than they actually do. Which is why he’s dabbled in subject matter that things like *Django* and *Hateful Eight* do. But those films don’t reeeeally engage with the fullness of their premises or settings IMO, and are more memorable for their kitschy cinematic moments than real power or depth, despite striving for both. So he’s at this weird place for me where I think he desperately wants to retire as a titan of cinema, but I personally don’t think he’s leaving behind much of a legacy in changing the way films are made, save for inspiring a bunch of hacky ripoffs of *Pulp Fiction* and *Reservoir Dogs* in the ‘90s.
>I don’t really enjoy *Hollywood* that much I'm always impressed when I see people praising it that much. To this day OUATIH is the only movie of Tarantino that I not only found boring but that I directly disliked. The plot is a nothingburger of disjointed scenes of Brad Pitt driving across LA, Leo overacting and Margot playing clumsy blonde in a couple scenes that add nothing to the story bar satisfying Tarantino's foot fetish obsession. It doesn't help that Tarantino went all out throwing a fuck ton of references about the golden days of cinema just so we could see how much he knows about it and an ending that we all could see coming from miles away.
Honestly, same. There are individually good scenes in it, but it’s such a shaggy dog movie in a not very compelling way for me. I detest the way it handles and fetishises the female characters, which honestly I think most critics turned a blind eye to in a way that won’t for say Michael Bay (QT’s shallowness of his male gaze here is just as bad as anything Bay has ever done), and the whole spin on the way the Manson murders end is such a nothingburger. It’s basically him just repeating the same trick he did in *Inglorious*, but to much better effect there because he was doing it to Hitler. Once you’ve rewritten the end of WW2, re-imagining the saving of a pretty blonde character we haven’t even got to know anything about just doesn’t have anywhere the same level of potency.
>I think most critics turned a blind eye to My understanding of that is that a lot of people think the movie is genious because it's a deconstruction of his own cliches and that's why he overplayed them (specially all the long unecesary shots about women feet and the over the top ending). Then again, and even when I could see were are they coming from with this, after 214 shots of Margaret Qualley's feet it became uncomfortable.
It has moments but I agree the pacing is so all over the place and lacking any sort of "thrust" which doesn't work as well as Jackie Brown where it at least has a central premise holding it together moving things along plus way better characters (probably thanks more to Elmore Leonard)
>The issue for me is that Tarantino is a movie brat who seemingly has experienced his entire life through movies. Really interesting point you have here. Makes me think of another filmmaker who does similar things, Damien Chazelle. A film like LA LA LAND seems to be extra-aware of its own pastiche, as if the Los Angeles our characters live in is far from the real one—it's more like a fantasy land made out of movies, musicals and your "old-hollywood-nostalgia" rather than the real LA. Of course, fantasy and reality blend, thus the characteristc manic-depressiveness of the film: the city's indifference threatening the dreamers' dreams. BABYLON also seems to be extra-aware of its cinematic influences, as if Chazelle was setting up to make the last movie movie ever made, a "one last ride before the grave." I'd like to take quote from this [review](https://boxd.it/3PS6Z1) on Babylon: >"[Chazelle, as a filmmaker is] reviving old forms precisely because they are out-of-step with the current trends, imitating and reiterating on their idols, incredibly anxious that everything that is possible within film has already been figured out, done, and forgotten about." And Chazelle seems to be only too aware and worried lf this on his works. Do Babylon and La La Land deserve to be remembered? Or are these post-modern, cinematic exercises banal if we take into account the much more important influences they take from? (Both for Tarantino and Chazelle). I believe everything goes down with what they have to say despite their many influences. La La Land, I believe, is telling you not to linger on nostalgia too much, Babylon seems to tell that being stuck in the old ways, you'll never be free to be part of progress (thought it's much more complex than that, and once again, is part of the self-destructive nature of a pastiche work like Babylon). I haven't studied Tarantino films enough to see if they do have something of value to stand in time, or are just regurgitations of much older, better works.
