cptgaio

Lack of ideas, I confirm. It keeps going in circles, always proposing the same clichés (and not even its own), immense up to "Pulp Fiction," the rest is routine. "Jackie Brown" was well watched, less pretentious please! Point made and done.

Marco, we have already given you the explanations; there is no one on your list to remove because they are your preferences. However, I would delete that "essential" in front, because it comes off as very "annoying criticism."

Nice, but it's not Metal.

@Mista: it's not about commerciality but the lack of ideas; in "Jackie Brown" Tarantino was already floundering.

You see, this is already the right attitude. Go in peace and avoid terms like "merdal" and you'll see you'll have a long and prosperous life!

The final quote from Tarantino that you mention in the review highlights the different parameters of judgment one can have when watching this film. If you view it as a "Tribute Film," you can't help but appreciate all the technical details you mention (and Tarantino is not a novice in this field), but the problem is a different one. The good Queni, having reached his sixth film (and I don’t count all the collaborations with Rodriguez and his gang, just to specify...) simply cannot go beyond a citationism that has become almost a cliché. Okay, you're great at recreating car chases in the Italian poliziottesco style, and you provide hypnotic dialogue lasting 5-6 minutes based practically on nothing (and that’s ultimately a merit because it means that as a screenwriter you’re still one of the best), but what about the rest of cinema and not mannerism? What remains is a shabby story that resembles a mix of Silverstein's "La Macchina nera" from '77 with some nods to Russ Meyer, and in between, various time tricks à la Tarantino that anyone who has seen "Le Iene" or "Pulp Fiction" already knows what to expect.
That said, the film is certainly very entertaining, with a good pace, and it's easy to watch, leaving you satisfied as you exit the theater. But that’s the point: Tarantino has transformed from a director of "classics" to a director of "pure entertainment," and for a pure talent like him, it’s a real shame. Sure, citing well is an erudite operation, but it ultimately falls flat; he should dare more. It’s also obvious that amidst the sea of mediocre films out there these days, this one stands out, but there’s a long way from that to giving it 4-5 stars. Bye!

Dear Sinner, "Inland Empire" by Lynch is cinema in its purest form, subjectively highly debatable because of its absolutely unconventional structure, but objectively cinema; it’s the opposite of what I said about "Grindhouse." In my opinion, in 10 years, this Tarantino film will be nearly forgotten while "Inland Empire," held up as an example, is what I call "true groundbreaking cinema."

In fact, what I was saying is that they hold no critical value but only personal one. I enjoy compiling them, but I do it only for myself and share them only with my friends (every now and then I post some on my blog to tell the truth, but it's just a way to play..) just to capture very subjective insights, that's all.

Lists make sense if one acknowledges the absolute subjectivity in compiling them and uses them as moments of reflection and self-analysis (a way to take stock, in short). In my ideal top 50, compiled a few months ago, there’s no masterpiece like "Stalker" by Tarkovsky, nor a Wells, nor a Lang, nor a Bergman, and who knows how many other objective masterpieces are missing. But that’s the beauty of it; it’s mine and only mine, and it reveals a lot about my personality (and also my flaws and limitations, why not?). On the other hand, compiling a ranking and putting the inevitable term in front is not only useless (and reminiscent of so much hated criticism) but loses the very purpose of a list, which is to spark a discussion. Bye!

Dear Manliuzzo, I understand that it's enough to go to the other pages, that's clear. What I mean is that one might put effort into creating something interesting but doesn't even have the time to experience the satisfaction of seeing themselves in HP, so they get discouraged from putting quality into their writings, in favor of quantity, as has been happening lately... it's undeniable.