Quentin Tarantino's Top 8 for 2009

At least, Tarantino is not taking the taking the high "moral" ground on Precious and appreciating the film. At the very least, he has SEEN the film!

I really wish he discussed why he liked what he did, rather than give us a list.

Tarantino... one of the great modern question marks!

I finally caught up with "Observe and Report" somewhat recently, and I was kind of disappointed with it -- especially after loving "Eastbound & Down" so much. Not to spoil too much, but there's a kind of throwaway moment in the movie where a characters says something along the lines of, "I thought this would be really funny, but it's actually just sad..." and it felt like a giant, obnoxious wink at the audience. The movie wasn't very funny, and maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but then I'm not sure what it was supposed to be instead. It felt like Jody Hill's ambitions exceeded his reach, even while I didn't quite know what his ambitions were. Other than to make a weirdly disjointed/deliberately-not-very-funny comedy about a bipolar mall cop, in which case... yeah, it was kind of a success.

And "Funny People" is a movie I very almost loved but just quite couldn't. Loved the 6/10th of it that played like "Almost Famous" for stand-up comedians, but not so much the 4/10th of it when it became bogged down in the Sandler/Leslie Mann relationship. Although even that part had its moments. But stripping the movie of about 20-30 minutes might have improved it considerably. Still, 6/10th of great in a nearly 2-1/2 hour movie is pretty good.

As for "Star Trek," pretty all right, but I hope J.J. Abrams steps aside for the sequel. "Drag Me to Hell" remains in its Netflix wrapper on the desk behind me until I actually have time to watch it (paradoxically, I could be watching it now instead of writing this!), and those are the only movies on this list that I've seen so far (although I have no interest in watching "Precious" either).

Precious? Really? Wow! I'd like to hear why he picked these films, or at least what he liked about each of them. Maybe when he does his Top 10 we'll get a sentence or two about them.

"Why don't more directors do this -- congratulate their fellow filmmakers on their favorite achievements?"

I've always wondered, which praise do directors truly appreciate? Fans? Fellow directors? Critics? While their films may have many frivolous Fans, it's the few Critics that spot and understand all the work that went into their film, even if they disliked the film. But at the same time I can see directors hating Critics, because who wants their painstakingly crafted trickery to be unraveled and articulated by some Critic, here I can see the impressionable "tricked" Fan being the most gratifying.

And once more I note that if I could just ignore everything QT ever says in public, I would probably be better able to appreciate his films.

Ugh.

Wow, Someone else so blinded by the lens flares in Star Trek that they overlooked the shoddy writing, camerawork, editing, directing etc. JJ Abrams is the new Spielberg you know? :/

I'm betting he picked Precious because, at its heart, it's an exploitation film. At least that's why I have any interest in seeing it.

Weird list. He clearly prefers Big movies, or stories told in a big way. I guess he didn't like "The Bad Lieutenant" or "A Serious Man," and that sorta confounds me, but that's only 'cause I loved 'em. When I saw the title "Tarantino's Top 8" I guess I half-expected the final word on movies of 2009, but now I feel as if one of my friends just told me his 'top 8.' I wish I could argue with Mr. Tarantino about half the films on his list - "Star Trek" at number one? Really?!!?!

I love that he picked An Education among his favourite films. I adore that film. It's easily among my favourite films for the year; an exhilerating, superbly acted, filmed and written gem. Yet, so many critics (and fans) seem to dislike it. I've seen it on several 'worst' lists, although several were unofficial lists by fans. Good one Quentin!

No "A Serious Man" Tarantino? He didn't even mention it as a side note. I would love to know what he thought of it. It is arguably one of the best and most original films of the year. Or even the decade perhaps?

The more I see of his lists, the more convinced I become that QT has horrible taste in movies. I'm not saying that everything here is bad. I couldn't possibly say that having only seen one film on the list but the one film I did see just happened to be his #1 pick and I think it's a terrible choice for movie of the year. I found Stark Trek to be a real chore to sit through. I kept waiting in vain for something resembling a real movie to emerge from all that flash. Also, I don't understand why someone would need a second viewing of District 9 before dismissing it as self-aggrandizing hokum.

I'm glad QT gave a shoutout to the much-underrated "Observe and Report" -- a dark, risky, and yes, hilarious movie.

