Let's talk Tarantino...

[rosncranz]

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are great films IMO for many reasons, but mainly because they showed that there is a filmmaker out there that writes stories and characters and lets them take the film where it will naturally goes, and sometimes that means the **** hits the fan and people die, instead of hitting all the ear marks and cliches most films must hit.

Jackie Brown I didn't see. Kill Bill was in my opinion pretty poor quality but still maintained one of the most important qualities Tarantino films have...letting the story ride out.

Which leads me to Death Proof. Now I think if you are an unbiased person in regard to Tarantino you admit that this was just a bad film. The dialog was boring and unimportant, dragged on for too long and was uttered by mostly hollow and annoying characters. You have a great "villain" and a long stretch of boring topped off with a forced ending.

The point is, Tarantino's films are really going down hill. I am not saying he is done or washed up, but I am concerned. Here's why:

Cinema seems to be so generic and boring right now, there are quite a few filmmakers from other countries doing some important and exciting, original films but generally speaking, cinema is stale. Tarantino is one of a few American filmmakers out there that are relevant IMO and I feel that these guys need to stand up and show the world that American filmmakers can contribute some important films still.

It seemed to me that Tarantino didn't really care about what he was doing with KB and DP, I think they were just ideas he had that he wanted to explore. Which is ok, but I want Tarantino to do something that he knows is important, and badass and fun.

I hope that his next film is not just a little idea he had that he wants to see how it comes out. I hope it is as stylish and ballsy and free moving as his earlier films...

It has been on my mind because of how generic cinema feels right now and I just think Tarantino is the kind of person that can change that a bit...thoughts?

[JBond]

I agree with everything you have said.

I'm sorry I can't contribute more than that now, but I figure I should say that before you get pelted by everyone else.

[Ramplate]

I thought he hit the mark with Kill Bill - I loved that movie.
He went after a certain style and accomplished it.
It's an hommage to the kung fu movies he watched as a kid

[Doomsday]

My thoughts on Tarantino......

He is the perfect, greatest modern day example of style over substance. Are his films entertaining? For the most part. Are they "cool" or "suave?" Yeah, pretty much. But is there a lot you're gonna take away from them? Is there any meaning in them or are they gonna make you look at the world a different way? Are they known for powerful, moving performances? No, not at all. It wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other, but the fact that people hold Tarantino in such high regard makes me wonder....why? His movies are fun, but I wouldn't say they're "great" pieces of cinema.

But in any case, I thought Reservoir Dogs was pretty cool. ;)

[Dracula]

I'm sick of people holding Tarentino to some insane standard. He gives you cool action (Kill Bill Vol. 1) and you b**ch about it. He gives you story (Jackie Brown) and you b**ch about it. He gives you dialouge (Death Proof) and you b**ch about it. Does everything the guy makes have to be Pulp Fiction? That's a high ****ing standard to hold someone to. I don't think I'd ever put Tarentino onto a top ten directors list, but I'm willing to appreciate his current movies for what they are rather then demand he make the same movie the rest of his career. I liked Death Proof and I'm sick of defending it, look up Grindhouse in my blog if you really want to hear about it (it's listed under "Three stars"). Are any of his recent films masterpieces? Hell no, but they are quality cinema and they are a million times better than the true "Style over Substance" filmmaking of people like Michael Bay or his pal Robert Rodriguez.

[rosncranz]

I'm sick of people holding Tarentino to some insane standard. He gives you cool action (Kill Bill Vol. 1) and you b**ch about it. He gives you story (Jackie Brown) and you b**ch about it. He gives you dialouge (Death Proof) and you b**ch about it. Does everything the guy makes have to be Pulp Fiction? That's a high ****ing standard to hold someone to. I don't think I'd ever put Tarentino onto a top ten directors list, but I'm willing to appreciate his current movies for what they are rather then demand he make the same movie the rest of his career. I liked Death Proof and I'm sick of defending it, look up Grindhouse in my blog if you really want to hear about it (it's listed under "Three stars"). Are any of his recent films masterpieces? Hell no, but they are quality cinema and they are a million times better than the true "Style over Substance" filmmaking of people like Michael Bay or his pal Robert Rodriguez.

