Why Quentin Tarantino Is One Of Hollywood’s Biggest Cucks

You’ve probably seen at least one of his movies. You might’ve even quoted some of the lines from those movies. You’ve definitely heard of him. Quentin Tarantino: “QT”, Hollywood “Bad Boy”, the so-called “King of Kool” and for some a lightning rod of controversy. But could Tarantino really just be a giant cuck? For all of his hilarious “politically incorrect” dialogue with liberal use of racial epithets and extreme violence, a close viewing of his films reveal a career of skillful media manipulation with discreet virtue signaling to establishment dictum’s.

Movies have always been used as a propaganda organ. In the past, producers like Merian C. Cooper and studio bosses like Howard Hughes and Walt Disney understood the power of movie imagery and utilized its globalist reach to promote pro-American values. For the same reason, Communist infiltration in the industry started early (there’s a reason Senator Joe McCarthy investigated the business).

So what does Hollywood want to propagate today?

Product, Product, Product


With studio consolidation, bloated budgets and cash now flowing in from Chinese, Japanese, Middle Eastern and Hedge Fund sources, consumption of movies and their related tie-ins are now the main purpose (hence the prevalence of films based on existing brands: Marvel, DC, Star Wars etc.). The values promoted are not those of patriotism, communism or religion—no, only globalist branding matters now. Product trumps art. “Diversity” and “acceptance” are the buzzwords of the day—they need the widest customer base after all!

Hollywood’s vanguard for this movement is “fanboy” culture. A group of mostly white, straight men who spend their time on the minutiae of Hollywood’s latest release. Fans who religiously visit movie news web portals like Ain’t It Cool, HitFix or any site where every headline ends with an exclamation point. These same fans have an almost automatic, Pavlovian response to every trailer, every poster and every leak of casting news about the latest comic adaptation, rarely calling things in to question except when there is a consensus.

But these guys need an outlet, a release of sorts, because they can’t spend all day talking about the next super ero who will leap to the live-action screen. So instead of working on game, lifting weights, learning martial arts or anything else proactive they might watch the “dangerous” work of a “renegade” artist…who just happens to work happily in the Hollywood system.

The QT Cult

When it comes to Tarantino’s appeal, as a fellow Gen-X-er, I can’t help but agree with novelist Bret Easton Ellis: “In an era where a generation (Millennials) is obsessed with triggering and micro-aggressions and the policing of language, the Tarantino oeuvre is relentlessly un-PC: his movies are impolite, rude, irresponsible and somewhat cold.”

He’s very skilled technically (cinematography, casting choices etc.), his dialogue hilarious, and his interviews, when talking about film, are intriguing. If you Google enough, you might even find a positive review I gave of the first Kill Bill (I’ve since changed my opinion). However, I enjoyed his movies but never found myself addicted to them. I watched them then went on my way but his latest work always aroused a bit of curiosity.

But I did notice, with a little alarm, Tarantino had devoted followers—sycophants, really. Fans who dissected his movies, memorized every line of dialogue, listened to all his soundtracks, giggled at his pop culture references but never bothered to explore the director’s genre (or “trash”) influences. If by chance they learned of a music cue from Master of the Flying Guillotine used in Kill Bill, they never bothered to watch Wang Yu’s Kung Fu classic.


This movie is more entertaining than most of QT’s oeuvre.

But maybe they are even worse than sycophants. One could say the Gen-X Tarantino devotees were proto-SJWs.  When the director was criticized, they would attack. Former collaborator’s like Roger Avary and Craig Hamann would receive emails saying, “FUCK OFF. Tarantino is God,” or find their own films spammed with negative reviews on various blogs and IMDB (like Hamann experienced with his movie Boogie Boy).

In my experience, I’ve found most QT film lovers to be usually men attracted to women who share their liberal politics or at the very least resemble Tarantino’s female characters in both looks and speech. These man-children are quick to virtue signal when they hear any words that are considered “hateful” but love the films of a man that feature these words liberally. They give lip service to feminist politics but secretly express violent fantasies towards the women who wrong them and of course love the films of a man who creatively kills women on screen. Also, it seems their reading regimen consists mostly of mainstream magazines and newspapers—they’re almost allergic to books.

social justice warriors pc principal

On that note, the establishment liberal press—like The Guardian—feature glowing articles about the director and his work. Peter Biskind, a former 60’s radical turned entertainment journalist, wrote about Tarantino first in the pages of Premiere and then in his own book Down and Dirty Pictures with nary a criticism (Isn’t it a little strange that Biskind would call action flicks like Dirty Harry and Death Wish “fascist” yet praise Tarantino’s work that is, in actuality, more violent?). Jane Hamsher and Sharon Waxman, both liberal feminists, were critical of QT’s personal behavior in their respective books but of his creative output they spoke mostly in positive terms (to be fair, Hamsher, who produced Natural Born Killers, was more critical but that’s more due to professional disputes).

There is severe cognitive dissonance at work here. Or is there? Could there be a reason the establishment keeps releasing Tarantino’s impolite cinematic gems while actively marginalizing masculine directors like Mel Gibson, Walter Hill, Michael Winner and Michael Cimino?

Studio Sponsored

In some form, all of Tarantino’s films have been made under the patronage of Harvey and Bob Weinstein. Harvey in particular is a powerful force in Hollywood and Democratic fundraising circles. Disney, under Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg (another heavy Democrat contributor) purchased Miramax shortly before the release of Pulp Fiction. When the Weinsteins broke off from Disney, to form the The Weinstein Company, QT followed them.

Tarantino with Bob and Harvey Weinstein

With the exception of Reservoir Dogs, all of his movies had fairly significant budgets, not high, but all above $10 million which even today is a lot of money. Providing this cash were major studios or the Goldman-Sachs funded Weinsteins. So how does a straight white male filmmaker, who likes politically incorrect language and violence, survive in this type of environment?

He cucks.

“I don’t know about you but I love violent movies. What I find offensive is that Merchant-Ivory shit.” How can a man who said this quote be a cuck?

For evidence, let’s roll the film:

Female Casting


Notice how all the female cast members are either ugly or de-sexualized? Uma Thurman is about as pretty as it gets in Tarantino’s films. But in Pulp Fiction she was forced to wear a black wig (a supposed nod at French starlet Anna Karina) and in Kill Bill, the woman appears disheveled or bloodied a majority of the time, (with her feet featured prominently). Watch Lady Snowblood or Broken Oath (influences for Kill Bill). Even though there’s plenty of action theatrics, the respective leads, seem to maintain their good looks throughout the proceedings.


Other attractive females cast in his pictures (Bridget Fonda, Kerry Washington, Rosanna Arquitte, Rosario Dawson, etc.) are similarly dressed down with strange wardrobes.

When attractive females are featured (Diane Kruger, Melanie Laurent, Vanessa Ferlito, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rose McGowan, etc.) they’re either given nothing to do or are violently dispensed with. For example, in Death Proof, a pre-ugly McGowan is brutally murdered and Winstead’s character briefly appears and then is written out before the climatic car battle.


The Girls of “Death Proof”

And no matter the looks, the women speak in a vulgar patois that shames even the most foul-mouthed of male sailor. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t find cussing women attractive.

The intellectuals and critics may argue this is just Tarantino’s dedication to kitchen sink realism and his forebears of the French New Wave. But New Wave benchmarks like Eric Rohmer and Jean Luc-Godard usually cast attractive women while maintaining a sense of realism.

Could it be something else, maybe? Could it be that Tarantino’s trying to appeal to the feminists who, after all, don’t like pretty women? They take pleasure in the killing of the lovely ladies? Maybe they also like to be as vulgar as men too, just like the girls inhabiting QT’s cinematic worlds. Could it also be a dog whistle to men who have no game? A repressive mechanism for them to take out their anger on the various women who spurned them?

Politically Correct Tropes

The dialogue may be “politically incorrect” but the characters and situations it inhabits certainly aren’t. Reservoir Dogs, the only true independent gets a pass here but the subsequent films do not. At best, Tarantino plays it safe with his characters and plots and at worst, well, let’s take a cursory tour:

Pulp Fiction: A black character, Jules, a hitman no less, lectures a white thief on moral ethics. How is this different than any Morgan Freeman picture? Director David O. Russell said this scene alone “redeemed” the film from its two hours of drug use, violence and vulgarity. Also, there’s two white rednecks who like to rape men.

Jackie Brown: A black woman (Pam Grier) outsmarts all the men. In Elmore Leonard’s original novel Rum Punch, the character was white. “But the villain is black,” some might say. Sure, but would Hollywood higher-ups abide a movie with a white lead outsmarting a black gangster (even if said lead was female)? Now, Tarantino did state he idolized Grier growing up. She was a bombshell in the 70’s—20 years prior to Jackie Brown. Was Tarantino looking for a role for Grier or a balance to having a black male villain?

Kill Bill: A woman kills everyone. Sure, she had both male and female enemies but could you imagine Mel Gibson or The Rock in the lead doing the same thing? Also this movie features two rednecks who like to rape sedated women while saying intelligent lines like, “My name’s Buck and I like to fuck!” (a line stolen from the horror film Eaten Alive).