It's frustrating to me how whenever you put up something about Tarantino, Jim, you'll have some commenter bad-mouthing his movies or his taste in movies. For some reason some people seem to think it makes them cooler to bad-mouth someone who has a big ego and knows that he is awesome. (What's so bad about this, anyways? Like none of us are ever guilty of such thoughts? Or like we somehow know Tarantino fully because he gives himself more media exposure than other directors? Puh-leeeeze.) Tarantino's list may not have been something that I would have chosen, but that doesn't mean I can't respect his choices or see why he made them.

For example, Star Trek ain't goin' anywhere in my top ten but I can understand why it's number one on Tarantino's list. To make self-important comments like Shane,

"Wow, Someone else so blinded by the lens flares in Star Trek that they overlooked the shoddy writing, camerawork, editing, directing etc. JJ Abrams is the new Spielberg you know?"

or like Real AG, "I kept waiting in vain for something resembling a real movie to emerge from all that flash"

only shows these people have no interest whatsoever in engaging the possibility of Star Trek as a number one movie on a real level - all they do is simplify it to a fictitious level (a real movie?? really? what would you call a real movie??) or list a string of "facts" about it with no intention of grounding those facts in anything close to reality (like making a list of various filmmaking techniques for the heck of it).

I personally enjoyed Star Trek, yes, in spite of the infamous Lens Flares, partially for the perfectly chosen cast, the unique story, the special effects, and its ability to reach all the way down into the lowest depths of hell to pull up Star Trek from its fanboy doldrums. I mean, really, a man who can make something cool and relevant again after years of derisive commentary and pop cultural irrelevance has to be respected. It's no easy feat what JJ Abrams did, and he did manage to do what nobody really thought possible. Give the guy some credit, and my guess is that's one of the main reasons Tarantino put it at Number One.

I'm also glad he put Observe and Report on there - a hilarious and dark comedy and one of the better films I saw all year. That final moment between Rogen and the flasher at the end of the movie had me in tears.

All that being said, I'm surprised Funny People made it onto his list. I enjoyed Funny People the first time I saw it, but subsequent viewings only deepened its flaws and made me miss the days of "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."

JE: I just saw "Funny People" for the first time week before last. Very odd experience, the way it flips between moments of observational authenticity and formula-comedy phoniness. I'm still digesting it...

Why are people so critical of Tarantino's list -- what should we expect from him? Some obscure foreign nugget that a filmmaker of his stature discovered. We seem to want him to have sophisticated tastes ("A Serious Man"). But history has shown us that he does not. His movies are pop culture showcases, both in design and in dialogue. It's not surprising that his focus is on the more popular movies, like "Star Trek" and "Precious."

I like his list, though. It's quirky. Some obvious choices ("Up in the Air") and some surprising ones ("Drag Me to Hell," "Observe and Report"). But that's Tarantino for you.

Real, you admit to having seen only one film on the list. So how could this list that you haven't seen help to convince you that Tarantino has horrible taste in movies? I believe what you meant to say is that Tarantino has horrible taste in movies based on his pick for the #1 spot this year, as well what you HAVE seen of his previous lists. That logic makes more sense.

Jeremiah,

That's certainly the first impression I get of Tarantino; that he's overly enthusiastic about popular films and is less attached to sophisticated drama. But then I remember that he's a fan of P.T. Anderson's "There Will Be Blood", and suddenly that argument is dead.

Like everyone else, I'm baffled that he doesn't have "A Serious Man" on the list. Yet I half-expected him to have "The Road" on here as well; I was hoping he could appreciate John Hillcoat's interpretation of a nightmarish McCarthy universe and the hellish violence plaguing it.

@Adam Zanzie- You also might say that "An Education" is a "sophisticated drama" so one doesn't even need to go back to 2007 to see that Tarantino does have a taste for more serious material. (I'm glad he mentioned it. It's 5/6 of a great movie which would be enough to crack my top 8 this year too.)

Also, it seems that Tarantino isn't the only one to have snubbed A Serious Man. A Best Actor nod to Stuhlbarg is the only recognition it's getting at the Golden Globes. I loved ASM and I feel like it was one of the best reviewed movies of the year. I'm wondering if just no one besides film critics and devoted Coen brothers fans actually saw it.

I'm just glad to see some love for Drag Me to Hell, even if he doesn't explain why.

Great post Brandon S.