He gives us cool action, story, and dialogue in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction so after those films when all you get is one of those things in each film...yeah I am disappointed. But that isn't the point, I am not asking for every film he makes to be as good as PF or RD. I am asking that they contribute something meaningful or at the least entertaining and Death Proof certainly did neither, Kill Bill was somewhat entertaining...at times I guess.

What I am saying is that I don't look at his last three movies and say they are not good in comparison to his other films, I look at his latest and say they just aren't that good in general IMO. I am a tough critic on Tarantino because I know he is capable of things WAY better than DP and KB, of course everyone has some hiccups in their careers and I accept that, thats why I said I cannot wait for his next film...because I know Tarantino still has a lot of greatness in him.

My main thing is that RD, PF, and even JB are all around good movies, KB and DP have a couple of good things going for them but that's it. He has said in both instances of his worst films that he just wanted to explore an idea he had. I respect that but IMO they weren't that great, so now lets see something more solid, something that isn't just some little experiment.

P.S. chill out buddy, nobody is saying anything about you so don't get so offended...also your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. I hated Death Proof, you liked it...it sounds to me like I got the short end of the stick. I wish I liked it, because everyone likes a movie they...like. The point I am trying to make is if you are tired of defending DP then stop. Why do you care if people didn't like it as much as you did?

[FranklinTard]

ive enjoyed all of his movies up until death proof. but he did start off with reservoir and pulp which is like the guys who made super troopers, incredibly difficult to get back to that level. im still open minded to his films though, i do not think he is horrible by any means based on a film that is an homage to a B, maybe even lower, movie.

[Ramplate]

I've enjoyed every one I've seen so far

[halo7]

I think people will appreciate Death Proof more as a singular movie rather than a film immediately following the very differently paced Planet Terror. I enjoy all of his work, Jackie Brown is his least appealing IMO, I just can't get into it. But still, my favorite director who is working today.

[iv3rdawG]

I think people will appreciate Death Proof more as a singular movie rather than a film immediately following the very differently paced Planet Terror. I enjoy all of his work, Jackie Brown is his least appealing IMO, I just can't get into it. But still, my favorite director who is working today.

Completely agreed.

[rosncranz]

I think people will appreciate Death Proof more as a singular movie rather than a film immediately following the very differently paced Planet Terror. I enjoy all of his work, Jackie Brown is his least appealing IMO, I just can't get into it. But still, my favorite director who is working today.

The pace wasn't what ruined the film for me. Don't forget overall I am a Tarantino fan...I typed a lot about my criticisms of the film but decided to delete it because I don't want this to turn into fight to the death about the quality of DP.

Anyway...what do you guys think Tarantino should do next? What subjects should he undertake? If he feels the need to do yet another homage I would really like to see something about the French New Wave...something heavily reliant on a romance. I would love to see that.

[boydston_14]

Well, everytime I see a thread on Tarantino, I have to give my opinion: the man's a genius. I love his films. That's about all I've got to say.

[the elmo zombie]

ive found all his films to be perfect. i dont like any of his films any more than another one of his films(i consider kill bill as one film). doomsday says you dont come out learning anything from these films or gaining a new perspective on life, but the truth is the way films are made today has completely changed because of him. also i like how none of his films are like any other of his films. they all have something very new and different and great.

[Doomsday]

I'm sick of people holding Tarentino to some insane standard. He gives you cool action (Kill Bill Vol. 1) and you b**ch about it. He gives you story (Jackie Brown) and you b**ch about it. He gives you dialouge (Death Proof) and you b**ch about it. Does everything the guy makes have to be Pulp Fiction? That's a high ****ing standard to hold someone to. I don't think I'd ever put Tarentino onto a top ten directors list, but I'm willing to appreciate his current movies for what they are rather then demand he make the same movie the rest of his career. I liked Death Proof and I'm sick of defending it, look up Grindhouse in my blog if you really want to hear about it (it's listed under "Three stars"). Are any of his recent films masterpieces? Hell no, but they are quality cinema and they are a million times better than the true "Style over Substance" filmmaking of people like Michael Bay or his pal Robert Rodriguez.