Death Proof: An angry white male murders a group of foul-mouthed, pot smoking women (and pre-ugly Rose McGowan) only to be murdered by a trio of equally foul-mouthed, but slightly more likeable women. Don’t forget these women borrow a 1970 Dodge Challenger from a redneck (leaving behind Winstead to keep him company).

Inglourious Basterds: Jews. Killing Nazis. No risks here.

Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight: Masculine black men getting revenge on white racists (rednecks). Once again, no risks here. Can you imagine the roles reversed? Would that even be green lit?

The last three movies are in historical settings but they are in fact ahistorical. In Basterds, Hitler meets a different fate than what really befell him, World War II ends differently, and there’s even a black projectionist in Vichy France. The “westerns” have similar historical anachronisms (like Australian speaking slave-owners). How is this any different than the politically correct, multi-racial casting of a musical like Hamilton which obviously has ulterior motives?

Emasculation Of (Mostly White) Alpha Male Icons

In Reservoir Dogs, all the lead (white) characters annihilate one another in a hail of gunfire. Fair enough, it was just a crime flick. Tame considering what befalls the alpha (mostly white) male icons in subsequent releases.

Bruce Willis barely escaped sodomy in Pulp Fiction; John Travolta gunned down unceremoniously…but, you know…“realism”…


Michael Keaton, gets outsmarted by Pam Grier in Jackie Brown. Sure, the guy was Mr. Mom but he was also Batman. But in the same movie, Robert DeNiro, shoots a woman to death after being taunted (you know, he’s insecure) and then is summarily executed by Samuel L. Jackson during a chat. I know, I know, realism…

How about some the latter comic book style movies: David Carradine, Bill, in Kill Bill gets killed with a punch. The man from Death Race 2000, The Long Riders and Kung Fu, clearly was no match for Uma. Kurt Russell, a man’s man if I’ve ever seen one, is killed by a group of chicks in Death Proof only to return for The Hateful Eight and receive death by coffee-drinking. In Django Unchained, James Remar, Don Johnson and Leonardo DiCaprio are dispatched with ease. Even Brad Pitt was reduced to a limp and scarred face in Inglourious Basterds.

Even the non-white alphas don’t get much more favorable treatment. Kung Fu icon Gordon Liu is killed TWICE (playing different characters) in Kill Bill (both by female characters). Shinichi “Sonny” Chiba is given NOTHING to do in the same film, which is just as disrespectful. But at least his character didn’t get raped anally like Ving Rhames’ did in Pulp Fiction. Even swaggering and virile Jamie Foxx had to get whipped and tortured several times before achieving revenge in Django Unchained. Forget women and racism does Tarantino hate masculine men?

But back to Django


The N-word…

How does a white writer/director like Quentin Tarantino use words like “nigger” in abundance and still find himself fawned over by the liberal press and intelligentsia alike? Besides the black characters who use the word, please note all the (mostly white) male characters who use racial epithets get killed (mostly by black characters). It’s like a safety valve. Ironically enough, only the character Jimmie in Pulp Fiction—played by Tarantino himself—says “nigger” in abundance without receiving any recompense. So, it seems the leftwing betas who adore these movies can therefore quote genuinely funny dialogue exchanges with impunity. After all, their politically correct shibboleths remain intact.

In the case of Django, film critic Armond White says it, “proclaims a white hipster’s voyeuristic pleasure in black vengeance, a form of Liberal porn, aberrant hip-hop.” I think you can apply “Liberal porn” to most of Tarantino’s canon.

Style Over Substance

Creatively, it is worth noting that Tarantino’s work is unconventional in story structure, almost lacking it entirely. The most structured films, like Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown, were based on other properties (the Chinese film City on Fire and Leonard’s novel respectively) or in the case of Pulp Fiction, benefitted from a co-writer (Roger Avary insists he contributed more than he’s given credit for).

From Kill Bill onwards it seems the parts (the soundtrack, gore and action) are greater than the sum. As my dad summarized: “His movies are long periods of talking with short bursts of violence.”

In short, they are lacking substance. It’s one thing for a movie to appeal to certain genre conventions. If one eschews said conventions, then the movie must have a sense of drama or deep reflection. Tarantino’s films possess none of these. And this is to his (and Hollywood’s) consumer advantage. He can virtue signal and get fans to talk about what they like (“It’s a celebration of the Kung Fu/Blaxploitation/Horror!”) and forget about the rest.

White, really one of the few critics to question the cult of Tarantino said, “His (Tarantino’s) love of movie trash doesn’t reveal deeper truth; it trivializes.” Men like action and thrills but there is no underpinning dramatic structure that might make them think or feel. As noted above, most fanboys just like the director’s work and never really explore the works that “inspired” him, this so-called, “movie trash”. I find that interesting because most of those “trash” films are vastly more entertaining than Tarantino’s and most genre movies have at least some form of narrative force and moral compass (an evil usually needs to be at least challenged).

Tarantino’s films almost lack any sense of a moral universe, narrative thrust or dramatic structure. It’s almost a cinematic version of performance art. And his fans love it.

So, what’s wrong with that?

Totalitarian Tendencies

David Mamet, in his book Theatre, noted that performance art got its start under totalitarian regimes, stating “These [theatre] directors, deprived by the state of any meaningful texts, staged circuses where the costume and the set became the prime players. In effect, they constructed mobiles and called them dramas.”

Could one say the same of Tarantino? Really, the crude dialogue is stated within politically correct structures without a sense of drama and minimalist of plots. His followers, loyal to his brand, just waste time, talking about the dialogue, talking about how the movies are “connected” (Did you know John Travolta character and Michael Madsen character are related?), and then might drift in to talking about the “Ring Theory” of Star Wars like the good consumers they are.

It’s fanboy sedation.


It’s one thing to watch a movie in the afternoon as a way to relax and then go about your day. It’s another thing to dwell and commit one’s free time on an empty work of product, another cog on an assembly line (have you seen Marvel’s film slate?), analyzing every scene, every shot, every musical cue or every line of dialogue, while threatening and trolling those who don’t think similarly, instead of focusing on other concerns, like personal well-being or the state of the world at large.

Quentin Tarantino’s films are the “perfect” diversion and brand for adult men who want to escape.

But are they really escaping? I would say no. Tarantino is a cuck.

Read More: How Working At Comic-Con Showed Me That America Is A Nation Of Cucks

254 thoughts on “Why Quentin Tarantino Is One Of Hollywood’s Biggest Cucks”

  1. Tarantino is actually a very subversive individual. All his movies are pure cultural marxism and are focused in destroying all kind of traditional values: race, family, nation, friendship, honor, etc., etc., etc.

      1. Hipsters are very easy to exploit I once thought what would happen if one said to them to burn a specific alt-right book by buying all its copies so that noone will be infected by it and so save them from becoming “nazis” or raaaacists making it into a best-seller, I would want to see if that would work.

        1. Everyone is easy to exploit once you know their tick. Imperfect we are.

        2. But hipsters are even more easily exploited: you can make films only with token characters that lack a scenario and have bad dialogue but they are guaranteed to see it. Think on nationalist/patriotic films for contrast: they tend to be ful of cliches, cliched scenario, characters, stories etc. Still though they need even that average to be entertaining. Even the 80’s action flick tended to have better story, dialogue and characters, while still if one could put in a ton of explosions the movies audience would still like it. Hipsters care only for pretence and appearance, this means that they are very easy to be appealed to as no hardship is required for satisfying their wants.

        3. It’s true. But look at conservatives who are constantly exploited by absurd country music shits or presidential candidates like W Bush who puts on a cowboy hat and half the country forgets he is a Yale Legacy bluebloof and thinks he is folksy. Ffs look at trump. A large part of this country thinks a New York City playboy real estate developer and reality show host with a fake tan gives two fucks about heartland America.
          Everyone wants something. Once you figure out what it is they want you can sell it to them. Hipsters are easy, sure. But any door is easy to unlock so long as you have the key

    1. I never Understood why Tarantino was considered a good director… His movies are boring, have some blood but near no action! It was insane, once I managed to sit myself through pulp fiction and… what was about that movie? As for inglorious basterds (saw it) and Django unchained (saw it too regret it as the previous one) besides marxism they had a pacing that was bad and their scenarios were problematic at best. I ‘ll never even glimpse again a movie of him, oh and kill bill why was it extraordinary?
      Anyways… I wouldn’t even look on movie magazines if I could ditch Holywood altogether (Greek films are unwatchable by me and most european flicks that are promoted also suffer from leftism), thing is I might find a film per year that I may like… I still ask, rhetorically, how are these people making money anymore?

      1. I never saw Inglorious complete, I quitted when that fucking jew with the baseball bat appears; and never saw Django, I read a review and a friend of mine related the movie to me.
        The ones I saw entirely were Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill 1 and 2 and Death Proof. I found those movies filled with every stripe of cultural marxism, decadence, violence for violence sake, bad jokes and cliches.
        A mention apart to Death Proof: it is a feminist wet dream.

        1. I genuinely like almost all of his movies. Didn’t like Django. I’m not a film expert but I found them entertaining–which is the point.