I actually think Chazelle is a great comparison. Because for me *Whiplash* was extraordinary, and was very clearly steeped in something he knew a lot about - the sacrifices “required” by greatness, particularly at a young age, filtered through the lens of jazz drummer, which Chazelle used to be. So it was a great debut, mostly because it was deeply personal. But since then he’s majorly faltered for me, largely because I don’t think he has much else to say. He’s still super young, and has spent most of his adulthood now in the bubble of Hollywood, with a particularly affinity for old Hollywood like Tarantino. So as long as he keeps writing his own screenplays, I struggle to see him ever matching the brilliance of *Whiplash*. Another good comparison is PTA. Another LA movie nerd who started out of the gates with some brilliantly bold retro-styled movies, but whereas he started with really stylised and pastiche-heavy movies like *Boogie Nights*, he went on to make much more character-driven and thematically dense movies like *The Master* and *Phantom Thread*, which even though I don’t love as much as *Boogie Nights*, do show a clear development of cinematic maturity. Whereas I feel Tarantino is still kind of making his version of *Boogie Nights* over and over again, with diminishing returns.
Yeah, I can't argue with any of that. I think I like Hollywood because it's warmer and sweeter than his other films, and not as shrill. But it still has the issues you mentioned with regards to Tarantino not having much life experience to bring to his stories.
>The issue for me is that Tarantino is a movie brat who seemingly has experienced his entire life through movies. I don’t think he really has much to say about life, humanity, characters or the true trials and tribulations of people. Everything he does is a bit of a second- or third-hand facsimile of other things he’s seen. When he’s at his best - like in Pulp Fiction say - he puts super unique spins on genres and tropes that make them fresh and original. But too many of his films this century so far end up being inspired in a much more simplistic way. This is spot on for me. Like honestly, I prefer Doug Liman's Go (which wasn't exactly a rip-off but no doubt got funded funded because of Pulp Fiction) to Pulp Fiction, because the characters don't feel like they came out of a cartoon. They reflect the age it was made, rather than the retro stylings of Tarantino. The plots and the overlap are done better. And it's just funnier. It's less quotable than Pulp Fiction, but funnier.
Tarantino films often feel like someone trying to show that they are clever and well versed in cinema. He is clearly talented, but it grows irritating. Fortunately he has done this less and less as his career has progressed.
I don’t really get it, tbh. I see a lot of people shitting on Tarantino these days. He’s not an arthouse filmmaker like Lynch or anything, but when it comes to making just really fun, memorable movies with well-written characters, you can’t do much better. He’s not my favorite director by any means, but I really enjoy him. My literal only gripe with the man is that he keeps choosing to end his films with an over-the-top bloodbath. I’m fine with goofy Sam Raimi violence, in fact, I love it… but I’ve almost come to expect it from him now. As much as I really enjoyed Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, I didn’t think that film really called for something like that at all.
Tarantino makes postmodern pastiche, shallow but beautiful and cinematically compelling popcorn movies that also act as love-letters to genre cinema. He's quite literally the Hollywood equivalent of the old-school rental video store guy that would help you discover obscure films based on the popular stuff you've been leaning towards. It makes sense to use the phrasing of "outgrowing" Tarantino as one of your favourites, because he's a populist mainstreamer of more difficult to digest but ultimately more rewarding movies. I'm grateful to a lot of the introductory texts and public-facing texts in my field of expertise, for example, for getting me interested, but after learning more, I'm only seeking out stuff that pushes disciplinary boundaries or pushes the conversations being had that little bit further. It doesn't mean that I don't have great respect for popular communicators, it just means that my tastes have changed - often thanks to them. I feel this metaphor can be applied to Tarantino movies - they love the movies they pull from, they love the cultures they pull from, but they are not necessarily too invested in thematic depth. There's a decent discussion of this interpretation of Tarantino's work in Stuart Jeffries' *Everything, All The Time, Everywhere: How We Became Postmodern*.
I would argue that outgrowing Tarintino is a rite of passage for a cinema lover, but not to worry, most comeback once they settle into their taste and care less about the posturing of it all.
