|
I don't know
if you can call Tarantino the best director of all time. He's not
even the most original director of all time. The man rips
scenes and plot elements from many films and calls them tributes and
homages. Let's be realistic, most of the general movie audience
won't be able to pick up 95 percent of the references and nods he
includes in his films. Until reading it, I thought Hattori Hanzo was
an original character created by Tarantino, and I originally thought
the final stand off involving the shadows in The House of Blue
Leaves was amazing until I read it was a basic shot for shot copy of
a scene in "Episode One." Fans of Asian cinema have even claimed
Tarantino remade "City of Fire" and simply renamed it "Reservoir
Dogs." Many film critics and knowledgeable film buffs have conceded
that Tarantino does indeed fancy himself an auteur and blatantly
pilfers obscure cult films and directors. But the questions linger:
Is there a certain line where an homage
becomes outright plagiarism? And does plagiarism automatically
devalue the artist behind it?
Hell, even
Tarantino has admitted to taking from other films to form his own
stories and confesses to it proudly. And yet in spite of his self
indulgence, egomania, and rather self-aggrandizing temperament the
man is still a very popular filmmaker in Hollywood. What about the
man appeals to even the most cynical cineaste? Is it his unabashed
enthusiasm? His roots as a school drop out turned film fanatic? Or
the fact that he knows how to competently structure stories? Even in
spite of the derivations and blatant plagiarism Tarantino is still
very well loved and has even inspired College courses and
dissertations and has prompted many to debate about what his true
impact on film will be and whether or not he is still just a fad.
His words and influence certainly are powerful in spite of his
retractors, and his films continue to inspire many aspiring
filmmakers. Being a casual fan myself, I thought with his recent
success of "Inglourious Basterds" and his recent bid of respect for
his roots by purchasing the ailing New Beverly Cinema, that it'd be
interesting to look at the films he's directed. The man certainly
will leave a legacy behind him because in spite of lacking
originality, he really knows how to make movies. |
|
 |
RESERVOIR DOGS (A)
[1992]
|
|
Takes From:
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, City of Fire, A
Better Tomorrow II
One of the glaring flaws of "Reservoir Dogs" is that
there's not much characterization when it comes to our
principle characters. Sure Mr. Brown is focused on
before he goes undercover, but other than that we never
quite learn enough about everyone to bring us in closer.
It seems intentional on Tarantino's part to keep us at a
distance since all of the men are also unaware of what
they're comrades did before they were involved in this
heist but bringing us a little closer may have helped us
connect with these characters more. |
Because what we see on screen is more a battle of
dominant male archetypes and not actual fleshed out
characters. Still the same, "Reservoir Dogs" is arguably
Tarantino's best film and one that was unfortunately
forgotten when "Pulp Fiction" stormed the box office.
Tarantino's rather underrated gem is a classic heist
film, one that involves varying plot threads that slowly
brings together the events that led to the disastrous
jewel robbery that brought the surviving members of this
gang to a warehouse trying to make sense of what
happened and who betrayed them. Tarantino enlists his
disjointed narrative device he demonstrated in "Pulp"
here starting from the beginning of the crime, then
individually introducing the men and then bouncing back
to the aftermath of the failed robbery. As is typical
with Tarantino there are a slew of little quirks and
memorable scenes that will keep movie geeks talking for
hours.
From
Steven Wright's radio DJ, to Lawrence Tierney's grizzled
Joe Cabot arguing with his men about their nicknames, to
the infamous ear cutting scene that launched Michael
Madsen in to the hearts of movie fans everywhere, this
is a near flawless entry that isn't as smug as the rest
of Tarantino's filmography. Rather than relying totally
on pop culture nods--which Tarantino does--he
instead stands back and lets these fine actors do their
job and deliver some great dialogue. Obviously low
budget, Tarantino makes good use of the limited scenery,
and the atmosphere ultimately makes the film feel like a
stage production. This limitation helps the film in the
long run because Tarantino is able to focus solely on
the acting instead of jumping back and forth between sub
plots. Guys like Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, and Chris Penn
just shine in these performances. There's no room for
Tarantino to fuck around and try to be hip so the film
ultimately feels like raw uninhibited filmmaking at its
core and really does deserve more attention than it
receives.
