Re: Tarantino --- I think his films are some of those that are a matter of personal taste for a lot of people. I don't find them boring at all, but rather find that whether I come out of his movies 'liking' them or not depends greatly on the subject matter of each. Pulp Fiction is considered a classic and loved by many, and yet oddly it's one of my least favourites of his [that I've seen at least, I haven't seen all of them], not because I think it's objectively bad or boring [it's not!], but just because the subject matter and/or characters didn't appeal to me. Whereas the Kill Bill movies were some of my faves back in the day when they first came out, and I absolutely adored Django Unchained, and both of those are largely because of the subject matter or characters of each was just more my thing.
Don't know if it counts as a Tarantino movie since he wrote it rather than directed it, but From Dusk Till Dawn is another that I enjoyed, mainly for the ridiculous and over the top ending and the whole 'survivor girl' theme.
There are quite a few of his I haven't seen though, including the Hateful Eight, so can't comment on that one. ;p
ETA: With Tarantino's works, I find it helps to view them almost less as movies, and more as meta-commentary on movies, film genres, and film-making in general. :'D
Re: LotR films --- I am a huge Tolkien fan, and admittedly much more of a fan of Tolkien's written works than the movies, so I tend to have some rather strong opinions on certain aspects of the PJ films. The art direction and designs are beautiful, thanks to the fact that they used renowned Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee to do the concept art. And I enjoyed Sir Ian as Gandalf, Sir Chris as Saruman, and of course, Viggo as Aragorn.
The actual films themselves, however, I have mixed feelings about. While I don't have a problem with the length the movies in theory, I do think Peter Jackson didn't always know how to pace those movies very well. Before tackling LotR, he was always primarily a horror director, and imo he had a tendency to inject a lot of unnecessary 'tension' into scenes that did not need it. Scenes that in the books were a much-needed 'respite' for the characters, and which consisted usually of interesting character moments or world-building were even at times made into tense and antagonistic scenes for no real reason.... I'm thinking of how he felt he had to turn Aragorn into a reluctant hero just to add 'suspense', and also especially of what he did to Faramir's character and his interactions with Frodo in the movies, which was unforgiveable from my perspective as a huge fan of Faramir in the books. He also turned some of Sam and Frodo's scenes into antagonistic scenes, when they never were. Pretty much all of The Two Towers, and a portion of Return of the King consist of a lot of changes that I felt did not enhance the story at all. Which is a shame, because there are some awesome scenes in both of those movies. When it comes to LotR films, I
really like the Fellowship of the Ring director's cut, but as more of a book fan, I struggle with the latter two films. Even if I can look at them and say there are some really good aspects, I have too many issues with certain of the choices made to be able to sit back and fully enjoy them, much to my frustration.
The less said about the later Hobbit films, the better.
Blackpool -- you mentioned the Gladiator director's cut. Another Ridley Scott film that suffered IMMENSELY from being cut down was Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical cut is a terrible movie, whereas the director's cut is incredible! There are several key scenes, especially featuring Eva Green's character's storyline, that were cut that otherwise made the story make no sense. Adding them back elevated the film to a whole 'nother level.
Getting back to this figure though....other than the unfortunate headsculpt, it does seem a decent set. Though looking at it again, is it just me or does the body on this one look oddly 'squat'?