Quentin Tarantino's First Blood (Remake)

[aussiebottt]

Nah QT really is over rated. Film critics love to jump on the band wagon and praise him because it is trendy to do so. When in actual facts his films are just meh.

 

[dragonsleeper]

If the politically correct have their way, classics will be erased forever. Such "I am a good person" crowd are the bane of society.

 

[Otomofan]

I'm an unapologetic Tarantino fanatic. He's the only director whose entire filmography I own on bluray.

I know it's no longer fashionable to consider Tarantino your favorite director and Frank Miller your favorite comic book artist since both creators are considered passe and out of touch edgelords by the masses these days, but I've never much cared for other people's opinions. I was in the right place, at the right time, at the right age to be absolutely blown away by these guys' work the same way people a little older than me were for Coppola and Scorsese in the 70s.

Looking back at all his movies, I think Pulp Fiction will always stand the test of time as a masterpiece. Reservoir Dogs doesn't hold up as well. I think True Romance, while not directed by him, is much better than Reservoir Dogs.

Kill Bill is incredibly fun, and I think Django is awesome, too.

Basterds and Hollywood are much more self-indulgent, but I think there are moments of brilliance in both movies.

By far the worst movie he's made was Death Proof. That's really hard to sit through.

I don't think he was ever serious about making this First Blood remake. I think it was just something he threw out there as an idea on a podcast. He's also said he really intends to only make one more movie, so I hope it's something original and not a remake and definitely not a ******* Star Trek movie.

I guess part of becoming a grumpy old man is not giving two ***** about what anybody else thinks about your taste in movies or music or whatever. I also don't subscribe to the idea that everything that was made 5, 10, 15 years ago is now "problematic" and needs to be "viewed from a modern perspective."

When I was a kid, I laughed my ass off at Long Duk Dong from "Sixteen Candles" and Takashi from "Revenge of the Nerds." Those guys were hilarious. I know they're nothing but "disgusting racial stereotypes" but I don't care. It was funny to me then and it's funny to me now. If I hated Asian people, I'd have a pretty hard time living in Asia the last 15 years, wouldn't you think?

I also don't go spouting my opinions all over social media with my real name either, cause I'd prefer to not have my life ruined by some stranger with a bug up their ass. And if people are "offended" by the things I say here on an anonymous board, well, that's perfectly within your rights. I guess we just won't be friends. I don't want to go out of my way to be offensive but at the same time I'm not gonna lie about my opinions in order to "save face" with internet strangers.

Anyway, that was quite a tangent, but I really like Tarantino's movies.

Here, enjoy this drawing of him supposedly by Matt Groening that was published in Entertainment Weekly back in the 90s.

 

[abake]

I don't want to mischaracterize your argument, but I don't think falling short of the Scorsese standard would equal a filmmaker being overrated just because he's referred to as one of the best of his era. That's the context that I usually see associated with Tarantino (as good as it gets from 1992 to now).

Coppola is a similar case. But while of course you're correct that the highest of his highs are tough to match, what about the lowest of his lows? Has QT directed any film on his own that is as laughably bad as Coppola's Jack, or as much of a self-indulgent flop as Youth Without Youth?

When it comes to Spielberg, that's more apples to oranges. Spielberg chooses subject matter and approach which have broader innate appeal. By their very nature, QT movies will comparatively always be more polarizing. Plus, Spielberg wears the albatross of Indy 4 (and I consider his version of War of the Worlds equally awful). IMO, Tarantino hasn't written and directed a movie of his own that is anywhere near as bad.

I think, to some degree, QT is a victim of his early success with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction being his first two right out of the gate. Those movies made such an impact on cinema, and have been copied so relentlessly, that anything he'd do after that would almost certainly fail to impress as much. But I think if Django Unchained and the Kill Bill duo were credited to no-name directors, the praise for those would've been even more pronounced to celebrate such bold and stylish "newcomers."

As for his masterpiece, I would say that given the influence I mentioned that Pulp Fiction inspired, it should qualify as more than worthy of the label. It's as seminal as any film from the entirety of his era.