No one's really *****ing about him, but the people who hold him to those insane standards are his own fans. I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, I've seen his movies but I don't hold him to some high regard, but I've always felt this way. His fans are the ones that say "oh Death Proof, it's no Pulp Fiction" or "Kill Bill wasn't nearly as good as Reservoir Dogs." His fans are the ones who ***** and moan about movies like Death Proof (when they've probably only seen the preview) and complain that he hasn't topped Pulp Fiction, when at the same time they're also the ones who say he's a genius and the best filmmaker working today. I've always been pretty neutral on the topic because I've never felt he was that great or that bad, I just prefer different movies. Personally, my choice for a guy who can capture acting, drama, dialogue, and action equally would be Michael Mann.

[rosncranz]

No one's really *****ing about him, but the people who hold him to those insane standards are his own fans. I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, I've seen his movies but I don't hold him to some high regard, but I've always felt this way. His fans are the ones that say "oh Death Proof, it's no Pulp Fiction" or "Kill Bill wasn't nearly as good as Reservoir Dogs." His fans are the ones who ***** and moan about movies like Death Proof (when they've probably only seen the preview) and complain that he hasn't topped Pulp Fiction, when at the same time they're also the ones who say he's a genius and the best filmmaker working today. I've always been pretty neutral on the topic because I've never felt he was that great or that bad, I just prefer different movies. Personally, my choice for a guy who can capture acting, drama, dialogue, and action equally would be Michael Mann.

I couldn't agree more...though Mann has had some pretty horrendous misfires.

[Doomsday]

I couldn't agree more...though Mann has had some pretty horrendous misfires.

I'll give you Miami Vice, although I didn't think it was all that bad.

Another thing about Tarantino is that he says his movies are a "homage" to previous movies. That kinda backfired when he did that with the grindhouse movies, because I don't think he realized.....you can't make a homage to a crappy genre and expect people to enjoy it, let alone pay to see it. He might have been setting his sights a little high with that one.

[rosncranz]

I'll give you Miami Vice, although I didn't think it was all that bad.

Another thing about Tarantino is that he says his movies are a "homage" to previous movies. That kinda backfired when he did that with the grindhouse movies, because I don't think he realized.....you can't make a homage to a crappy genre and expect people to enjoy it, let alone pay to see it. He might have been setting his sights a little high with that one.

Not only that, but 3 of 5 of his movies were homages...I mean for the most part they are different enough that he isn't ripping them off, but come on...come up with your own ideas.

[Dracula]

Not only that, but 3 of 5 of his movies were homages...I mean for the most part they are different enough that he isn't ripping them off, but come on...come up with your own ideas.

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are loaded with homages. Almost every scene and aspect of it are borrowed from somthing.

I'm not following your numbers either, First of all he has six movies (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1, Kill Bill 2, and Death Proof). I assume you mean RD and PF are the non-homages. Jackie Brown isn't any more of a homage than either of them, as a matter of fact it's probably has the fewest homages of any of his movies. Kill Bill is slightly more of a homage in that it focuses a bit more clearly on a single genre, but it doesn't borrow any more actual elements than the previous three, and Volume 2 isn't nearly as Kung-Fu-ish than volume 1. Death Proof is a homage, but I don't really know if it's fair to judge is larger career with it, I think he kind of made it on a lark so he could hang around with Robert Rodriguez. So that's 3 non-homages (that are actually loaded with homages) 3 homages (two of which were made at the same time, one of which was just meant to be fun).

[rosncranz]

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are loaded with homages. Almost every scene and aspect of it are borrowed from somthing.

