Love him or hate him, Quentin Tarantino is one of the most vital, influential filmmakers of our generation. Tarantino possesses tremendous wit and directorial resourcefulness, and has used both to astonishing degree in each of his features to date. He is, like Martin Scorsese, an inveterate cinephile who unfailingly pays homage to his predecessors while creating idiosyncratic films that feel thrillingly new. His work is the stuff of pure, unrefined talent; though he may strive to shock or assault your senses, Tarantino consistently turns out flicks that remind us why we love film so much in the first place.
But even though \Reservoir Dogs"" is a sterling cult classic, ""Pulp Fiction"" is a pop culture benchmark that altered the way we regard independent cinema, ""Jackie Brown"" is highly regarded as the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date and the ""Kill Bill"" volumes are viciously entertaining multi-genre workouts, Tarantino's mainstream appeal is still curiously lacking. His films may certainly not be for everyone, but a sizeable slice of moviegoers regard Tarantino as an overrated, derivative provocateur.
I must admit my own particular bias-I am very nearly a token Tarantino fan, salivating over his latest films like a rabid ""Star Wars"" geek-but to me, his movies are each inimitable masterpieces, innovatively weaving lessons from the masters into an exciting, absorbing narrative oozing with signature style. Criticisms of artistic plagiarism seem ridiculous and unfounded when you're merely adhering to the principles of the greatest moviemakers, but the fact remains that Tarantino lacks the mainstream appeal to be truly regarded as one of the greats.
""Inglorious Bastards"" may change that. Tarantino at first intended to make ""Inglorious Bastards,"" a World War II epic, as a follow-up to ""Jackie Brown."" But he ended up getting distracted by other potential projects, resulting in his box office absence from 1997 to 2003.
Now that he's re-established himself with the critically and financially successful ""Kill Bill"" films as well as participating in the making of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller's instant cult classic ""Sin City"" (which may prove itself a cinematic pioneer in its own right in the field of digital filmmaking), Tarantino has announced he wants to finally roll forward with ""Bastards."" He plans on building an extensive cast saturated with stars like Richard Attenborough's ""A Bridge Too Far,"" one which will include Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Of course, the usual rumors surrounded this production, including one that it would be sprawling enough to be partitioned into three separate volumes. But Tarantino recently has been quoted on his aspirations to cast the three contemporary action heavyweights in the same movie; he even stated that he'd shoot quickly to fit around Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial duties. The only cast member officially attached at this point is Michael Madsen (who will play a Charles Bronson-esque badass), but more should soon follow.
If this project gets off the ground, what will this mean for Tarantino's career? Though it would undoubtedly contain his trademark visceral violence, something the scale of ""Inglorious Bastards"" would be somewhat of a departure from his seedy crime stories. If Tarantino follows through and delivers a fantastic, energetic war movie, he could widen his audience considerably by making the type of film that is more generally accessible in addition to proving his versatility as a filmmaker. It would be his most mainstream film to date, and if it has the quality to match Tarantino's hopes, it could be his most respected movie since ""Pulp Fiction.""
If ""Inglorious Bastards"" is indeed made, it would be, at worst, another failed war movie. But if Tarantino pulls out all the stops and finds a way to marry his reckless, edgy enthusiasm to a piece of pedigreed Oscar bait (which the war genre often is), he could cement his reputation as one of the cinema's legends.
