Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Inglourious Basterds (2009) * Top Pick *

Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is primarily intense dialogue and close-ups of men sitting in close quarters dripping pleasantries with the grand subtext of foxes circling a chicken coop. I quickly grew fearful of whether Quentin had written a film with so much irrelevant dialogue that he was only talking to himself, as he had done in the overdrawn Kill Bill 2. Quickly those fears were assuaged, and instead I looked forward to scenes filled with ardent questioning taking place in claustrophobic rooms. This is what makes Inglourious Basterds so worthy, and without a doubt one of Quentin's best scripts. Yes the streak of Quentin is present, with such off-putting moments as introducing a character in glorious musical fanfare while their name fills the screen in 70s porn font, but so many scenes show instead a poignancy of drama where the Nazis are not seen as fumbling idiots as they are in so many films, but as brave, intelligent and noble, as genuine foes to be feared, and their characterization in Inglorious Basterds is done in such a way that makes the Americans the ones in the lurch, fighting against a superior enemy, blunt as they are. I would even go as far as saying that the writing in Inglourious Basterds shows that Tarantino has evolved from the common in-your-face gangster-gore movies into bloody-yet-fun subtext-rich character studies with dramatic plots. In short, Tarantino's latest will certainly impress his fan base, and may very well create a few new ones.

Recommendations: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009), Requiem for a Dream, Dawn of the Dead

Inglourious Basterds

This is one review that’s loooong overdue, and I’ve a couple more that should be coming soon. “Inglourious Basterds” is without a doubt in my top 5 best films of 2009, and I might even be as bold as calling it Tarantino’s best with full awareness of the greatness of “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs”. And that says a lot in itself.

A quick recap of the plot: the Basterds are an American Secret Service outfit that lives deep behind enemy lines with only one mission – to kill Nazis. At the same time, the heads of Nazi Germany shall all be attending the premiere of Goebbel’s “Nation’s Pride” in a small kino. Basically, “all the rotten eggs in one basket”. Now, if one could blow up that basket the war’ll be over.

There’s two parallel storylines we follow: one of the Basterds, and the other of Shosanna – a French Jewish survivor whose family has been slaughtered by SS Colonel Hans Landa – who is now the owner of the venue where “Nation’s Pride” premiere is taking place. The two stories, given they have the same goal, intertwine at some point. Of course, story is pretty much all that drives “Inglorious Basterds”. Actually, it is one of the most static films I’ve ever seen in my life – 95% of it is just talk. It made me realize, and this is another bold statement of mine, that Tarantino is the best screenwriter today. The lines he conjures for his characters are no short of amazing and it takes my breath away time after time after time, figuratively of course. He is just a master at spicing up the regular dialogue and transform it into extraordinary dialogue.

“Inglourious Basterds” is also one of the few films I’d recommend you to see at home rather than the cinema. Or, if you’ve already seen it the cinema – make sure to do it again on DVD. I’m speaking from my experience here: after the theatrical showing I was left with mixed feelings. It was definitely not what I’ve expected. For fuck’s sake, nothing happened in this flick during the whole 2 and a half hours! It was just people talking and talking and talking and talking! The talk was superb, like I mentioned before, and I knew it “had something there” but I couldn’t say I loved the picture as a whole. No, definitely not. When I got the DVD in my hands… now that was entirely another story. Now I could pause it when I chose to and soak in all the details – the background, the sets, the clothes, the facial expressions of the characters, etc. Now I could rewind scenes, examine them again frame by frame, and slowly, by the end of my second viewing it came to me – this right here… this is a goddamn (glorious) masterpiece!!!

Tarantino is also the only director for whom I can (again boldly) state that makes every single scene –PERFECT. The sum of all scenes is not perfect, but examine them separately and I just can’t find a single fault in them. He has a knack for blending the visual and the audio aspect of a scene into something magnificent. Take Chapter Five: “Revenge of the Giant Face” as an example, from the first beats of Bowie’s “Cat People”. Or sometime later in the same chapter, the scene of Fredrick Zoller and Shosanna’s final confrontation in the projection booth when Morricone’s “Un Amico” starts. It’s just… beautiful. Perfect.

Tarantino always assembles an incredibly talented cast for his project, and “Inglourious Basterds” is no exception. All of the cast was fantastic (keep an eye for cameos), but two excelled – Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine and Christoph Waltz as SS Colonel Hans Landa. Waltz’s genius immediately struck me, but I actually labeled Pitt’s performance as “poor and overacted” and while seeing it in the cinema I completely missed out the brilliance of his portrayal of a redneck Lieutenant from Maynardville, Tennessee. There’s no point in explaining it – you’ll either see it or you won’t. Now, I deem his performance as one of the best this year (how many times did I use “one of the best” in this review, haha?). The “Italian introduction” part (Enzo Gorlomi ftw!), to name just one, is pure genius. To name all memorable ones, it’d take dozens of pages and I would probably end up retelling the whole film. That’s how good it is.

So, let’s see… the directing, the screenwriting, the soundtrack, the acting… yep, I think I’ve exhausted all topics. The conclusion: “Inglourious Basterds” fucking rocks! Big time!

Rating: 10/10 (I actually thought of giving it a 9/10 when starting the review, but why be a picky little prick?)

RATED PURE GENIUS

- review by Ventilation Shaft

(Read Less...)

Recommendations:

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds - Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger, Eli Roth, and Melanie Laurent - Rated R

Tarantino is in top form with this one.



Inglourious Basterds, the latest from Quentin Tarantino, is exactly what you would expect from the director of Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. The stylish World War II Nazi hunting movie is tense, violent, slow burning, hilarious, and jaw dropping. While this might be what a Tarantino fan would always expect, it's not necessarily the film that the previews promised. I've noticed more and more lately that ads for movies either give everything away, or are cut in such a way that they seem to be showcasing completely different films. The latter is the case with Basterds. If you saw the preview, you would expect that this is a Brad Pitt film. If you have to name a star of the film, I suppose you would say it was Pitt, but he's actually in less than half of the film.

The film starts in Nazi-occupied France. Col. Hans Landa, aka "Jew Hunter," played with equal parts menace and civility by Christoph Waltz, shows up at a dairy farmer's house to see if he is harboring Jews. It is set up by a reference to spaghetti westerns ("Once upon a time...in Nazi-occupied France") and that sets the tone for the entire film. Ennio Morricone music blares as Landa approaches. An extremely tense conversation goes on for nearly fifteen minutes before Landa shows his true intention. That is what is so great about his character and the Oscar-worthy performance. Even though he's pleasant and polite, there's an unsettling undertone in every line of dialogue. This man is good at his job, which is where the Basterds come in.

As Lt. Aldo Raine, Brad Pitt gets to have a blast. His southern drawl is perfect as he talks about "killing NATzees." Some people might be put off by the over the top performance, but I enjoyed it. It's a great counterbalance to Waltz's understated portrayal. The other aspect that keeps the performance from becoming silly is the fact that the film doesn't stay with Aldo and the Basterds. As I said, that opening scene is lengthy as are the other tense scenes in the film that set up new characters and lay out the ground work for plans to take out the top ranks of the Third Reich. It's almost as if Tarantino wanted to lighten things up by going from insanely tense with Landa, to insanely funny with Raine. This might seem uneven to some, but it worked for me.

Viewers might be expecting more of an action film from the previews as well. This is a movie about killing Nazis, after all. But Tarantino has never been an all out action filmmaker and this film, despite the previews loaded with gunshots, is relatively light on the action. That's not to say it's boring, it's just that this film is two and a half hours long and the focus is on the tense buildup that leads to a shootout rather than the shootout itself. Remember, Tarantino's first film (Reservoir Dogs), was about the aftermath of a bank robbery and the robbery itself was never shown. He's interested in what happens before and after, and it makes the action memorable and powerful. In one scene there is a twenty minute set up to a shootout that is less than a minute long. When Tarantino does show violence, though, it is brutal and sometimes shocking. The "Nazi scalps" that Pitt requests in the trailer are provided and Eli Roth, as the "Bear Jew," gets to swing away at a Nazi's head with a baseball bat. Tarantino doesn't cut away for that one. We get to see a crazy-eyed Roth bludgeon the Nazi in sickening detail.



It's all part of Tarantino's style and this is not a typical World War II movie and should certainly not be viewed as such. In fact, looking at this movie in relation to other, more serious, WWII films would make it downright offensive and far too tongue in cheek. For instance, Hitler is a character in the film and I do mean character. To trivialize one of the most evil men in the history of the world is quite tricky, but it has happened before. Chaplin poked fun at Hitler in The Great Dictator and comic books from that era featured the likes of Captain America fighting the tyrant. If viewed in that light, this film is pitch perfect and you can ignore historical accuracy and have some fun with it (and I mean completely ignore historical accuracy). People want to see real life evil icons faced with violence and pleasing conclusions, not war trials and deaths in bunkers. Consider Inglourious Basterds as a World War II fantasy film and you probably won't come away offended or angry.

If there is one thing about the film that I took issue with, it wasn't the comical treatment of a serious time period, it was the lack of info given for the Basterds. You get hints at the history of the characters, like Hugo Stiglitz's amusing mini bio, but I wanted each soldier to get his own little story. A few of them don't have any lines, even. I suppose I was expecting more of a Dirty Dozen approach to the Basterds. I'm usually all for ambiguity, like the unexplained intentional misspelling of the group, but I wanted more background from Tarantino on this one. This is only a minor issue I had with this otherwise amazing film.

I'm a strong believer in having the proper expectations for a movie. It can make or break your enjoyment of the film. If you can ignore the previews and go in expecting a Quentin Tarantino film rather than a Brad Pitt movie, then you'll come away very pleased.


I have quite a few more things to get into in no particular order, so here's my addendum to this review:

This is a heavily subtitled movie, so be prepared to read rather than hear most of Tarantino's great dialogue. There is one amusing reference to foreign language early on, though. Landa and the dairy farmer speak French at the start of their conversation, then Landa suggests that they switch to English since they both speak it and his French isn't very good. I always think about the use of English in films that take place in situations where English is not the native tongue. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather hear a movie than read it, but I liked that this movie acknowledged that fact and switched to English. It's also very cool that the use of English in the scene added to the tension.

There are a few amusing references to Tarantino's other work as well. The film is divided into chapters a la Kill Bill, Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel make voice cameos, and he adds text in scenes to point out who some characters are. He throws in little asides as well, my favorite being Hugo Stiglitz's mini bio. I also liked Tarantino factoring in film in the plot as the climax takes place in a movie theater and there are a few conversations about film. Maybe it's him exaggerating the importance of film in society or something, I don't know, but I liked it.

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Inglourious Basterds de Quentin Tarantino

Dernier film tant attendu du cinéaste culte qu'est  Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds, se défini comme un Tarantino.  C'est à dire, beaucoup de violence, de longs monologues, des scènes  assez longues, plusieurs rappels à ses films précédents en plus d'une  utilisation de la musique plus que maîtrisée.
Étant moi-même un  supporteur du travail de QT j'avais de grandes attentes et une certaine  excitation à voir sont dernier film. Donc, dès le premier plan je fus  conquis et avec la première scène qui déjà démontre tout le talent de  conteur du cinéaste j'ai été ravi!
On peut parler ici d'un film  d'ensemble pour Inglourious Basterds, sur tous les niveaux on sent  une maîtrise et une maturité dans ce film. Tant par la direction  d'acteurs qui est juste et jouissive que par la construction du scénario  qui connaît une montée jusqu'à la fin grandiose du film. Les nombreux  personnages ne se font jamais ombrage et chacun connaît son moment fort.  Mention spéciale pour Mélanie Laurent et Christoph Waltz qui sont des  découvertes personnelles.
C'est un film qui pourrait être décortiqué  plan par plan et je pense que l'on pourrait déjà considérer cette œuvre  comme d'un film incontournable du Cinéma.
Bref, pour ceux qui  aiment Tarantino ils vont se régaler et les autres bien ils seront soit  conquis ou bien percevront tout ses tics et manies négativement et ne  seront pas intéressés au propos du cinéaste.
À voir au Cinéma pour  une scène bien précise dont je ne veux pas vous gâcher l'intrigue...

http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2009/11/ingloriuos-basterds-de-quentin.html

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie, Duel

Last updated: 2010-05-02 13:48:10 by FadingMemory

Inglourious Basterds

To choose between Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man is too big of a chore for me.  Suffice it to say, that JL had a point when he put his hand on my shoulder, leaned in and said very calm and contemplatively, "Ruben, they're two different movies."

Yes, this is true.  Whereas ASM is a comedic existential drama.  IB is an alternate reality historical fantasy.

