Quentin Tarantino is considered one of the most talented, visionary, and influential directors of his generation. His films are famous for their stylized violence, dark humor, nonlinear storytelling, and homages to grindhouse cinema.
However, while Tarantino has many fans and critical acclaim, he also has his fair share of detractors. Here are some of the main reasons why some people dislike his films and directing style.
Films are Too Violent
One of the most common criticisms of Tarantino’s films is that they are simply too violent. Movies like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Django Unchained feature very graphic, stylized, and over-the-top violence that turns some viewers off.
Scenes like the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs or the blood-soaked fight scenes in Kill Bill make many uncomfortable and leave some feeling the violence is gratuitous rather than purposeful. Tarantino has embraced this criticism, saying “Violence is just one of many things you can do in movies.
People ask me, ‘Where does all this violence come from in your movies?’ I say, ‘Where does all this dancing come from in Stanley Donen movies?’ If you ask me how I feel about violence in real life, well, I have a lot of feelings about it. It’s one of the worst aspects of America. In movies, violence is cool. I like it.”
Percentage of Tarantino Films Rated R for Violence
| Film | MPAA Rating |
|---|---|
| Reservoir Dogs | Rated R for violence and language |
| Pulp Fiction | Rated R for violence, language and sexual content |
| Kill Bill | Rated R for violence, language and brief drug use |
| Death Proof | Rated R for violence, language and sexual content |
| Inglorious Basterds | Rated R for violence |
| Django Unchained | Rated R for violence and language |
| The Hateful Eight | Rated R for violence and language |
This table shows that almost all Tarantino’s films have received an R rating from the MPAA, primarily for violence. So while his fans argue the violence serves an artistic purpose, it’s clear why some viewers feel it’s too much.
Glorifies Violence and Makes Light of Serious Issues
Related to the criticism around violence, some argue Tarantino goes too far in glorifying and trivializing acts of violence in his movies. For example, some say he makes light of complex social issues like racism, slavery, and sexual assault that deserve more thoughtful treatment.
Specifically, movies like Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight – which tackle slavery and racism – have been accused of transforming weighty topics into simple revenge fantasies. Critics argue this does a disservice to victims of actual violence and exploitation.
Tarantino has disagreed, saying “the truth, or the reality, of what America was like during slavery times is much worse than what I presented.” But others counter that while artistic depictions aren’t always historically accurate, he sometimes seems to use social issues as a vehicle for over-the-top action without responsible consideration of their underlying meaning.
Lacks Character Depth and Emphasis on Substance
Some critics argue that while Tarantino’s visual style is unique and vibrant, his characters and plots lack depth and substance. They say his violence and sensationalized action come at the expense of meaningful character development and emotional impact.
For example, while movies like Kill Bill and Django may have striking imagery and bravura set pieces, some argue the main characters lack interiority and complex motivation beyond serving the director’s penchant for flashy homages and vicious revenge.
In other cases, some fault his nonlinear, fractured storytelling style for being all sizzle but no steak – visually tantalizing sequences that fail to cohere into stories with meaningful insight into the human experience.
Signature Dialogue Seems Self-Consciously Clever
Another aspect of Tarantino’s directing that puts some people off is his quirky, self-referential dialogue that often strives to be clever at the expense of sounding natural. He has a very stylized, idiosyncratic way of writing dialogue that some viewers find more pretentious or irritating than intelligent or funny.
Lines like “a pipe-hittin’ n*****” from Pulp Fiction or Sheriff Chris Mannix saying his letter from Abraham Lincoln in The Hateful Eight caused him to get “a massive erection” seem deliberately provocative in a way that feels showy and not authentic to some.
Lacks Range as a Director
Some critics argue that Tarantino leans too heavily on a familiar formula without demonstrating much diversity or range across his body of work. While all his films have a distinct Tarantino imprint, some say he has covered the same stylistic and thematic ground from Jackie Brown to Kill Bill to Hateful Eight without showing growth or evolution as an artist.
His heavy focus on revenge tales, nonlinear storylines, and pop culture references strikes some as a director stuck rehashing the same self-referential tropes without expanding his skills into new territory. Essentially, from this view, he excels at a specific type of cult movie but hasn’t widened his range over time.
Indulges Himself Too Much as an Auteur
Part of a larger criticism that he is self-indulgent or too in love with certain aspects of cinema regardless of how audiences respond. Some argue he leans too heavily on graphic violence, sensationalism, on-screen cruelty, and dark themes without sufficient purpose or restraint.
Critics in this vein argue he abuses his clout and talent to serve his own vision without discipline, losing sight of the audience’s experience. That he takes too much license because no producers or collaborators dare reign him in or tell him no when his instincts go too far. While great filmmakers impose their style, some argue Tarantino imposes himself as an auteur without suitable editing or boundaries.
Work May Lack Lasting Influence on Cinema
Some critics with a long historical view argue that while Tarantino is an iconic director of his era, his body of work may ultimately lack sufficient depth, innovation, or humanity to exert lasting influence on the art form over time.
