Comments on: Fact: Quentin Tarantino Can Outcriticize His Critics

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:11:47 +0000

I’ve never heard the phrase “critic-proof” used in that way before, but I guess it would also make sense. I’ve always heard it used as a way to describe a movie that will make a ton of money, regardless of how bad the reviews are.

By: Laserbeard

Laserbeard — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:35:24 +0000

I can write about myself better than anyone can.
Am I egotistical?

By: Laserbeard

Laserbeard — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:34:36 +0000

“Critic-proof” means:
Not enough substance in themes, tone, direction, characters, scriptwriting, or emotion to merit a thorough critical analysis.

By: rus in chicago

rus in chicago — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:23:20 +0000

I read the full GQ article Sean linked and QT really seems focused on making his version of kickass movies and not falling in to the trap of “loosing your edge” that happens to other directors. This isn’t new, as he has stated it before. He even states, in so many words, he’s put off getting married or having kids for fear of making movies for “other reasons” then the story and characters. It is more evidence that he is probably a little to unbalanced for his own good but good for him. I like that he is one of the few directors working giving his all for the movies. We need more of these egomaniacs!

By: Paul Andrews

Paul Andrews — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:00:14 +0000

I agree Alex; Tarantino’s ploy of trying to make himself critic proof is the same ploy as releasing a ‘grindhouse’ film; you can’t accuse it as being rubbish because it’s meant to be rubbish, so you don’t get it. The sad thing was many people (including FilmJunk) thought Death Proof was really outre and bold. It’s the ‘emporer’s new clothes’ syndrome. If Inglorious Basterds turns out to be poor I hope perople have the balls to say so. Let’s hope it’s a return to form.

By: Alex R. Cronk-Young

Alex R. Cronk-Young — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:08:28 +0000

I’m reminded of the last song on The Sound of Animals Fighting’s cd Lover, the Lord Has Left Us. Its my least favorite song as its intentionally doesn’t have a time signature or pattern or anything, its just sort of sporadic singing and drum beats and such. But then the lyrics are all about how we don’t recognize stuff like that as music because of what society has taught us, and we don’t understand it. It’s basically an incredibly pretentious way to make your music critic-proof.

Tarantino is doing the same thing. It might make some smaller critics scared to talk trash about you, but it’ll also make your fans feel like you are an egotistical jackass, and then all of a sudden they think less of you movies and maybe don’t see them anymore. He’s stabbing himself in the back, alienating himself from his fans. If he keeps doing it then he’ll regret it one day when there’s no one left who “understands” his movies.

By: Paul Andrews

Paul Andrews — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:14:52 +0000

It sounds like QT is is starting to believe his own press. This idea that if you don’t like a QT film you ‘don’t get it’ has been around for ages. Death Proof was embarrassing to watch, but Res Dogs and Pulp fiction were brilliant. I hope IB is good; the trailer looks like it will be, but his films have been getting steadily worse for a while now, and until people start actually criticising them rather than falling over themselves with high praise for his latest self absorbed stylish twaddle things won’t get any better.

I want the old QT back – the one that made masterpeices of cinema.

By: STG

STG — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:17:50 +0000

Listen, Tarantino has genious in him, but that does not mean that everything he touches turns to gold. I loved True Romance (some of the best writing of all time), Pulp fiction is still one of my all time fav movies. But, then there is Jackie Brown.. a smidge above average. The Kill Bills had some fun shock moments but aside for that I could take ‘em or leave em. Actually, I’d leave ‘em…both. Death Proof was definitely cool as shit, but not a great film. Good, not great. As for the upcoming Basterds, I’m sorry, but Brad Pitt looks and sounds like a f***ing retard! So, if a trailer is indicative, I’m gonna probably pass. That is of course, if someone I know and trust tells me it’s the Cat’s Tits, then I’ll probably wind up seeing it…

By: Pharoh97

Pharoh97 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:51:57 +0000

Well I guess when a turd doesn’t want to flush everyone finds a reason to live with it and even admire it for it’s unbelievable buoyancy. Tarantino makes films for people who love watching films while being high or drunk. He’s a joke!!

Bottom line Tarantion fans you’re watching films made by someone whose only film education was to watch millions of hours of movies until his brain fell out the back of his head. I can do that too if I saved up all my money and played the lottery like he did. Think you could make a movie and mick a few big name stars to do a movie for you? You just might be the next Tarantino too.

By: livyatan

livyatan — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:51:33 +0000

No critique is for every viewer.

Beyond that, knowing a lot about something doesn’t qualify you to be a critic. A critique is an examination with the purpose of positioning the work properly in the mind of the likely viewer who has not seen it yet. This means, yes, knowing something about the body of work that you’re writing about, but it also necessitates an intuitive sense of who the likely viewer is and what words are going to properly position the work in their minds so they’re well informed as to whether the piece is worth their while or not.

Tarantino, by his own admission, does not have the latter as his own knowledge of cinema greatly outweighs that of most of his viewers to the point of being disconnected. This is why mostly like-minded cinephiles enjoy his work while a common viewer often just doesn’t get it.

To dismiss those common viewers is well and good when your work is doing fine financially, but when the eventual fall from grace occurs (Tarantino’s biggest success was more than 15 years ago), the same words become sour grapes; akin to a radio drama writer scorning the TV audiences for not appreciating his quality but dated pieces.

In other words, knowing a lot about cinema is great. Knowing a little bit about everything else is even better.

By: stevie_boy

stevie_boy — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:08:00 +0000

Egomaniacal jerk. Of course, I can’t help but love his movies so I guess it’s warranted.

By: Rusty James

Rusty James — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:03:42 +0000

@ But i would like to add that Michael Bayâ€™s Ego mania also makes you a huge load of money so.. there you go..

who me? I dont recall ever profiting from Bay’s ego. Even if I did he’d still be a shit film maker. Hopefully he’ll put more rape scenes in his movies.

Back to the point. I don’t think QT has ever hid behind his references. It’s exactly the opposite. References are the number one thing he’s attacked for.