Real AG, you may disagre with QT but I don't think you have the right to attack his tastes and call them 'horrible.' Not only is it arrogant, as if to say that you are the arbitor of good taste, but it's nonsence since taste is subjective. As it is, I don't think that Star Trek is the best film of the year (although I do think it's relatively good, and I certainly think it's a 'real movie', whatever that is), but I don't have any right to attack people's tastes. Roger Ebert did it not so long ago, and it infuriated me. Using Ebert as an example, I passionately disagree with him in relation to The Godfather Part II, A Clockwork Orange, Blue Velvet and Haggis's Crash; and while I could criticise his reasons for disliking/liking these films, I would never attack his taste. Nor of QT's or of anyone. It's not my right, but it's also lazy. Say why you disliked Star Trek, but don't attack QT's taste as if you determine good taste (when you don't), especially since you've seen just one film on the list.

Jeremiah and Adam Zanzie, I think you are both making an unfair distinction. Popular movies are not necessarily un-sophisticated, just as foreign and less popular films are not necessarily sophisticated. This idea that a film made in Hollywood or which is popular, isn't sophisticated, is one which I had hoped had disappeared long ago as Hollywood films, or popular films, can be just as sophisticated, and in many cases more so, than many independent (I refuse to use the term 'art') and foreign films. The Godfather was arguably among the most sophisticated films ever made, yet it was also among the most popular. Several of James Cameron's earlier films were incredibly sophisticated. Conversely, there have been so many independent films (most of Jim Jarmusch's and Lars Von Trier's films) which I do not regard as sophisticated. Also, why is a film made in a language other than English automatically sophisticated? I do not believe at all, that foreign films or independent films are necessarily more sophisticated than popular/Hollywood films. If we regard ourselves as cinephiles (which most of us here do) then I don't believe we should accept this distinction just as we don't like it when others refuse to see non-English films simply because they have sub-titles. Also, regarding A Serious Man (a film which IMO has been overpraised), its makers have engaged in 'pop culture' just as much as QT has done (A Serious Man is an example of that), so I don't know why you would single it out as so sophisticated. Is it? I think it is to some degree, but whether it is has nothing to do with it being a popular movie or not.

1 non-English film amongst the 13 titles he mentions... not a great achievement in my books. contrary to what we might think, his taste is very much in the mainstream entertainment as he gets older, not even B-movies, indies or true art films.

Admittedly, I've only seen half of the films on QT's list, but I find his list baffling. Star Trek, in my estimation, was one of the worst films of the year, and I truthfully don't really get why people like it so much. Well, I suppose that I understand the reasons why, but I don't get it, you know?

Jim, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about Funny People in a future post. I thought that the film was almost like a mash-up of two different movies (unsuccessfully) squeezed together. One took place in Los Angeles and dealt with a struggling comic's burgeoning friendship with a terminally ill comic, and the other took place in Northern California with a man trying to recapture his former girlfriend. I thought that the first "film" was much more interesting, and the second much, MUCH too long and not very exciting. Additionally, the film's ending was incredibly unsatisfactory. I also didn't think the acting was particularly good at all. I laughed a lot during the film, but didn't like it enough to be able to recommend it.

QT's inclusion of Observe and Report on this list is inexplicable, but I'm right with him on An Education.

I am convinced Tarantino purposefully avoids naming great cinematic contemporary works unless they have been either directed by his seniors (depalma or marty) or come from another country thus never threatening his main stream success. Why would he praise a Coen movie they outdid him with the missing reel gag while also connecting the sequence with thematic relevance. Also Precious on this list probably helps the movies detractors if you catch my drift.

I'd put "Observe and Report" on my list, and the rest of my list is primarily stuff like "Still Walking," "Tulpan", and "The Headless Woman."

There was nothing else like "Observe and Report" this year or most other years. It's the only movie I saw in the theaters twice, partly to gauge audience reaction in separate screenings. What IS this movie? Is it a black comedy? A drama? Is it an entry in the Will-Ferrel genre of overgrown men-children comedies, or is it a scathing commentary on those movies? Or a commentary on (egad) our society as a whole? Is it a low-rent "King of Comedy"? Is it full of hate, or is it full of pity, or is it just plain cruel? Were we to take it at face value or a disturbing trip through the mind of a delusional and clinically depressed man off his meds? I know people who thought it was hilarious, and people who left the theater in tears.

Anyway, I love unusual movies, and this one was a strange beast indeed. Plus, the use of music by The Band and The Pixies was among the best use of pop music in a non-Tarantino movie this year, even if the former was a bit on-the-nose.