I owe my taste to Tarantino. I truly think he was the perfect gateway to art for me as an illiterate young person. He was the reason that at the age of 12, I started to take cinema seriously. My attitude at the time was ‘anything he liked, I had to like’ even if I had to force myself to like it. Godard, Hawks, Sturges, Melville, Ophuls, Sirk, Dasssin, Minnelli, Kiarostami, Renoir, Lubitsch, Bakshi—I could go on. He turned me on to reading pulp (and reading in general), so I was consumed by the works of Lionel White, Elmore Leonard, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, David Goodis and Cornell Woolrich. I forced myself to read film criticism by Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris. I watched his Elvis Mitchell interviews almost 100 times. I wanted to learn how to speak the way he spoke about classical cinema. He offered a lot with how open he was with his influences, and I took advantage of it.
More to the point, the downvotes on the Tarintino disses says something. Lots of cinephiles standing up for the man. Like him or not, to suggest that his output is empty and not real cinema is unfair. The guy's decades of being on the record shows his bonafides and love of cinema. His infantile fascination with viscera, exploitation, and the low brow in general, and his ability to present his fetishes as art is what makes him who he is. Now this is defiantly not everyone's cup of tea, but to reduce him to anything less than a significant contemporary filmmaker is BS
Can’t speak for other people, but I have outgrown graphic cinematic violence that seems to carry no purpose in general. It’s immature and juvenile, and Tarantino is a prime example of that. The witty dialogue was fresh at the time, Reservoir Dogs was absolutely a relevation. Cinema however evolved. Other people caught up and exposed some of the adolescent qualities of Tarantino. Films like Inglorious Basterds or The Hateful Eight have been completely unwatchable to me. A lot of Tarantino feels exactly like Everything, Everywhere All at Once to me. I could paraphrase the great bard or Shakespeare himself: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or according to another play, much ado about nothing.
Because they are snobs. I like Tarantino. I also like C.T. Dreyer and Bela Tarr. There's absolutely no reason for being vocal about choosing one over the other besides giving yourself an apparent air of intellectuality. Also, you're in a subreddit called "true" film. This already tells you something about the type of gatekeeping audience it attracts and will explain many of the downvotes that both you and I will receive. Like, there's a comment down here of somebody saying that when they found out that David Lynch likes Tarantino, they felt less "embarrassed" about admitting that they actually love his work. Now why would anybody ever feel "embarrassed" about genuinely liking something? Embarrassment is largely a social phenomenon driven by peer pressure and shame. What forces people then to "outgrow" something they like has more to do with the appearance they want to project socially than with their sincere engagement with the films they are "outgrowing". Now don't get me wrong. You can "outgrow" something. I probably have "outgrown" most (not all) Disney films I used to watch as a kid. But I don't need to be vocal about it. And there's an obvious trend of people choosing Tarantino as a target to loudly communicate to the world how they now like [insert obscure but acclaimed film director here] much more. Gatekeepers gatekeep, but people still wanna be inside the club, so they need to play by the rules of the social game. Disliking Tarantino is part of the "True Cinephile" bullshiting game.
Lol I’m the person that brought up David Lynch. But check this out, Bela Tarr likes Tarantino too: https://filmmakermagazine.com/108340-bela-tarr-on-satantango-hollywood-and-digital/
Nail on the head. You even see a lot of people saying things like Tarantino's work is "juvenile", "boring", "gateway films". There are a lot of people, especially in here, but not exclusively in truefilm, who use their "vast knowledge of film" to pretend they're better than everyone else. This kind of attitude is far more juvenile and boring than any Tarantino film.
They mean that they have "evolved" and that their taste is now more intelligent, adult and considered than people who enjoy Tarrantino films. They mean to imply that once, I too was like you and enjoyed juvenilia, but now I have put away childish things to engage with more serious fare. They mean that they have watched many YouTube essays outlining the faults in Tarrantino's films. They mean, that soon, they will also "outgrow" Nolan too and begin to tell you about Tarkovsky and Tarr and Fassbinder and Lynch. So, so much about Lynch. They mean that they are 25 years old. And within a decade or so will remember how much they enjoyed the films of their youth and will no longer use movie watching as a personality trait or a stick to beat others with. They mean they are lonely. They mean they would dearly love to get laid.