Movie Notes:
Allegedly horror effects artist Rick
Baker walked out of a screening during the infamous ear
cutting scene. Now that's effective filmmaking!
|
|
PULP FICTION (A-)
[1994]
|
 |
| Takes
from: Bande à part, The Killers, Charley Varrick
Tarantino's claim to fame is
quite possibly one of the most self-indulgent, smug,
irritating, and obnoxious pieces of cinema I've ever
seen and yet... I love it just the same. Granted it took
numerous viewings for me to eventually come around to
loving it, but it's become one of my favorites from
Tarantino's library. It's a lot like that cousin you
have who talks your ear off, never stops bragging about
his style and annoys you to no end and yet you still
like being around him. In spite of the various flaws,
"Pulp Fiction" is a movie that you take the good with
the bad. Tarantino's monologue is so utterly over the
top, but then there's Samuel L. Jackson's excellent
performance. |
|
The exchanges between Mia and Vincent is hipper than
thou garbage but then Harvey Keitel is absolutely
hilarious here. And of course there's Tarantino's
liberal use of the word "nigger." The problem with
Tarantino has always been that he's incredibly
self-aware... or maybe so egotistical that he's not
aware that he's self-aware... anyway, the point is
that these characters are so distracting that they
pull you out of the movie more times than you can
count. I mean no one in the world talks like these
people! I don't care how cool you are.
Either way Tarantino's film became a basic trademark
for the man because it represented how he told his
stories. Through a series of vignettes that seem
basically disconnected but are brought together by
examinations of belief in a higher being and the
power of karma. There's also the famous Macguffin,
the mysterious suitcase that, to this day, movie
fans and critics continue to debate about. Tarantino
never quite reveals what is in the suitcase. Is it
gold? Elvis's suit? Or crime boss Marcellus
Wallace's soul? I'm prone to believe in the latter
because the film's primary theme is belief in higher
beings and it takes the code 666 to open the case.
Not to mention when in the presence of the suitcase
Vincent and Jules are able to survive a surprise
attack with a gun by one of their victims. In either
case, the entire film boils down to the belief in
some higher force and knowing when to listen to it
and quit while you're ahead. And of course Tarantino
squeezes in a cool dance number as well.
Movie
Notes:
How in the hell did Samuel L. Jackson not win
the Oscar for this?
|
|
 |
JACKIE BROWN (A)
[1997]
|
|
Takes From:
Truck Turner, The
Graduate
Once again
displaying what a hardcore film fan Tarantino
is, he taps the blaxploitation genre with
"Jackie Brown," a film that is one of his most
underrated. Adapted from the Elmore Leonard
novel, Tarantino takes elements from Leonard's
story and--as per usual Tarantino
fashion--creates his own version of the tale
setting the focus on Jackie Brown, a woman who
smuggles money back and forth in the country due
to her low paying job in a Mexican airport. |
|
While the plot
does hearken back to the classic noir films
of the past with an intricate story
involving money smuggling and crooked bail
bondsmen, the real show is with Tarantino's
ability to bring the best out of his cast.
Pam Grier is back in her prime as Jackie
Brown the conflicted smuggler who is reduced
to basically being a mule as she slowly
spirals in to less and less job
opportunities and is ultimately faced with a
hard decision looking down the throat of her
boss Ordell and the potential for a long
life in jail. Tarantino succeeds in pulling
great performances from the stars and even
manages to make Chris Tucker tolerable.
There are also
the likes of the sexy Bridget Fonda as the
utterly obnoxious Melanie, there's Robert
Deniro breaking his routine of playing mob
bosses to take the role as a less than
bright henchman for Samuel L. Jackson's
Ordell and of course there's Robert
Forrester who is the love sick bail bondsman
Max who falls for Jackie and decides to
violate his code of ethics to help her bring
down the slimy Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson in
his usual greatness). Using his vast
knowledge of music, Tarantino enlists some
rather incredible classic R&B here and
devotes most of the movie as a love letter
to Blaxploitation and the appeal of Grier
who is at her best here. While Tarantino
doesn't always have the ability to focus on
characterization, he knows how to build
strong female protagonists and Brown is
definitely one of the best he's ever put to
film. "Jackie Brown" is also one of the few
films Tarantino's directed that derives from
another source but you can sense here that
he takes what he needs from Leonard's novel
and just branches out on his own to devise a
more essential fan boy nod rather than a
straight up crime drama. It's one of
Tarantino's most overlooked efforts and
should be seen since it's one of his more
subtle low key flicks. It's not as flashy as
"Pulp Fiction" or "Kill Bill" but it's
definitely a great little film.
Movie Notes:
Though "Foxxy Brown" is the more
popular film, "Coffy" is far more superior. |
|