When we, we being the movie-watching public of America, try to decide movies what we like, or compare one movie against another, what are we trying to accomplish?  Are we only comfortable when we can definitively write a list where we rank our ten favorite movies?  I know people who specifically say that the winner of Best Picture at the Oscars is proof that a certain movie is the best movie of a year.  Why do people have to say this movie rocks while this movie sucks, and then get into bitter arguments about it.  (I still get the stink eye from people to whom I confide that I hate [HAAAAAATE] Titanic)

So, as I brood through the viewing of IB, desperately trying to come up with one sliver of something that tells me that this movie is better (or worse) than A Serious Man, I realize that I can't do  it.  Inglourious Basterds is a different movie, right?  I love it, but there are other Quentin Tarantino movies that I love more -- I know that much.  I love A Serious Man, but there are Coen Brothers' movies that I would more rather watch.

One thing that these flicks have in common is their depth.  I can think of four or five academic papers that I can (and more than likely will) write on ASM.  Pontifications on religion, the social contract, drugs and culture, and technical filmmaking.  IB holds as much scope for academia -- but it's a QT film, so it'd be more film school geeky subjects like Cinematic History as prtrayed in the film or a historical perspective on WWII German Cinema.

This second time through IB, I enjoyed the experience as much as the first.  The cartoony ultra-violence that QT gives to his audience proves that he cares infinitely more about the people in the theater than he does about the prestige that he could get through more serious fare, and that care, in turn, has given QT every bit of prestige that he has or could ever want. 

Martin Scorsese is the same way with his movies.  MS and QT are both historians.  They are both violence-oriented.  They both have a freaking blast doing what they do.  This exuberant joy translates to their filmmaking and creates a style that a person that sets down to spend two and a half hours as a viewer can instantly recognize and enjoy. 

So, for this year's Oscars,  I will resign myself to not rooting for one or the other, but both. 

Anyone interested, I will announce my first great project tonight after the Oscars.  I have something very fun and special planned, so stay tuned.

Ruben of the Floating Red Couch<br />
http://www.floatingredcouch.com

Last updated: 2010-04-18 09:56:15 by user01

A STUDY IN DISAPPOINTMENT: QUENTIN TARANTINO’S INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS AND THREE FILMS IT TRIED TO BE… MORE OR LESS: THE DIRTY DOZEN – CROSS OF IRON – THE INGLORIOUS BASTARDS

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-04-18 22:55:27 by user07

Inglourious Basterds: Tarantino Returns To Form

Listening to Brad Pitt’s character Lt. Aldo Raine try to speak Italian with a heavy 1930’s southern accent might have been the most enjoyable experience for me the whole year. Quentin Tarantino’s  Inglorious Basterds (he won’t explain the reasoning for the spelling) isn’t a groundbreaking film by any means.  Rather it is homage to film in general and spaghetti westerns more specifically.   Spaghetti westerns were westerns produced and directed by Italians that were popular in the mid-sixties.  Tarantino also draws inspiration from earlier Nazi related films including the 1942 film “Hitler: Dead or Alive” in which three gangsters plot to kill Hitler after a million dollar bounty is put on his head.
 
In Inglorious Basterds Raine leads a group of specialized Jewish military fighters known as “The Basterds.”  Raine explains their one and only purpose, “Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred Nazi scalps.  And I want my scalps.”  Now if that doesn’t sound like an entertaining premise in and of itself then I just don’t know what does.  There is more to the movie though, much more in fact.  The main plot of the film revolves around a French cinema owner named Ms. Mimieux (Mélanie Laurent) who is forced to show a Nazi propaganda film because the star of the movie, Pvt Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), falls in puppy love with her.  Little do they all know that Mimieux is actually Shosanna Dreyfus who’s entire family was murdered by the arguably insane Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who is also known as “The Jew Hunter.” 
 
A lot could be said for Tarantino’s strong script, which he spent over a decade fine tuning.  Even more could be said about the performances of the cast.  Aside of Pitt’s highly entertaining Aldo Raine (a part that I think he is being overlooked for) he is matched if not outshined by several outstanding performances none of which better than the previously mentioned Christoph Waltz.  His interpretation of the German officer is so satisfying because of its complexity.  He truly is unlike any other German officer you’ve ever seen in a movie.  He’s imposing, but not stereotypically evil.  He feels that he is simply very good at his job and that he should be recognized.  Just as a side note Waltz’s son is a Rabbi which actually seems fitting.
 
Basterds has its slow moments in the beginnings, but by the end of the movie you’ll have appreciated every second of screen time from all the characters and hoped that they could have had more.  I’m not sure I’m ready to denote it as Tarantino’s finest.  It didn’t reinvent the wheel.  Basterds just made it a very smooth and enjoyable ride.

Recommendations: Shutter Island, District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009), Morning Glory

Last updated: 2010-04-12 19:06:25 by jpgreenb

Inglorious Basterds

Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent
Rated R
153 Minutes 

Plot: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) leads a team of Jewish-American soldiers into Germany on a mission to kill as many Nazis as possible. 

Done in classic Tarantino style, Inglourious Basterds transcends genres and entertains like none other. While it may look like a WWII film it really isn't- the quick dialogue and pulpy shots/mise en scene hints at a movie that probably contains dozens of references. For anyone familiar with Tarantino's way of doing things, Inglourious Basterds follows a similar directorial and narrative structure. And those who are familiar with this know that it works well. It does work well again, and to great effect- from multiple extremely tense conversations to the Revenge of the Giant Face (beginning to end, essentially). While on the same subject, the climax is extremely satisfying. The rest of Inglourious Basterds is what you would expect: comical, violent, and as thrilling as it gets. Within this is the longest, most intense conversation of the year. Even with subtitles, the conversations are crafted with precision. For anyone who loves film, Inglorious Basterds is a dream come true.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-04-11 20:44:54 by user01

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

This’ll be my second addition to ‘Talkie Miscellany’ (see right side of your screen).

G.W. Pabst was a German director of silent and sound films, including a classic featured on this blog: Pandora’s Box (1929). That film deals with the intoxication a beautiful woman can cause in men of great power but measly character. Its star, Louise Brooks, had a perfect face, but her character was deeply flawed beneath it. And the men she manipulated were more dangerous than they seemed, though not always on purpose. So, Pabst knew something about the deceptions of appearance. In this respect, his movie shares a lot with Inglourious Basterds.

Basterds director Quentin Tarantino encourages the comparison. He name-drops Pabst and his films several times over the course of two-and-a-half hours, and we can take what we wish from that. Like most of Tarantino’s films, Basterds relies in part on our knowledge of types and tropes, genres and fads to propel itself. If a familiarity with a dead German director is less likely than a familiarity with grindhouse cinema, so be it. Both can be a way in for Tarantino, and from there, he’ll use our own assumptions to challenge us.

Let’s start where the movie does: Chapter One. In a farmhouse, in ‘cow country,’ in occupied France, in 1941, notorious SS officer Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) interrogates a farmer he suspects of hiding Jews. These would be the farmer’s neighbours, and in fact, they are hiding there, beneath the floorboards. We immediately dread their fate.

There are many reasons why. On an aesthetic level, there’s the eerie music (and lack of music); the close-ups of Landa with his false charm; the close-ups of the quietly terrified farmer. On a tactical level, we assume Tarantino needs to establish his villain’s credentials early on, and he’ll use an atrocity to do it. All these factors are at work, but I think they’re just the fixings. Really, it comes down to the uniform.

Landa is dressed like a Nazi, so that’s what he is. And what is a Nazi for us, the movie-goers? It is a type, and rather a rigid one. By his garb alone, we recognize in Landa a bottomless capacity for cruelty. Depraved acts are imminent when he’s around; any kindness he or any other Nazi displays is suspect. A ‘kindly’ Nazi is conflicted at best, and duplicitous, at least.

Landa is an unknown quantity to us when he arrives at the Frenchman’s farm, yet we are certain things will end badly. If not right away, then eventually. This is a primal reaction we bring into the theatre with us, and it is given voice by Lt. Aldo ‘The Apache’ Raine (Brad Pitt), who states simply that “Nazi ain’t got no humanity.”

Aldo the Apache heads the Basterds, a Jewish-American commando squad that dispatches Nazis by brutal and memorable means. Their purpose is to sow fear in the German ranks, and they do it so well that they grow into semi-legendary boogeymen, whispered of among their foes. Adolf Hitler (Martin Wuttke) orders the stories of them to be suppressed.

The German High Command has its own myths to generate. By 1944, Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) has dedicated the Nazi film industry toward the single goal of glorifying its Reich; his latest film, A Nation’s Pride, will star an actual Nazi war hero. A Nation’s Pride will debut at a small theatre in Paris. Every luminary in the High Command, including the Führer, will be there.




This is an opportunity for vengeance for ‘Emmanuelle Mimieux’ (Shoshanna Dreyfus [Mélanie Laurent]), the young theatre owner. ‘Mimieux’ was the surname she adopted after fleeing Landa’s farm visit in Chapter One. We assume she’s the only survivor.
Emmanuelle, like so many characters in Inglourious Basterds, is built of layered identities. She shares this quality with Aldo the Apache, who represents the Jew and the Native American directly, and the military, Western values and generic gusto indirectly. She also shares it with Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Krueger), who’s both German film queen and Allied spy. Then there’s Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), the young war hero who falls for Emmanuelle, but like any Nazi, seems too nice to be truly good.

Above all, there is Landa. Like Emmanuelle, whose life he destroyed, Landa seems entirely fixated on his goal, which in his case, is genocide. While Emmanuelle skilfully maintains her ruse as a means of trapping Nazis in her theatre and burning every last one of them to death, Landa uses non sequitur, intimidation, etiquette and fearful intelligence to hunt down his victims. Whatever role he may play as he traps them, he remains, at core, a dedicated monster. He is the embodiment of his uniform.

But that uniform, in a way, makes Landa less dangerous. It warns everyone what kind of man he is, long before he says or does a horrible thing. Uniforms can be removed, of course, and then, if the wearer is smart enough, he can weave a new story around himself. Inside he’s the same, but no one suspects the truth.
By the way, one of the many dignitaries Emmanuelle hopes to torch on opening night is Emil Jannings, German star of Faust (1926), The Blue Angel (1930) and many other films. Jannings adapted to Nazi rule better than a lot of his contemporaries, who were ostracized or murdered. Goebbels named him ‘Artist of the State’ in 1941. One of Jannings’ greatest roles was that of an aging hotel doorman in F.W. Murnau’s 1924 German silent, The Last Laugh. In this film, the old fellow is forced into retirement and loses his mighty doorman’s coat. With the coat goes his entire identity, and he is destroyed. What this pitiful soul tried to avoid is exactly what Landa hopes to achieve in life after the war.



Emmanuelle dreams not of quiet retirement, but an operatic end to Nazism—a theatrical conflagration over which her pre-taped cries of vengeance will ring. She and Landa both seem to be dogmatic characters. The first is relentlessly righteous, the second, relentlessly evil, right down to his nickname, the ‘Jew Hunter.’ However, no one is truly one-dimensional—that’s a kind of myth, too. And it’s one we might have believed about these two if either had entirely succeeded in their goal. However, neither quite does. And that’s interesting, particularly in Emmanuelle’s case, because it’s due to a sudden faltering of will. One would have thought her incapable of that.It falls to Aldo and his Basterds to be the advocates of truth. That is, truth in its most literal, least subtle, inarguable form. When the Basterds decide to let a Nazi live, they make sure he can never take his uniform off and hide. They do this by carving a swastika into his forehead. Tarantino milks this technique for gory effect, and we love it. But none of the scenes are simple, throw-away violence—I’d argue they’re the real point of the movie. The scars act like an arrow piercing the clouds of myth-making, romanticizing and outright lying that most of the movie’s characters live in. It is flesh and blood and bone and it says, ‘I am what I’ve been, and what I’ve been is what I’ve done.’ Note that during the game of Hedbanz played by the characters in the film’s long bar scene, some of them place a card (bearing a fake name) over that same spot on their foreheads.




What of the ending? I won’t reveal it here, but it’s fair to say that events don’t unfold exactly as we learned them in school. It could be argued that Tarantino takes the most extreme liberties with history for the sake of an unpredictable twist, and that would be true, really, but it’s not the whole message.

Relatively few of us alive today have been scarred directly by the events of the Second World War. We know it as a collection of tragic stories. Foremost is the Holocaust, but we’ve also been told of Normandy, the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden, and the obliteration of two Japanese cities by only two bombs. The harsh reality is that these things happened, and any story, even fictional, that attempts to place itself in their midst must eventually own up to them. It’s depressing, really. The ending of Inglourious Basterds, though, is a war ended sooner. That means fewer dead in the death camps or on the battlefield. Less suffering, less destruction. If the world was better, or at least run by better people, it might have turned out that way. And to believe it did, even for a moment, would be enjoying the best myth of all.

Bits, Pieces, and Plots

Staying true to his style, Quentin Tarantino delivers a convoluted and violent tale with Inglourious Basterds, a film that will leave you wondering, Was that really time well spent?