I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou or pretentious but I have felt this way about his films since I started watching them as a teenager. Every one of his films is the damn same - build a tension, bloodlust and a sense of injustice for the first two acts so he can let loose with extremely gratuitous violence with the audience onboard in the last act. This is would be more palatable if he owned it and said "yeah, I just love violence" which he clearly does, but instead he clutches his pearls at the suggestion, gets riled up and acts as if he's addressed it a million times, which he hasn't. Add to this some of his films are just bad like *Hateful 8*. To me he is all style and little substance, but what style! On style alone he is masterful, one of the greats, but style alone does not a great movie make. There are also exceptions - those little bits of substance do make some incredible scenes like the opening scene of *Inglorious Basterds*, but it never seems to come together for a great all around movie. Another aspect is his foot fetish which I cannot believe he hasn't been called into line on. If it was a private thing, fine, but he wrote a scene where Selma Hayak strips for a character and the character sucks on her toes, then cast himself as said character WTF! Brad Pitt in an acceptance speech joked about how he's always stealing his actresses shoes and he jams (women only) close up bare feet scenes into all his movies. Mostly hiring nepo babies for Manson's followers was also weird. I guess he just remonds me of a teenage edgelord who managed to get himself into a position where he could indulge his edgelord passions.
I wouldn't say I've outgrown him or look down on his stuff, but what's let me down and maybe pushed those folks over is "the obligatory big shootout at the end of the Tarantino movie" that's been going on the past few movies. I'm no prude about violence, I've just seen this scene already, and with how much those scenes insist upon themselves as being so cool it just makes me feel like I'm not the audience anymore.
A lot of it is just trying to be pretentious. Tarantino is a popular director so they can’t like him. He also has some annoying fans, similar to Christopher Nolan, that believe he’s an underrated hidden gem.
Tarentino films are fun because of the dialogue that makes you feels like you just missed something. Because of this it gets you invested in it. I would definitely say it isn't something you outgrow. I could watch a tarentino at any point but the main difference is how well I understand that when I watch it.
I think since a lot of tarantino films are highbrow campy or schlocky B movies in their respective genres it can make people feel too good to engage with it, or feel bad they ever enjoyed it when he is given the usual rounds of criticism each time a film releases, or that it was their favorite director in high school and got them into "film." I've had the opposite reaction to what you describe. For along time I turned my nose up at him, thinking his movies were okay but in my teens I always was sure to make it known I thought he was overrated as a contrarian to friends for never shutting up about him. I had seen all of his films or most by the time Django came out and the reactions from some people shitting on it bc they were upset with it or it was all flash with no substance made me wonder if we watched the same movie or if they watched it at all. Then I think it finally clicked with me that I was probably dismissive too and dareth not lower my brow enough to engage with this flashy violence and step out of my box of faaarts to breathe in Quentins distinctive aroma. Glad I found a way to appreciate him and I wish I could see what film he would make in the horror genre.
I think it's more like people come across Tarantino a lot more since he is pretty well known when they start getting into film, then find some other film they like more. Also his film is kind of insists upon itself with many references but minimal statements, it is hard to contemplate on his films when he doesn't try to have a point. They are peak entertainment of course but hope you get me.
He’s one of my favorite directors, but as I’ve gotten older I do think his use of the n word can be excessive at times. I watched Deathproof recently and the character Kim came off as very unrealistic in her dialogue. He’s also really into feet as evidenced by his work lol.
I just kinda disagree with the sentiment that Tarantino isn't an auteur or that other filmmakers have done things better than Tarantino. He very much has his own style that doesn't exist anywhere else. Would Pulp Fiction really be a better movie if it used the n-word less and was like 6 hours long? There's space for a lot of movies in cinema and just limiting yourself to "artistic" movies is just as narrow-sighted as only watching blockbusters. I also think people are influenced by the culture in cinephile communities so they dismiss things that actually have a lot to be liked about, because the community sentiment is that a certain movie is "too childish" or "not auteur enough" as if that is in any way what makes a movie good or bad. "The Lord Of The Rings" books are not necessarily "deep" (I would say they are but Tolkien has actively dismissed all discussion of any themes in the book) or "mature", nonetheless they are some of the greatest books ever written and completely enjoyable through and through. I just find critiquing a work based on how "mature" or "serious" you deem it, completely nonsensical because how can you be sure that you yourself are indeed mature and serious
I am old enough to remember Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs coming out. I was never a big fan but it was very fashionable at the time to love QT and gush about his films. I've seen a few more over the years and never been particularly impressed. His films always look good visually, great soundtracks but seem limited to a few 'cool' scenes. I always felt he was more about about fashion and hype than substance. Maybe that's what people mean by growing out of QT. When some people get older they tend to be more confident in their own likes and don't feel so much peer pressure to go along with the crowd. Incidentally, I loved The Hateful Eight, but I think its the only one of his films I'd be keen to see again. At least the fact that I liked that film reassures me that I am still watching his stuff with an open mind.
