Because he makes all of the points you made but his posts are a lot more fun to read. I don't know why you think your post is somehow clearer than his. You simply replaced his swagger with self-righteousness.

Because guess what? I still disagree.

Guess why? Because I really liked Pulp Fiction.

Pulp Fiction is... pulp fiction. Most people in this thread are saying it is just that. But I personally believe it is pulp fiction that is extremely well-executed and therefore deserves praise. Do some people go overboard? Of course. But that doesn't mean that suddenly it should be tossed aside as the equivalent to Walking Tall or Innocent Blood.

-- "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."

Really? "Very enjoyable" and "fun, entertaining, and refreshing" aren't key elements to a great film? It's funny that after spending all of this time damning critics for being pretentious with their analysis of QT, you come back and act like only films that truly investigate the soul of a relationship should be held with high esteem. Apparently there's a ceiling on how high one can laud a "very enjoyable" "fun, entertaining, and refreshing film". It's sad that critics don't realize that.

And about the critics: You spend the entire post discussing critics when the point of this thread is whether people HERE liked Pulp Fiction. Unless you are insinuating what OE is willing to say out loud: that people only like Pulp Fiction because critics liked Pulp Fiction, I have no idea what all that was for.

Oh wait, I remember, it's for the strawman.

"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."

Critics overanalyzed it. People here didn't. You spent two and half paragraphs on critics and then spun it as "don't create reason why you like it" as if that is what posters here are doing. People say they like it and then get "Bullshit, explain why it's good" and then they explain what they liked and are said to be creating subjective reasons for liking it (again, as if there's a legit right or wrong in terms of liking films) or overanalyzing it.

And your argument against Pulp Fiction is to overanalyze the analysis. You just spent an entire post explaining why Pulp Fiction is overrated and you barely discussed the actual film. In fact, you pretty much gave it nothing but praise (even calling QT "brilliant") with the only downside being that it is a superficial popcorn movie (which apparently by definition can't be considered "great" or held in high esteem)

I know it may be hard to believe but I just liked the movie. I didn't like it because some critics loved it nor did I try to legitimize the film with some some deep introspection like, oh, I don't know, "I believe Jenkins has optimism for the life we have, even if the end of that life can be a sad, ugly process."

(And no, I'm not comparing Pulp Fiction to The Savages. Because Pulp Fiction was superficial and great while The Savages tried to be deep and was terrible, and if you disagree with my take on The Savages, you are just overanalyzing it. Oh, and don't try to point out any critical accolades because then you are just a sheep following the latte herd.)

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades