Ask Mick LaSalle: What are Tarantino’s strengths and weaknesses?

Whenever I’m invited to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of various artists in general terms, I feel uncomfortable.

Life is huge and art is small, and even a creative genius is only going to get a small slice of the pie.

What matters is getting that slice of the pie right and making it delicious.

In Tarantino’s case, his cinematic literacy and imagination have enabled him to accomplish his aims just about every time out.

By vulgar impulses I emphatically don’t mean vulgar language, because nothing makes me wonder if someone has completely lost touch with movies and plays of the last 30 years more than complaints about naughty language.

After you’ve said that, you’ve said exactly nothing — but you have written a whole paragraph, which gets a critic that much closer to filling a space and knocking off work for the day.

Some people — especially those who loved the previous movie, “Skyfall” — thought it was a step backward.

Others — especially those who weren’t quite as in love with “Skyfall” — greeted the familiar pattern with pleasure.

(Timothy Dalton decided to go serious with Bond, and the next thing that happened was Pierce Brosnan took over the role.) I liked “Spectre” a lot more than “Skyfall” because it delivered in all the usual Bond ways, while at the same time benefiting from the emotional element that Craig brings to the table, namely Bond’s ill-concealed longing for emotional connection, either with a Mom equivalent (Judi Dench as M in earlier films) or, better yet, with an actual girlfriend who isn’t dead or working for the other side.

Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification.