Ö÷²¥´óÐã

His stuff is always such a good read! Highly recommend.

Jenna Jones
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

I fear Quentin will be forever trawling through his video collection to create his frankenstien films, monsters bolted together. Every steals from everybody true, but nobody does it as blatentley as Mr Tarantino. And whats with the titles cards in Inglourus Bar Stewards (sorry the tv compnaies got to me) Am I meant to be impressed by how many fonts QT uses.

Dr.K, I'm so glad that you and I are alined in our thoughts regarding Jackie Brown, clearly QT's best. I have a really hard time trying to explain to all my friends that it is his best movie and now I just send them to you as I grow tired of explaining. I was sad to see him regress in his movie making and I don't know if I can even bring myself to go and watch the Bastards after the kick in the teeth Death Proof was.

I admit to loving FROM DUSK TILL DAWN. THAT'S a true "fanboy" movie.

I think this "moving on" element to deciding if a film is good or not is unfair to be honest.
When I go into a theatre to watch a film, I judge a film as a film. Not if the director has learnt new tricks with the camera.
Fair enough with someone like Michael Bay who clearly hasn't improved but at the end of the day Tarrintino's are enjoyable (except Death Proof)

If I went in there with the mentality of "moving on", then I would give loads more films negative reviews.

Thanks for the read out Dr. K.

I have now seen Inglourious Basterds and I must say I thought it was fantastic. From the very first scene you saw how those interrogation scenes that we were familiar with from Jules and Vincent in Pulp Fiction work so well in a WWII setting. Thoroughly entertaining!

OK, if EVERY filmmaker was making movies with long stretches of dialogue and filled with references to other films then we would have a problem. But with just Quentin performing this spectacle once every three or five years, it is a breathe of fresh air from the summer stupidity we are used to. Bravo Tarantino! You have overcome Death Proof and provided us with great cinema once again.

Interesting that a few people like 'from Dusk til Dawn' as I am sure everybody realises, it was scripted by Quarantino, but directed by Robert Rodriguez....further proof (as per Jackie Brown) that QT can excel when he COLLABORATES with other people!

I don't think he likes sharing the credit, and is overly concerned with making Cannes-baiting movies, and no-one at Weinstein HQ seems to want to rein him in.

I think creative people generally work better when they are workign within some form of constraint...it forces greater creativity within limited means. How many truly 'great' movies were made on a big budget? Removing all the constraints doesn't work, what you end up with is a bloated exercise in self-gratification.

All that being said, current box office figures for Incongruous barstools or whatever seems to be proving QT is clunker-proof. Is it just the curiosity factor?

Footnote to the above comment...QT's acting was also slightly less execrable in From Dusk til Dawn. Slightly. Must have been Clooney's influence, cos it certainly wasn't the Chinese kid!

Ok... I saw "Inglourious Basterds", first before I state my opinion I've only seen a censoring of the title in London in the tube station (I was there last week seeing Roky Erickson howl though his great songs) and it didn't have a title but I live in Birmingham and I've see billboards with the full title everywhere.

Now to the film, I often agree with Mark (Who's opinion I respect very much) but their has been numerous times I've disagreed and has often told him via this or on the his show I do and unsurprising I disagree with him on Inglourious Basterds, I though it was an absolute hilarious absurdist spaghetti war flick which a pitch perfect hick performance by Brad Pitt, the scene with him trying to be Italian will go down as one of the funniest scenes in cinematic history.

I absolutely love From Dusk Till Dawn, I've seen it probably 10 times and it's just brilliant, Sex Machine is one of the coolest characters ever as well Seth Gecko, Robert Rodriguez is great underrated director.

The person who said Clooney was only good in that is insane... here is a list of good films he is in besides FDTD... The Thin Red Line, Out of Sight, Three Kings, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Ocean's 11, Spy Kids, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Welcome to Collinwood, Good Night, and Good Luck., Syriana, The Good German (what a underrated film), Michael Clayton, Burn After Reading (Mark I know you hated it but your wrong!)

