A question for the Kubrick's haters.

Exactly. One example of something that REALLY annoys me with Kubrick's haters: it is a FACT that his movies have deeper meaning which require from viewer to think about them after they have seen it in order to understand everything better. It's not just some "Kubrick's fantardism" as some of them seem to say/think. It is the actual reason why Kubrick barely even talked about his movies, he wanted people to make their own interpretations.

Because of this, it is normal that people make theories, no matter how wrong or accurate they might be. So then come the condescending haters who decide to make vile comments about how "dumb", "far fetched" or any other unnecessarily unpleasant terms to shit on people discussing these theories. If you think that you don't need to thin further about his movies, so be it. No one forces you to discuss them. But can you let people enjoy talking and theorizing about whatever they want, please? I find these conversations interesting personally and I even took part in some of them.

And like you said, the movies, the actors and the directors who are vastly acclaimed have this reputation for a reason, no matter what you personal opinion is. I don't like Braveheart, Titanic or Forrest Gump, and wasn't so impressed with Citizen Kane (I'm talking strictly about the plot here, since on any other aspects it's a VERY innovative movie). I still don't go and call them "garbage" or say that they "suck" because it's not the case. It simply a matter of personal taste.

I agree. A lot of viewers today have grown up with rapidly-paced, rapidly-cut films that appeal to adrenalin & sensation, rather than to intellect & deep emotional feeling. The latter, like all art, requires a more contemplative, patient approach ... and a viewer who's well-versed in that approach.

The problem with Kubrick and Tarantino (as mentioned in OP) is that most people dislike the film the first time they see it. Why? It's because their films are carefully composed and intriguing. You won't find meaning the first time.. it may seem long and "boring".

I really don't mean to argue with you here, since everything you said it's really on point. I would just nuance one little detail: this applies to pretty much every Kubrick's movies, but in Tarantino's case, in my opinion, it's case by case. I mean, for me at least, this was totally the case for Pulp Fiction, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood! or The Hateful Eight, for instance. I really needed a second viewing with these before I was REALLY able to appreciate them and to "get" them. However, with Django Unchained or Inglorious Basterds, for examples, I was able to really appreciate them from the first viewing. Of course I understood them better on consecutive views, but they were still really "reachable" from the first go. I guess this is also personal.

He's overrated because he only had one Oscar? John Garfield and Montgomery Clift never won any Oscars. I suppose they must have really sucked.