His critical writing lets you follow a full line of reasoning, with enthusiasms, objections, and comparisons that a list of favorite films only hints at.
An archive of signed pieces, not a collection of headlines
The section Tarantino’s Reviews on the New Beverly brings together signed film criticism by Quentin Tarantino. It includes long-form essays and shorter formats, with dates and credits that are worth preserving. Not everything published on the theater’s website is written by him: news items, schedule announcements, and contributions from others serve different purposes. Identifying the author is the first step in knowing what we are reading.
One example is American Graffiti, published on June 29, 2022. Tarantino places Lucas’s film alongside The Last Picture Show and Summer of ’42, and examines different forms of nostalgia. He also notes Curt’s refusal to leave his community and raises reservations about the casting of Bo Hopkins. General admiration does not keep him from discussing a specific choice.
The text offers a possibility that is lost when only an isolated quote circulates: connecting an assessment with the element of the film that prompts it. The reader can check whether the example is persuasive, whether the argument holds up, and whether the objection actually changes the judgment of the whole. A review is worth that journey, as well as the prominence of the person who signs it.
From long essays to short notes
The archive includes Grindhouse Mini Reviews, a collection of comments on exploitation films. Its credits require special attention: they include Tarantino byline credits, Jim or James Sheldon byline credits, and co-bylines. The general heading on a page should not erase those distinctions. Sheldon’s identification has led to conflicting attributions; to locate a text, it is best to preserve the credit as it is published, without trying to settle that issue by guesswork.
Difference in length changes what you can expect. A short note can identify a memorable performance, a pacing problem, or the appeal of a premise. An essay makes it possible to develop comparisons and linger over a scene. Neither format is inherently superior; what matters is whether the space used can support what is being claimed. A blunt sentence needs fewer words than its proof.
The context of New Beverly Cinema also shapes how it is read. A review may make you want to discover a film or revisit it in a particular print. That connection to exhibition does not turn every text into advertising. Criticism can guide audiences while still preserving the freedom to point out a failed reading or a construction that never quite works.
It is also worth distinguishing between a written review and a transcript of an interview. In the first, the author controls the path of the text; in the second, a question, an interruption, or the rhythm of the conversation may explain a change in subject. Both are valuable sources, but they should not be presented as if they were born from the same process. The title of a later news item adds yet another layer of selection.
How to make the most of his critical reading
The review of The Lady in Red, shared by New Beverly and republished in February 2020, offers another entry point. Tarantino champions John Sayles’s screenplay for Lewis Teague’s film and places it among the most ambitious examples of exploitation cinema. His path through other screenwriters and films shows that this judgment needs a tradition of comparison, not just an enthusiastic adjective.
The example shifts attention toward an area that director lists can leave in the background: who wrote a film and how its structure supports the characters. Reading it alongside American Graffiti makes it possible to contrast two focal points of discussion, the organization of a collective memory and the ambition of a story made within exploitation cinema. These are questions about specific films, not only about the prestige of their makers.
The archive also includes the essay Wang Yu: Superstar! Super Director!, dated April 23, 2020. Its title makes it possible to locate a piece devoted to a figure who combines acting and directing. Alongside Lucas and Teague, it broadens the range toward different industrial traditions and forms of action. The archive’s variety becomes clearer when you identify texts rather than turn it into an undifferentiated list of recommendations.
The objections inside a favorable review are especially revealing. They make it possible to see what weighs most in the author’s evaluation. A questionable performance may not ruin the whole, while an apparently small detail may alter the credibility of a scene. Reading only negative reviews would turn a practice of evaluation into an inventory of rejections; the page on films Tarantino has criticized belongs to that narrower sphere.
It is also useful to return to the film after reading the text. The argument may have directed our attention to a reaction, a transition, or a spatial relationship that we had overlooked. Verification does not require reproducing the critic’s opinion. Sometimes a second look confirms the observation and leads to a different assessment, because what is a flaw for one viewer is part of the appeal for another.
His collected essays in Cinema Speculation offer another format for that conversation, with their own development and structure. The digital reviews retain the value of situated interventions, identifiable by title, byline, and date. The best use of the archive is to move from opinion to film and back again with a more precise question, without turning the authority of an admired director into an obligation to agree with him.
See the guide to Tarantino's books, criticism, and film-related projects.