The story, divided into five chapters, weaves a collection of characters so vast it is difficult to keep track of who is who and who’s on whose side.

If you pay close enough attention, and don’t venture off for popcorn to escape the blood and gore, you’ll soon catch on to how these characters come together in two separate plots against the Nazis.

Although character development isn’t Tarantino’s forté, he was able to artfully meld a large cast that includes a colonel nicknamed the “Jew Hunter”, a gang of Nazi scalpers led by Brad Pitt, Germany’s film propaganda elite, a beautiful actress with a knack for languages, and the Führer himself.

Shining Characters

Though Tarantino has packed the film with almost too many personalities, a few shine and are pivotal to the storyline.

Christoph Waltz, delivers a performance worthy of the Oscar nomination he received. He brings to life the selfish and observant Colonel Hans Landa, a.k.a the “Jew Hunter”.

During the opening chapter, a truly memorable and intriguing scene, Landa skillfully interrogates Pierre LaPadite, rumored to be hiding a Jewish family. The suspense builds to a climax that almost surpasses that of the entire movie.

Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent ), meanwhile, is a cinema owner with a reason for revenge. Dreyfus uses her cinema (and a smitten Nazi war hero), to carry out her own secret plans against a high-ranking group of Nazis congregating for the premiere of a German film.

Dreyfus and Landa are the most important characters throughout, and bring forth the best performances, but Brad Pitt’s character brings charm and substance. Playing Lt. Aldo Raine, a comical character with a southern twang, Pitt fearlessly leads a commando unit of eight Jewish-Americans who make it their mission to instill fear throughout the Nazi régime.
Using brute force on every enemy they meet, this group of rogue warriors is well known throughout the German camp for mercilessly killing any Nazi who steps in their path.

While Pitt delivers consistently throughout, sadly he isn’t on screen nearly enough to satisfy those fans who would watch this movie purely to see him.
Film Construction

The film is really a just grouping of separate scenes that come together to form an epic and explosive finale. The middle bits seem lacking and disjointed. While they eventually make sense, the approach could throw you off (leave you wondering what’s going on) from time to time.

I wasn’t terribly thrilled with Inglourious Basterds as a whole package, and don’t feel it will stand the test of time as an overall great picture.

Though the rambling approach Tarantino uses to piece together this story will leave you with a few memorable moments like the drunken and disorderly basement tavern scene or watching Shosanna apply her makeup with purpose, you probably won’t remember it in its entirety.

Would I watch it again? Probably not. But if you love Tarantino’s clever one-liners, and can get past the fact that it is multiple mini-movies strung together to form a basic idea, Inglourious Basterds may be for you.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Wizard of Oz

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds is an alternate reality historical fantasy.

This second time through IB, I enjoyed the experience as much as  the first.  The cartoony ultra-violence that QT gives to his audience  proves that he cares infinitely more about the people in the theater  than he does about the prestige that he could get through more serious  fare, and that care, in turn, has given QT every bit of prestige that he  has or could ever want. 

Still, the film holds scope for academia -- but it's a QT film, so  it'd be more  film school geeky subjects like Cinematic History as  portrayed in the  film or a historical perspective on WWII German Cinema.

Martin Scorsese is the  same way with his movies.  MS and QT are both historians.  They are  both violence-oriented.  They both have a freaking blast doing what they  do.  This exuberant joy translates to their filmmaking and creates a  style that a person that sets down to spend two and a half hours as a  viewer can instantly recognize and enjoy.

(more at the Floating Red Couch)

Ruben of the Floating Red Couch<br />
http://www.floatingredcouch.com

Last updated: 2010-04-07 12:33:03 by FadingMemory

Booze Revooze: A Drinker’s Skewed Review of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

You wanna talk sexy, though, you’re talking about Mélanie Laurent.  This French cutie makes her US film debut with the Basterds and what she lacks in experience she takes care of with her looks and the adorable mole on the side of her neck that you can see in the scene when she’s back-lit by streetlights, smoking a cigarette and leaning against a wall in a low cut red dress that does her justice, body and mole.
Drinks: 4 Shots (Pretty Killer)
NOTE: The original script was leaked and appeared on various internet sites. It has since been taken down everywhere at the behest of the executive producers, the Weinstein brothers. i have a copy in pdf format and would be more than happy to shoot you a copy if you leave me your e-mail address.

Boring Technical Crap

Inglourious Basterds

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Starring:

Brad Pitt – 1st Lt Aldo Raine

Mélanie Laurent – Shosanna Dreyfus

Christoph Waltz – Col. Hans Landa

(Read Less...)

Al K Hall<br />
Functional Alcoholic Slurperson<br />
(No, REALLY. Google &amp;quot;Slurperson&amp;quot; if you don't believe me.)

Last updated: 2010-04-05 16:19:13 by user08

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino (2009) Review


Quentin Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' Takes place during World War II (An alternative WWII...Think similar to Orwells 1984 concept) , where a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis. The Basterds soon cross paths with a French-Jewish teenage girl who runs a movie theater in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers.

One thing that remains static with all Tarantino films, which I consider to have always been his strong point is most definitely the razor-Sharp dialog. The dialog is certainly at it's best here. Quentin has stated in the past that he likes to play with the tension in his films like a rubber band and its no different here. In the opening scene between Christoph Waltz as Standartenführer Hans Landa aka "The Jew Hunter" and a character who is hiding Jews under his floorboards initially gets you hooked and builds up more and more until tension explodes. Waltz's performance is no doubt beneficial to this film as his role is outstanding. He plays a character who is literally a bilingual genius, playing a part in scenes with dialog in French,German and English.

Mélanie Laurent is also shear brilliance as Shosanna Dreyfus: A young French-Jewish girl on the run. One of the film's main protagonists. Michael Fassbender also pops up and shows nothing more than his usual brilliant self also as he takes the part as a "snappy and handsome British lieutenant" and a film critic in his pre-war civilian life.

Which brings me finally to Brad Pitt as 1st Lieutenant Aldo Raine aka "Aldo the Apache":a hillbilly from Maynardville, Tennesse who is the leader of the team of eight Jewish American soldiers. Pitt is most certainly the 'Lynch-pin' in this film and does the thick hillbilly accent very well.

The film itself is dynamic in every way. Quentin has gone out of his way to put all the things in necessary to make it a film everyone will enjoy. With huge amounts of tension and an explosive ending scene I think this just might be his masterpiece...

http://robinollysays.blogspot.com

Last updated: 2010-03-29 10:04:57 by FadingMemory

Glorious, Inglorious Basterds

This may or may not be part 1 of a 2 part review… the first part is a  direct review of Inglorious Basterds, the second part is yet to be  determined.  We have not had a chance to talk about this movie on our  podcast yet, but we will hopefully be doing that soon. I have seen Inglorious Basterds twice now, the first time I chose to  watch it from a cinematic point of view, allow myself to sink into the  story, and get lost in the moment.  The second time, I watched it from a  technical perspective.  In between both viewings, I absorbed as many  articles and interviews I could about the movie.  Yes I was swept up in  the hype… but I found what I was reading to be a valuable perspective on  what I was seeing.
Two things stood out in this movie… now I could review the movie in  context of every other War movie, or i could review it in context of  every other Quentin Tarentino movie… but as I say there are two things  that I want to specifically discuss, I’ll hit some high points, hit some  low points… and then I’ll throw in a little bit of Tarentino lore.
Lets start with the highs and lows shall we?  A friend of mine told  me that this is the most fun he’s seen Brad Pitt have since Fight Club,  and I think I can agree with him on that… Brad Pitt seemed to dissolve  into that role, and it didn’t take long for me to believe he was the  character he was portraying.  His character was charming, witty and  funny… And by the end, Aldo Raine was the reason to see this movie  again, and again, and again…
Secondly, the character of Hans Landa, quickly became a favorite…  especially after the repeat viewing.  The actor was such a power house,  and he fit into this role so well.. and he too had a big of humor, and  witticism to his character.  A moment of note came when he was  interrogating Aldo Raine at towards the end, and he got very excited and  said “That’s a Bingo!” – That was probably one of the funniest moments  in the entire movie.
I could go on, and talk further about the characters, each one had a  very strong and important role in the movie, and what was interesting  was that each character stood out on their own, but at the same time  blended in to one big glorious ensemble.  Though for as strong and  powerful these two characters were, there was one character in  particular who was my favorite… more on that below.
And of course, as with every movie there are always going to be a few  negative points… and i won’t dwell on them too much, but two worth  noting was that there just wasn’t enough basterds.  Based on the  preview, I suspected that this was going to be a gang on a mission  movie, a la The Dirty Dozen and The Great Escape.  And obviously this  was Tarentino’s intention, but apart from showing their exploits in the  second act, I would have liked to have seen more from them.  However,  the third act being the most important act, was important because it was  the men on a mission story… it was most reminiscent of The Dirty Dozen  as I stated earlier.
Now, onto the two most important things I wanted two write about… Act  1, and the beginning of Act 2… if I have a chance, part 2 of this  article would be titled “Quentin Tarentino: The first 10 minutes” –  There is something about the first 10 minutes or so of QT’s movies, that  really pack a punch.  And looking back at the first 10 minutes of all  his other movies, the first 10 minutes of this one was by far the best  thing that Tarentino has done date.  And yes, I think it’s better then  the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs.
This scene was very emotional, very powerful, and very moving… and  the actor who played the farmer, deserves an Oscar for his role.  These  first 10 minutes, showed me a glimpse of what Tarentino can truly do as a  director… hopefully one day I’ll have a chance to teach film, and when I  do, this scene will be part of my curriculum.
Now, that brings me on to the next part of my curriculum… in Act 3,  we see Shoshanna leaning against a round window in her office… as the  camera slowly zooms towards her, the music starts playing, completely  inappropriate for the time period, we hear a song by David Bowie… as  this montage starts, I lean over to my friend and say “This is  brilliant” – He thought I meant the whole movie, but what I really meant  was this scene.  As the montage cut back and forth between the softness  of Shoshanna putting on her makeup, and the harshness of Soshanna threatening the guy processing the film…
The character of Shoshanna a.k.a. Emanuelle Mimuex is my favorite  character in this movie, she shows such strength in the face of her  enemies, and she stands up for her beliefs.  The love story between her  and her projectionist, albeit subtle was a nice tough towards her  character.  We see just enough of her character, to get a sense of the  type of woman that she is, but enough that we want more… the scene that  brought about her ultimate demise, contained one of the best pieces of  acting in the entire movie.
I’m gushing I know… I could continue to praise this movie, but I’m  afraid that if I continue I will start giving away too many spoilers…  and I want people to see this movie for themselves, and experience it  the way it was meant to be experienced.  Although, if you are reading  this at all… you have probably already seen it.
So the question remains, Rent, Buy or Never again… I think that goes  without saying, Buy… I own every other Tarentino movie, so why wouldn’t I  own this one.

(Read Less...)

Christian Kocinski<br />
Filmmaker.Animator.Photographer<br />
www.ChristianKocinski.com<br />
www.IncoherentAstronomy.com<br />
www.SweetmintTheatre.com<br />
www.Cine-Rama.com

Inglourious Basterds

This isn’t your Dad’s war movie! True, unless he was a homicidal maniac spaghetti western junkie!

One Word Review: UNBELIEVABLE

Inglourious Basterds is a “once upon a time” tale of the old west set in World War II. The spaghetti western influence starts with the Ennio Morricone strings and Spanish guitar theme, as we watch old-fashioned credits roll over a dark screen. We finally see a French dairy farm in 1941 where a man chops wood as a Nazi officer ominously drives towards them. Director Tarantino is a dialogue freak with a fine hand for pacing talky scenes of impending death set in normal settings like kitchen tables. This opening is another of these set pieces as the Nazi interrogator drips with exaggerated politeness as he peels away the farmer’s guarded anxiety until he reveals the hiding place of a Jewish family under his floorboards. One young girl escapes and she will resurface four years later, but that occurs in another of five chapters of this movie.

Using chapters is another technique Tarantino used in the Kill Bill series and here he uses it to tell a story spanning the war in France from start to finish. As the ads declare, “this is not your dad’s war movie!”  Inglourious Basterds is not about Allied heroes and their bravery (The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far) or charming rascals exploiting the insanity of war (Kelly’s Heroes, The Dirty Dozen). No, this is based on a B-movie of the same title, made in 1977 and starring Bo Svenson of Walking Tall fame. Our “heroes” in this tale exploit the Nazi love of Über-violence against them, killing Nazis - Brad Pitt uses Nazis instead of Germans to label his victims, scarring the survivors with swastikas on their foreheads so they will wear their evil plainly until they die – with such sadistic success that they become elevated to mythical boogeymen in the minds of zee Germans.

