Did anyone ever claim otherwise? I don't think he was ever indie/arthouse. Pulp fiction was one of the biggest films that year, and should have won a handful of Oscar's had it not been for the crowd pleaser Forrest Gump. It's not only a cult classic, it has become a 90's pop culture phenomenon with numerous other mainstream films referencing it.
You asked what the hate was about. That was an answer. Arthouse may have been the wrong word but i'd have said
Pulp Fiction was more independent than mainstream, initially. I never said i had anything against the film, other than it's lack of depth but even that doesn't bother me. It's the people who name drop it to sound cultured, in my experience.
Originally Posted by adi
I think your a bit mixed up, Hostel was made in 2005, Kill Bill in 2003 and 2004. :\ And I'm not following your reasoning.
The opening point was his name on
Hero which i thought was a good deed, but after
Hostel and people citing him as the director since his name was all over it, i look back and see
Hero as a similar exercise.
Originally Posted by adi
You seem to have taken a serious disliking to the man simply because he's talented. He is without a doubt one of the most (in my opinion, THE most) talented, original and influential filmmakers of the past 15 years. He's not the most prolific author in the world, but so what, Terrence Malick took some 20 years off, why shouldn't Tarantino take 5? I don't think he was/is bothered, he's just enjoying himself. If anything, the fact that he appeared in such a crap show as Alias could only mean that he doesn't take himself all too seriously. You've completely lost me here.
Well, i don't see anything wrong with expecting a greater output before making claims like that. He's a two trick horse, all he does his referencing and dialogue, i really don't see much more to his films than that. And as i said, doesn't mean i don't enjoy them. And i also enjoyed
Alias. Just think he's making/marketing an image for himself instead of from his films.
Originally Posted by adi
Again, Pulp fiction had a star cast, how was that not a mainstream film? Or Jackie Brown, or Reservoir Dogs...what are you on about mate? He's not only embraced the mainstream, he's reinvented it.
Well, obviously i wasn't too old when it came out but from watching the DVD, wouldn't have said it looked like Hollywood film, aesthetically looked quite cheap, despite it's name cast. I said they've become mainstream now but was sure they weren't heavily studio backed with a big distribution on release, of course this is just an assumption. I still feel Tarantino would rather see himself outside the mainstream than it.
Originally Posted by adi
Obviously we differ, I think Death Proof is just a continuation of his brilliant work at reinventing and paying homage to his favorite genres. His dialogs are as brilliant as ever and basically carry the film. Plenty of directors have made cameo appearances in their films, are you sick of seeing his face or something? Even if his ego was bigger than Texas, aside from the cameo, how does his (alleged) infatuation with himself affect the film? He writes the way he writes, should he make films like Mike Leigh or Spielberg? He payed homage and still made it clear that this was his film....are authors now supposed to make generic drivel with no personal stamp so you wouldn't be offended by their apparent narcissism?
Ok, onto
Death Proof, his dialogues carry the film because that's the only thing that happens in the film bar the two chases. It doesn't suit the film or help it, for a
Grindhouse homage he shouldn't have smothered it with his personal stamps- i'm sure Earl McGraw wasn't in any and they weren't full of self-referential dialogue and pop culture references. His dialogue was brilliant in
Pulp Fiction but in
Death Proof he's strained it so much and forced it's quite pretentious, not even memorable or quotable. I really don't see how he's re-invented any genre, at all, except maybe
Jackie Brown which imo is his only successful genre homage and ironically an adaptation. Most directors with cameos don't have them to the extent of Tarantino's, you must agree his are somewhat egotistical. There is a line between generic drivel and self fellatio personal stamps that are laid on so heavy the eventually detract from the overall aim of the film.