I'm glad you found time to mention John Hughes in what, i trust, wasn't a facetious end note. I know his stuff comes in for a lot of abuse but he knew how to write proper characters, and to make films that didn't patronise his audience - not as easy as it seems, as any quick look through the legion of shatteringly awful American high school movies will attest.

don't forget 'solaris' better than tarkovsky's original

'out of sight' is one of the best film's of the nineties

'michael clayton' is fantastic

'burn after reading' is utter rubbish

Frankly Mark you are being rediculous. While it is interesting to look at how a filmmaker progresses and this can help reveal things about a filmmaker's work that might otherwise be missed - and I do appreciate the looking at this film in terms of his career, one of the things I like about you as a critic is you do put things in context like that - you should never say a film is bad just because it happens to come at a certain point in an artist's career. Complain that he isn't progressing as a filmmaker, please do because it is the truth, but do not be harsh on a film for something that is not the film's fault - that it happened to be made in 2009 and not 1992.

Cheers Dr.K

I'll compare the career of Tarantino to the career of Oasis. The first few albums/films were fresh and full of familiar riffs and melodies. However, they didn't know where to go from there, and were therefore stuck doing what they think their fans wanted.

I think the "one-movie-from-the-heart-bad-box-office" theory is a good one, and one generally shared by Tarantino about other filmmakers (see the first of the charlie rose interviews featured here: ). I actually watched most of the interviews in the link above, and I have to say Tarantino seems to agree somewhat with Kermode that his "side projetcs" like Grindhouse were, well, bad. That leaves us with Kill Bill and IB. Tarantino says in his last Charlie Rose interview that of the movies he has directed his favorite right now is Kill Bill Vol.2; but, even so, he hints that IB is maybe his "masterpiece". I haven't watched IB yet, so I can't say. But what does strike me, comparing the interviews, is how more nuanced his thinking has gotten with time. I am willing to give Tarantino the benefit of the doubt.

You have to admit Kill Bill Vol 2 is a good film, ok, it's definately not as good as Tarantino's first three films, but it's a decent film non the less and is probably David Carradines' best ever performance - apart from Death Race 2000 and The Long Riders.
I have to agree with some of the comments on here in saying that all of Tarantino's work can be regarded as borrowing from a plethora of different directors and genre. This has been rounded up by the Doc as 'fanboy films', which begs the question, is Tarantino making - and will he continue to create - fanboy movies? Or is there such a thing as 'high-pastiche'.
Fishing for examples 'high-pastiche' - as I've called it - we have to go no further as Tarantino's own primary influences, such as Brian De Palma, who uses pastiche in most of the films he makes e.g. the Battle of Potempkin scene in The Untouchables. And Scorsese too uses scene homages to influencial films - in a more subtle way - e.g. in his latest offering Shutter Island, there is a scene shot with flames in front of the camera taken straight from Corman's Tomb of Ligeia (interestingly there is a tenuously similar scene in Inglourious Basterds).

Dr. K,

Did we see the same film? I saw it last night and I was stunned at how absolutely fantastic it was. It felt like a fevered cinematic dream.

This is a bold, audacious, unconventional, larger than life film. It may have some minor flaws, but after the patchy Kill Bill and severely disappointing Death Proof, Tarantino with this film has definitely recaptured the magic.

Watching it you realise how adept Tarantino is at conjuring up that particular magic that can only been found on the silver screen. There are amazingly constructed scenes of suspense. The director has the audience in the palm of his hands, stretching out scenes to unbearably tense levels, demanding the audience’s full attention and leaving them guessing as to what will happen next. The conventional expectations of a scene’s duration are boldly ignored by Tarantino. He is really at the peak of his powers.

The majority of the film is comprised of large exchanges of dialogue, requiring the actors to be on the top of their game, and they certainly deliver. Pitt, after a shaky start, exhumes great star quality and has a great comedic moment impersonating an Italian. Fassbender superbly combines old movie star quality with a more complex and naturalistic style. The large cast of European supporting actors are all excellent. However it is Christoph Waltz who steals the show. He takes on a superbly written character with great zeal, leaving us with an unforgettable performance. He’s the man to beat for best actor Oscar.