The end result is more a B-movie amusement for video junkies than a fresh take on the conflict in France.  Tarantino’s roots lie in video store B-movies, having famously worked in one before being discovered with his first movie, Reservoir Dogs. Although skilled with the camera and having a great eye for actors, his movies all link back in a complementary yet derivative way to “classic” video movies of the 60’s and 70’s. It is as if he spent his days behind the counter inventorying all the cool scenes in thousands of cassettes and thinking how he’d re-shoot it if he ever had the change. Well, he has the opportunity now and he is mining it for all it’s worth. It is just unfortunate that he doesn’t aim a little higher with his ambitions.

In the end you can’t tell the good guys from the bad and, not to give away the ending, you really don’t care. You have just traveled down another adolescent male fantasy trip down a dusty street to the OK Corral where the Nazi High Command stand draped in swastika flags fluttering blood red in the dry breeze.

The Story

The story is told in chapters starting in 1941 and ending in 1944, telling the stories of Jew Hunter Col. Landa, Basterds leader Lt. Aldo (Apache) Raine and Parisian cinema owner Shosanna Dreyfus. The five chapters provide windows into each character, leading to the climactic chapter five where it all resolves in a bloody firestorm in the cinema.

Chapter one introduces Landa as a brilliant Hunter, detective and interrogator who kills Shosanna’s family but allows her to escape. Chapter two covers the creation and folklore of the Basterds, their scalping brutality and “take no prisoners” business. Chapter three re-introduces Shosanna in 1944 in occupied Paris where she is courted by a German war hero, a sniper who killed 300 Allied soldiers from his bell tower (not that this could have happened in reality).  Chapter four details an Allied plot to blow up the Nazi high command during the war hero’s movie’s premiere in Shosanna’s cinema and the final chapter resolves all and brings Raine and Landa face-to-face for a final OK Corral moment which, in military bureaucratic reality, ends in compromise.

Throughout the movie, the real stars are the tables (tableaux) of conversations where the characters face-off against each other. The tables are the western streets where the gunfighters duel, the camera moving from long to close-up, the pace quickening and the moment of draw, the fingers on triggers and the climactic burst of violence as men drop in twisting, operatic agony. There is the kitchen table, the café table, the cellar bar table and the restaurant table.  Streets of Dodge reduced to one flat rectangle of wood on four legs.

The build-up is excellent and only the final climax of carnage in the cinema deflates the story as the fairy tale ending doesn’t pay off. The confrontation between Landa and Raine belittles their motivations up to that point leaving you wondering how they had come so far and yet so easily give it all up so easily?

The Genre

The B-movie war action genre has been a male-dominated audience segment for years. There have been a surprising string of box office success stories in this genre and one need only look at the local DVD rental counter to see shelves of classic war stories peppered with rising stars in break-out roles. Combining war and westerns multiplies this market further and Inglourious Basterds bridges both genres, one overtly and the other subliminally.

Violence, atrocities, sadism and irony are the weapons of war in these movies. World War II has been a rich source of stories for Hollywood, both epic and perverse. The first successful WWII movie was 1949’s Battleground starring Van Johnson and The Sands of Iwo Jima with John Wayne. Since then, Hollywood has mined the genre from here to eternity and everything in between. Boomers, having been spawned by the post-WWII re-birth of civilization, have been the core audience and have grown up with the myths and magic of The Guns of Navarone, The Dirty Dozen, Kelly’s Heroes, Patton and Saving Private Ryan.  Inglourious Basterds joins this genre with a new twist on the genre, adding the spaghetti and fantasy to the background reality we have been accustomed to viewing.

The Overall Quality

Inglourious Basterds is an actor’s delight, with choice bits of dialogue and rich character back stories to provide them with opportunities to shine. There are tremendous performances by many actors, but above all, Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. He is the movie, the manipulator behind the scenes with the power to decide the fate of anyone, with his hawk-like questions diving through the mannered politeness of the conversation/interrogation. His multilingual performance is precise, yet surprising when he bursts into laughter at the oddest moments.

Second to Waltz is Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna, the survivor. Her eyes reveal the troubled soul of her character, sad and searching. She faces her family’s butcher in Landa, controlling herself until the moment he leaves and then, her face crumbles in relief or something else? A shadow of her future determination?  There is so much to read from that moment. A spark she sends to the audience of her true character.  Simply magic.

The music is typical Tarantino, re-using music from other movies and pop music. We have the spaghetti composer Morricone heavily used, along with David Bowie in the first music with lyrics, saved for near the end when the characters are “putting out fires with gasoline”. Tarantino’s use of close-ups is very western, in the bar fight especially as the characters sit around playing cards (not poker like in westerns but guess my famous person on my forehead).

Tarantino uses character build-ups effectively as in the introduction of the “bear”, the phantom Basterd killer with the club, who comes out of a cave banging the club against the walls, echoing the sound out to his victim on his knees, awaiting certain death. The characters all have nicknames, a device Tarantino  uses in all his movies, from the color-coded gang in Reservoir Dogs (adapted from another movie) to now.

Movie/Market Analysis

MarketBOB’s sentiment indicators, the GQS (Genre, Quality, Story) make Inglourious Basterds a BEAR movie. This decision is not due to inferior quality but the deflating ending which doesn’t satisfy and the lack of any heroic actions from the Basterds who are no better and much worse than the Nazis they are killing. There are moments of humor, tragedy and plot twists that you enjoy in a bystander way, but the “once upon a time” start to this fable of B-movie wars is not meant to be taken seriously. It is a glorious waste of time, but for MarketBOB’s sentiment ratings, a waste of a great opportunity to leave audiences cheering and feeling good about the future. This was not Tarantino’s intent, so don’t blame him if the markets do not respond positively next week.

Last updated: 2010-03-27 19:49:27 by user08

Inglorious Basterds Movie Review

 
Aug 22, 2009 
This isn’t your Dad’s war movie!  True, unless he was a homicidal maniac spaghetti western junkie! 
 One Word Review: UNBELIEVABLE
Inglorious Basterds is a “once upon a time” tale of the old west set in World War II.  The spaghetti western influence starts with the Ennio Morricone strings and Spanish guitar theme, as we watch old-fashioned credits roll over a dark screen.  We finally see a French dairy farm in 1941 where a man chops wood as a Nazi officer ominously drives towards them.  Director Tarantino is a dialogue freak with a fine hand for pacing talky scenes of impending death set in normal settings like kitchen tables.  This opening is another of these set pieces as the Nazi interrogator drips with exaggerated politeness as he peels away the farmer’s guarded anxiety until he reveals the hiding place of a Jewish family under his floorboards.  One young girl escapes and she will resurface four years later, but that occurs in another of five chapters of this movie.
Using chapters is another technique Tarantino used in the Kill Bill series and here he uses it to tell a story spanning the war in France from start to finish.  As the ads declare, “this is not your dad’s war movie!”  Inglorious Basterds is not about Allied heroes and their bravery (The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far) or charming rascals exploiting the insanity of war (Kelly’s Heroes, The Dirty Dozen).  No, this is based on a B-movie of the same title, made in 1977 and starring Bo Svenson of Walking Tall fame.  Our “heroes” in this tale exploit the Nazi love of Über-violence against them, killing Nazis - Brad Pitt uses Nazis instead of Germans to label his victims, scarring the survivors with swastikas on their foreheads so they will wear their evil plainly until they die – with such sadistic success that they become elevated to mythical boogeymen in the minds of zee Germans.
The end result is more a B-movie amusement for video junkies than a fresh take on the conflict in France.  Tarantino’s roots lie in video store B-movies, having famously worked in one before being discovered with his first movie, Reservoir Dogs.  Although skilled with the camera and having a great eye for actors, his movies all link back in a complementary yet derivative way to “classic” video movies of the 60’s and 70’s.  It is as if he spent his days behind the counter inventorying all the cool scenes in thousands of cassettes and thinking how he’d re-shoot it if he ever had the change.  Well, he has the opportunity now and he is mining it for all it’s worth.  It is just unfortunate that he doesn’t aim a little higher with his ambitions.
In the end you can’t tell the good guys from the bad and, not to give away the ending, you really don’t care.  You have just traveled down another adolescent male fantasy trip down a dusty street to the OK Corral where the Nazi High Command stand draped in swastika flags fluttering blood red in the dry breeze.
The Story
The story is told in chapters starting in 1941 and ending in 1944, telling the stories of Jew Hunter Col. Landa, Basterds leader Lt. Aldo (Apache) Raine and Parisian cinema owner Shosanna Dreyfus.  The five chapters provide windows into each character, leading to the climactic chapter five where it all resolves in a bloody firestorm in the cinema. 
Chapter one introduces Landa as a brilliant Hunter, detective and interrogator who kills Shosanna’s family but allows her to escape.  Chapter two covers the creation and folklore of the Basterds, their scalping brutality and “take no prisoners” business.  Chapter three re-introduces Shosanna in 1944 in occupied Paris where she is courted by a German war hero, a sniper who killed 300 Allied soldiers from his bell tower (not that this could have happened in reality).  Chapter four details an Allied plot to blow up the Nazi high command during the war hero’s movie’s premiere in Shosanna’s cinema and the final chapter resolves all and brings Raine and Landa face-to-face for a final OK Corral moment which, in military bureaucratic reality, ends in compromise.
Throughout the movie, the real stars are the tables (tableaux) of conversations where the characters face-off against each other.  The tables are the western streets where the gunfighters duel, the camera moving from long to close-up, the pace quickening and the moment of draw, the fingers on triggers and the climactic burst of violence as men drop in twisting, operatic agony.  There is the kitchen table, the café table, the cellar bar table and the restaurant table.  Streets of Dodge reduced to one flat rectangle of wood on four legs.
The build-up is excellent and only the final climax of carnage in the cinema deflates the story as the fairy tale ending doesn’t pay off.  The confrontation between Landa and Raine belittles their motivations up to that point leaving you wondering how they had come so far and yet so easily give it all up so easily?
The Genre
The B-movie war action genre has been a male-dominated audience segment for years.  There have been a surprising string of box office success stories in this genre and one need only look at the local DVD rental counter to see shelves of classic war stories peppered with rising stars in break-out roles.  Combining war and westerns multiplies this market further and Inglorious Basterds bridges both genres, one overtly and the other subliminally. 
Violence, atrocities, sadism and irony are the weapons of war in these movies.  World War II has been a rich source of stories for Hollywood, both epic and perverse.  The first successful WWII movie was 1949’s Battleground starring Van Johnson and The Sands of Iwo Jima with John Wayne.  Since then, Hollywood has mined the genre from here to eternity and everything in between.  Boomers, having been spawned by the post-WWII re-birth of civilization, have been the core audience and have grown up with the myths and magic of The Guns of Navarone, The Dirty Dozen, Kelly’s Heroes, Patton and Saving Private Ryan. Inglorious Basterds joins this genre with a new twist on the genre, adding the spaghetti and fantasy to the background reality we have been accustomed to viewing.   
The Overall Quality
Inglorious Basterds is an actor’s delight, with choice bits of dialogue and rich character back stories to provide them with opportunities to shine.  There are tremendous performances by many actors, but above all, Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa.  He is the movie, the manipulator behind the scenes with the power to decide the fate of anyone, with his hawk-like questions diving through the mannered politeness of the conversation/interrogation.  His multi-lingual performance is precise, yet surprising when he bursts into laughter at the oddest moments. 
Second to Waltz is Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna, the survivor.  Her eyes reveal the troubled soul of her character, sad and searching.  She faces her family’s butcher in Landa, controlling herself until the moment he leaves and then, her face crumbles in relief or something else?  A shadow of her future determination?  There is so much to read from that moment.   A spark she sends to the audience of her true character.  Simply magic.
The music is typical Tarantino, re-using music from other movies and pop music.  We have the spaghetti composer Morricone heavily used, along with David Bowie in the first music with lyrics, saved for near the end when the characters are “putting out fires with gasoline”.  Tarantino’s use of close-ups is very western, in the bar fight especially as the characters sit around playing cards (not poker like in westerns but guess my famous person on my forehead). 
Tarantino uses character build-ups effectively as in the introduction of the “bear”, the phantom Basterd killer with the club, who comes out of a cave banging the club against the walls, echoing the sound out to his victim on his knees, awaiting certain death.  The characters all have nicknames, a device Tarantino uses in all his movies, from the color-coded gang in Reservoir Dogs (adapted from another movie) to now. 
Movie/Market Analysis
MarketBOB’s sentiment indicators, the GQS (Genre, Quality, Story) make Inglorious Basterds a BEAR movie.  This decision is not due to inferior quality but the deflating ending which doesn’t satisfy and the lack of any heroic actions from the Basterds who are no better and much worse than the Nazis they are killing.  There are moments of humor, tragedy and plot twists that you enjoy in a bystander way, but the “once upon a time” start to this fable of B-movie wars is not meant to be taken seriously.  It is a glorious waste of time, but for MarketBOB’s sentiment ratings, a waste of a great opportunity to leave audiences cheering and feeling good about the future.  This was not Tarantino’s intent, so don’t blame him if the markets do not respond positively next week.
As Raine tells the beautiful German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark, “Get your little ass up that rouge carpet!  Investors, do the same. 
For the latest reviews and analysis of movies and their impact on market psychology, go to www.marketbob.com

 

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-03-26 00:22:19 by marketbob

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

***½

A deeply troubling film in the sense that it lives and dies by its maker’s now resolutely uncontrollable, increasingly repugnant yet still-not-quite-unfounded hubris. If Tarantino was susceptible to some sort of control mechanism based on eloquence, maturity or meaning, you wouldn’t have to sit through several interminable monologues, pretensions to resonant drama or Eli Roth’s self-regard given a mallet to wield and scenery to chew. But then it’s entirely possible you would also miss out on several setpieces of frenzied, exhilarating flair. The film is more often enjoyable than not, and yet, by praising it, you feel you’re encouraging an unimaginable fiasco.

