The one director Roger Ebert called “too gifted” to make a bad movie
Famous film critics are a bit of a conundrum. They speak volumes to our habits as human beings, that people who sit down and watch films for a living can become just as notable as the people who actually make them. Even today, when the Internet has made everyone a critic, the views of big names from established publications can still make or break a new release. In the grand history of film criticism, perhaps no one man has made as much of an impact as the late, great Roger Ebert.
As the long-time critic for the Chicago Sun-Times and one half of a legendary partnership with Gene Siskel, Ebert passed judgement on pretty much every famous movie, actor, and director during his lifetime. His name still carries an enormous weight, even after his passing in 2013, as people are still keen to find out what he thought about this movie or that. As it turns out, he had some interesting views on one particular filmmaker – Quentin Tarantino.
As quoted in Variety, Ebert’s review of Pulp Fiction summarised the polarising director perfectly. “Tarantino is too gifted a filmmaker to make a boring movie,” he wrote in 1994. “He’s in love with every shot – intoxicated with the very act of making a movie. It’s that very lack of caution and introspection that makes Pulp Fiction crackle like an ozone generator: Here’s a director who’s been let loose inside the toy store, and wants to play all night.”
Pulp Fiction was revolutionary when it came out. It was one of the freshest independent movies in quite some time with its heavy focus on dialogue and non-linear storytelling pattern. It’s credited with sparking a renaissance in scriptwriting and the production of films outside of the big studio system and, of course, it made a household name out of its maverick mastermind.
Ebert gave the movie four stars, which is actually a perfect score in terms of his unusual ratings system. This is in stark contrast to his review of Tarantino’s first picture, Reservoir Dogs, which he only granted two-and-a-half stars. In fact, the opening lines of that write-up are, “Now that we know Quentin Tarantino can make a movie like Reservoir Dogs, it’s time for him to move on and make a better one.” Luckily for Ebert, that’s exactly what he did.
His love for Pulp Fiction was matched three years later when Tarantino released Jackie Brown. “You savor every moment of Jackie Brown,” he wrote in another four-star review. “I wanted these characters to live, talk, deceive and scheme for hours and hours.” He also gave full marks to both parts of Kill Bill, calling the second one “an exuberant celebration of moviemaking,” but was less fond of Death Proof, which he reviewed as part of the ‘Grindhouse’ double bill with Planet Terror. Inglorious Basterds returned the director to four-star form and Django Unchained, Tarantino’s final film to be released during Ebert’s lifetime, also got a perfect score.
Clearly a huge Tarantino fan, Ebert was always fair in his reviews. He highlighted the parts of the movies that people probably wouldn’t like but wasn’t afraid to admit that they were what he enjoyed most. Balanced, fair, and extremely knowledgeable, this is why Roger Ebert continues to be held up as the gold standard of film criticism over a decade since we lost him.
Never Miss A Take
The Far Out Quentin Tarantino Newsletter
All the latest Quentin Tarantino content from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.