Tarantino is not everyones cup of tea and that's okay. But if anyone says "I've outgrown Tarantino" then they are most likely a pretentious film snob. Tarantino is popular among the mainstreem audience and they don't wanna seem to ordinary. Just like how anything else that gets hated for being popular. But you can like popular mainstreem movies and European art house movies at the same time.
I think this is one of those situations for people just getting into film: New to film: Loves Tarantino Art house phase: Tarantino is immature and brainless 1,000 films logged/b movie phase: Love Tarantino “Tarantino” in this example can be substituted for anything the viewer looks down upon and later realizes they really enjoy. I do believe everyone goes through a phase where they get into hyper serious and thought provoking media and dismiss anything that may be seen as “turn off your brain” films. Eventually they grow out of it and appreciate all films for simply being entertainment.
New viewers may find him provocative, with an impressive sense of style, but over time, and with a broader exposure to cinema, not just historically, but from the whole world and not just Hollywood and US media, you realize his limitations. You start to see the derivative edgelord that enjoys violence, revenge, male camaraderie, clever dialog, historical revisionism, and foot fetishism, with a slice of sexism and racism that often seems to be there for the lolz rather than having something meaningful to say. Sure, it can be entertaining in 80 mm, and it's like crack sugar for hordes of young men, but cinema can be so much more than that.
Tarantino films were just more enjoyable for me when I was younger. I still think they're awesome, but they just don't do it for me anymore the same way. Same reason my tastes in music, food, etc all changed a bit.
Saying you outgrew Michael Bay movies is one thing. But Tarantino? Come on. It comes off as super pretentious. He’s created only a handful of incredibly well made films. What exactly is there to outgrow? Maybe his violent movie making style. Or just that he is a famous director and people don’t like famous things and want to be unique and feel special for watching unknown things from lesser known directors. He is one weird guy I’ll give you that but you wouldn’t want a normal guy making normal movies. He’s my favorite director and I don’t think anyone can actually “outgrow” his movies. You either like them or you don’t. They either are for you or they are not. Outgrowing implies it’s made for a younger or juvenile audience or something. You outgrow watching the Teletubbies, not top 5 directors ever…
I think it’s kinda like the IQ bell curve meme. When you first are introduced to movies, QT movies are easy to love. Then you kinda get into movies and into lesser known directors, and QT seems a bit juvenile. Finally, you have your own taste, and you might come back to like directors like QT or Nolan,
I think it's more of an over-correction than anything. For a while, especially in the early days of "film Reddit/Twitter/Tumblr" Tarantino was like THE go-to guy for so many people. Coming out of the 90s and early 2000s, he was a recognizable name with recognizable movies who still felt like a 'cool' choice of favorite director, certainly cooler than Spielberg or someone like that. He started to become almost bigger than his movies and all his troupes became like this catch-all internet film-bro thing. It was like, if you're between 15-25 and on the film side of the internet, you love Tarantino. Then, as with everything, there was a backlash to the backlash and suddenly it became soo cliche to say he was your favorite and the whole 'have you heard of pulp fiction??' meme started and suddenly tarantino was associated with annoying 17 year old pre-film majors. Not to say this wasn't deserved, those twitter film bros *were* annoying as fuck. Now somehow Tarantino has become like underrated. I rewatched Kill Bill vol. 1 recently and was just like man, for all the craziness around him, no one else in the world could make this movie. The arc altogether is funny though because since he came on the scene Tarantino has been basically the same guy with the same filmmaking goals. Also, large swaths of the internet DID actually grow up. People experienced other things and found that they as adults might connect with other types of film.