Tarantino really knows what makes great films great. The cinematography is beautiful (and I’m not Richardson’ greatest fan), imbuing the film with a lovely grainy texture and deep saturated colours. The editing is masterful at imparting information, revealing character beats and gradually building tension. Even the production design beautifully brings to life Tarantino’s alternative yet familiar universe. The music is just wonderfully woven into the fabric of the film, never used as a superfluous decoration.

Violence has always been a Tarantino aesthetic and here it is conveyed in numerous ways, from unflinching drawn out close ups, to recoiling shots, to sudden explosions that leave the viewer confounded and exhilarated. Tarantino also tackles head on one of your pet peeves, accents and foreign languages. Tarantino’s extensive use of foreign languages is brave and to be commended. It is also pretty astounding how successful it’s become in the States for what could be considered a foreign language film.

In many ways this is his most philosophical film, his most cerebral, a treatise on the power of cinema. There are some particularly insightful ideas on language, immortality and identity through cinema. This is possibly the film he’s been working his way to his whole career. I cannot wait to see it again. Best film of the year so far.

This reviewer summed it up pretty well:

" This reviewer summed it up pretty well:
"

I wouldn't trust any reviewer that can't get the title right, even once. I think you need some very basic observation skills to be a reviewer.


That publication lists Mark Kermode as the 17th most important activist or artist in the world, one ahead of Hilary Clinton. Who he?

ouch! I know, it's Hillary

Mark, thank you for your extensive response and for clearing that up – that makes a lot more sense now. Also, kudos to you for having the courage of your convictions in taking unpopular positions – if one had seen only that first video without the follow-up they may have thought you were trying to indirectly slam two obviously popular movies without actually saying that you dislike them but it’s now clear that if you wanted to be critical of either movie or indeed of QT himself, you would. Also it’s manifestly true that a movie needs to be criticised in its own context and hence I agree that although RD and PF may have been enjoyable in the early nineties as a young ubergeek’s first experiment as a film-maker, some progress is nonetheless expected well over a decade on when the ubergeek has now turned into the Goober-geek (Re: Bill Hicks). The similarities to Kevin Smith’s career are uncanny.

Having seen Inglorious *** (insert own word here!), I have to agree with all the comments about it. There is some good things here, and it is better than Death Proof, but he must do better.

However, my question is about the late John Hughes. I was wondering what your opinion was of his body of work as writer and director? Personally, I think he made some great movies, Ferris Beuller's Day Off being my favourite. I think the reason he was so good, was he did something that seems to be forgotten in teen movies, and in most blockbusters for that matter, and that was write proper characters and tell a good story, something Hollywood seems to forget at times.

Tarantino take note.

Didn't this reviewer spell it right, if you meant in terms of the British (correct) spelling of "Inglorious Bastards" then yes, you are right but I don't think it was marketed over here with the correct spelling. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the list was of people "pushing things forward" rather than activists and if you think about it, Kermode is one of the last actual real film critics and for that they're right, he is bloody important or else we'd just be left with Empire giving everything the "lets not offend anyone" 4 stars, we can't let the mindless blockbusters win, we need him to give real filmmakers a voice. And yes before you say it, I will now stop licking Kermode's ass.

The Review:


The list:

@J1mmyTam

No. Looks like they changed it. Compare they link in #18 and the link you just gave. The correct title was/is "Inglourious Basterds". It looks like they also changed the title of the other link which originally referred to "artists and activists". They also cleaned up some mis-spellings (like steeling/stealing and scene/seen) that I didn't highlight before because I thought it might have been written by a non-native English speaker even though it is credited to the editor in chief who appears to have a western name.

Much as I am a fan of Mark Kermode, to make him out to be more influential than Hillary Clinton is a little bit questionable IMO.

Sounds like you saw a pre-production version of that site, I haven't seen many errors at all myself, but I have only been on it from Sunday. Plus I thought the whole point of that list was that it was looking at significance rather than direct influence, it looks like more of a hypothesis rather than a list to be taken literally. Sure I mean if you put the two side by side, it does look a little odd, but then if you see what each of them stand-for within their respective fields, I think it hold a lot of ground. I wouldn't put him there, but it's nice to see someone who has the guts to, highly debatable it maybe (encouraging discussion I expect also being the point).

if we're being picky... "holds"

Personally, I thought Inglorious Basterds was fine. But more than that, I liked it. Too much thought is exhausted on the man himself instead of his films.

