Purely made to show Tarantino's skill

Rating: 8/10 (19 February 2016)

First off, i'm not a Tarantino's fan, this is the first of his movies that i watch, so i've not liked this movie just for "tradition", let's say. I've only watched the trailer, without reading anything about it, so i haven't any prejudice about it.
I'll start from disagreeing with other reviews. Many says that "this is not a western/historical movie", but sincerely, who cares? Movie genres aren't rules.
Also, everyone criticizes the writing, saying it is lame and that many things are unnecessary, but i think that this is exactly the point.
This is a movie has nonsensical plot, uninteresting characters and slow pace. It is made to demonstrate that you don't really need good writing, clever dialogues or mind-blowing twists to make a entertaining movie. It lasts three freaking hours, despite that, it isn't boring. I watched movies that make you wonder "when this is going to end" after just an hour, because there are other things that matter too:

Scenography: the 70mm format is amazing, you wonder why other director's don't use it. Outdoor scenes are awesome and indoor the larger field of view gives a more immersive experience, you can focus on the main scene while also noticing what happens at the borders.

Acting: the actors are good. Nothing more to say.

Score: it is superb, it gives the movie a thrilling, tense and grotesque feeling.

Sounds: everything is so cured, you can hear unnaturally amplified sounds, like the pipe bumping the teeth or someone pouring a liquid on the other side of the room.

Honestly, do you really think that a movie like this deserves less than five stars? It is made to show how much you can accomplish with a bad plot, to ridiculise all those boring, unoriginal movies that can't be entertaining despite having a fast paced and thrilling writing.
If a movie with lame plot can be so entertaining, imagine a movie of this caliber (in terms of cinematography) with interesting plot and characters.