Quote from the link:
death proof was supposed to be really really bad, if you have ever seen a grindhouse you would know
What's funny is that nobody ever used the term "grindhouse" for 70s horror flicks before Tarantino and Rodriguez made their Grindhouse and now everyone is acting like they are expertes on the grindhouse "genre".
Only by watching a movie about a genre can you see what the genre is about. If you watch a movie from the genre you are immersed by what
it is about. To see what the genre is about you would have see quite a number of such films - or one film about the genre.
Tarantinos movies about genres made many people "experts" on these now, but they don't realize where they got their "knowledge" from. Now they really act like they were fans of cheap wuxia movies or b-horror movies before and enjoyed what Tarantino did with their conventions.
They didn't enjoy what Tarantino did with their beloved genre cconventions, they enjoyed that he showed them to them.
Now he has all those raging pseudo experts roaming around claiming he did nothing new and only remade old s**t they already knew, when in fact they knew nothing.
I was never a fan of wuxia movies, for example, because I have no cultural connection with their setting. E.g. someone stabbing himself for failure may or may not be badass, but it's a tradition I had nothing to do with so it was just weird to me. However I grew up with westerns and was especially a fan of italo-westerns.
Kill Bill I watched mostly because it was on tv and seemed like a badass way to waste some time but it made me realize that the wuxia genre and the italo-western genre are basically the same. The only real difference is the setting. At first I thought it might have to do with Tarantino americanizing the genre with his take on it, but then Kill Bill 2 actually took place partly in flashbacks to this Kung Fu master and partly in the deserts italo-westerns are supposed to take place and it meshed together perfectly.
Now, it may or may not be Tarantinos goal to explore and portray a certain genre.
Maybe he just wants to make a movie
in the genre and ends up with too many references and clichees for his own good because he is a movie nerd. I don't know the man, so I can't tell. What I can tell is that movies like Kill Bill are far more than just their flashy exterior and what
they are about (ie. the Bride killing folks). They
are studies of genres, intentional or not, and the body of research, intentional (ie. reading up on stuff) or not (just referencing what he's seen before) behind them is immense and without any work on your part you get a feel for the content of this research just by watching his movies.
Now, whether you like movies like Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds is your business and depends on many things. You can dislike the genre they are based on, you can dislike their content, you can dislike their style, etc. That's all fair and good. Regardless of whether you
like them or not though, you should acknowledge that they are more than simple gore-flicks or "just another war-movie/wuxia-movie" and acknowledge that they have a certain quality to them that goes beyond their immediate content (ie. acting, plot, lighting, sfx, etc.).
I was never interested in the war-movie genre because for the most part the carelessness in which historical accuracy is sacrificed for cheap heroism is disgusting to me. If I have to watch a movie about war I prefer it to be an anti-war-movie, even though I don't like those too much either because they drag me down.
But I'm looking forward to see Inglorious Basterds for reasons mentioned above.