Don't fight with O_E about Pulp Fiction. Cuz you know he doesn't like it, and you know some of his points are spot on.

The main issue people can hold with Pulp Fiction is that it's style over substance. I like Pulp Fiction, but this is true. I'd say this is true of all but one of QT's films (I'm a Jackie Brown man myself... it's the only one where the relationships really transcend completely the hip ironic dialogue imo).

THEN the issue that THAT causes is that critics who enjoyed it can't simply enjoy a flick for what it is. So they have to analyze into it. And I've read full books on Tarantinian ethic codes, long lists of allusions QT ties together seamlessly in a brilliant fashion, and shot-by-shot analysis of what each frame of the film means. When I would imagine that QT didn't think while making it that he was doing anything revolutionary. He hasn't in any of his flicks-- he just makes critically acceptable genres of film that critics traditionally hate by adding flashy dialogue, a sure-handed eye for visuals, and some cool actors.

The bottom line is, this is a guy who admittedly spent his childhood watching B-movies incessantly. He watched kung fu, blaxploitation, grindhouse flicks, et cetera. He's never gonna be interested in capturing the subtleties of relationships, human drama, or even anything that isn't either cool, bloody, or both. Look at his films. Look at the films he's written. Look at the films he's produced (horror and kung fu). Look at his upcoming project (the war movie which undoubtedly will be far more The Dirty Dozen than Saving Private Ryan). The guy is basically a little kid who is brilliant at recreating the B-movie genres he loves so much.

While having someone with QT's pizzazz does make these films very enjoyable, they shouldn't have been elevated past the critical levels of "fun, entertaining, refreshing" and so forth. But movie critics tend to not be able to simply enjoy an auteur for what he/she is. So that's where the overly in-depth analysis comes in. And having read a lot of it for this paper I'm working on, I can safely say some people have faaaar too much time on their hands. If Pulp Fiction was a critic's favorite flick of the year, then that's totally fine, but don't create reasons why you like it, just say it's fun and entertaining-- shit, X-Men 2 is one of my favorite films of the last decade, but I'm not trying to analyze it to death.

So while I don't agree with the fervor with which O_E hates Pulp Fiction, I think it's clear that in between the lists of elements that sucked in the movie and the mentions of how big his dick is, mang, he makes good points about how the critical reception of Pulp Fiction (and QT's career, really) has really inhibited the ability to enjoy QT's works as what they are: flashy, star-studded, hip and cool B-movies. Outside of Jackie Brown, if you look at the film by itself and try to ignore the critical reception and its context in modern film history, I'd say that's just about all they are.

I doubt even the most fervent Pulp Fiction supporters would disagree with that (well, most of you anyway). Just don't let O_E's swagger blind you to the points he's making as to why he hates Pulp Fiction. If all you see is the swagger, then we're gonna end up with yet another 200-reply deep post of circular argument of "It sucks-no it doesn't- pleas copped- you're mad- no you're mad-etc." lol