But it deserves credit because he made it just like people used to make bad films. Giggle giggle.

>I guess what I am saying here is that I don't judge art by the
>paint brush.

WTF? You are judging EXACTLY by the paint brush. You aren't looking at the fact that he made a bad film. You are trying to give him credit for making a bad film like they used to make bad films.

>For someone to say that the dialouge seemed contrived and not
>to point out that it was possibly on purpose is a bad
>criticism. Because he INTENDED the dialouge to be contrived!
>So he is using it as a tool. I can't say that you're not
>allowed to do that. I just can't make that rule. But I CAN say
>that it wasn't very effective in this case. And that maybe he
>was going for a tension build up that just simply fell flat. I
>can judge artists on the effect they were going for. But I
>never can tell an artist not to use a certain technique or
>tool.

So he tried to make a bad film and did a bad job. CLEARLY, he should be lauded for that.

>Art is a strange thing. Believe it or not there are artists
>that try to get bad reactions out of there audiences. And well
>if he was going for that (haha) I think he succeeded with
>flyng colors - from what I've read anyway.

He wasn't trying to get bad reactions from the audience. He said it was his best script and he thought kids from today who never saw the 70's films would LOVE it and they might rediscover the old 70's films because of it. It's not like he put that film up there like an Andy Kaufman performance.

Tarantino did a bad job making a cheesy film. You can cop pleas and make up excuses for why he's misunderstood but I think if you look at it on a basest level, the fact is clear: it is a bad movie.