Well, if the argument is whether Tarantino is one of the best of his era, then sure, I agree. As I said, he makes wonderfully entertaining movies, and some of them are truly inventive in narrative and techniques. The thing is, as I said earlier, other than Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, none of his films strike me as "masterpieces". So, in that sense, of his movies being hailed as amazing masterpieces, I do believe that he is overrated.

The Kill Bill movies are interesting exercises in style, but they seem pretty empty to me. I remember when they first came out, and while everybody was trying to out-praise the other, I really was left a bit cold by the whole thing... More than the interesting narrative and style, what I really enjoy about Tarantino is the great dialogue, and his latest movies seem to be lacking a bit in that respect. And while I love his characters, they are usually so excessive as to be almost cartoonish, which makes them tremendously enjoyable, but just not so relatable. Obviously, that is the type of movie he makes: excessive. And that is perfectly fine.

And I pretty much agree with your assessment of Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg in general, although I must say I really enjoy Spielberg's War of the Worlds...

 

[a-dev]

although I must say I really enjoy Spielberg's War of the Worlds...

Haha, same here. Cruise carries it for me and it has some astonishing destruction porn.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Well, if the argument is whether Tarantino is one of the best of his era, then sure, I agree. As I said, he makes wonderfully entertaining movies, and some of them are truly inventive in narrative and techniques. The thing is, as I said earlier, other than Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, none of his films strike me as "masterpieces". So, in that sense, of his movies being hailed as amazing masterpieces, I do believe that he is overrated.

The Kill Bill movies are interesting exercises in style, but they seem pretty empty to me. I remember when they first came out, and while everybody was trying to out-praise the other, I really was left a bit cold by the whole thing... More than the interesting narrative and style, what I really enjoy about Tarantino is the great dialogue, and his latest movies seem to be lacking a bit in that respect. And while I love his characters, they are usually so excessive as to be almost cartoonish, which makes them tremendously enjoyable, but just not so relatable. Obviously, that is the type of movie he makes: excessive. And that is perfectly fine.

And I pretty much agree with your assessment of Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg in general, although I must say I really enjoy Spielberg's War of the Worlds...

If your experience with the general consensus surrounding Tarantino has been that *every* one of his films is hailed as a masterpiece, then I understand why you deem him overrated. But that has not been my experience. I would describe the popular sentiment (as I perceive it) to be one which puts Tarantino on a pedestal as a standout filmmaker of his era because of how reliably he delivers consistently satisfying films. That's the consensus that I wholeheartedly agree with.

What I think elevates QT is how well he balances artistic vision with entertainment value. Very few filmmakers have such a distinctive style that their signature "voice" is readily distinguishable on all of their films. And even fewer achieve that while still having wide appeal. Think about his peers like Wes Anderson, Edgar Wright, the Coen brothers, etc. Each of them has a distinctive style, and great artistic vision, but do any of them have a filmography as widely accessible as Tarantino's? It seems to me that the more distinctive the style, the more of an acquired taste their films are. Tarantino has the most (best blend) of both style and entertainment value, IMO.

His characters are a microcosm of this remarkable synthesis between style and entertainment value. You say that the excesses with his characters make them unrelatable for you, but as you allude to, that stylish excess makes them iconic and memorable. Even within our subculture of the collector community, just think about how many figures you've seen from multiple different QT films. It's part of the appeal.

I also have a bias for Tarantino because of how evident his passion for filmmaking and cinema is. Every director has a love of his craft, but QT exudes it so much that I believe it comes through the screen more prominently in his films. And not just with the pastiche elements which are so prevalent in his work. If you listen to him talk about specific aspects of filmmaking (like his rants against Roger Deakins for switching to shooting digitally), it's easy to see why his genuineness translates onto the screen. And his seemingly insatiable appetite for cinema is difficult to rival. I sometimes wonder if there's *any* movie he hasn't seen.

I'd rather watch his worst movie (choose whichever one you think that is) than most modern filmmakers' top-tier films. And I'd *love* to see a First Blood adaptation from him.