        2. Basically he always had a way with pacing, this meant that too much time would pass on screen with nothing happening, think here kill bill 2, inglorious basterds and Django, the last had even a problematic scenario. The most entertainment I took from him was kill bill, it had the best pacing of his films so the action scenes were not too away from each other and the scenario, while basic, was sensical in its own way.
          That is the whole extent by me on Tarantino, let’s agree to disagree on him. 😀

        3. That is fair enough. With movies it is really what you like or what you don’t for me at least. I don’t know anything about the art of making movies. I don’t know anything about how filming or any of that stuff is done. Basically, I put on a movie. If, at the end of watching it, I enjoy it then I consider it a good movie. I felt this way with almost all of the QT movies I have seen and so I consider him to be good at movies. However, I have no objective frame of reference here where I would suggest that other people see his movies as good the way I would suggest that everyone either thinks Karamazov is a great novel or is wrong.

      2. They’re making money by selling out Hollywood to the asian market,particularly the chinese. The movies now are pan cultural super bland stories of empowerment, morality and globalist diversitopia. No storylines that portray specific cultures in America.Its all blandified to translate to the asian market and LOTS of money.

      3. Do you like Lanthimos? What about Angelopoulos? Angelopoulos was a leftist but his technical skills were impeccable.

        1. I did not like Lanthimos, at the end of dogtooth I had a sick stomach, and the movie was a copy of a French leftie one from the 70’s. Angelopoulos had ability but… he did not know how to use it for this reason he used some of the powerful directing technics all the time and by it he eliminated their power. His movies though were always beautiful for art cinema this is a merit by itself. In general though I did not like him. For me the best Greek movie in years was “the enemy within” (Ο εχθρός μου) (trailer at the end). The movie is nicely shot, well paced and it shows the problem with the contemporary Greek mind much better from what Lanthimos or Angelopoulos would do and the domestification of Greek society and males.

        2. Lanthimos is an OK director, quite overrated (i preferred Alps to Dogtooth), but what bothers me about him and his colleagues is how Americanised they are. They are the kind of Gen X Greeks that I really disliked when I was living there, too eager to abandon tradition and embrace a cosmopolitan worldview.
          Yes Angelopoulos eventually ran his style into the ground, but he is one of the very few distinctive Greek film makers, and nobody in Greece had a film career quite like his.

      4. The way Pulp fiction was shot and structured, the dialogue, especially at that time, it was kind of revolutionary. There were a million copy cat movies in Tarantino’s style after it came out.
        Whilst i admit this WW2 anti-german/ pro Jew agenda is so fucking tired, along with american slavery and white vs black propaganda that goes along with it, Tarantino is a gifted writer and film maker.

    2. Inglorious bastards, another countless Orwellian ‘2 hour hate’ session from our (((Hollywood))) superiors we get to see Jews smash the skulls of those ‘evil’ white gentiles.
      Lauded by the (((Industry))) as most of the white guilt fictional propaganda films are, yet the same (((industry))) condemns Mel Gibson’s The passion of the Christ as dangerous, Anti-Semitic and based on hate.
      If people cant see through this bullshit now, then I don’t know what to tell you.

      1. If you fags could put politics aside for a second and just enjoy a movie it would make you better people. Instead of living in impotent fear and lashing out in online echo chambers why not try to be better people?

        1. You’re welcome to enjoy your Jewish porn and social programming.
          Just don’t expect sensible uncucked men to swallow that shit.

        2. QT is a liberal and a self hating white. I wouldn’t want to know him. I am not saying there is no pattern. Of course his beliefs and values, such that they are, come through in his movies and in almost every case they are against my own. But Jesus Christ, sometimes you just need to turn it all off and just watch a movie and his movies, with very few exceptions, have been enjoyable to me. I loved resovoir dogs and pulp fiction, I liked both kill bill movies and though inglorious bastards was clever and funny. Death Proof was cool. Four Rooms was fucking amazing. Loved natural born killers and True Romance was straight up classic film. So what if he has a belief system I personally disagree with. Do you need to know what Bobby Lewis thought about the 1960 presidential election to enjoy Tossin’ and Turnin’?

        3. I usually give a pretty wide berth for an artist’s politics, because 9 times out of 10 theyre predictable liberals anyway-but Tarantino’s bs agenda comes out at every angle in his movies and gets old quick. Then there’s the fact most are built around an entire plot of white guilt or fantasy jewish history, heh go fuck yaself QT.

        4. I can understand and respect that position and total see why it would lead you to not enjoying the movies. I guess I tune it out differently. I really enjoy them. Still, I am not going to say that everyone should or that not enjoying them for the reasons you gave is wrong…

        5. Hey the cuck is back to deflect. Hey little cucky. keep telling yourself you’re relevant. Your days, like youre lineage are nearing the end. Tick. Tock.

        6. Ok. Whatever. Not sure what you even mean but the fact that you are a closet homosexual with a low iq and filthy genetics assures me that whatever it is it is dumb and brining. Merry Christmas faggot

        7. Okie dokie. and you keep letting men’s poop shoots make you hard

    1. Just don’t ask random strangers to pronounce it.
      And don’t go changing the spelling like you did when we imported the word connoisseur.

  2. Django Unchained was a 2 and a half hour, race-revenge cuckhold piece of shit fantasy.
    He’s as mainstream as mainstream gets. Made-to-order leftist propaganda

  3. Never liked his films that much…Kill Bill was acceptable…the rest is just overly brutal nonsense

  4. Just to make things even… if Django Unchained was a race revenge fantasy….. how about a movie about a White South African farmer who is fed up with the rapes, robberies, and murders of “his people” and goes on an extended rampage of black criminals, deviants, and neer-do-wells in Johannesburg, Pretoria, or Cape Town?
    Heck, a similar story could work in Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, or Recife in Brazil. Or Atlanta, Detroit, Memphis, etc. in the United States.
    All cities where white people are regularly the victims of black crime, an almost NEVER the other way around.

      1. Just to see Shaun King, Deray Mckesson, Jesse Williams, Spike Lee, etc. so pissed at even the thought of it would put a big smile on my face. haha

    1. Still waiting on a movie where a bunch of ex confederate bushwhackers get revenge on the union for Sherman’s march.

      1. Besides Outlaw Josey Wales, the closest I’ve seen anything from Hollywood come to that was Joss Whedon’s hugely ironic Firefly.

      2. Sherman burned down Marietta, Georgia. Every single building except for the Masonic Lodge. Pretty easy to do the math there.

        1. I was born and raised in georgia so we always took a little bit of extra time discussing the civil war, specifically that part, funny how people always talk about wanting to teach “real” history but things like that get swept under the rug

        2. South got their asses handed to them, and the best part is Sherman warned them all before the war how it would end. Really, go read some Sherman quotes, he kicked the south in their fucking teeth.

        3. Not really going the “south will rise again” route. Just stating some pretty horrible things were committed and wiped under the rug. The US is one of only 2 countries to have to go to war to end slavery. Sad really.

      3. I’ve been reminded that the last time Hollywood let a movie come close to portraying something like that outright was the infamous Wild Wild West.
        Thinking back on it, I’m surprised that the “Doctor Loveless” character was greenlit.

        1. Yet it isn’t the worst Will Smith movie.
          I won’t say it was a great film, or better than the TV series, but IMO folks forget just how bad the original series’ movies were, especially their version of “Loveless”.
          That movie was loaded with what today would be “microaggressions”, so all of its banter is banned.
          Now we can’t have a black man & a de facto midget making subtle cracks about race and height etc.
          Also, there’s no way a movie nowadays would construct a giant effigy of Abraham Lincoln and then blow it up.

      4. They can’t…all the adult males are too busy trying to get through 3rd grade

    2. If we were to apply psychoanalysis to Django Unchained, we could say that Tarantino either wants to be black or is turned on by the idea of sucking black dicks.
      All his movies are disgusting, but Django and Inglorious are the worst.

      1. These two movies proved him to be full establishment. Not only that these movies had pacing problems on top of that and Django’s scenario was… stoooooooooooooopid. I mean to by a slave they had to fool the owner?

        1. “Django” was so ridiculous. The Black Superman gets revenge on the evil, inbred, totally inept white crackers. All whites are racist (except QT and his butt buddies). Kill the white man. Hate his guts. Blatant social engineering there.

        2. That movie was the reason I dropped on Tarantino entirely. The funny thing for me was that the social engineering in that movie was blatantly blunt and exposed, the only movie more tasteless and blunt on that was machette (saw it on tv a month ago, I would never have given money to that flick). What I find disturbing was that many people understood those movies as entertaining…

        3. Django wasnt a good movie at all but QT’s hit versus miss record is pretty astonishing. From Resevoir Dogs to Inglorious basrards most of his movies were really and truly excellent

        4. I disagree. I know that makes me way different, but I just never got why people thought his films were so good. But then, I never knew why people thought Hitchcock was so good. I’m a snob. Or, to put it in a positive light, I’m very discerning. Yes, that’s much better.

