Shawn Levy-- I hesitate to enter into this contretemps because there seems to be more heat than light here, but I'll give it a try: I don't think anyone here is denying QT's talent. I do think that the nub of this argument is the overreaction and fan hysteria of his admirers. To call a film-maker a "master" on the basis of two films and several screenplays of remarkably similar content and attitude is jumping the gun a little. And, by the demeanor of Tarantino during his Charlie Rose interview, it seems that he is considerably less full of himself than his uncritical fans. The comparison with Orson Welles is a fair one, since this "boy wonder" has received the same kind of mindless adulation that arguably crippled Welles' developemnt as a filmmaker. Taking this comparison too far would be ridiculous, but I think some moderation is in order here. There is a sense that Tarantino's supporters are using him as a symbol of a new generation of film-makers and, in their zeal to declare a line in the sand between one generation and another, have overinflated his achievements beyond all recognition. There is also the matter of glorifying a cool, post-modern wallow in gore and violence and defending it as "satire" or "comment" on such matters. It is fast becoming the "gangsta rap" of film criticism. I hasten to add that Tarantino is self-evidently a talented fellow. However, a little self-control in comparing him to the masters of film at this point in his career is certainly in order. It is no favor to him to draw him into a symbolic maelstrom of generational warfare. Gene Stavis -- School of Visual Arts, NYC