Take Fight Club. I lasted only 30 minutes on a rewatch; that doesn't preclude eventually having another look. First of all, it was narrated excessively in that period. Mitchum could do it, Edward Norton cannot. He can be an adequate actor but his bearing or persona is boyish and weak, joking around. You can't take him seriously. He DRONES on and on in his narration. Evidently his character needs the alter ego of Brad Pitt. But who would need Pitt?! He's not serious either. He tries and sometimes one almost forgets that's it's Pitt you're watching. He likes very oddball characters who are addled or screwy or wild. I think DeCaprio is much more watchable and serious as an actor. I'm quite impressed with his range.
Having just watched Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs, I can say they're quite entertaining and original. He follows his own compass, he's creative, he has his own genius, he knows movies and moviemaking. His work is individualistic. His story construction is excellent. Imitators will fall flat. He deserves a lot of credit. At the same time, the product is often labored, prolonged, on the superficial side, comic book. Samuel Jackson grates on me after awhile. How many harangues can we take? T. says he doesn't do neo-noir.
I rewatched a Lynch movie, Mulholland Drive. Okay, it's the Woman in the Window approach. Not bad, but how interesting is it to enter the dream or mad world of an actress who doesn't make it in Hollywood? Fairly interesting as an addition to the roll call of Hollywood expose films, from What Price Hollywood to Day of the Locust. Related: They Shoot Horses. Like Tarantino, there is genius, individuality, and creativity here, but does it surpass the earlier films? I think not. Naomi Watts turns in a fine performance.