Only Tarantino would dare or even want to write a pastiche western in which a film critic (Michael Fassbender), a film star (Diane Kruger), and the proprietress of a cinema (Mélanie Laurent) bring down the Third Reich…Tarantino’s love of the medium expresses itself as a kind of formal greed. The choice between montage and fluidity, between Eisenstein and Welles, has no appeal for him; he wants it all. The film is a sustained feat of choreography and composition, a model of crispness. And just as it alternates between matchsticks and mountains, so it moves both gently and briskly, at some points demanding patient trust, at others our amazed vigilance. As ever with this director, there are problems of incaution and excess. The film is too long and too violent. Often, dialogue scenes are pushed past the point of maximal tension and into monotony. But going too far is a risk inherent in going anywhere useful…
—
Leo Robson, from an article in the Times Literary Supplement comparing the recent work of Tarantino and Almodovar. Perhaps the movie is too long, but I think the comment about dialogue scenes being pushed too far is way off the mark. Tarantino is terrific at gauging exactly how long he can draw a scene out; just when watching people sit around a table and talk is about to wear thin, Quentin has the guns come out, or has someone order a glass of milk*, and thus ratchets up the tension enough for another few minutes.
*makes sense if you’ve seen Basterds, and if you haven’t seen it, go now.
-
bettyko liked this
-
citizengun liked this
-
mattedits liked this
-
supersecret liked this
-
brieflynoted reblogged this from thebronzemedal and added:
my two favorite directors -Tarantino
-
thebronzemedal posted this