I'm not following your numbers either, First of all he has six movies (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1, Kill Bill 2, and Death Proof). I assume you mean RD and PF are the non-homages. Jackie Brown isn't any more of a homage than either of them, as a matter of fact it's probably has the fewest homages of any of his movies. Kill Bill is slightly more of a homage in that it focuses a bit more clearly on a single genre, but it doesn't borrow any more actual elements than the previous three, and Volume 2 isn't nearly as Kung-Fu-ish than volume 1. Death Proof is a homage, but I don't really know if it's fair to judge is larger career with it, I think he kind of made it on a lark so he could hang around with Robert Rodriguez. So that's 3 non-homages (that are actually loaded with homages) 3 homages (two of which were made at the same time, one of which was just meant to be fun).

It's semantics to state Kill Bill V1 and 2 are not the same movie, which if you include them together makes 5.

Reservoir Dogs would be the furthest from homages IMO, though there are definitely some French new wave influences in there, not to mention I think a lot of it was based on some writer from France, but I could be wrong. Pulp Fiction is arguably an homage but every movie he made afterward are much more so, plus the homages made in PF are a lot more vague, really drawing only on the French new wave and of course pulp comics and such. I think with RD and PF it is more that you see his influences than being homages. Jackie Brown is every bit as big of an homage as Death Proof and Kill Bill. JB is an homage to the blaxploitation (sp??) films, more specifically movies like Foxy Brown many of which had Pam Grier in them. Also it is based on an Elmore Leonard novel...so I guess that's not really an homage, but you get the point I think.

Now we come to Kill Bill, very much an homage even down to the character Pai Mai who was in many Chinese films, specifically ones done by the Shaw Brothers who are basically responsible for everything you see in Kill Bill. Now if you want break the two films apart (which I don't see the point) Kill Bill V2 is more of a Spaghetti Western in which you can see a lot of the influence from Leone's films. All of these things Tarantino has blatantly said at one time or another.

Death Proof is the most obvious and cannot and should not be excluded due to whatever reasons Tarantino had to make the film, though I agree it shouldn't be taken as seriously as his other films, even though I feel the same way about Kill Bill. The homage's herein are obvious and intrinsic so I wont get into them.

I like Tarantino a lot. I see his influences and the movies he loves and they are some of the greatest films and filmmakers ever. I think he has it in him to make many more great films, I just hope he will take it a little more seriously next time because he is that good. Enough with the cheesy homages to cinema fads of the past. He should balance the desire to make these movies like Kill Bill and Death Proof with making real substantial films that I know he is capable of. This is all of course just my opinion.

Which makes 2 non homages and 3 homages.

[Dracula]

Jackie Brown I didn't see.

Jackie Brown is every bit as big of an homage as Death Proof and Kill Bill. JB is an homage to the blaxploitation (sp??) films, more specifically movies like Foxy Brown many of which had Pam Grier in them. Also it is based on an Elmore Leonard novel...so I guess that's not really an homage, but you get the point I think.



I don't think you know what you're talking about. Aside from the casting of Pam Grier, the font of the opening credits, and a few music coices, Jackie Brown has almost nothing to do with Blaxploitation, it has very little in common with movies like Shaft or Coffey. The character in the Elmore Leonard novel was white. See what you are talking about before you say things like that. if you put Kill Bill 1&2 together that makes 3 "non-homage" movies and two "homage" movies.

[rosncranz]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Aside from the casting of Pam Grier, the font of the opening credits, and a few music coices, Jackie Brown has almost nothing to do with Blaxploitation, it has very little in common with movies like Shaft or Coffey. The character in the Elmore Leonard novel was white. See what you are talking about before you say things like that. if you put Kill Bill 1&2 together that makes 3 "non-homage" movies and two "homage" movies.

