>But the
>success of Pulp Fiction catapulting Tarantino as the critics
>darling, may ultimately be his downfall. What they praise as
>perfection, is actually a medicore and flawed way of directing
>movies. Tarantino was a hack who hit the jackpot.

a hack?

look... i'm not trying to say that Pulp Fiction reinvented the wheel, but if you're honest, you'll admit that it was at the very least a fresh, crisply-constructed screenplay that re-oriented a lot of people's minds about how you can tell a story in American cinema.

(ditto his screenplays for Natural Born Killers and True Romance, even though they were not filmed in their proper format)

>So when it is all said and done, if you take away the feet,the
>filmgeek trivia, the homages, and artificial and trivial
>dialogue of Tarantino, what do you really have?

why should you take those things away, though? those are part of hsi style.

>I think the real question is for Tarantino. As much praise as
>he gets, can he really sit at the table of Scorsese, Coppala,
>DePalma, Speilberg, Spike (yeah I said it) with his body of
>work?

his body of work is actually much less spotty than that of Coppolla or DePalma's. or even Scorsese's.

yeah, you may say that Jackie Brown sucked (others feel it's his best film... me? i think it's aiight) but does QT have a chinless monster like Gangs of New York in his body of work? or a masturbatory turkey like Body Double? or a blatant paycheck grab like John Grisham's The Rainmaker?


>But for Tarantino. You can only get over for so long, before
>you have to evolve. He has yet to do that yet. Maybe because
>he doesn't want to and is still basking in the glory of his
>unconditional love from crtics. Or maybe he doesn't evolve
>because he is incapable of doing so.

Kill Bill was actually an evolution.

for a filmmaker known primarily for talkiness to make a movie that puts action above dialogue... that was evolution, whether or not you actually liked the movie.