>No, because movies are supposed to be made to be WATCHED
>not discussed over coffee for months after the fact. Again-
>the Pulp Fiction generation seems to miss this, and y'all
>like to overanalyze films to make yourself seem deep and
>smart.


Didn't see PF until it had been out on video for years. Never once discussed it over lattes. Whatever alleged 'impact' it had on the masses is lost on me. I liked it, and I leave it at that.


>If it wasn't 100% apparent in the first viewing, then its
>an irrelevant detail.

I don't think you honestly believe this. But let me know if I'm wrong.



>All that "under the surface" is just a
>way
>to make a film seem "deeper"....its a goddamn crime story
>with
>some witty characters. Its not a commentary on the Boxer
>Rebellion
>or a post-structuralist account of Susan B. Anthony.

I'm not sure why depth is exclusive to period pieces in your mind. I'm not sure why "deeper" is in quotation marks. I'm not sure why, given your point of view, you didn't find The Departed's irreverence a little more appealing.

But we do agree on one thing: This is boring.