Inglourious Basterds

Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent
Comedy, 2009 (Rated R)

A group of men led by Lt Aldo Raine (Pitt) that refer to themselves as the Basterd's make it their mission to hunt Nazi's and teach them a lesson that they will not soon forget. They find out they have an opportunity to destroy top SS guards including Adolf Hitler himself and so they join forces with a German actress in an attempt to carry out this plan. Meanwhile a young woman named who narrowly escaped being murdered by Nazi's suddenly finds herself befriended by a high ranking SS officer who just so happens to be the star of a Nazi propaganda film. She too sees an opportunity to carry out a plan to destroy those who tried to destroy her but things don't go exactly according to plan. For anyone.

• This one wasn't really on my list of movies I wanted to see even though I do like Brad Pitt but it just so turns out I really liked it.
• It had a lot of classic Quentin Tarantino touches like the dated movie soundtrack, the separation of movies into different chapters, and the way those characters in those chapters end up crossing paths in unique ways. Oh, and of course it was pretty long.
• Brad Pitt was really funny in this. The movie was an interesting cross between comedy and drama due to the heavy subject matter.

4 Stars

(Read Less...)

Just Me

Inglourious Basterds: Movie Review

Quentin Tarantino is one talented director no doubt. He is bold and brave when it comes to his films. Although some say his films only depict violence and nothing more, we beg to differ. Tarantino creates films that are unconventional and out-of-the-box, but something that the mainstream crowd could always digest. He is not afraid to test the waters and time and time again he has proven to be successful. "Grindhouse: Death Proof" for example tackles the grindhouse films of the Seventies. Now, Tarantino is making another film that is unconventional to say the least. It is a spaghetti western set in World War II - the film is "Inglourious Basterds". Read on to see if Tarantino has proven his Midas' touch once again with this film.

The movie starts off once upon a time in war torn France. A French farmer is confronted by a Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz), a Nazi SS Colonel. Hans proves to be too much for the French farmer and he succumbs and tells Landa about the Jews hiding beneath his house. Hans would kill all them all, but one manages to escape. Meanwhile, Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) has just recruited 8 Jewish-Americans. Their task is to bring terror to the Nazis in France. He calls his outfit the "The Basterds". Four years later, we discover that the Jewish girl that survived now owns a cinema. As fate would have it, the screening of a film has been moved to her theater and high-ranking Nazi officials will be attending - including Hitler. She nows seeks revenge by planning to burn down the Nazis. The Basterds are also planning to bomb the theater, not knowing about the Jewish girl's plan. Can both parties succeed in killing these Nazis and eventually ending the war?

"Inglourious Basterds" does not disappoint - this is one of the best films we have seen this year. What we really find so good about this movie is the very unique narrative style. It used a storybook effect using chapters to jump from one big scene to another - it was like watching a play on the big screen. This style made the film engaging, exciting and fresh. The movie was almost three hours long but it never felt that way - we actually wanted more. The acting was superb as well. Christopher Waltz who played Hans Landa is the best of the bunch, maybe even overshadowing Brad Pitt's acting. The only caveat we see is the gore - some sensitive people might not like it. To sum it all up, this brainless fun is a definite thrill ride from start to end credits. We definitely feel "Inglourious Basterds" deserves a perfect score.

Note: Unfortunately, you can only watch "Inglourious Basterds" exclusively at Robinson's Cinemas for the local release. so catch it if you can!

Rating: 5 reels

Why you should watch it:
- brainless fun from start to finish
- has a unique storybook type structure that keeps the movie really interesting and exciting
- superb acting from Christopher Waltz

Why you shouldn't watch it:
- some people might not like the gore and mindless action

Recommendations:

Last updated: 2010-03-11 20:06:48 by user06

Inglourious Basterds

A group of men led by Lt Aldo Raine (Pitt) that refer to themselves as the Basterd's make it their mission to hunt Nazi's and teach them a lesson that they will not soon forget. They find out they have an opportunity to destroy top SS guards including Adolf Hitler himself and so they join forces with a German actress in an attempt to carry out this plan. Meanwhile a young woman named who narrowly escaped being murdered by Nazi's suddenly finds herself befriended by a high ranking SS officer who just so happens to be the star of a Nazi propaganda film. She too sees an opportunity to carry out a plan to destroy those who tried to destroy her but things don't go exactly according to plan. For anyone.

This one wasn't really on my list of movies I wanted to see even though I do like Brad Pitt but it just so turns out I really liked it. It had a lot of classic Quentin Tarantino touches like the dated movie soundtrack, the separation of movies into different chapters, and the way those characters in those chapters end up crossing paths in unique ways. Oh, and of course it was pretty long.  Brad Pitt was really funny in this. The movie was an interesting cross between comedy and drama due to the heavy subject matter.

(Read Less...)

Just Me

Inglourious Basterds

I give the movie: 5.0/5

The reason why you should be attracted to watch this movie should not be Brad Pitt - it should be its writer/director, Quentin Tarantino.

Trust the outrageous film veteran - he truly knows his stuff: how to thrill, engage and move the audiences to laugh, cry and maybe even scream. If those qualities are not what you're looking for in a filmmaker, I don't know what will satisfy you.

Basterds is indeed an utterly-satisfying movie experience. Kicking off the movie is a nail-biting sequence involving a Nazi officer (the brilliant Christoph Waltz) interrogating a French-man in his countryside home, attempting to dig-out the whereabouts of a missing Jewish family. The scene starts off slow, then tightens the clockwork of events to the point of suffocation, then ending with a shocking tragedy, but not without the escape of a young Jewish girl, who proves tentamount to the advancement of the plot.

The next chapter of the movie tells the story of a team of American soldiers led by hillbilly officer Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) - the Basterds, they call them - as they're are infamous for their missions to scalp Nazis. This plotline, along with an undercover German actress (Diane Kruger) working for the British, come together as three gripping stories intertwining to showcase Tarantino's extravagant reimagining of Hitler's assasination.

The result is amusing, suspenseful, and filled with the wacky director's trademark violence and humour. People might complain about the long running-time (153 minutes), but for those who appreciate a good movie, every single pivotal scene in the film is a delight for the senses.

While Pitt is a hoot to watch, and Kruger flexes her acting muscle to include substance in a side-character, it is Christoph Waltz's portrayal as the notorious "Jew Hunter" that steals the scenes from the two familiar faces. His command of French, German, English and even Italian (extremely apparent in one classic scene of hilarity) is impressive, so is his switch between cool-menace and cold-blooded insanity. Waltz, as you might note, clinched the Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival for this role.

FINAL SAY: 

Outrageous, tense, funny and heartbreaking -Inglourious Basterds is a masterpiece, coming off as both startingly original, as well as a homage to old-style German war movies.

Wilson Ng - http://wilsoniscurious.blogspot.com/

Last updated: 2010-03-14 04:29:33 by wilsoniscurious

Ingluorious Basterds!

Speaking of amazing performances, Tarantino's Inglourious Basterdsis without a doubt the best movie of the year. One of the most tension-filled films I have seen in quite some time and Nazi's have never been so frightening and their aesthetic never so beautifully captured on screen. And the performances, oh the performances! Christoph Waltz brought one of the most oddly charming and polite, yet very intimidating villains to life with his character of Hans Landa. To be fair, almost the entire cast, outside of that dick face Mike Myers, is excellent and too many to name. Each set piece is gorgeously filmed with some of the nicest use of color to portray the character segments and the ending is one of the most satisfying endings to a film ever. I don't even know what else to say about this one, except it is by far my favorite of the year and one of Tarantino's finest achievements.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: High Plains Drifter , Dalkomhan insaeng , Dial M for Murder

Last updated: 2010-03-17 21:29:43 by Mattsuzaka

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds
Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger, Daniel Bruhl
Director: Quinton Tarantino
Genre: War, Action, Drama
Rated: R

In Nazi occupied France a group of Jewish American soldiers brutalize and scalp Nazis to strike fear in the Third Reich.

Inglourious Basterds is the latest film from Writer/Director Quinton Tarantino. This is a Tarantino fantasy so if you are looking for a factual account of World War II it’s best to look elsewhere; If you are open to his spin on what would happen if a group of Jewish soldiers banded together to assault the Nazis, then this is your film.

In typical Tarantino fashion this is not a straight forward film it is broken up into chapters with each chapter focusing on a different group of people with all of them leading to the final chapter where all parties intersect.

There is an extensive use of subtitles as a lot of the dialog is in both French and German, even in the subtitles the beauty of Tarantino’s dialog comes shining through.

The real standout of the film is Christoph Walz as Colonel Hands Landa the “Jew Hunter” Walz draws the audience in from the opening scene and does not let go the entire film, If Walz is not nominated for an academy award he will have been robbed.

Brad Pitt delivers a hilarious performance as Aldo Raine the head of the Basterds who demands 100 Nazi scalps from each of his men due to his Apache roots. Aldo’s Accent is particularly amusing when he is speaking Italian.

I was quite surprised by the amount of Violence in the film, I actually thought there would be more. Overall the Basterds is one of the best films of the year with fantastic performances excellent dialog and story and an unconventional style that could only be from QT; who else stages a shootout in a claustrophobic basement?? Although not based in fact as the tag line says it all “Once upon a time in Nazi occupied France” This is the World War II fairy tale I have been waiting my entire life for.

‘Inglourious Basterds’ a Breath of Fresh Air, Exciting and Hilarious

Whenever the words "World War II" are uttered when a movie is involved I generally groan. (Clint Eastwood is the exception to these opinions.) Frankly, I just don't care for war movies anymore.Valkyrie, Defiance, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. I'm sick of it; I don't care what Hitler looked like in the eyes of some godforsaken first-time director. And with an adaptation of The Book Thief coming in 2010 I'm just about ready to lose it. So here comes Inglourious Basterds, yet another war movie. It stars Brad Pitt; it should bring in an audience. That audience will not, however, include me. Until I saw the guy behind what seems like the millionth Nazi-era movie made: Quentin Tarantino. The directing god Tarantino? He's doing a war movie? This should be worth seeing.

The trailer doesn't show a lot. Hitler is banging on a desk with his fist yelling "Nein, nein, nein!" and Pitt is talking in a southern accent. So while the trailer isn't the best, I loved that it was about a group of Nazi killers. Not some flamboyant concentration camp escapees, resistance or prisoners. (God knows that's been done to death.) Tarantino was going to put a comic spin to this; nice!As I started to look forward to Basterds, I began to wonder whether this would be an action movie like Tarantino was known for or more of a comedy. I wanted it to be a comedy since that would be kind of fun. Although Tarantino has the knack of being unpredictable when it comes to his movies, Kill Bill being a perfect example. Bill pretty much came out of nowhere, with a crazy story of a woman who wakes up from a coma and wants to kill her husband for putting her in one.Jackie Brown and who could forget the insane Pulp Fiction? His movies are always so full of sex and violence that I was surprised the MPAA approved them to only be rated R. But that's why I love him.

Inglourious Basterds follows a team of Nazi killers called the "Basterds". ("that's Quentin Tarantino spelling", he said on David Letterman recently.) "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France," The Basterds have been chosen to wreak havoc on Nazis residing in the Third Reich. A French-Jewish teenage girl who owns a movie theater discovers that, without her approval, the Nazis are going to have a movie premiere at her cinema since the star has a crush on her. Word is that Hitler will even be in attendance. So being a Jew, she devises a plan to lock the doors when everyone is inside and burn down the movie theater. However the Basterds soon discover of this get-together as well. They come up with their own plan, hiring a French actress to help them fool the Nazis.

Quentin Tarantino as you may already know, (but if you don't, this will section will be a major spoiler alert, so I'd skip to the next paragraph) changed the outcome of World War II. In traditional war movies that tell of Adolf Hitler's reign, Hitler lives in the end, since the famed "Valkyrie" plan failed. Most movies that try to be historically accurate end up trying to be entertaining and true at the same time, yet both still fail. (Public Enemies is a great example.) While I do appreciate historical accuracy and truth in films, when I go to the movies I expect to be entertained; I don't pay my $10 to take a nap in the broken seats. Tarantino goes all out in Basterds and basically just says "Fuck it! I know my audience; I've known my audience since Reservoir Dogs. And my audience likes to bethrilled when they see my movies!" Inglorious indeed, Basterds is a perfect summer treat.

I never really enjoyed Brad Pitt in his recent movies. Ocean's Thirteen, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Mr. and Mrs. Smith were all epic disappointments. I found myself asking where his Twelve Monkeys and Fight Club days were. He's an A-list star who somewhere along the line sold out. InInglourious, I forgot about all of that. This is the Pitt that America fell in love with; who'd a thunk in a movie title with both words misspelled? I can't decide whether it's his spoof-of-an accent or his amazing acting that bowled me over, but nonetheless he's extraordinary. Another phenomenal actor in Inglourious Basterds is Christoph Waltz. Waltz plays Hans Landa, a Nazi colonel. Early buzz on Basterds from when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May was mostly glowing reviews of how hilarious that Waltz was. They're right, you know. Waltz is a major part of the movie, and he plays off of Tarantino's script like a pro, even though he's been only in mostly German films before Basterds. Diane Kruger is also a winner in QT's latest creation. I wasn't expecting much of her (I was mostly expecting from Pitt); however she delivered more than I could've ever wanted! Without Kruger, Basterds wouldn't be one of the best movies we've had so far this year. I'm not familiar with Kruger's work (besides the fact that her last name sounds curiously like a certain movie monster), though for Inglouriousshe holds up the minimal female cast of Basterds perfectly. I wouldn't be surprised if any of these three gifted actors and actresses' names were called come Oscar season.

The only problem that I had with Inglourious Basterds was B.J Novak. If you're like me and love NBC's The Office, then you'll notice his tremendous work producing, starring and sometimes even writing for the groundbreaking comedy. When I heard that he would be an addition to the Basterds cast, I was thrilled. I had been expecting that, like John Krasinski and Jenna Fischer, fellow Officealums, he would have either a lead role or a major supporting one. He had neither! More of a cameo, really. Novak has maybe ten lines in all throughout the entire two hour thirty-two minute movie. I would have loved to see his talent on the big screen in a real role, and I don't believe that he won't have another chance. Still, the lines that he did spit out were hilarious. The icing on the cake of Basterds.

From the cameo by Mike Myers to every sentence that Brad Pitt utters,Inglourious Basterds simply pops. Unlike other Tarantino movies, there isn't a lot of sex. One imaginative one for a few seconds (no visible nudity, however), but overall not a lot. Those of you who bag on Tarantino for this and don't see his genius movies solely because of that factor, check out Basterds for probably the only one he doesn't include any in. As for the violence? There's plenty of that. Add comedy and action together and you get the brilliant and gut-bustingInglourious Basterds. A breath of fresh air in the dreadful August month of movies. (Shorts and Post Grad think that they can compete with this? Please!) Quentin Tarantino's latest is a joy ride in World War II through a very dark and twisted man's eyes. Again, that's why I love him.

4 ½ out of five stars.

(Read Less...)

-Nick

inglorious basterds

it’s pretty damn long.  has some really great scenes.  i mean really, really great, classic tarantino scenes.  i just think maybe tarantino is too much in love with his own work to edit any of it.  come on man, this film could have been absolutly the best thing in theaters this year if you would have trimmed it to just 2 hours.

i mean, go see it anyway.  nothing else worth a crap comes out this weekend.  and you’ll love brad pitt with a southern accent killing the shit out of some nazis.

what this film really misses though is a strong leading lady.  i suppose uma thurman just can’t speak german or french.  half of this film is in german or french and you have to read subtitles.  which is a drawback because i’m thinking i probably missed some cool stuff going on in the background trying to keep up with the dialog.

and this film has some great dialog.  which we have come to expect from mr. tarantino.  and he delivers.  in french and german…

the main bad guy is awesome, brad pitt is awesome.  but no uma thurman.  no female lead has really any kind of charisma.  and that’s a little disappointing.

but they do kill the shit out of some nazis.

three scalped nazis out of five.  i’ll pick this thing up when i find it in the 3 for 20 rack at blockbuster.

Cal Reed

Inglorious Basterds

(Read Less...)

Inglourious Basterds

I’m going to the glorious punchline first, I think Inglorious Basterds is the best movie of the year. Finally, a movie that surprisingly delivers on all fronts and then some. I am an average Quinton Tarentino fan. I love some of his films like Kill Bill and others I can do without. However, I have always considered him a brilliant filmmaker and storyteller which is confidently proven in Inglorious.

From the very beginning, Inglorious captivates you into the life and death tension of the story. The movie plays out in chapters like a book, building upon each other until the crescendo of the film. Each note is carefully placed and each stanza is meticulously crafted. I describe it as a musical piece because I think this is arguably Tarentino’s masterpiece. Certainly his best since Reservoir Dogs. My personal favorite of his is Kill Bill, but I can still recognize the brilliance of this film. It’s bold, full of flavor, and rich with memorable moments. I wont go into detail since my esteemed Babbleonians have already covered some of the scenes in their reviews. I will touch on a couple of points that really make this film stand victorious over a war torn battlefield of summer movies.



The opening sequence is a simple conversation between Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and a common dairy farmer. Yes, there is cunning dialogue and tense moments, but what struck me was that the scene lasted for 25 minutes! Just talking! As a director, you have to have serious confidence in a conversation to carry a single scene for half and hour. It’s so unconventional, it’s so unpredictable, it’s so…Tarentino. He repeats this same pacing throughout the movie. He makes the viewer marinate in the tension, almost to the point when you can’t stand it. Then, when you think it’s over, the conversation cranks up another notch. Sometimes the scenes would end well for the protagonist or sometimes in tragedy, there is no way to know. However, each scene rewards the viewer’s investment regardless of the outcome. Christoph Waltz as the main antagonist, steals he show. Brad Pitt puts out a great performance. There is even an odd but likable cameo by Mike Meyers. The whole cast did phenomenal.



Tarentino also brilliantly worked in the unexpected. The story took several twists and turns, reinforcing the fact that there are no ‘rules’ when in comes to film-making. Tarentino plays off of our knowledge of world war II history to play against us. He takes liberties and rewrites a little history which creates a little guilty pleasure experience for an Allied viewer. There is nothing formulaic about how the story unfolds. There is a mish-mash of characters that that barely overlap but who’s destiny is intricately interwoven. In a summer of very conventional movies, this unconventional approach to telling stories was bold, remarkable, and worth remembering.

Was this the perfect film, no. Was it my favorite film, no. Star Trek is still my favorite film for 2009. It was however, the best film of the year and I don’t see any other movie turning the tides of the battle anytime soon. 

This is a VERY graphic film. Don’t let the trailers fool you. While very light hearted at times, some scenes will make your stomach turn.

Go see it while it’s in theaters!

Last updated: 2010-02-27 10:58:07 by tonybkim

Inglourious Basterds

"Inglourious Basterds" is written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, the great film maker behind 1994's "Pulp Fiction." "Inglourious Basterds" is no "Pulp Fiction," but few films are. Brad Pitt leads the cast of "Inglourious Basterds." Also starring in the movie are: Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger, and Melanie Laurent. Mike Meyers also has a brief scene and Samuel L. Jackson provides brief narration.

First of all, this movie is not historically accurate in any way, shape, or form. Only a couple things are actually true...like there was indeed a Second World War. Beyond that, things get a bit sketchy. Like most Tarantino movies, "Inglourious Basterds" includes several separate stories that come together to form a common plot. The movie is split up into 5 chapters. Each chapter is introduced before it begins. The chapters include Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) coming to a French man's house in search of Jews, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) talking to his group of Nazi-scalping Jews, and a plan to kill hundreds of Nazis in a theater during a propaganda film showing at a theater. This all leads to lot of bloody violence, including several Nazi scalpings and plenty of gunfire, both of which also result in blood. But this is a Quentin Tarantino movie so it's to be expected.

The movie is well-cast and well-acted throughout. All of the actors seem to have a handle on their characters. Brad Pitt is great as the lead and gets to show off his Southern accent and Italian accent throughout the movie, which is actually really funny. Christoph Waltz also gives another great performance as "Jew Hunter," Hans Landa. His inhumanity and determination to find and get rid of Jews is believable. Other good performances include Melanie Laurent, as the owner of the movie theater that she plans on burning down, after Samuel L. Jackson helpfully explains how well nitrate film burns. I personally would have liked more narration by Samuel L. Jackson. He just has a really good voice for that sort of thing.

Cinematography is a definite strong point in the film. Quentin Tarantino does this very well in his films. There are several low-angle shots that give good perspectives of different characters. Also there are a lot of close-ups of peoples' faces so we we can better get a feel for the emotion they have at a given time. He also uses slow motion effectively and the intense gunfire in various scenes is also well-shot. The camera moves fluidly throughout the scenes, sometimes going from a long shot of a wide area to a very close shot. However, circling rapidly around people talking is never a good idea. It was dizzying when Ron Howard did it in "Angels and Demons" and its just as dizzying when Tarantino does it.

The movie takes place during World War II, however it definitely does not feel like a typical war movie, which is what Tarantino was trying for. Throughout the film there are several freeze frames and then brief text on the screen describing who a character is. There are also random arrows pointing out who people are in a couple scenes. This may be annoying to some people, but I was pretty amused by it and thought it is a pretty funny aspect of the movie, that doesn't involve Brad Pitt's accent experimenting. Also the music in the film definitely does not feel like it should be in a movie that takes place during the 1940s. It sounds extremely modern, but once again a reminder that this is far from a serious war movie. So they the movie has an overall slightly cheesy feel to it, in addition to some pretty disgusting Nazi scalpings and carving Swastikas in peoples' foreheads with knives.

The movie was 2-and-a-half hours long. Yes, that is very long for a movie and each chapter probably could have been edited slightly (then we would have had room for Cloris Leachman's unfortunately cut scene, which I assume would have been wonderful to see and made the movie better). Editing also would have helped the pacing a little and eliminated some of the scenes that dragged out slightly, like one bar scene. But Quentin Tarantino can fill 2.5 hours way better than Michael Bay can. (Michael Bay made a little movie called "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." He was trying to make a movie I guess, but the end result was not really a movie, just a pile of something really painful and unpleasant.)

Quentin Tarantino writing and directing "Inglourious Basterds" made it so the result is basically what he envisioned years ago. I think movies are always better when the same person does both jobs. It just feels more unified.

So if you hate Quentin Tarantino, then feel free to never watch this movie. The same goes for those who hate Brad Pitt, who was good in this, just not "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"-good. If Nazi-scalping or blood makes you sickly, then this movie would not be a fun experience for you. Overall, not a bad movie, not an amazing movie to watch again and again (like "Pulp Fiction," which is amazing and everyone who has not seen it should rent it), but not bad. Brad Pitt and the rest of the cast, some good dialogue, some of it darkly funny, great camera work, strange music and random cheesy things, and some good ol' Nazi-scalping makes this a good movie to see at least once. I don't think it would be a complete waste of time. We just need to accept the fact that the greatest movie Quentin Tarantino ever made occurred 15 years ago and featured amazing performances by John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. 3 out of 4 stars...much better than most of the movies that came out this summer.

(Read Less...)

Inglorius Basterds: Noxious Fumes

The power of cinema to kill: to change the world, to capture truth at 24/fps and develop a new reality, a nitrous allegory concerning propaganda and revisionist history. Unfortunately, Director Quentin Tarantino buries his grand idea amid the violent squalor of hack acting and boring exposition, delivering a superficial catharsis where the once powerless Jewish victims punish Nazis, represented by the commando squad of Inglorious Basterds, who fill their abattoir with the bodies and scalps of German animals. This is frustratingly Tarantino’s worst film because there is a good story here, one that could have the sustained tempo of Truffaut’s THE LAST METRO instead of a juvenile homage to B-movie action flicks.

The opening sequence as Colonel Landa cross-examines a farmer, knowing that the farmer is hiding a Jewish family under the floorboards, is absolutely stunning. Actor Christopher Waltz brilliantly portrays Landa, and it’s mostly his performance that keeps this dull film from being a total bore. The Colonel toys with the farmer, drinking milk, his subtle expression betraying the secret confidence that lingers between them: it’s not the words that matter it’s the eyes. But even here, Tarantino implodes the suspense with a harsh soundtrack instead of letting the machine gun’s staccato accusation pass judgment. And here is the crux of the real story, as one young girl escapes…to exact her revenge upon the Colonel and the entire Third Reich. Why did Landa let the girl escape? This question should have been Tarantino’s architecture of revenge and redemption…but it is a question never explored within the ‘Jew Hunter’s” psyche.

