I'm not saying that he invented the style... I just used the non-linear structure to exemplify my point: that you are absolutely correct in assuming he has no really meaningful work, but he is unparalleled in his ability to direct colorful and memorable films. He's pulp, but the best pulp there is.How so? Non-linear structures aren't at all uncommon at this point, and haven't been since Rashomon came out in 1950. His dialogue is clever in its wordplay, but heavily derivative of 70's neo-noir and exploitation cinema (Chinatown, Dirty Harry, Shaft etc.). His visual style and plotting are little more than watered down versions of the work of Suzuki Seijun and Fukasaku Kinji and early career John Woo. The 'Tarantino Trademark' is no trademark at all. He is a compiler and a 'master' of pastiche, not a serious director with a body of meaningful work.
,
Your comment regarding Japanese films was insightful. I will have to look into them. However, I must admit that something always feels wrong with Eastern actors... maybe it's the language, but even in western-friendly modern films like House of the Flying Daggers, Hero, etc. the characters are so lifeless and formal, like symbols of sort and not actual humans. Maybe that's just a feeling, but it's definitely true for some of Kurosawa's works such as Ran (I think that the theater-like performance in this film is used to a great effect and fits the style, but it makes it hard to enjoy the *emotional* angle of the film, rather than just interpreting it intellectually).
I have not watched Aguirre, the Wrath of God. I will have to pick it up, too. It reminds me of Apocalypse Now from your description, which is probably my favorite film of all time. I've always liked the monologue in the beginning, how he can't find himself both in the jungle and in the civilized word, and the river metaphor