Except that you are being too narrow-minded and again arguing semantics. Tarantino has said Jackie Brown was his homage to the films like Foxy Brown and other grindhouse type films. One of the characters in Jackie Brown was also in Foxy Brown as was of course Pam Grier. Also every time you see someone watching tv they are watching some type of film that could be attributed to sexploitation, blaxploitation or just the general grindhouse cinema. The mere fact that Pam Grier is in the film should show along with the title that is an homage to a certain type of cinema. Have you seen the poster? It has blaxploitation written all over it.

For the record I have seen some, not all of Jackie Brown. This doesn't change the fact that I know what I am talking about and you are a very intelligent person but far too narrow minded on this subject and pretty much all you are doing is arguing semantics.

2 non homages, 3 homages. And I don't see why you are so keen on disproving my numbers, all they represent is that when they are almost entirely homages his films suffer for it IMO. Don't be so petty.

[halo7]

Jackie Brown isnt very much like blaxploitation nor grindhouse films. Sure there are a few references, but if you didn't know who Pam Grier was you would probably never notice it was an "homage".

[Dracula]

Jackie Brown isnt very much like blaxploitation nor grindhouse films. Sure there are a few references, but if you didn't know who Pam Grier was you would probably never notice it was an "homage".

Exactly, Jackie Brown is by far Tarentino's most down to earth film yet. It is far less homage based than Pulp Fiction or even Reservoir Dogs. There are references of course but not half as many as there are in Pulp Fiction. Rent the movie, acctually watch it yourself rather than basing it on a poster, yourself and tell me it's an homage movie along the lines of Death Proof. Jackie Brown doesn't use Blaxploitation any more than Pulp Fiction uses the French New Wave.

And really, aside from the font of the title, what about that poster screams Blaxploitation?

Here's the Jackie Brown poster:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CUP/G430-000~Jackie-Brown-Posters.jpg
here's a real blaxploitation poster:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/189847~Coffy-Posters.jpg

[Boro]

My thoughts on Tarantino:

Reservoir Dogs is the only one of his movies I'd say that I loved.
The only story arc of Pulp Fiction I liked was the Jules one and parts of the Bruce Willis one.
Kill Bill vol. 1 I didn't like at all the first time I saw it, but it's grown on me with recent viewings. As far as Vol. 2 is concerned, I've only seen up through the part where the Bride escapes from getting buried alive, but from what I remember it was good enough.
Jackie Brown I couldn't really get into, it had it's moments, but over all I didn't care for it.
Death Proof I thought was pretty meh. It had a cool car chase and that was about it. Aside from the villain I thought the characters were meh and most of the dialog was too.

[rosncranz]

Exactly, Jackie Brown is by far Tarentino's most down to earth film yet. It is far less homage based than Pulp Fiction or even Reservoir Dogs. There are references of course but not half as many as there are in Pulp Fiction. Rent the movie, acctually watch it yourself rather than basing it on a poster, yourself and tell me it's an homage movie along the lines of Death Proof. Jackie Brown doesn't use Blaxploitation any more than Pulp Fiction uses the French New Wave.

And really, aside from the font of the title, what about that poster screams Blaxploitation?


here's a real blaxploitation poster:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/189847~Coffy-Posters.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Jackie_Brown70%27s.jpg

Wow, yeah they are nothing alike at all.

I have seen most of the film as I have already stated, apparantly I have to say it more than once for you to understand that.

Jackie Brown isnt very much like blaxploitation nor grindhouse films. Sure there are a few references, but if you didn't know who Pam Grier was you would probably never notice it was an "homage".

I don't understand, you say it isn't much of one then say if you didn't know better you wouldn't know it is an homage. Tarantino took a book and changed the characters name to sound more like a character from some of the most famous blaxploitation films...do you think that was an accident?

Coincidentally when you click on the Jackie Brown poster on wikipedia it takes you to the subject of blaxploitation.

Maybe to say that Jackie Brown is every bit an homage as Kill Bill and Death Proof is overstating, but it certainly is an homage though not to that extent, I will give you that. Why are we even arguing this? Dracula, you have taken my observations on Tarantino's work and turned it into an argument about to what degree Jackie Brown is an homage...it seems very arbitrary to me.