        5. I don’t know anything about what makes a movie good or not but with very few exceptions I have enjoyed all his movies. I am not in a position to speak of filmography or whatever but the writing is good and clever and they are loads of fun to watch for me

        6. I hear ya. I’m really picky when it comes to film and music. For example, The Beatles. Meh. Overblown. Give me the Stones. I have never seen an entire Star Wars movie. I have tried to watch the first one several times, and can’t do it. In my opinion, it’s boring, the specials effects suck, the acting is bad, and the direction is…I don’t even have a word for it. Plus, something about it just creeps me out, as if they are shooting death rays at the viewer that mindfuck him into thinking it’s really great. Same for E.T., it sucked (total SJW mindfuck). Tarantino has some stellar dialog, IMHO. But fuck, he uses fuck every other word. And the SJW, race-baiting mindfuckery, he can suck my thick rhythm stick for that obvious pandering to the Masters of the Universe. And the enormous amounts of blood and gore. It’s like the wise man said about comedy, “Bathroom humor. Okay. That’s one thing. If you can make someone laugh hard without it, you are actually good at comedy.” (Like George Carlin was, for example.) Eh, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one including me.

        7. I can’t stand the Beatles. I like Star Wars but consider it a guilty pleasure. I’m a geek. I just tune out the sjw shit. Gotta turn it off now and then. This article is indicative of the site becoming just as hypersensitive to fucking every little thing as feminists imo

        8. You have to define what ‘establishment’ really means though…. is there a round table of old men deciding exactly what we can and cannot consume, or just a misguided mass appeal of the day that creative ‘artists’ and money men gear up to exploit ?
          The establishment is mainly an echo chamber where public sentiment feeds back on itself until it blows up. The whole failed Hillary thing is a perfect example of that.

        9. Yes, but that’s the point of propaganda isn’t it… you enjoy it, you lap it up as ‘entertainment’ but it’s feeding you a message at the same time. The question is whether that message is just the coolaid of the day, repackaged because that’s what gives mass appeal, or whether the producer is in on the act and is deliberately pushing an agenda.
          I do know that Fight Club was cancelled by Murdoch himself and those at Fox who went ahead with it anyway were all fired, and the movie was semi canned and only became a hit on DVD. Here is an example of one getting out of the bag. Here we can see exactly an author’s work going mainstream from book to movie and having an ultra anti-establishment message, and being actively pulled down.
          So the otherside of the question is how much an establishment agenda of feminism, globalism and multi-multiculturalism is pushed out at us.
          There was a Brad Pitt movie Killing Them Softly that was super anti-establishment and the message was very subtly dressed up in quite a boring mafia hit man movie…. but it was let out…

        10. The original starwars movie (4) came out in 1977 it was one of the first movies I saw in the cinema. It was pretty old school Hollywood swash buckling stuff. Even Princess Leah was relatively feminine and helpless, today she’d be the one flying the X wing and taking out the death star. Probably after dyking it up with several of the other hotties.
          Having written that story parts 5 and 6 and the old new ones 1,2,3 had to follow through… It’s not too bad as movies and stories go. I don’t see a huge agenda being pushed here other than don’t get obsessed with a woman. That’s the message in 1-2-3 isn’t it. Pretty red pill. Darth Vadar = super red pill talent gone bad over a woman.
          Luke = single mom, parentless child trying to make good on his bad boy father’s mistakes – it’s not a bad message either.

        11. a good movie should be able to entertain you for a couple hours, break you out of reality and then end. Sitting around worrying that Hollywood Jews are sneaking mind control into your head while watching a movie and having a few laughs is literally one step away from sitting in a soup kitchen with a tin foil hat yelling about communists and aliens reading your mind.
          Movies should have one standard: did you enjoy watching it. I think QT makes quality movies with good actors, great dialogue and interesting plots. I flick on a movie and I enjoy it. Then I go back to my real life. I can only assume that the lunatic fringe on this site which is becoming less and less fringe have nothing to live for and so sit around telling each other how special they are and being scared to death of everything and everybody.
          Of course he movies will have a liberal bias. Have you met anyone in the theater department at a major university? So what?

        12. I guess. I mean I don’t really look for a message like that. Ffs you can read anything into anything. sometimes you just enjoy the lasers going pew pew pew

        13. You are completely wrong. Totally and absolutely wrong. Your logic is no different to a heroin addict saying he just wants to get high for the evening and then carry on going about his life. You take something on face value and think it’s just harmless fun – patently wrong.
          Since the mid 80s and perhaps even earlier there’s been a constant stream of special snowflake special agent women that can kick ass and take out 6ft10″ bad guys with her high heels on….
          Expert female cops and ridiculous scenarios, not to mention drivel like Sex in the City and Everyone Loves Raymond that portrays men as useless and women as twice as capable and twice as smart.
          All of this filters into the subconscious of someone watching it and has an effect on them – especially in this day and age where have more technology, interact more through screens – characters and movies and now binge watching 6 hours of a TV series becomes the norm… it’s almost become a form of social life watching TV.
          People take on board unrealistic and manipulated role models (even more dangerous in sci fi shows where it’s ‘realistic’ – and material that even if it’s just been designed to ‘sell’ still pushes an agenda of the day – a fashion and basically blue pill BS. The only question is whether it’s done deliberately or is just a selling mechanism for mass appeal.
          I’d say a fair part of manosphere has grown up because men have become sick to death of being bombarded with this crap in popular entertainment.

        14. They taught me when I was very young that the stuff that happens in movies isn’t real….as for sex in the city and everyone loves raymond…I don’t watch it and I recommend the same to you.
          I have been watching the same movies with the same shit being filtered into me and I manage not to be a feminist. Maybe they are exploiting already held notions. I don’t care that it is there. I don’t care if it is deliberate or not. It is a movie. Watch it. Don’t watch it. Whatever. All this paranoid bullshit is just a little too much for me taste. If men are sick of popular entertainment let them find unpopular entertainment.
          I have liked almost every single one of the movies that QT has made. Not for its message or meaning, but because I enjoyed the movie. To compare that to heroin addict justification is absolutely insane. It is just a movie. If you didn’t enjoy it thats fine…don’t watch.
          In the meantime, thinking that everyone is out to get you and searching for the political message in every freaking movie is, itself, a drug…not one that I am interested in using.

      2. If Tarantino could’ve affected a South African accent, the lead in District 9 could’ve been his dream role.
        Having missed that opportunity, he could remake Watermelon Man or The Thing with Two Heads

      3. Or using his revered status to up the ante on the favored Hollywood narrative to emasculate white males and portray them as irredeemably evil with underserving privilege.
        The idea to inflame the minorities against the ‘white devil’ and to instil supreme guilt complex on white people. Divide and conquer.

        1. That photo of him with (((the Weinstein’s))) tells you all you need to know , shabbas goy doing his master’s bidding

        2. Any artist or creative minded producer, writer etc. wants public acclaim and thus are beholden to money men for budgets and marketing large enough to get that widespread appeal – and the public sentiment of the day. We’re talking about nearly 4 decades 80s to 20teens of pure feminist idolatry. The article goes without saying.
          Very very few creative ‘artists’ hold true to their origins. Take Metallica, GnR, RHCP and many others, they all bend away from their roots to gain more mass appeal and acclaim.
          One of the very few that stuck to his guns since the early 80s is Carl Cox who just plays pure house and techno and club nights and nothing else. He even quit Ibiza now because he says it’s sold out. He could have been a black David Guetta 10-15 years ago, but he just does what he does and nothing different.
          Here we’re talking about music which is 10 times less budget and thus far easier to maintain integrity. In the movies it’s such big money, never mind the production, just the marketing budgets (and cock sucking) required to get nationwide US cinema release is off the scale.

      4. Didn’t The Hateful Eight literally have a Confederate soldier being forced to suck off Samuel L Jackson?

        1. Yeah, movie was disgusting and really exposed qt for being a hack imo. Makes a western yet has to ride off racism

        2. Hes funded by Jews, he makes a movie glorifying the torture of German soldiers, and Django was nothing more than white guilt. I also remembering reading something a year ago about him pushing BLM rhetoric by calling cops KKK or some shit like that.
          Im glad I ditched Hollywood.

      5. Never saw Django, but Hateful 8 sounds similar with the Confederate general’s son blowing Samuel Jackson as torture. Wtf Inglorious with it’s mudshark ending and Nazi hunting was all about as accurate as that shit tanker movie Fury. After Hateful 8, Im convinced QT jerks off and screams the dindu word simultaneously, daily.

        1. He said he was proud that his mother was one of Wilt the Stilt’s 20,000 semen-receptacles?
          What a worthless degenerate…

    3. “Just to make things even… if Django Unchained was a race revenge fantasy….. how about a movie about a White South African farmer who is fed up with the rapes, robberies, and murders of “his people” and goes on an extended rampage of black criminals, deviants, and neer-do-wells in Johannesburg, Pretoria, or Cape Town”

      1. This movie you describe would never even see nation-wide distribution, and whoever filmed it would see his career as director come to an end because of the backlash, even if the final product was a cinematic materpiece. Boycott alone would make sure the film was a failure, and critics would be very negative about it, just to make sure they are being identified as being on the right side. So lets get real here and stop it already with the fantasies.

        1. “This movie you describe would never even see nation-wide distribution, and whoever filmed it would see his career as director come to an end because of the backlash, even if the final product was a cinematic materpiece”
          Agreed. It is amazing how little creative control a director has in a movie after the apes in suits get through cookie-cutting it into a vapid piece of dreck.