Imagine, if you will, your kitchen springs a leak. A fountain of sludgy water is spewing up out from your sink. So, you call in a plumber to fix the problem. He does, and while you're saying your goodbyes to him at the door, your thoughts are of what a pleasant fellow this man really is. More so than most plumbers. In fact, he's a bloomin' exceptional human being. And so, you close the door feeling secure in the knowledge that it was with that man's craftsmanship that your kitchen was fixed.

However, an hour later, your sink erupts once again. And while you stand there, face dripping that stinking, sludgy water, you realize; that pleasant fellow, that exceptional human being, that... incompetant twirp, didn't fix squat.

So, once again, you're on the phone. You call out another plumber, only this time from a different company. But when he gets there, he's rude, he's obnoxious, he's offensive..... But he knows his stuff. And not only does he fix your sink, he finds and fixes other problems that you wouldn't even know were problems for another several weeks until they finally become your problem.

Anyhoo, I'm sure by now you can see where I'm going with this. If your neighbourgh found themselves in a similar predicament and you had to recommend a plumber to call, who would you recommend? The exceptional human being? Or the one who guarantees an exceptional job?

Qunetin Tarantino maybe egotistical... arrogant... he maybe all those things that he's accused of being. But his films. Your opinion of them should not be based on his character. So don't allow them to be.

I know that's a lot of waffle to explain a point, but I thought; since we're debating Tarantino, I might as well do it while paying my homage... !

Mr. Kermode is absolutely correct in his devastating review of Tarantino's new film and in his comments about what Tarantino has become. Starting with "Kill Bill," Tarantino began to lose his mind and was unfortunately rewarded for it by critics who feel intimidated by his alleged knowledge of cinema. Compared to "Reservoir Dogs" (which Tarantino largely based on an old Hong Kong film--look for a video titled "who do you think you're fooling?" on youtube), "Pulp Fiction" and "Jackie Brown," Tarantino's recent films have contained, above all else, poor hollow stories. Tarantino may have the ability to construct great dialogue--but he can't write stories worth caring about.

Consider: As mentioned above, Reservoir Dogs largely borrowed its plot from a Hong Kong film from the 80s. Pulp Fiction was co-written with Roger Avery, who supposedly wrote a third of the script but was merely given a story credit. And "Jackie Brown" was based on an Elmore Leonard novel. Tarantino has been giving interviews claiming that he's very distanced from "Jackie Brown" because it's an adaptation and that it wasn't "him." I guess this is why he now embraces pastiches and parodies: adaptations are beneath him.

Worse, he's now an unbearable braggart. He claimed in a Charlie Rose interview that he can produce movie criticism just a tad beneath Andrew Sarris quality. Okay Quintin, what movie criticism have you produced to justify this boast? Second, he claimed that he could have turned "Inglorious B" into a novel. But did the film have a story cohesive and substantive enough to work as a novel? It would have been one awful book indeed.

And yet he remains a darling of American film critics and no major American critic has commented on his spectacular decline.

As a semi-professional film critic I have to say I've been somewhat dismayed by the reactions to Mr. Tarentinino's work on display here. As I noted on my own blog, Tarentinino is probably the ONLY person who understands history well enough to completely disregard it. I, for one, was fascinated at how he manipulated Brad Pit into yet another in a long line of dimwitted portrayals of bacon-grease-inflected southern dunderheads gumming straw and fornicating with prone foreigners in a moonshine-induced hysteria. And Pit nailed it! Shine on, you crazy demon!

So Inglorious *ahem* has divided opinions all round, but no matter as it seems Mr T is already working on his next movie:

tarantino is the most overrated director since stanley kubrick.

thank you mark kermode for kicking this bigforeheaded noggin upside his egotastic arse of a forehead.
kubrick needed a kick upside his ugly dome too.