[halo7]

Rosncranz, you just can't win this one man. You haven't seen the movie, your argument is useless.

[DeadFlagBlues]

The problem with Tarantino is his lack of imagination. Sure, he can fake the naive audience into thinking his films are somehow inventive and "new", but thats hardly the case. He is often praised for his "dialogue" -- but its all fakery. Its contrived nonsense, to be honest.

Nearly every film he has made is some idiotic homage. Even scenes within Pulp Fiction were taken directly from Band of Outsiders. I'd actually pay to see him make just one film that doesn't pay some homage to another film.

[Jack]

I'm not going to get into the Jackie Brown debate, but here's my general thoughts on Tarantino, and getting back to the idea of American film not holding up to international standards.

I love Death Proof. Its more of a "favorite" than a "best" kinda movie for me. I think it works well on a technical level (the diner scene is great work, the final 20 minutes are exhilirating), I think it works on thematic level (I love that its in two acts, and he completely reverses the bad-guy-slasher BS and turns it on its head in the finale), I think it works on an acting level (Rossario Dawson and Kurt Russell are wonderful), I think it works on a purely entertaining level (I love the first time Kurt meets with Butterfly outside the bar, I love the build-up to Ship's Mast, I love the ending). So that's my defense of it, in a nutshell, but I am very understanding to why people don't dig it, and thats all good and well.

It is odd though, because I hate Kill Bill, I am not a huge Jackie Brown fan, I think Reservoir Dogs is overrated, and only really love about half of Pulp Fiction (I tend to skip Bruce Willis's thread). I think Tarantino does have some traction when he subverts genres (Kill Bill vol 2, Death-Proof), but faulters when his material becomes too contrived and homagey (Kill Bill vol 1, Reservoir Dogs).

But to say he has to stand up for American cinema? I don't know. I think these guys can speak for themselves.

David Fincher, Marty Scorcese, Coen Brothers, David Lynch, Wes Anderson, Phil Morrison, Noah Baumbach, Sam Mendes, Oliver Stone, Jason Reitman, Steven Speilberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Tommy Lee Jones, Julie Taymor, Michael Moore, Steven Sodebergh, David Gordon Green, Spike Lee, Judd Apatow, Tim Burton...

I'm not saying these are all great, or even good, directors, but they are relevant, important, distinctively American voices that should not be ignored. They are, if anything, not generic. And they have all made capital 'A' American films in the last 5 years, many with new work coming out this fall and winter.

To guage the health of American cinema is a bit of a generalization, especially filtered through Tarantino.

But, generalization aside, I think its doing just fine.

[rosncranz]

Rosncranz, you just can't win this one man. You haven't seen the movie, your argument is useless.

Wow what an arrogant thing to say. You are on the losing side of the argument, most people agree Jackie Brown is in several ways an homage to blaxploitation films, I have made several cases proving my point as well, not only that but I have said several times now that I have seen the movie, though not in its entirety something you choose to ignore.

[rosncranz]

David Fincher, Marty Scorcese, Coen Brothers, David Lynch, Wes Anderson, Phil Morrison, Noah Baumbach, Sam Mendes, Oliver Stone, Jason Reitman, Steven Speilberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Tommy Lee Jones, Julie Taymor, Michael Moore, Steven Sodebergh, David Gordon Green, Spike Lee, Judd Apatow, Tim Burton...

I'm not saying these are all great, or even good, directors, but they are relevant, important, distinctively American voices that should not be ignored. They are, if anything, not generic. And they have all made capital 'A' American films in the last 5 years, many with new work coming out this fall and winter.

To guage the health of American cinema is a bit of a generalization, especially filtered through Tarantino.

But, generalization aside, I think its doing just fine.

I am not gauging the health of American cinema by Tarantino so much as saying he could very well be part of the possible cure because in my opinion American cinema has been stale for the last few years and while annoyed by the many people from other countries who rag on American films, I am starting to see the point. I feel like Tarantino is a great person and good representative of American film in general that could change that around.