    4. A high school classmate of mine, her daughter recently went to Cape Town to do SJW work for, “the poor, underprivileged blacks.” Heh. If she isn’t raped and/or murdered, it will be a miracle. Her parents, of course, liberals that they are, think it’s wonderful. Which proves that most parents are too damned ignorant to have children…sad state of affairs.

      1. And I suppose doing anything charitable in her own home town was out of the question? Resume/college application padding, nothing more…Sad. Self-promotion masquerading as charity.

      2. LMFAO dyke girl knew went to some village in Africa. I’ll admit it was interesting getting pictures and updates. The village and it’s people were great. I gave her a general warning before she went. After few months told her GTFO NOW!!! simply cause ear to ground. She did not listen and by skin of teeth escaped on a chopper. Meanwhile I’m laughing at stories coming out of France of how shocked at the effectiveness and quality of weapons the gorilla fighters have. I know, France, but still.
        Should have took Rambo ” it’s not gonna make a difference ” to heart.

        1. Those SJW’s believe the world is made of evil white men. But the rest of mankind is wonderful, kind, giving, and they all want nothing more than to dance in the meadows, amid daffodils and rainbows, while holding hands. Oh well. Not much we can do about that one…except get out of their way and let ’em commit suicide.

        2. With each and every passing day I come to the conclusion that the opposite is true for the vast majority of peoples. The more you give them freely the more they hate you.

        3. Take everything you are being told, flip it and you now can see the world for what it is. Every day we live, is opposite day.

        4. Perhaps we are evil. I was smoking a cigar drinking a tad of hennessy LMFAO not even knowing if there was a chopper to get too.
          Hell invite her over for the sob story and rack an AK with a hundred round drum ” did the gun look like this?” Calm down its for the historical record, just wondering about their culture. So those cute kids in the village, are they wearing orange life preservers for flack jackets now…

      3. Even if she is raped or murdered her parents might be like the parents of that poor German girl who was drowned by an Afghan refugee: they’ll let “evil Western society” take the blame and continue practicing their SJW death cult.

      4. You can’t rape the willing. Guarantee you the entire reason she went there was jungle-fever. Women are at their absolute worst when they study/work abroad.

        1. Really. Can you expand on any of those experiences. I’d be interested to know more about those. I’ve only seen it Stateside. And not a whole lot of it, at that.

        2. Peace Corps, Study-Abroad, International Internships. Really just a cover to go out and get drilled by the international color.
          Consequence free (if you don’t count your mullato baby, or STDs), Judgement free (cause everyone else is a whore, and you’ll never see them again). These women are let off the leash almost completely, and they run wild.
          And their parents are so proud, sitting at home commenting on their daughter’s facebook about how brave she is, and the great things she’s doing, while Michelle is getting pig-roasted by the local village.

        3. Jesus. What can be said about the true nature of women that has not already been said here. My friend’s kid, she has the thousand cock stare. Saw some pictures, including one in a skirt, with it hiked up, in front of her smiling parents, her panties on sly display. Circle gets the square, as you surmised, she is getting bottomed out by the local tribesmen. (Puke.)

        4. In the classic Tom robbins book Still Life For Woodpecker, the female lead, Leigh Cherri, a red head, goes to a village shaman to learn her true nature. The shaman tells her she must first blow every man in the village. When she is done he cues her into the fact that her true nature is to be inquisitive

      5. I know a woman doing the exact same thing with the exact same type of parents. She’s been to Cape Town once, was robbed in her own place by 2 guys that followed her home, threatened to brain her with a machete. Now, I would be pretty fucking happy I made it out alive without so much as a scratch and NEVER go back. She’s ready to do her second tour. Hey, if she isn’t as lucky this time, fuck her.

    5. They already did that in the first “Death Wish” with Charles Bronson. Halfway through the movie, some guests at a cocktail party lampshade the fact that he seems to be killing mostly blacks. Another guest simply shrugs and says something to the effect of “well, they do commit the most crimes.” Who knows, maybe another remake’s in the works.

    6. I almost forgot. Segal mowed through a shitload of Jamaican gangsters in ‘Marked for Death.’

        1. Good one! I forgot about that one. In fact, if you go back to the original Predator, you had a German guy leading a team that included an uber-alpha white guy carrying a mini-gun. Both of them were just wreckin’ shit, blowing away Colombians left and right. Sure, you had a Native American and two African Americans in the squad, but I don’t remember them capping anybody. I’m pretty sure all they did was lay down suppression fire.
          Another movie example? ‘Black Hawk Down.’ You had a nearly all-white special forces unit taking out African hostiles like it was going out of style. And if you really want to muddy the water, you had ‘Original Gangstas,’ starring Jim Brown and Fred Williamson, where you had the law-abiding blacks in the community taking up arms and taking on the gangbangers in their community. Not very realistic IMHO, though, because for one, just because granny’s packing an uzi doesn’t mean she can outgun hardened criminals. Secondly, the protagonists in the movie never ran headlong into the Colombian druglords and crooked cops who were supplying the knuckleheads with their dope and ammo. Even if they took out the gangbangers, they’d still have to deal with their puppetmasters, who would be understandably pissed about their mules being taken out and their profit supply being jeopardized.

    7. Totally!! These balck empowerment propaganda pieces do exactly the opposite playing on their insecurites and cattering to a very low common denominator in the balck community..

  5. Reservoir Dogs was a well-made, violent graphic novel. The kind of thing you’d expect a young man to write.
    Pulp Fiction was his peak.
    Everything after displayed his perverted fascination with violence for violence sake, race obsession and basic lack of morality.
    He IS talented. But completely agenda-laden. And ironically his view of blacks in particular is as one dimensional and racist as even the KKK could conceive.

    1. I want to say Natural Born Killers was a visionary movie, but that vision originated with whoever made that French film Man Bites Dog

  6. Pulp Fiction is probably a work of genius, regardless of what you think of the politics. The politics in that film aren’t rammed down your throat as they are in later films, but it’s clear that even back then his films were radical only from within a mainstream liberal value system.
    I remember a conservative Catholic Daily Mail reporter outraged at how Samuel L Jackson saw fit to mercilessly execute four nice young lads in the flat who she considered could have been anyone’s sons. She didn’t say it but she was clearly upset that there was inverse racial politics at work here – the opposite a white assassin hero executing four young black men wouldn’t have sat quite so easily with the critics. One could make too much of that though. The black guy who survives is blown into a bloody pulp by a haphazard shot gun blast in the next scene.
    Pulp Fiction made him, and from that point on he was establishment, a position he consolidated by making films with black actors or women in the leads. He’s a talented director all right, but I’d say that in some sense his reputation as a genius depends entirely on the trick he pulled off in that film, namely the absolutely inspired manipulation of time and interlocking stories. He was absolutely in control of everything that happened in that film. That never occurred again in any of his subsequent films.

    1. Among the biggest problems with Kill Bill was exactly this. It opens with Uma Thurman having a big fight with a suburban mother – probably just for shock value. Later on, it explains why the fight happened.
      If the mom fight had happened later in the film, after she kills people who we think really deserve it, we could have had an introspective philosophical moment. Instead, from ten minutes in it’s just the story of how Lucy Liu’s character is a bad lady who does bad things and Uma Thurman kills people.
      Not to say the fight against the 88 wasn’t fun as all getout. There was a literal breakdance move in there to call out how choreographed kung fu and samurai movie fights are. Clever.
      But that’s about as clever as his post-Pulp Fiction films get.

      1. yeah, I agree with that, to the extent that I remember the bits you’re referring to. There were some ‘mystery of the bride’ elements that I liked but it was just overdone. I actually never got round to volume II

    2. Good post. But I didn’t care a bit for those boys. They were stereotypical cocksuckers above their head

    3. Aye, but that method of story telling wasn’t that innovative. It was only inventive from a mainstream point of view. It was the first film to use those narrative devices that actually connected with a mass audience. Tarantino’s ‘genius’ was that he pulled it off, but if it wasn’t for the Weinstein’s taking a huge gamble releasing it wide it never would have hit it big. It was definitely a film that captured the zeitgeist though and film was never quite the same after it unfortunately because he was a terrible influence.
      Agree about P.T being his peak, but QT’s success is pretty much unprecedented in the last few generations as far as ‘serious’ directors are concerned. None of the New Hollywood directors maintained that level of success, not even Scorsese or Coppola.
      The reason that QT appeals to film buffs so much is because they are self congratulatory back slapping exercises. They flatter the viewers who ‘get’ the cultural references, making them feel smart, and validate their political positions.
      Kevin Smith fans are similar, but obviously K.S is nowhere near QT’s league. Smith also suffers from that liberal PC syndrome. Most of his films feature ‘wise’ female characters and men who are overgrown children. A painful example of his liberal politics on display is Chasing Amy, which I enjoyed in 1997 but can’t stand now. In that film, the conflict arises because a man (played by Affleck, another liberal cunt) gets turned off his girlfriend when he discovers she is a major slut. The film presents her as being smart and all knowing and mature and worldly and him as a narrow minded doofus who needs to grow up. It’s pathetic.

