>
>>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.
>

it really wasn't anything. and it hasn't aged well either.

he got lucky.

i'm a hip-hop fan, who loves lyrics. so, it was fresh from the dialogue, but the pacing of that movie was horrendous.

but was the screenplay seemless? no. it had its dull moments and lulls.

what Pulp Fiction did was give wannabe directors false-hope and wannabe intellectual buffs and film critics an erection. A movie they can dissect until the cows come home and make something Quentin didn't even intend for it to be.

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

I think Resovoir Dogs was one his best film and screenplay (along with Kill Bill). And deserves a heck of lot more praise than Pulp.


>>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.
>

But that style is getting played out. Death Proof wreaked of rehashing moments of Tarantino's stuff. And it gets back to Basaglia's original point. When its all said and done, who will have the better career? Rehashing once-fresh ideas and is a tall-tale sign of the begining of the end.


>>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.
>

Take their greatet works, respectively, and put them against Tarantino's?

It ain't the same sandwich (c) Bamboo.


>yeah, you may say that Jackie Brown sucked (others feel it's
>his best film... me? i think it's aiight)

I thought it was alright, myself. I think its better than Pulp. Jackie Brown was flat though. There was no rise, no peak, just one plateau .And it was his most straight and narrow movie to date. It did not suck. But people who panned it mostly was because it lacked that plethora of hipset bullsh*t that Pulp had.


>>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.

Point taken. I liked Vol.1 and Vol.2 as well. Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs are his best work.

But...

He has regressed with Death Proof and took several steps back by resting on his old sh*t that was once hip and slick, but now stale and tired.