>However, I would go so far as to say that what Tarantino and
>Rodriguez did together - the Grindhouse experience (both
>movies, plus trailers... the whole theater experience) - was
>something new, original, and spectacular. That was probably my
>second favorite theater experience ever after (Sin City).

well it was new and original (as much as a homage such as this which is basically trying to recreate the spirit of something done before can be), but I don't see what was so spectacular about it.



>I'm not sure that a genre even exists for Grindhouse to
>elevate, but if there was, I could definitely make that case.
>It was definitely both artful, creative, and above all,
>entertaining.

again, entertaining I can see, if that's your thing. I don't see what was so artful about it though.


>>I mean cmon. you can like the movie for being entertaining
>or
>
>Many people do.

and that's fine.


>>whatever, but that is a pretty ridiculous statement that has
>>QT fanboyism written all over it.
>
>Perhaps. Of course, it's always easy to proclaim someone a
>"fanboy" anytime they have a REALLY strong opinion about
>ANYTHING.
>
>So what's the distinction between "fanboydom" and someone who
>just really genuinely loved the movie?

here's the distinction: I loved 300 because it was fun and stylish and entertaining, but I didn't proclaim it some great work of art that elevated the genre or whatever.