      1. “It was the first film to use those narrative devices that actually connected with a mass audience.”
        Tarantino’s great talent was always in being able to taking old ideas, themes, and of course has-been but once great actors and re-make them with retro-chic. I wasn’t aware that included the narrative devices in pulp fiction though. I felt the great innovation here was to be able to make small connections that pulled the stories together and richly rewarded the audience for paying attention. The best example of that was the restaurant scene with Tim Roth and Honey-Bunny, which we return to from a quite different angle right at the end of the movie. There is a thrill in the feeling that it’s a puzzle in time / narrative that is not only all connected but that all fits together perfectly, and that the director has been completely in control of every element the whole time. Narratives have always played with time, sequence and brought stories and sub-stories together, but I can’t think of any film or novel that came before that did anything like what Tarantino did in that movie.
        Any film that’s experimental is gong to be a box-office risk, but I’m not sure anyone who saw a screening would doubt its box office success.
        I’d also give him credit for his part in from Dusk till Dawn, as this is the first film I can think of that tricked the audience by switching genre, but beyond that I agree with you when you explain is continuing success in terms of the “self congratulatory back slapping” of movie buffs who want smart cultural references and political validation. Despite the genius of PF most of Tarantino’s act is just re-packaging and presentation. There is nothing deeper behind it. You can leave PF thinking that there is. The rest of his career simply demonstrates that that initial impression was wrong.
        I see the Kevin Smith parallel. In a sense I’d say Tarantino’s career is almost closer to – the very different – M. Night Shalmayan. Sixth sense was based on a neat trick that (just about) worked. His subsequent films have been increasingly unpersuasive attempts to reproduce the magic

        1. David Cronenberg always makes interesting movies. Atom Egoyan too, although he seems to have disappeared

        2. “Despite the genius of PF most of Tarantino’s act is just re-packaging and presentation. There is nothing deeper behind it. You can leave PF thinking that there is. The rest of his career simply demonstrates that that initial impression was wrong”
          Part of the reason that critics and film academics suspected that there was something more to films like Pulp Fiction was because of the obvious Euro film influences like Jean Luc Godard.
          I still maintain that releasing it wide was a gamble in 94, especially for a small player like Miramax. Travolta was washed up at the time and the film has scenes that ramble beyond their narrative ‘point’, which audiences usually don’t respond to. Nobody expected Pulp to make as much as it did, not even the Weinsteins, but it was clear, especially after its reception at Cannes, that it was worth promoting.

        3. “Part of the reason that critics and film academics suspected that there was something more to films like Pulp Fiction was because of the obvious Euro film influences like Jean Luc Godard”
          Didn’t know that, but obviously its not surprising to find that his work is even more derivative than seemed to be the case. Re. the commercial risk at the time, I suppose it’s hard to look beyond hindsight. I think you’re right about the effect of its reception at Cannes – I don’t remember the details, but I do remember a spate of absolutely awe-struck reviews coming from the critics. Even the ones who hated the values of the film, seemed completely bowled over by the effect it produced. Re. scenes that rambled beyond their narrative point that if you like lack of cutting room editing was to become something of a signature to Tarantino’s films. If you want a derivation for that it would probably be the spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, which weren’t exactly known for their narrative tightness. Travolta was a risk perhaps. But the success, and the ‘coolness’ of his re-invention completely against type, was itself to create a new trend for recycling old actors. It was clearly partly intentional given Harvey Keitel was another washed up has been actor who Taranatino rediscovered

        4. Yes the lack of conventional editing was unusual for a film marketed to a mass audience. The reception at Cannes was what convinced the Weinsteins to release it wide instead of rolling it out slowly.

        5. Harvey Keitel also came back with Bad Lieutenant. That film and Reservoir Dogs put him back on the map.

        6. bad lieutenant was a weird film. Without RD & PF not sure how well that would have gone down

        7. BD and RD came out at around the same time. i.e the end of 1992.
          Bad Lieutenant was bigger than Reservoir Dogs in continental Europe to my knowledge, at least in 1992, although I could be wrong.
          I was obsessed with Bad Lieutenant in the 90’s. Guess I was a pretty depressed and messed up kid. I still like it, but it’s definitely not for everyone.

        8. I actually thought bad lieutenant came out before pulp fiction, but you’re right it was released the year earlier. It was a slightly messed up film, but compelling

        1. Mallrats is one of the most 90s films ever made. If there was ever a film to remind you how long ago the 90s was, it’s Mallrats. From the ugly fashion to the ugly malls, it is a film frozen completely in time.
          It’s entertaining though.

      2. “Aye, but that method of story telling wasn’t that innovative. It was only inventive from a mainstream point of view. It was the first film to use those narrative devices that actually connected with a mass audience.”
        That’s the mark of genius, throughout all of history. It’s not about who did it first, but who did it and left an indelible mark.
        Michael Jackson wasn’t the first to do the moonwalk. He just knew *when* to do it and called it the moonwalk. Now it’s his signature (along with every other move cribbed from Jackie Wilson, James Brown, and Fred Astaire).
        That’s fucking genius no matter which way you look at it.
        Innovation is essentially a term we use in hindsight, but the reality is innovation points are really just logical extensions that build on top of one another (Jeffrey Daniels to Michael Jackson, VHS movies to Quentin Tarantino).
        Here’s a fun one people should Google: If you still think Einstein randomly inquired about the metaphysical reality of the universe and came up with General Relativity (itself an offshoot of Special Relativity), you probably still believe in the ‘myth’ of innovation and genius. It’s one of the most fascinating leaps of inquiry that stemmed all the way from 16th century geocentrism.

        1. There is some truth to what you are saying, but it is largely a US-centric view of culture. It is an attempt to rationalise the irrational by deriding opponents as mystics.
          There is a big difference between repackaging and selling an old idea (which is the hallmark of American pop culture) and creating a new concept/form/theory from the ashes of an old one.

  7. Wow, this is the first article by M.T. White that I’ve seen on ROK and I’m stunned. Mr. White, you really know your stuff. First of all, thank you for this excellent analysis, you seem to really know a lot about movies. I gotta check out your other writings for sure.
    What I have experienced right now after reading your article is the same feeling I got while reading Roosh’s “Bang” and “Day Bang”. The feeling when you’ve known in your heart your whole life long that something is wrong and then someone who is more eloquent than you puts it into words and “it clicks”. You just put the pieces of the puzzles together.
    When I was younger and politically unaware – I guess you could say I was a normal leftist/liberal guy without intention though – I had a girlfriend who showed me Pulp Fiction and from then on we watched all his movies and became fans. But then I started watching good movies on the regular and fell in love with crime films, mafia films – the gangster genre mostly. The Departed, Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale and so on…I liked those films. Anyway my girlfriend continued to hype up Tarantino’s works but I never really liked his movies as much as she did. My favourite was Reservoir Dogs but she – like all of her liberal teenage friends – loved Pulp Fiction. And I’ve never really understood it – while I, as the son of a photographer and as a young man – appreciated the great cinematography, dialogues and plot twists of some movies, she just hyped the soundtrack and the “cool, hip style” of Tarantino’s films…and I was just like “meh”. Now you have put my feelings into words. Now I get why I didn’t like those films as much as she did. Tarantino’s films are viewed as being “cool” because of the costumes, soundtracks and the trashy style, but they’re not really good movies and they’re actually politically correct and not the other way round.

  8. Quentin brags about his mother sleeping with Wilt Chamberlain. That’s what constitutes an accomplishment in his family.

  9. I will stick to the classics like McClintock, the quiet man, island in the sky, the green berets, and true grit.

    1. I’m still disappointed with the horrid Cohen Bros remake of True Grit. If John Wayne hadn’t already been dead, I think they would’ve been.
      The Cohen Bros should’ve warned me away from ever watching it, but I figured even they couldn’t bumble a classic…

  10. Tarantino lost his early magic after making Jackie Brown, but this article is otherwise full of shit.

  11. I like kill bill, pulp fiction, and from dusk till dawn. Never liked them enough to really critically analyze them, with the exception of pulp fiction. I just saw it as the 90’s version of stereotypical archetypes that exist in america or 1950’s/60’s america on acid. Kill bill is just a rip off of every kung fu classic ever but with extra corniness, though i couldn’t see QT pulling a sergi leonne and doin the good the bad the ugly/ yojimbo style remake. As for dusk till dawn….salme hayek as a vampire stripper….enough said.

  12. Compared with all the superhero movies (which I have checked out of a long time ago). His stuff is better than most. Jackie Brown was his worst though.

  13. Those are all great movies I don’t understand what the problem is?
    Maybe spend more time at the gym than thinking about how much the sjw and leftists are coming to get you. The hippies have always been there. Be a man, don’t give a fuck.
    Meanwhile, that whole Russian ‘hack’ story…
    where’s the write up on that shit?