I think Tarantino may not actually be a de facto fan of the Coens. I've been saying for years that they basically do the same thing - basically, they're genre revisionists first and foremost - but with radically different aesthetics, influences (ie - different genres, QT's being exploitation, spectacle and horror; Coens being primarily melodrama and screwball comedy) and thoughts about genre filmmaking in general. Not that he didn't appreciate A SERIOUS MAN, but he may not have seen it (which is pretty likely), or he may not have loved it as much as he does the traditional genre fare he constantly fetishizes and appreciates. I get like that, too, and it's not because I dislike heartfelt dramas or smaller films - I'm sure I'll like about a dozen movies this year that didn't get wide release - but that doesn't make them my favorites.

OBSERVE AND REPORT is awesome, AN EDUCATION is great, and DRAG ME TO HELL was underappreciated in a similar way as OBSERVE AND REPORT was, largely because it was a misunderstood 'genre' film, and they can't possibly be as good as 'serious drama.'

I get his love for films like STAR TREK, too, not because I love it as much, but because he has some special attachment to seeing it. I'm sure fans of any film series or beloved franchise can feel the same way about their particular geek-out flicks. Lord knows I do whenever I'm watching a new Romero film, and not just the zombie stuff, and I can't wait to see his new one.

So, I'm not at all a big QT fan. I find his movies to be incredibly self indulgent, shallow, and pop culture obsessed in an awkward way. He spends too much time focusing on dialogue and style he sometimes forgets he's telling a story. But with that said, each of his films contain one or two brilliant scenes that are so incredibly well filmed and memorable that they just stick with you, so I can't dismiss him completely. I do like his taste in movies with the only exception being Star Trek, which I found enjoyable but utterly forgettable. One of those films that so quickly faded into the hundreds of other action films I've seen. I like a movie to have a little more staying power in my mind to call it great, but I guess for a big fan of genre films, something like Star Trek is gold because it sticks to the genre conventions so well without really trying to craft its own identity. Funny People is another odd choice, but at least its a memorable film.

@ James S: Yes that's exactly what I meant.

@ others: What defines good taste or bad taste is entirely subjective. When I say "QT has horrible taste in movies", It seems obvious to me that I am stating an entirely subjective opinion on his taste but since I have now been accused of posturing as the arbitor of good taste, it's pretty clear that what seems obvious to me may not not seem so obvious to others. Perhaps I should I have said "QT has what I would consider horrible taste". Would that still be considered an attack?

@ Brandon S: I admit that the expression 'real movie' is rather provocative and vague but I was just trying to briefly describe my experience in the cinema and I admittedly didn't do a very good job of it (much less at writing an actual critique of the film which wasn't my intention at all). I guess what I was trying to communicate is the frustration of not feeling like Star Trek gave me any opportunity to properly invest myself into the story or the characters. For my money, it was flashy and fast with little to no substance and thoroughly unsatisfying, something more akin to watching a really long trailer than an actual film.

@ James S: Yes that's exactly what I meant.

@ others: What defines good taste or bad taste is entirely subjective. When I say "QT has horrible taste in movies", It seems obvious to me that I am stating an entirely subjective opinion on his taste but since I have now been accused of posturing as the arbitor of good taste, it's pretty clear that what seems obvious to me may not not seem so obvious to others. Perhaps I should I have said "QT has what I would consider horrible taste". Would that still be considered an attack?

@ Brandon S: I admit that the expression 'real movie' is rather provocative and vague but I was just trying to briefly describe my experience in the cinema and I admittedly didn't do a very good job of it (much less at writing an actual critique of the film which wasn't my intention at all). I guess what I was trying to communicate is the frustration of not feeling like Star Trek gave me any opportunity to properly invest myself into the story or the characters. For my money, it was flashy and fast with little to no substance and thoroughly unsatisfying, something more akin to watching a really long trailer than an actual film.

It's nice that he isn't too guarded of his image to praise films that actually got acclaimed instead of just naming fanboy titles. It'll be interesting to see where his career goes in the next decade when he's in his 50s.

I know this is just a blog, but movie titles are italicized. Gain mastery of your equipment.

JE: Wrong. We use AP Style for newspapers and web publications (this is a Chicago Sun-Times blog), which puts movie titles in quotation marks. Also, our linking engine on RogerEbert.com requires the quotation marks in order to automatically hyperlink titles mentioned in text to their corresponding reviews. We also don't use the serial comma, because that's AP style.