Is Quentin Tarantino One Of The 10 Best Directors Of All-Time?

Tools    


Is Quentin Tarantino A Top Ten Director?
24.35%
28 votes
Yes
54.78%
63 votes
No
20.87%
24 votes
Maybe One Day
115 votes. You may not vote on this poll




The Bib-iest of Nickels
I don't know what my original post was about this thread nor do I remember if I made one, but I voted "Yes," although, it's a subjective conversation that has no real end. I enjoy Quentin Tarantino because of the way he opts to write and direct his own stories (and that those stories result in good films), albeit with heavy influences from everyone that came prior. It brings me to an old fact about Michelangelo and how he eventually cut his teeth by imitating other artists, or how Romeo & Juliet was conceptualized after Shakespeare read a poem called Romeus and Juliet. Everyone pulls from one another and forms a new creation thereafter with their own distinct flavor. Quentin's dialogue and his oddball quirks and audaciousness makes him a refreshing director, and I'm grateful audiences have shown up enough for him to create his films on the big-scale he has been given, when others who go against the grain don't often see that reception. My favorite film of his, in-particular, is Django Unchained, and the way it blends comedy with very serious subject-matter, and does so without relent.



I think I mentioned in one of my comments on another thread why he is not. He is a high-caliber shock-jock director. His movies have 2 tricks in almost all of them. He uses songs to cover up boring sequences. His movies have only important scenes in them. There is no such thing as natural flow or anything. His movies are a set of key scenes that make up the story. He doesn't know how to transition from scene to scene. But scene transitions is one of the most complex things a director has to do. So he relieves himself of that burden by not including them and its a cop out. This shock jock approach works commercially but is not enough to impress other directors.



He doesn't know how to transition from scene to scene.
Why do you say he doesn't know, as opposed to doesn't care, or doesn't do it the way you (and a lot of others, to be sure) like?

But scene transitions is one of the most complex things a director has to do.
How so? Most of the movies I watch, it's just a simple cut. If anything, explicit transitions are usually showy, and rare.

This shock jock approach works commercially but is not enough to impress other directors.
Weird thing to say for a guy who spent the first half of his career being a critical darling without a lot of mainstream success. That's come later, and it's still pretty modest compared to real blockbusters.

If you don't like him, or just have an inexplicable love of elaborate transitions, cool, I guess. To each their own. But the underlying rationales here don't make a lot of sense to me.

(To answer the OP's question: nah, not one of the 10 best. But really really really good.)



I think I mentioned in one of my comments on another thread why he is not. He is a high-caliber shock-jock director. His movies have 2 tricks in almost all of them. He uses songs to cover up boring sequences. His movies have only important scenes in them. There is no such thing as natural flow or anything. His movies are a set of key scenes that make up the story. He doesn't know how to transition from scene to scene. But scene transitions is one of the most complex things a director has to do. So he relieves himself of that burden by not including them and its a cop out. This shock jock approach works commercially but is not enough to impress other directors.
You make some valid and intuitive points, Aron. I hadn't been able to put my finger on those insights until your mention.

He's a very talented writer, and he's good at dialogue. What causes me to skip most of his last several films is his fetish for gore (and to a lesser extent, sadism), which I don't enjoy. I realize that it's all "make believe", but witnessing that type of stuff is too revolting.

He's also had the good sense to work with the excellent cinematographer, Robert Richardson. It's hard to say how much Richardson's work has contributed to QT's film's popularity.

I'm curious to see what he's done with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, although it's hard to imagine that the picture will hold up to all the feverish pre-release hype.

~Doc



Yeah, totally valid reasons to dislike him. Sometimes I find it a little indulgent myself and wish he'd focus more on the dialogue, which as you mentioned, is his real talent. I happen to like that, and I particularly like his ability to construct elaborate situations where characters and their motivations have to bounce off each other in interesting ways.

Good point, too, about the people he works with. A lot of people think his work took a hit after the death of his longtime editor, Sally Menke. I think it's good and interesting what he does there, working so hard at working with the same people over so many years.



Trouble with a capital "T"
Double hell no!

I'm not at all a fan of Tarantino or his movies. Of his films that I've seen, I view them as fast food flicks. Satisfying to the nth degree if you crave tons of salt and fat (blood, guts & gimmicks). He's like a snazzier version of Michael Bay. Watching a Tarantino film for me is like eating a jazzed up $25 hamburger at Red Robin, in the end it's still just hamburger.

My review of Inglorious Basterds pretty much sums up my thoughts on Tarantino.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I like Tarantino and his movies are good, but the thing that prevents me from thinking he is one of the greatest, is that he is always copying other movies, he is influenced by, and some of the movies he was influenced by, aren't even that good, so you wonder why he is so influenced by them. Foxy Brown, Django, Mandingo and Russ Meyer for example.

So I wish he would make something completely original for once, but that is what keeps him from being one of the true greats in my humble opinion.



Yess! Looking forward to seeing his new movie! The actors' crew is brilliant!



In terms of directors of English language films then maybe he is? If not in the he top 10, then most certainly in the top 15.

Of the directors of English language films, my top ten would be....

Hitchcock
Chaplin
Spielberg
Kubrick
Scorsese
Wilder
Leone
Nolan
Capra
Coppola

Tarantino would be in the next five after that for me, along with Curtiz, Wyler, Kazan and Lumet.

Which means I put him in front of Ford, Hawkes, Powell, Lean and Scott, who'd make up my top twenty.

No place for Welles.



كُنْ فَيَكُونُ
His movies have an intentional nostalgia (most of them basically are genre-referential-homages) and therefore a funness to them. His directing isn't bad, but there isn't anything timeless about his work. He would not be on my top 20 list of directors, that's certain.

Reservoir Dogs was my favorite from him though.
__________________
Still kicking and it hurts.



Not even close imo



The trick is not minding
No way. While hes Considered among the best *today*, and I do enjoy some of his films, considering the amount of foreign directors worldwide, and others Americans who have come before, I dont even think hed legitimately crack the top 25, let alone the top 10.



Hes in my personal top ten I dont know if I would say the GREATEST ten though.



A fun director who makes fun films to have a fun time with. Maybe in the TOP 100 but only if I'm in a good mood. TOP 200 more likely. But yeah, fun.



The thing I love about his films is that he's not afraid to kill off characters,nothing pisses me off more than the star escaping certain death...[are you reading this Sly?]for me it gives the film a certain realism if the star dies once in awhile.