  14. Tarantino blows, IMHO. Violence and bathroom humor – what a genius. He’s pretty good with dialogue, but after hearing the word “fuck” about 1000 times in his films, it’s obvious he’s part of the movement to lower the collective IQ of the population.
    Changing to something totally unrelated here, your old Uncle Bob is currently ranked No. 1 after the first two games of ESPN’s Capital One Bowl Challenge (me and a whole shitload of other guys, but what the hell). First prize is two round-trip tickets to next year’s National Championship game, plus air and hotel ($10,000). Second prize is an Amazon gift card for $2500. I have zero chance at either, because winning this thing will be like winning the lottery (way more luck than skill). But that’s okay.
    My goal is to finish in the top 10%, out of well over 1 million entries. Here’s a screen shot of my No. 1 position, which I have on both of my entries (you get two entries max). Pretty cool, eh? (“Eh” is Canadian for, “You agree, right, pass me the poutine and some Tim Horton’s donuts and a Molson’s.”) Click to enlarge –

  15. How do you think Tarantino can get his movies made. After Death Proof not doing so well at the box office. He had to be the gimp and take it up thee ass from the Weinsteins and make it up to them by making Inglorious Basturds. He can get away with the violence by flipping the characters so the underdog minority character can get his vengeance on whitey. Everything the jews and minorities wish they could do. I like the subtext in this review about who really calls the shots..no surprise there. Goldman Sacks and the (((you know whos))).

  16. Do comic book film fans truly have significant overlap with Tarantino fans?
    I have my doubts.

  17. I enjoyed Kill Bill vol 1 and 2, Pulp Fiction, and Inglorious Basterds (to me that was his best due to the bad guy in the movie). Resevoir Dogs is ok. The rest can go in the crapper. Yes, he is very much style over substance. A lot of his movies are paying homage to something someone else did while putting in his own 2 cents. His biggest problem is when a character “goes Quentin” (Its when the character has too much dialogue talking about absolutely nothing at all). This article is correct in saying he is not the best director in the industry.

    1. Congratulations on you realizing he is not the best director in the industry. Now shall we try to find out how did he manage to become the most succesful director in the industry, or should we pin on us another medal for not being fooled like everyone else?

  18. Agreed. Reservoir Dogs was by far his best film, mostly because he steered clear anything political and cast an all-white cast and without even the appearance of a single female character (and don’t tip the waitress by bringing her up!).

  19. I liked his films up until Kill Bill and then after that, he was pure hollywood formula trash. This isn’t just him but rather soon after Y2K, most of Hollywood was derivative. I have seen some interesting films that I really enjoyed such as Snowpiercer but I’d say perhaps once a year or so can I find something worth watching at a mainstream movie theater. It’s really that bad.
    Leftism was once “progressive” because it had something to “progress” towards: A European socialist ideal. Leftists were saved by the fact they were hypocrites: They paid lip service to “diversity” but really didn’t believe in it. Most still don’t personally. In Europe, they could go hang around white people and pretend like “diversity” really only mattered in the bad USA that had to “make up for” previous discrimination.
    Now that Europe is being invaded along with the USA and they can’t come out and just say that ethnic cleansing of Europe is different than doing it to the USA, they don’t really have much to progress towards. They’re just out to not admit they were wrong. It’s not a very pleasant way to live and this is reflected in their self-hating entertainment. It’s depressing really. I’d hate to be a leftist.

  20. I’ve always disliked Tarantino. He is violent for the sake of violence and seems to have an unhealthy obsession with it. He tries to hard to prove whatever point he is trying to make in his movies. In my opinion he is the very definition of overkill.

  21. This site is becoming dangerously obsessed with race. Call out PC bullshit, but just listing black heros and white villans is not proper analysis.

  22. You’re on the right track somewhat (Django was a cuck-fest for sure) and Tarantino sucks just as much as his hipster fan boys, but still 80% of that article consists of rather forced arguments.

  23. Not sure he’s a cuck, at least based on the evidence in this article. There’s no doubt he peaked with Pulp Fiction, though. That was a straight up masterpiece, and everything he’s made since has utterly failed to even come close.

  24. Very interesting to see someone part of the “system” of Hollywood masquerading as an “idenpendant” film maker..
    A white Spike Lee??

  25. Here’s an update on my ESPN Capital One Bowl Mania Challenge entries. Over a million people are playing. Five games have finished so far (out of 42 for the entire bowl season). Picks are given confidence points for all 42 games, weighted. The game you like the most gets 42 points if you pick the winner. The game you like the least gets 1 point. I am currently in the No. 363 position (again, this is out of over 1 million entries). Below is a screen shot of your old Uncle Bob’s two entry forms (you can have two entries, max). I picked the winner of all five of today’s completed games correctly, which included two major upsets.
    In the final game of the day, the score is tied, but it’s early in that one. If I hit that game, I will rise a lot higher (I went from No. 2400-something to No. 363 after I won the fifth straight game today). So keep your fingers crossed, young squires. First prize is two tickets to next year’s College Football National Championship Game, plus air fare, plus hotel ($10,000). Second prize is an Amazon gift card for $2500. If I win first prize, I will be happy to take an ROK reader with me, if somebody here wants to go. But that’s as likely to happen as finding an LTR unicorn. My goal is to finish in the top 10% with one of my entry forms. Right now, I’m in the top 1/10th of 1 percent. (Set reachable goals, and overachieve. That’s my motto.) Here’s that screen shot of my entry forms, the form that’s ranked No. 363, is up top. Click to enlarge –

  26. Though I’ve seen some of the movies mentioned here, I couldn’t recall most of the details the author mentioned. I don’t have the time to watch them all again.

  27. I’ve always hated QT movies. Mostly due to the over the top characters and dumb speeches/stories told by the characters in all of his movies. David Carradine is supposed to be a badass but has a lisp. Uhh nope..

    1. Hopefully he, unlike Samuel L “domestic terrorist” Jackson, didn’t insist upon having his character lisp.

      1. SLJ seems like such a nuisance to work with. Always demanding things for his character.

        1. I half-wonder how SLJ winds up in so many movies. I suspect it can’t be due to his star power as he would’ve diluted that long ago with his overexposure.

  28. What if I said, I don’t like you or your fancy pants nigger and I wouldn’t sell you a tinkers damn?
    The only good line in the whole movie and Don Johnsons southern accent is…pisspoor.
    I haven’t watched all his movies however the ones I did watch all had some funny memorable lines

  29. So I’ve got the movie, “White Christmas”, on the TV in the background; I’m listening to the audio while I work. They just did a song-and-dance number. Part of the lyrics:
    “Lord help the mister who comes between me and my sister, and lord help the sister, who comes between me and my man.”
    This movie was made back in 1954. These lyrics suggest that they did indeed have back-stabbing cunts aplenty, even way back then, which is obvious – but unlike today, they actually pointed that kind of thing out in the movies. No longer.
    If they had a lyric like that in a movie today, it would never make it to the screen. They would change it to something like this:
    “Lord help the mister who comes between me and my sister, and lord help my sister, if she thinks she needs a white man…”

  30. Great to see Brett Easton Ellis checked and quoted…truth.
    “Pulp Fiction” was an absolute stroke of genius but perhaps all that fame and money eventually pushed Tarantino’s eccentricity beyond the Twilight Zone. “Hateful Eight” was loose and trite, and had a bunch of “WTF” non-sequitur moments that made me think the director must be surrounded by sycophants.

  31. You know what the best part is though? Tarantino lives on this type of criticism. You jags are the reason he makes movies, just to spite you. I guess what I’m getting at is: bitch, moan, and throw around your uncomfortable porn insults, because the fact that this article was written is evidence that we won. God won. In the name of the goggins, the waltz, and the holy Jackson, suck it.

  32. I quite liked The Hateful Eight, but his earlier films are better. He has definitely gone too far down the SJW path for me, and it’s true that his films are far more conservative than what they appear on the surface.
    Pulp Fiction, which was also quite low budget, felt like a complete revelation to the 16 year old me in 1994. Nowadays it’s entertaining but easy to see through.
    Vincent Gallo once referred to QT as a ‘collage artist’ who was a problem because he dumbed down radical forms for mass appeal. That criticism is on the money, and the fact that people are still so obsessed with QT is a worrying sign considering that his cultural peak was over 20 years ago.
    No Hollywood director I can think of from the last 45 years has been consistently successful like QT. Even Scorsese, a far superior director, had his fair share of ups and downs, both critically and commercially.

  33. Old detective noir / grind house kung-fu / 70s blaxploitation / 60s spaghetti westerns shit all over him.
    The budget for one of his films was probably the same or larger then entire genres in the past.
    His only talent is exploiting consumer ignorance and not dying of a coke overdose during production.

  34. For me, Inglorious Bastards sealed the deal: that was the first Tarantino movie I refused to watch, and I refuse to watch his films ever since. Action hero Jew taking the baseball bat to our German kameraden? Fuck off, cuck.

      1. One of his greatest mistakes.
        In the Ukraine, the locals were cheering on the Panzers towards Moscow, throwing rose-petals under the feet of the marching Wehrmacht. And who could blame them after the artificial famine created by Stalin and his cronies, leading to the death of millions?
        With their help, Adolf could have easily destroyed the Sovietunion. Instead he decided to treat them as inferiors and killing them.
        On the long run, this stupidity lost him the war.

    1. He has indeed, and unlike many other public people that have to hide their fetishes from the public eye, Tarantino even had the gall to put his fetish on film without suffering mainstream rejection for it.
      You somehow feel contant with pointing out “he cannot fool me!” instead of trying to understand how did he manage do that.