As for the very good list of directors you listed I am going to briefly touch on them:

Fincher has made some very good films and some bad, some mediocre, but in my opinion none of his contributions are good enough to warrant labeling him as a gauge for the health of American cinema as you put it.

Scorsese, Lynch, Spike Lee, and Stone all are pretty much one note and not really doing anything very important anymore IMO.

Phil Morrison, Jason Reitman, and Noah Baumbach while all have made some very good movies, really haven't done enough to really be able to say they are auteurs so to speak which they would need to be to fit the category for me.

I personally feel that Speilberg and Tim Burton aren't making anything altogether important recently either.

Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Sam Mendes, Paul Thomas Anderson, Tommy Lee Jones, Steven Sodebergh, Judd Apatow however are quite possibly the best of the best in the states and are also arguably some of the best in the world, especially the first three listed. Great list of great directors Jack.

Your point is certainly taken.

[Dracula]

I am not gauging the health of American cinema by Tarantino so much as saying he could very well be part of the possible cure because in my opinion American cinema has been stale for the last few years and while annoyed by the many people from other countries who rag on American films, I am starting to see the point. I feel like Tarantino is a great person and good representative of American film in general that could change that around.
Talking about film by country is silly in my opinion, but making generalizations about American Cinema is just not correct. If you look at all the director names being thrown around here there's no way to say ther isn't a hell of a lot of good American movies. I challenge you guys to name any other single country with this wealth of cinematic talents. Granted it may not be fair to judge other countries that don't have the advantage of the hollywood system to fund their projects but it's also unfair to compare the U.S. to the combined strength of the rest of the world.


As for the very good list of directors you listed I am going to briefly touch on them:

Fincher has made some very good films and some bad, some mediocre, but in my opinion none of his contributions are good enough to warrant labeling him as a gauge for the health of American cinema as you put it.

Scorsese, Lynch, Spike Lee, and Stone all are pretty much one note and not really doing anything very important anymore IMO.

Phil Morrison, Jason Reitman, and Noah Baumbach while all have made some very good movies, really haven't done enough to really be able to say they are auteurs so to speak which they would need to be to fit the category for me.

I personally feel that Speilberg and Tim Burton aren't making anything altogether important recently either.

Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Sam Mendes, Paul Thomas Anderson, Tommy Lee Jones, Steven Sodebergh, Judd Apatow however are quite possibly the best of the best in the states and are also arguably some of the best in the world, especially the first three listed. Great list of great directors Jack.

Your point is certainly taken.

Tommy Lee Jones over Martin Scorsese?

Spielberg hasn't done anything important lately? Munich & Minority Report?

Scorsese, one note?

You say Paul Thomas Anderson is among the best when Boogie Nights so completely borrowed from Scorsese who you insanely dismissed as one note. (it's a good movie, but let's not place the master below the apprentice)

You claim Spielberg and Burton have been poor recently when your freinds the Coen Brothers haven't made anything special in the last six years (granted NCFOM looks awesome, but that's not out yet).

Most will agree that Steven Soderbergh has been in a rut since 2000. I liked Bubble and the Good German, but most of the decade has been filled with Ocean's Sequels and failed experiments.

Wes Anderson hasn't made anything great since 2001 either

How can you dismiss so many of the great masters of American cinema in favor of a bunch of directors who've made less than three movies. I'm sorry but this is rediculous.

[Jack]

Fincher may have made some bad movies, but I'd argue Fight Club is as much a cinematic cultural milestone as something like The Matrix was. I think Zodiac alone is a reason for including him in the list of great American directors.

Scorsese, Lynch, Stone, and Lee one-note? Really? Natural Born Killers, JFK, and World Trade Center strike you as coming from the same guy? Inside Man and Jungle Fever? The Straight Story and Inland Empire? Kundun and The Departed? These guys aren't favorites by any means, but their work is much more multifaceted than I think you give them credit for.