Haydn Engel Reviews

Rating: 7/10 (8 May 2020)

Real rating: 77.5/100
Critics love Tarantino because he loves cinema and they can associate with that, and they get all of his references, which can be lost on your average viewer. It is the same reason movies set in LA often get a few noms or wins during Oscar season that many would call questionable. This is not to detract from Tarantino's talent. The man is a great writer, though as of late he has become a blowhard. Scripts are long and drawn out, and then they all crash into an ending that seems tacked on rather than built to which begs the question does he even know where he is going with his films anymore. It is not visionary, it is repetitive and showing very little sign of growth. He is a craftsman who carves an excellent movie each time, but they are more or less the same.
DE: Tarantino runs a decent ship, and Hollywood is no different. Everything seems to be on point. Every department is hitting its marks, and we are building a tale in his distinct (if that is the right word) style. In terms of editing, the loss of Sally Menke can be felt in every one of his films since she passed. She somehow was able to contain him and give a better structure. Though from seeing her works outside of the Tarantino verse, you can see he had an equal part in elevating her. Together they were able to take his longwinded approach and make it come off with a steady pace and allow decent investment from the audience, but now however that is slipping away at a fast pace with each subsequent film.
W: Tarantino is one of the great writers, he is not on Miyazaki's or Anderson's level, but he is undoubtedly on the same level as the Coen brothers or Bong Joon-ho. Which is not a level to sniff at, but the problem with Tarantino's writing is that he may have switched genres, but he has not adapted to it. More that he has made another Tarantino movie with a new shell on it. Which is great, but if I wanted to see the same thing as before I might as well watch the classics. It is sort of like a band doing a new tour 20 years later trying to flog the new stuff that sounds far too similar to the old stuff, and the fans would much rather prefer to hear the hits.
C: Have you seen a Tarantino, Scorsese or Oliver Stone movie? Then guess what you have seen Robert Richardson's work and along with it some iconic shots that have littered avatars and uni students bedrooms for decades. His outing this time is impressive, though it might not match a level that he created. That said the lens seems to tell more of a story here than Tarantino's writing, which tells you everything you need to know.
A: Acting is stereotypically cartoonish, but that has become a standard for Tarantino. Though Pitt's depiction of the more sane character throughout this 2D world of actors stands out. Sadly given the cast, we are working with, and the sheer level of talent coupled with the extent in which we examine these characters lives it feels underwhelming, and each one is more an allegory than a persona in their own right.
S: As strange as it seems the sound department is usually one of the reasons I watch a Tarantino film. Since Inglourious Basterds someone in the sound department is getting an Oscar nom, whether it is music, mixing or editing. Without fail Hollywood continues this trend. Just excellent.
S: As strange as it seems the sound department is usually one of the reasons I watch a Tarantino film. Since Inglourious Basterds someone in the sound department is getting an Oscar nom, whether it is music, mixing or editing. Without fail Hollywood continues this trend. Just excellent.
PD: This film is not pretending to be the 1960s, it is the 1960s. I know you have seen many a period piece, and they all do a decent job, but it is the subtle nuances and the dirt that make the difference. This is not a glossy veneer trying to rewrite a section of history, this is just trying to capture an era for better or worse. This may be down to the fact that Tarantino is obsessed with the period and only a slight glance at his oeuvre would back this notion up.
BA: The costume design, while simple is also great, it catches the style of the era without feeling like it is overexaggerating the form or the zeitgeist of the time. The visual effects in the latter portion of the film while jarring are quite well done and stand out.
EVO: It is not one of Tarantino's "funner" films, which is odd given that it is a bright nostalgia backed film told from the perspective of mostly positive souls. If you are a Tarantino completest, you are going to want to see it, but for many, the question of why did I sit through that for 3 hours will ring true on the lips, and while the film is crafted brilliantly I cannot help but finding myself siding with them.