QT's latest indulgence is all about his one-way fixation with the '60s. At 160+ mins it's a long trudge but the script probably only had few pages if compared with other movies of this length, why?... So many scenes are made up of shots of bods getting into cars, then long internal shot from back seat (lifted from the far better Gun Crazy' 50s) then bods get out of car, long shots of feet walking, more bods get into cars, more long internal driving shot, bods again get out of car, more feet walking. This format is repeated from beginning to end -pages of same-- The 60s heralded in a new low for movie making - features like; 'Beach Blanket Bingo', 'How to stuff a Wild Bikini ', 'Sergeant Deadhead' were playing as main features across the land, el-cheapo's had become the new norm. What would usually have been a 'B' picture were now being sold as an 'A'. Yes. It may have helped a jaded Hollywood at that time but what about other mainstream audiences?

So, what might have influenced TQs fixation with this downturn in the social morays of movies? Tarantino grew up in the swinging '60s/mod '70s working in a porn cinema (this perhaps explains his addiction to perversity) including a video store - while also watching the endless re-runs of TV shows, along with an overflowing barrage of low budget, Spaghetti westerns that had flooded the market - thank goodness some audiences grew up (well, some did) and demanded better. These endless 'homage's to days offering little more than cheap TV-style quickies --now being released to the big screen --- with product that was generally catering for a guide-less, acid tripping youth (such as the Manson crew, etc) wanting endless simple-minded partying. Hollywood producers loved it - now, for half the normal budgets, they were getting the same financial returns as quality features.

QT has simply revived those days and a new 'comic book hero' generation have picked it up.. Only this time round, the budgets are BIGGER while the contents remain juvenile, if not ridiculous. Trouble is, too many of today's producers and art critics also grew up in this overly comfortable, 'anything goes' era, so they wrap on about the glorious emptiness that's making then all rich. Some rave about the cinematography and design - with that much money being thrown about its simple to 'copy' the work of previous Masters. But, no matter how expensively dressed-up and stylishly packaged rubbish may be, it's still rubbish (but, GOOD-LOOKING rubbish). Too much you might be saying? Take a look back, revisit many of those poorly scripted, badly acted, TV shows and movies of the 50s-60s - the ones Q. T. tends to dote over...you may be surprised how your memory may have failed you as just how poor most were.

Once U. A. T. I. Hollywood, looks like several proposed projects that never got off the ground all edited into one, and doesn't do justice to any of them. One or two characters and situations looked as if they may have been leading to something but simply fizzled out. How long might it take before more look back and ask, how were we so fooled? Or is it just that LESS has now become the new MORE?

So, if this is Q. Ts 9th may there be only one left to go. Please.