  35. frankly, fuck him…he’s seen the last of my money 10 years ago…I think the guy is just another Hollywood asshole…

  36. Loved Pulp Fiction…that was mid ’90s.
    Now most movies have strong and independent women leaders:
    vastly superior in intellect, skills, strength, virtue, ethics, and knowledge than their effeminate male counterparts…
    which was not such a leap of faith since most male actors seem short and gay…

  37. Man I had no idea that Tarantino still had such devoted fans. Dirty Harry fascist? That’s also news to me.. Was a good film. But yes, Pulp Fiction was good, but after the last three, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight did really feel it had become a brand that was increasingly uninteresting and obviously pushing multicultural agendas.

      1. Right. In other news: I can’t seem to find a sushi restaurant owned by Scotsman

  38. Your old Uncle Bob lost the sixth college bowl game of the day yesterday, after hitting his first five. That knocked me down from 363rd place, to 1157th place, in the overall rankings in ESPN’s Capital One Bowl Mania Challenge. Since I’m up against over 1 million players, that isn’t too bad. I’m still in the top 0.5 percentile. My goal is to finish in the top 10%. I suspect I’ll make a charge up the leader board over the final 36 games, but that remains to be seen. No more bowl games till Monday.
    I have a few picks in the NFL today. Chicago +4.5 vs. Green Bay for $300. Cincinnati +3.5 versus Pittsburgh for $300. Atlanta vs. San Francisco take the under at 51.5 for $200. New Orleans vs. Arizona take the under at 48.5 for $200. Take Denver +3.5 vs. New England for $300. And finally, take San Diego +3 vs. Oakland for $300, and take the under at 49.5 for $300. I might add the evening game, Dallas vs. Tampa Bay, but I”m going to wait and see how the lines move. (***Note: Added Tampa Bay +7 for $600. Final results for day: 4-4, +$380.)
    (Click the form below to check out my current ESPN Bowl Mania situation, in case you realize that talk is indeed cheap and I could be totally full of shit, which I am sometimes, but not about this…the “100%” on my top entry indicates the percentile I am in among the contestants, not accuracy, as I have only hit five out of the six played games.)

  39. Tarantino’s always been a hack
    When he ripped off City on fire (itself a shit film) to make a shitty debut film should have been warning sign that he’s a talent less berk
    Everything else has been a masturbatory worship of dindu culture or fem shit

  40. Speaking at the Adobe Max creativity conference in San Diego, Quentin Tarantino said he’s stopping at 10 features: “Drop the mic. Boom. Tell everybody, ‘Match that shit.’”
    Oh really. Give any number of people one-tenth the budget for the films, and 10 times the budget for the glowing advertising, and they’ll match it. It’s like Joe Goebbels said – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” This is especially true of movies and music. If the media tells people how great a director is, or how great a film is, or how great a song is, and they keep doing it over and over, the majority of people will eventually agree. They don’t want to admit it, but very few people have their own critical assessments of anything. They borrow their friends’ opinions, because their friends are cool, and they want to impress them and be like them. It’s like the old adage, “You can get used to drinking gasoline if you drink it frequently enough, but it will kill you.” Well it isn’t an adage, I made it up. Kinda like critics made up the mindfuck that Tarantino is a genius, and it was repeated over and over, until people “eventually came to believe it.”

  41. Question: has anyone noticed how white movie stars and musicians from 60 years ago had deeper voices? Every Christmas season I revel in the baritone sounds of Andy Williams, Bing Crosby, and Dean Martin (their music and their movies). Then I think what the fuck happened to artists and performers of our generation? These days, They don’t even sound like men. Bieber, Timberlake, Tom Cruise… Tarantino sounds like a squirrel. Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt sound like teenagers at best.
    Have we bred away all of our deep voiced men or is it just not cool to sound like a man anymore?

    1. Higher-register singing, and tenors, have always been around. During the tragic era of the castrati, they were all the rage.
      Supposedly song sung in a lower register was easier to record back in the day, given the state of technology. By 1960 though, the tech was there for capturing higher-register singing and so the era of higher-pitched pop began with artists like Frankie Valli.
      On a side note, today’s “crooners” don’t seem to have the technique of their predecessors: Michael Bublé, for instance, doesn’t display much range in the songs that I’ve heard…in that sense he’s the “Ozzy Osbourne” of his genre.

  42. Liberal porn is a good term for his movies. I mean, inglorius basterds was really the nail in the coffin. The safest possible movie in the universe, not just getting revenge on those evil white germans, but Jews getting revenge no less. Liberals love jerking off over nazis and the killing of them, they can’t get over the fact the war has been over for 71 years now.
    Honestly I think he’s incredibly overrated. The only thing I like is the brutal murder and death scenes that have a real raw appeal to me. But usually I find the movies themselves boring with lots of downtime and overly tryhard dialogue in between the action. I do appreciate that vampire movie with Salma Hayek looking hot as fuck. Of course he had to interrupt that and turn them all into hideous murdering vampires. It’s whatever though, as far as propaganda goes he really isn’t damaging our movement that much and isn’t much of a problem. At least his movies are a little different than the WB and Disney and superhero crap.

  43. I agree with the overall sentiment, but I guess this is where the hypocrite in me pops up.
    I enjoy his films.
    The acting is always top notch, story usually intriguing in some way and he tends to be able to balance the SJW shit enough for me to stomach watching until the end.
    He’s an extremely talented guy. I’m not a movie buff but I can’t think of another filmmaker who’s work I’m guaranteed to at least be entertained by.
    The “Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz) in Inglorious Bastards had me glued to the screen. He rightfully won on Oscar for his role.

  44. I don’t know about cuck …
    …but I do know that I went to see “School of Rock” in 2003, and Quentin Tarantino himself strolled into the theater and down the center aisle with a group of no less than SIX pretty women. They weren’t models, but all were definitely good 8s. It was baller. He sat the women two rows in front of me, then went out and came back with six bags of popcorn and handed them out.
    The movie started, and he laughed like a maniac through most of the scenes. Everybody was laughing at QT laughing, because he was SO LOUD. I stared at the back of his head the whole time like, “Is this really happening?”

  45. Not sure these movies are part of a direct line to feminized social ills…
    But, fanboy-ism is somehting worth talking about and maybe deconstructing from the red-pill POV– especially becasue we don’t spend much time on art around here.

  46. I have the idea that Quentin Tarantino, regardless of whatever his flaws as person are, is a man that has achieved great success while navigating through a shark infested sea that would have devoured any other man without his great cunning and ability to blend in to his surroudings.
    In Hollywood, you are either politically correct or you suffer the consequences.
    Yet Tarantino has filmed the stuff that he wanted to film. Stuff that would have ruined the career of any other director. Instead, he got critical acclaim and the applause of a public that would normally be outraged for seeing such things on a film.
    I see his success as a good example on how you can fool everyone and get away with murder. Maybe his example is not exactly “manly” in the traditional sense, but it is another way to achive success, no doubt about it. You can feel good about yourself for not falling for his tricks and seeing things as they really are, yet he is the one who is rich, succesful and famous. Surely there is something of value to learn here, other than calling him “cuck” and move on.

  47. great article. Is this a surprise ? you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, namely the Weinstein mafia.

    1. It really is too bad about his career, as with “Jackie Brown”, there seemed to be an evolution of nuanced maturity with that particular movie. Unfortunately, it didn’t do nearly as well as “Pulp Fiction” at the box office, and so that’s why I think he went with an over the top creation like the “Kill Bill” franchise.
      And after “Death Proof” bombed at the box office there was a rumor that Tarantino was on his knees prostrating before Mr.Weinstein to give him another chance. Thus we got “Inglorious Basterds”, and everything that came after.

  48. If anything, I’d say this is more a critique of Hollywood than of Tarantino himself.
    Yes, he makes movies involving safe, politically acceptable themes, but in all fairness he kind of has to do that to be able to do anything.
    That’s not gonna change until either Hollywood is changed from within or their influence is marginalized, which is why I rarely if ever go to movies anymore.

  49. Reading between the lines, his mom loved black cock and that seemed to rub off on him in some way.

    “It was almost like a sitcom, the way we lived in the 70s,” said Tarantino, who added that his mom’s boyfriends would take him to blaxplotation movies. “Because she was in her 20s, she was hot, alright, she was a hot white girl and her best friend named Jackie was a hot black girl and her other best friend, Lillian, was a hot Mexican girl. And they lived in this swinging singles apartment with me.”


  50. Oh. So that’s who that really ugly guy is that the media posts shots of occasionally. Good to know.
    I guess.
    Never have seen one of his films…. 😀

  51. QT should direct the movie version of “Hamilton”. He could add a scene where Hamilton is anally violated

  52. Am I the only one that gave Tarantino props for Kill Bill Vol 2?
    The script was compact, light weight and smart and the garbage was cast aside because of that.
    I liked it alot.

  53. I went to see one of his films years ago and hated it: everybody in the cinema laughed loud, fake, forced laughs at the violent “humour”, because the film was the in-thing and had received rave reviews in the trendy leftist press. It was just the emperor’s new clothes. I later saw another of his films and thought it was crap, too. (Oh! How dare I!)
    And when I saw the adverts for that stupid tart with the samurai sword, I thought even back then that it looked like a cuck’s fantasy. But then, (((Hollywood))) is cuck central…

Comments are closed.