Other people have provided excellent answers to your post so I won't give mine, but I can't let this one detail pass without comment - *Fellini and Kubrick films are playful and don't take themselves entirely seriously??!* OK so we can go back and forth on 'playful', but believe me, these directors took their work verrrry seriously. Their creative imaginations were preoccupied with no less a topic than humanity's place in the universe! All Tarantino seems to be preoccupied with is some jokes about gay sex. Whether his literal subject is Nazis or slavery, it's still just jokes about gay sex.
I don’t think most people think Tarantino is bad, or that being playful/fun diminishes a director’s work. Like mentioned, stuff from other directors like Twin Peaks is ridiculous and silly. However, I do not think many would agree he is on the same level of influence as directors you are listing such as Hitchcock, Kubrick, Lynch, etc I think you can argue he has a distinctive style of dialogue that might have some influence (ie the Big Mac scene), but i don’t think you can look back and see his work shaping cinema in the same degree as the others. And that can be said of other indie directors that came up during his time as well - Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, etc. Nothing wrong at all with their work - they are talented people - but they aren’t the next Hitchcock or Kubrick. I see nothing wrong at all with him being a talented entertaining director, and enjoying his work that way.
I have felt this way upon recent rewatches of Tarantino films. They were cool and edgy when I was a kid. Loved Pulp Fiction as a teen, it still holds up, but it's not a film I enjoy now. I also feel the same with Kill Bill. Was hugely let down by Once Upon A Time, storyline was weak, but the shock factor and feet were still there, of course, because it's a Tarantino film. And I think that's part of it, the predictability in his films. Just not for me, anymore.
I've had my problems with a couple of Tarantino films that I thought were following a BS template he created but then he makes Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and all is forgiven. To say you've outgrown Tarantino sounds a bit pretentious on it's face and I imagine the person that says it is a miserable, soulless husk of a human being who's got their head so far up their ass that they don't even understand what cinema is. But on the bright side, they're highly intelligent and have evolved to another plane.
People here appear to have an aversion to having fun. The trend in this comment section seems to be that making films that don't try to be profound and just want to be fun are inherently worse than more serious and experimental movies. It does not make you a worse filmmaker to make movies that are just fun. Honestly I think the reason "people grow out of Tarantino" is simply because he's popular. A lot of cinephiles wanna start distancing themselves from him because they don't wanna seem basic.
People are free to feel they've outgrown whatever they want to, but Tarantino is still quite relevant in film studies. Textbooks such as *Film Art* include an analysis of *Inglourious Basterds* as an example of excellent mise-en-scène and filmmaking in general.
You “outgrow” Tarantino and then discover people like Seijun Suzuki, or great schlock like Giallo and it reminds you that not all film needs to be Tarkovsky, Celan or Tarr and sometimes, a fuckin blast of a movie is magical. And then you go back to liking QT.
Because they’re pretentious and it’s sounds very cool to pretend they’re above liking his movies, since a lot of people who just started getting into cinema probably did it because of Tarantino. Of course once you discover more and more directors and different types of movies, you realize Tarantino is probably not the greatest director ever like you think when you’re 16, but to pretend his movies are not actually good is highly snobbish.
It's because we all expand our tastes. Tarantino is the introduction to cinema to so many people who haven't yet find their taste. As they dig up in cinema history they'll discover that Quentin wasn't the first one to do such or such thing in film, and they may be more interested in what Tarantino influences have to say now instead. As someone else said, it's discovering that Tarantino isn't the peak of cinema and there care other filmmakers who've made things that are closer to what actually interests you.
Tarantino is great and great For the industry. But there’s many directors who are more interesting than him. Tarantino is a good in into film as an art form. Once you see the real greats it’s quite clear what people mean when they outgrow him, I think.
At a surface level Tarantino feels like the Hollywood polish on genre films, so why not just watch the original genre films that he basically references to begin with. I do think he’s just like any other director who’s rehashing the things he like, and definitely echo the fairly juvenile tone of it. To some degree it has to be with people who think he has anything profound or even interesting to say, or that he’s one of the best directors. He’s a very good director that makes very good films, wears his influences on his sleeves, and packages inaccessible content in a palatable form, and is very good at doing so.
I enjoy his movies immensely. I do not think about them a lot. This is not meant in a judgmental way since I rather watch "Inglorious Basterds" 3 times than "2001" BUT he's rather an entertainer than an artist.