They argue he has benefitted more from copious style, bombast, and violent spectacle than introducing new paradigms or emotional insights that shape filmmakers for decades. Unlike directors like Scorsese, Kubrick, or Spielberg, some question if his hyper-stylized approach will maintain relevancy and impact as the years pass.
Tarantino’s Fast Editing Style Annoying
For some viewers, yes – Tarantino does employ an aggressive editing style, especially in action scenes, that strikes some as chaotic or irritating. For example, scenes in Kill Bill with the Bride battling dozens of Crazy 88 assassins shift rapidly among different visual angles and edits for dramatic effect.
This kinetic, even frantic pacing of cuts aligns with the intensity of the on-screen violence. But the ultra-fast edits also reduce clarity of the scene’s core geography and stunt work. So some critics argue it’s an ADHD-pace that undermines immersion while others argue it’s an engaging style that packs the frame with energy that matches the sequence’s tone.
Ultimately it represents Tarantino’s personal preference as a director for bravura action over spatial logic – a choice that entertains some while annoying those who prefer storytelling that slows down enough to appreciate the action or environment itself. So for viewers who share Tarantino’s attraction to speed and intensity it has appeal, while those desiring more grounded visual continuity find it grating.
Tarantino Ever Apologized for Movie Violence
No, Tarantino stands behind depictions of graphic violence in his films as an artistic choice meant to entertain audiences rather than a political statement. He rejects criticisms that he glorifies or trivializes violence, arguing the violent imagery serves specific storytelling purposes and that audiences understand his films occupy a sensationalized, fictional realm.
In the past, he has apologized directly regarding insensitive interview comments but not for violence within his films themselves. He maintains confidence that his artistic vision justifies graphic content for audiences mature enough to appreciate stylized representations of violence absent real-world consequences.
In his view, to apologize for fictional violence that audiences willingly pay to see would be insincere and patronizing. He trusts viewers to differentiate simulated entertainment from endorsing real harm and avoids imposing his personal politics overtly into pure escapism. So while he’s open discussing violence seriously in interviews, he has not apologized within fictional narratives that he feels deliver audiences desired spectacle grounded in film history.
Conclusion
In the end, Tarantino’s divisive reputation among audiences boils down to subjective tastes and sensibilities regarding extremely stylized aesthetics. For his legions of fans, his brash mashup of dark themes, complex characters, shocking violence, and innovative storytelling represent the pinnacle of daring and self-aware cinema that foregrounds its own artificiality.
But for his critics, those same self-conscious stylistic choices come across as pretentious, soulless exercises in flashy excess that lack humanism and degrade society’s moral discourse. At a core level, Tarantino’s canon of R-rated filmography attracts mainstream popularity despite defiantly targeting cinephiles willing to indulge taboo themes.
Whether his personal vision enhances or degrades the film medium remains hotly contested among high- and low-brow viewers alike. But Tarantino remains an iconic pop culture figure precisely for prompting such divisive reactions across the spectrum of both mass and elite audiences internationally. So while his harshest critics wish he demonstrated more selective restraint, his most passionate fans celebrate the creative abandon that makes his voice instantly recognizable.
In the third decade of his filmmaking career, Tarantino’s name retains box office currency to convert original stories into commercial hits. And yet the very traits cementing his fame as an auteur simultaneously fuel lasting questions about gratuitous self-interest and limited range. Does privileging concept over character in service of spectacle undermine his longevity? Or will later generations embrace his early works as refreshing rebellion against Hollywood formulas?
For now, his long-term legacy remains unclear. But in the short term, Tarantino’s hallmark excesses elicit both applause and eye-rolls across all demographics. Which is precisely what an unrepentant provocateur desires as long as seats stay filled and reactions run loud.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is Tarantino a good director?
Tarantino is considered an excellent filmmaker in many respects – he has incredible technical skills, a unique style, and the ability to create compelling stories and characters. But his reliance on violence and lack of emotional depth ultimately limit him in some critics’ eyes. He chooses provocation over deeper meaning.
Why are Tarantino’s feet shots controversial?
Tarantino has a well-known foot fetish and often films actresses’ bare feet in his movies. For some, especially given allegations around Uma Thurman’s unsafe stunts, his gratuitous foot shots feel like an unprofessional power dynamic rather than creative choice.
Is Tarantino retiring soon?
Tarantino has implied his 10th film may be his last. He has discussed wanting to leave films on a high note and explore other creative avenues before he loses passion as an aging director. But concrete retirement plans remain uncertain.
What is Tarantino’s most violent film?
Many consider Kill Bill Volume 1 as Tarantino’s most violent film given its blood-soaked revenge plot and fight scenes involving multiple dismemberments. But Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained all offer extremely graphic violence as Tarantino signature.
Why are there so many shots of women’s feet in Tarantino’s films?
It is widely known that Tarantino has a foot fetish. He has discussed how he finds shots of women’s bare feet sexually appealing in interviews. So including many foot shots allows him to indulge a personal kink within his artistic vision.