The film should have followed Shosanna and her conflict with the Colonel, using her Cinema as the means to destroy the Reich: there is no need for the Basterds, and their exploits do little to drive the narrative: their purpose seems to add comic relief and bloodletting. Tarantino’s usually taught dialogue is mostly purposeless and inert, creating few laughs as Brad Pitt and Eli Roth chew up the scenery and spit out languid profanity. The exception is a café sequence where Landa sits across from Shosanna years later…and orders her a glass of milk. Is this an insight into his lust for the hunt, an answer to why he let her escape? We never know, because the story isn’t concerned with her plight, only the adventures of imbeciles.

Tarantino fills scenarios with Pabst and Riefenstahl references, an Emil Jannings walk-on, and was that a Dietrich poster in the background? Our Jewish heroine burns down the house with a cinematic fury while her ghostly visage condemns these tyrants: she speaks for the millions of dead because she is one of them, and here is the heart, the cathartic thrill of the story. But it’s washed away by Tarantino’s vainglorious misbegotten skin-carving climax. Final Grade: (D)

Recommendations: The Birds, Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960), Funny Games

All reviews copyright Korova, Ltd. Visit Alex at his Home Theatre Blog, http://korovatheatrepresents.blogspot.com/

Inglourious Basterds

“Inglourious Basterds” is far from the movie the trailers want you to think it is. The trailers want you to think that it’s a non-stop-bullets flying-blood spraying-earth shattering-Nazi killing machine of a movie. But it’s not. It’s so much more than that. Quentin Tarantino wrote and directed the film and his signature style is etched all over it. The dialogue is intelligent and witty. The few “action” scenes it has are wonderfully stylized and tastefully done. And the music is quirky and influenced by the spaghetti western genre (even Beethoven’s “Fur Elise” gets a western makeover). Think “Kill Bill” meets “Saving Private Ryan” meets “Unforgiven”. The movie opens in the countryside of France on a small dairy farm. A German officer named Hans Landa (nicknamed the “Jew Hunter”) is there to fish out a Jewish family that he believes are hiding in the small farmhouse. The conversation that ensues with Landa (played by Christoph Waltz) and the owner of the home, Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet), is one of the most brilliant pieces of screenwriting I have ever seen. Landa is seen as a charming but cunning and ruthless man that knows he is good at what he does and takes pride in it (He likes the nickname bestowed upon him by the French). He fluently transitions from French to English to German and eventually flushes out the Jews hidden in the home and has them killed by his soldiers, but one of the daughters manages to escape. The daughter is Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent).
Shoshanna is played magnificently by Melanie Laurent, a French actress unknown to me but soon to be known by the world after this performance. I’ll attempt to summarize her role in the movie without giving too much away. After she escapes, she manages to take ownership of a movie theater in Paris where she is forced by the German propaganda machine to play only German films. She is accompanied by a black man named Marcel (Jacky Ido) who works as her projectionist but whom she refers to as “love.” By no fault or attempt of her own, a Nazi war hero named Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) becomes infatuated with her and eventually convinces Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) to have the premier of his newest movie, “Nation’s Pride,”  moved to Drefyus’s theater. The prospect of having so many Nazis in her theater infuriates her, but it catches the attention of a group of Jewish-American soldiers named “The Basterds.”
The Basterds have been sent to Nazi-occupied France to seek out and destroy any and all Nazis that cross their path and execute them mercilessly. The Basterds are led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), a mountain man from Tennessee now hunting and skinning Nazis instead of deer or turkey. They are an eclectic and terrifying group comprised of men like Sgt. Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz (Eli Roth) who bludgeons Nazis to death with a baseball bat and Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger), a former German soldier that found it more exciting to kill Nazis rather than the Allies. While there are a few violent scenes involving this band of brothers, so to speak, the story doesn’t dwell on the killing or scalping of Nazis like the trailer advertises. So if you’re planning on seeing the movie for that reason, you will be sorely disappointed. But I think it’s a strength of the film.
Later in the movie, we see bits and pieces of “Nation’s Pride” being shown at the premier. It chronicles Zoller’s 3 day battle with Allied forces alone while hidden in a bird’s nest (what sniper’s call a bell tower). In those 3 days, Zoller succesfully and single-handedly kills 250 men and the 50 remaining don’t stick around to discover their fate. The movie consists of Zoller firing his gun while an Allied soldier goes down. Over and over and over we see men dropping to the ground amidst gunfire and Zoller standing proudly from his bell tower, doing everything but pounding his chest and roaring. The trailer seems to advertise “Inglourious Basterds” as if audiences want to see this sort of movie. That movie would have been incredibly boring and one-dimensional. What we are left with is an exciting, intense, intelligent film that focuses more on character and dialogue than it does on its body count.
Much has been said of the movie and whether or not there is any meaning behind the title and the story or if it’s simply intended as an exercise in daring filmmaking. I think an argument can be made for both. The Basterds are seen as ruthless men that do not care about the Nazis they are killing or the fact that they are humans (Pitt says at one point that the Nazis “have no humanity”). We can’t help but sympathize with the Basterds, though, because our opinions of the Nazis and Hitler are so strong that we truly believe they deserve what they get. And maybe they do, but the Nazis are seen in the same way – as ruthless men killing Jews besides the fact that they are humans, too. It’s this ambivalence and internal struggle, I think, that have led some to read more into it than may be intended. It’s quite possible that Tarantino meant the movie only to be a sort of revenge on the Nazis and Hitler and had a group of Jews and a Jewish woman carry out that revenge – nothing more, nothing less. I have my opinion but a review isn’t the place for it. (But feel free to share yours if you have one.)
No matter what Tarantino intended the movie to be, it is nothing short of excellence. Most of the scenes consist of nothing more happening than a conversation but the virtuoso of the conversations was often more exciting and interesting than any bloodbath would have been. All of the conversations and story plots lead to the most dramatic and operatic endings ever put on celluloid. And the acting was collectively the best I have seen in a movie in a very long time. Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa is delightfully evil (he will make you laugh and cringe in almost every scene), and Melanie Laurent is brilliant as Shoshanna. Both deserve Oscar nominations, but Laurent deserves a win. Her greatest scene is shared with Waltz in a dinner scene that will have you squirming with her and crying with her when it’s ended. Pitt does a fairly good job as Raine. There were times I didn’t like his accent (it felt gimmicky) but there were other moments where I laughed out loud because of it (“the red car-pette,” “Bon Jor-No,” and “sanich,” to name a few). But Laurent’s performance hit me in the chest like Sgt. Donny Donowitz’s baseball bat.
The converging stories of the Basterds and Shoshanna is one full of surprises and suspense. I don’t want to give anything away so I’ll stop my synopsis of the plot here. There is so much more to the story but I’m afraid if I attempt to talk about it further, I’ll ruin the fun of the film. Just be comforted by the fact that Tarantino doesn’t compromise and has balls big enough to take a page from the history books and rip it to shreds and rewrite it himself.
 
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 153 minutes
Starring: Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo Raine); Melanie Laurent (Shoshanna Dreyfus); Christoph Waltz (Col. Hans Landa); Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny Donowitz); Daniel Bruhl (Fredrick Zoller); Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark); Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox); Sylvester Groth (Joseph Goebbels); Martin Wuttke (Adolf Hitler); Jacky Ido (Marcel); Denis Menochet (Perrier LaPadite); Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz)
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino; written by Tarantino; produced by Lawrence Bender. A Weinstein Co. release.

(Read Less...)

Inglourious Basterds

Artistic achievement is so elusive.

Once anything works, everyone else rushes to copy it until the original masterpiece, done to death, starts to look like hackwork.

The "Die Hard" saga ran like this. So successful was Bruce Willis' first foray against terrorists in an L.A. high-rise, every action writer spent the next twenty years pitching stories that were like "Die Hard" but on a boat, or a blimp, or an exploding volcano. According to Hollywood legend, the process came full circle when an executive was pitched the idea for a movie that was like "Die Hard," but in a building.

Sometimes, though, an artist comes along with a voice so fresh and an approach so unconventional, there is no good way to copy them. Tarantino was like that when he hit the scene in 1994 with "Pulp Fiction." The clones that did appear were limp and few.

The best Tarantino imitator turned out to be Tarantino himself. Over the past fifteen years, Tarantino has written and made the stylish, fast-talking, nostalgic-for-the-seventies "Jackie Brown," "Kill Bill," "Grindhouse" and now, a World War Two picture, "Inglourious Basterds."

"Basterds" follows, hoo boy, a whole bunch of characters. It follows the charmingly evil nazi investigator Hans Landa. It follows incognito young Jewish woman Shoshanna Dreyfus. It follows Brad Pitt's Tennessean army lieutenant and his gang of behind-the-lines guerillas (only a couple of whom are fleshed out, and those to no purpose, as their lives are dispatched more or less randomly.) It follows a German war hero. It follows a German movie actress. It follows a British commando slash film afficionado. It follows Hitler. It follows Goebbels. If you yourself were not followed in this movie, you are an unusual case.

This is not atypical for Tarantino. "Pulp Fiction" had a million plot threads too. Its brilliant predecessor "Reservoir Dogs" also went wherever it damn well pleased. But it seems an inviolable rule that every reiteration of a masterpiece dilutes the original magic. I feel this is the case with "Inglourious Basterds." It looks like "Pulp Fiction," it acts like "Pulp Fiction," but it is not "Pulp Fiction."

Who can say why movie magic is hard to recapture? I can't. I just know it is.

One structural flaw of "Basterds" is that the two plot threads that endure to the climax never really come together. Brad Pitt's plan to blow up Hitler in a cinema and Shoshanna Dreyfus' plan to blow Hitler up in the same cinema are redundant, and neither saboteur is ever aware of the other. Another flaw is nazi investigator Hans Landa's abrupt motivation-change near the end of the movie. (spoiler alert) Landa, a merciless predator, suddenly decides to help Pitt's crew kill Hitler in exchange for immunity from prosecution at the war's conclusion. This makes a certain sense historically, but as a movie motivation it doesn't work at all since this is the first hint we've had that Landa is looking beyond the war. It plays out like plot convenience, and at the worst possible time -- the climax!

These may be reasons the movie didn't work for me, but ultimately they don't explain much since the same accusations can be levelled at "Fiction," my favorite movie from the nineties.

The heart of the problem, I think, is that Tarantino has done this kind of thing before, and much better, and no matter how many times I'm told I should judge a movie impartially, without reference to a filmmaker's past work, in practice this is impossible to do.

Every great artist faces the choice of becoming the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. The Beatles changed constantly, always groping for the fresh and new. As a result, their artistic achievements exceeded anyone else's in their field. They also imploded within a decade. How could they not?

The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, stopped being artists around their own ten-year mark and started being performers. They recycled themselves and spent the next thirty-some years on cruise control, content to have a sound and a style that never changed.

Fifteen years after "Pulp Fiction" and seventeen years after "Reservoir Dogs," it's clear which path Tarantino has chosen. He's going to have a long, dependable career. He's going to be consistently popular. He's going to be a Rolling Stone. And that's fine. Truly.

I just wanted him to be a Beatle.

SCORE:

How Accomplished: 63/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 38/100


(And just for nostalgia purposes...)

PULP FICTION

How Accomplished: 99/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 104/100

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS = the strangest, funniest, and most satisfying WW2 epic ever made. Glorious.

Who the fuck does Quentin Tarantino think he is?

Did he really make this film?

It’s been one week (insert annoying Bare-Naked Ladies noise here)  since I saw INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.   If you haven’t seen this film yet,  you clearly don’t understand what you’ve been missing.

Quentin Tarantino has never given two shits about what anyone thinks  about his movies.

Thank God.

Because of QT’s selfishness, arrogance, and insanity, our world has  access to some of the most ridiculously offbeat, genre defying,  humorously violent, dialogue driven, classic-cinema cut and pasted  monstrosities of exploitative film making that one could argue posses no  real cinematic value at all.

But they would be wrong. Very wrong.

I can’t stand how the opinions of all die hard admirers of QT (I  myself being placed into this category) are immediately dismissed due to  the  “fanboy” label.  Its as if I would willingly jump on the  dick-riding bandwagon of any film Tarantino happened to breathe on.

Look, the dude makes really smart, really funny,  and really entertaining films that have never let me, or any of  his other “fanboys” down.

Hey, I’m sorry if you mess with M Night Shyamalan and/or George  Lucas.   Come find me when QT drops something even remotely close in  awfulness to the self-respect killing wunderfilms like THE PHANTOM  MENACE or THE VILLAGE.

With INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, Tarantino’s sixth and most intriguing film  to date,  QT takes everything you have ever been taught about World War 2  and throws it all out the open hatch of a B-52 bomber patrolling the  European skyline.  When your knowledge ends its free fall, shitting its  pants, it hits the earth and somehow catches that rare, “jackpot” type  of lucky break by falling into a large haystack, which keeps it alive…

but only long enough so it have that brief moment of clarity when  miracles are recognized, then the payload of bombs catch up. Boom.

My terribly inarticulate point is that INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is set in a  World War 2 universe that is completely (removing the cinematic  influences which QT pays homage to) envisioned by the mind of one man,  Quentin Tarantino.  If you failed to enjoy KILL BILL, DEATH PROOF, or  PULP FICTION, well, first of all I don’t like you very much, but to be  honest, I think that even the biggest critics of Quentin Tarantino will  most likely love the shit out of the majority of this film.  Real talk.

The few critics who have taken aim at IB have essentially  called Tarantino out for his intentional abuses of the historical record  and the lack of empirical truths that manifest from his films ending.

The only question that I have is, why?

Why should anyone care about the historical validity within the  framework that QT has established for this particular film? Isn’t the  premise of Nazi-hunting/scalping Jewish soldiers behind enemy lines or  Brad Pitt’s ridiculous accent enough to tip viewers off that this film might not be attempting to tread in the same cinematic waters alongside  Stephen Spielberg?

But while I’m on the subject,

Did it seem like Michael Bay truly gave a shit about historical facts  when he made PEARL HARBOR, a WWII movie titled and based upon one of  the most significant tragedies in American history?

I mean, has any WWII film ever released been completely  authentic with the historical facts upon which it was based off of?

Fuck No.

Don’t forget, this is Hollywood.  QT created the BASTERDS in order to  tell tales that QT has envisioned for this era. Despite this  subjective approach to film making, in my mind, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS has  features that actually make it MORE authentic than most generic WW2  dramas: The characters speak in their native tongues! (be easy all you  Clint Eastwood fanboys)

Yes, much of the film is subtitled, but please don’t let that deter  you from going to see it.  I actually heard someone utter this statement  when I was leaving: “I didn’t know I was going to have to read that much.”
If that’s the first thing that comes out of your mouth when this  movie is over, then you misread your ticket stub.  SHORTS: ADVENTURES OF  THE WISHING ROCK was in theater 2.

Why don’t you discuss the brilliant dialogue that carries long, tense  scenes without ever becoming stale or unintentionally awkward?

Why don’t you discuss the ridiculously complicated and multi-layered  characters, chiefly the films main villain, Col. Landa (in a performance  that’s worthy of an Academy award)?

Why don’t you discuss the connections and tropes that are prevalent  in all QT films?

Why don’t you contemplate and analyze the films ending in all of its  glory, thinking about what-ifs, could have beens, and should haves that  it asserts?

Despite its tongue in cheek title, this film is a glorious entry from  Tarantino.

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is on par, if not better, than anything that QT  has ever created.  His enthusiasm and love for the characters that he  illustrates is highly evident in the film.  Its got all of the  trademarks of a QT film but at the same time, I think IB stands alone in  some way. While  I have yet to put my finger on what I mean exactly,   there is something remarkably original about this movie when comparing  it to Tarantino’s previous 5 films.

Is the movie effective?

The answer to this question will vary from person to person.  I think  everyone will react differently to the content of IB, which is in its  own way, amazingly effective.  The horrors of the German occupation of  Europe during the mid 20th century is a widely known facet of world  history.  QT never abuses or bombards the viewer with clichéd images of  Nazi terror.  The film is effective because it will make you grin,  laugh, and root/cheer for individual characters making their way through  the WW2 landscape that QT evolved.  Its fascinating to watch.   Effective is an understatement.

Would I watch the film again?

Yes, this is one of those rare films that will seemingly never lose  its appeal.  There is so much going on in such a short span of time.   Watch closely.  Every little detail in this film can be analyzed.

Best aspect of the film?

The dialogue is crafted so amazingly well that the characters, as  fictitious as they might be, become memorable, individual pieces of a  larger universe that QT has clearly spent countless hours crafting.  The  acting is phenomenal; a tip of my cap goes to the excellent casting  choices that allowed lesser known, equally gifted actors shine in a  “fake” WW2 universe that feels real somehow in its own way. It’s been  said many times before, but Christopher Waltz’s performance is  astounding.  I’ve never seen a villain quite like Col. Landa.

Worst aspect of the film?

There are a few edits that intentionally remind the viewer that  Tarantino is making the film.  Unfortunately, they are quite jarring and  feel out of place.  Most viewers should recognize QT’s wit in the sharp  and hilarious dialogue.  INGLORIOUS BASTERDS doesn’t need voice overs,  vintage cuts, wipes, and fonts from the 1970’s to cue to the audience  that it’s a Tarantino film.  The Basterds do just fine with that  assignment

Final Grade + Viewing Suggestion?

94/100 “A“The ending of this film left me  overwhelmingly satisfied and yet, I never wanted it to end.  This is a  remarkably bizarre film, but its fucking badass and when it goes off  into territory where most filmmakers would fail miserably, it excels at  levels that only QT could manage. Fanboys unite! This movie  shits on 9 out of 10 WW2 movies that rely on the clichéd emotional  responses to images of War in order to make a statement on the human  condition. Everyone knows war is an awful thing when the  camera is removed. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS achieves its greatest successes  by reminding us that War, much like human beings, has a broader spectrum  of feelings, thoughts, emotions, and consequences and most notably, a  good sense of humor.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-02-22 09:36:40 by hypothesisspits

Inglourious Basterds

There are no families in Quentin Tarantino’s world. (The little girl in Kill Bill doesn’t count, because we all know Uma Thurman’s true son was her sword.) Families require people to be unvarnished, awkward, stuffed with feeling, and inarticulate. They don’t belong in Tarantino’s single’s paradise. His movies (which are brilliant, before I go any farther) are told from a single man’s remove: assumed postures are exalted, violence is like a new suit, no-one has a home. WatchingInglourious Basterds, the first thing that hits you is the shear verve of the storytelling. The second thing (the kicker) is that no-one who dies is ever supposed to be missed.

In the opening scene a family is slaughtered. They were Jews, and this is Nazi-occupied WWII France. A Nazi colonel with a flair for the dramatic orders their execution, but he lets one daughter live, because he likes bending fate. In the years after the massacre, the orphaned daughter moves to Paris and takes ownership of a cinema. Out of the blue, the Nazi high-command commandeers her cinema for a movie premiere. Hitler, Goebbels and ever other arch-bastard will be in attendance. So the girl – and (unbeknownst to her) Allied special forces – make plans to end the Nazis along with the film. Two revenge plots, a plethora of victims… The only certainty is that a mass of people will bleed – good, bad and bastard alike.

Although Brad Pitt is the face on every poster, there is no star ofInglourious Basterds. Rather, there are stars of scenes, with some faces more famous than others. The biggest stand-out of all is the Nazi colonel. As played by Christoph Waltz he is charming, witty, self-amused, psychotic, slightly effeminate, totem-pole masculine… like Shakespeare’s Iago if he’d won. Waltz has a way of taking props (pens, strudel, shoes, phones) and showing you the carousel in his mind, the endless delight his character takes in himself. He is a Nazi officer as evil as any Nazi officer every portrayed on screen, but he’s also the one man in the movie whom you most want to live. Evil crackles in him. He takes such pleasure in torturing people with words that their torture becomes enthralling, like watching a house burn down. So gleefully does he go about his work, (guiltily) you want him to do more. He kindles sadism.

Every character in the movie teeters on parody. The Germans have skulls (mostly jaws) made of iron, full of brute vigour. The Brits are so stiff they stand like cigarettes, using Received Pronunciation so that even “death” sounds like an aperitif. Americans are all swagger and murder. The French chain-smoke and make everyone look naive. It’s the usual Tarantino movie-verse, where nationality is defined by how people act in movies from other countries.

Brad Pitt plays the leader of the “Basterds” (Allied Special Forces). We never really know the men under his command. They’re Jewish, and one of them beats Nazis to death with a baseball bat. Pitt seems to be in charge because he enjoys violence the most. He keeps his eyes narrowed, like he was always wondering about something illegal. His character is more wily than intellectual. When he and two other basterds steel into the movie premiere, he looks like he’s been nailed into his tuxedo. He’s like a tree branch smashing through a Nazi window, a hair-raising chunk of nature. If he was any more virile, he could knock you up with a look.

The pleasure of Quentin Tarantino’s movies is the same pleasure as being chased. There’s a rush of adrenaline, violence races towards you, it’s all so exciting! Then something ugly happens. If you’re going to like his movies, you have to live with that. Families will always be absent from his work because single people die more easily (there’s no-one to mourn them). Inglourious Basterds seems to need to kill a family before it can start. A clean lack of sentimentality means the movie is unpredictable (as far as who dies, not if), and, as usual, there’s black comedy galore. But that’s it – a bloody, brilliant thrill-ride. Is it enough for you?

Inglorious Basterds - ****

I will have to admit, after seeing the trailer this movie looked absolutely unappealing to me. Quentin Tarantino's movies were always hit or miss for me. Pulp Fiction will remain a classic, Jackie Brown is very underrated, Reservoir Dogs will always be a movie with an intriguing idea and style but Tarantino was still too inexperienced at his craft to really pull it together as he could now. I never even cared to see either "Kill Bill" or "Grindhouse" as neither genre appealed to me on any level. After Grindhouse I had all but written off Tarantino as a force in the filmmaking world. That is until I saw the masterful work that is "Inglorious Bastards."

nullspan style="font-size: x-small;"nullFor me what made Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown good movies by Tarantino were how small they felt. These movies were in the prime of Tarantino's ability to write sharp dialogue and paint vivid characters that seem to have a life of their own. However, Bastards is not such a "small" film. While the characters are as vivid as any created by Tarantino this film is not small. While, as a war movie, it doesnt quite have the grand feel of a Saving Private Ryan or something of that type it feels much bigger than most of the Tarantino movies I have enjoyed. </span> 

<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">This movie had me from the very beginning. An absolutely masterful scene by the little-known German actor Cristoph Waltz that, even if it was his only scene in the movie, should garner him an acadamy award nomination all its own. Waltz' performance in this movie was so pitch perfect he was absolutely mesmerizing in every scene he was in and stole the show. Not quite as good of a performance as Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight" but definitely on the same level. In this first scene Waltz' character Colonel Hans "The Jew Hunter" Landa visits the home of a dairy farmer whom he suspects to be housing a Jewish family he believes to be hiding from the German SS. During this entire scene Col. Landa strings along this poor unwitting farmer until he breaks and gives up the family he is hiding. At no point does the audience feel like Landa is not in complete control, and that he didn't know before he even rode up to the house where the family was hiding. Such is the brilliance of Waltz' character.</span> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">
However, this is not the end of the brilliant scenes in this movie. the next scene to jump out being the bar scene where the Bastards are to rendezvous with their newest ally a one Brigitte Van Hammersmark, played by the lovely Diane Kruger. The rendezvous goes awry when a small unit of German soldiers is visiting the pub to celebrate the birth of a child by one of men within the unit. As this bar was supposed to be free from these types it prevents quite a problem for the discussion of their plans to take down the higher ups in the Third Reich. The members of the Bastards in the tavern get dressed up as German soldiers for their rendezvous, which of course leads to one of the real German soldiers approaching them. This leads to quite the well written square off that ends in a slightly unexpected manner.

These are just examples of some of the more prominent scenes in the film but there are many more to be sure. Ones in which I will not ruin here by describing. One of the reasons I liked this movie so much was due to its ability to surprise me. Just when I thought I knew where the movie was going in any given scene it would pull a 180 and surprise me to the point where I was slackjaw staring at the screen. Any movie that can pull those kinds of surprises out gets extra points in my book. Although I have talked about Waltz' performance much there are many others worthy of mentioning. The character of Shoshanna played by the relatively unknown Melanie Laurent was played perfectly. Shoshanna is the lone surviving member of the family that was discovered/killed by Col. Landa in the opening scene, and the look of fear in her face when she comes into contact with Col. Landa later in the film is nothing short of genius. Brad Pitts character Lt. Aldo Raine was one that I was torn about through the whole movie. With his thick Tennessee accent and no nonsense attitude his portrayal was bordering on caricature the whole movie and I wasn't sure about it. After reflection I feel it was Tarantino's brilliance that was able to allow Pitt to teeter on the edge of caricature but never quite get there, allowing the performance to become great.

<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">All in all this is a masterstroke of a film that pleasantly surprised me. A film that I did not know Tarantino was capable of making, but I am glad he did. A film that was not quite what I expected even from all I had seen and heard. This is a film with enough originality and brilliance that it will forever be remembered as one of Tarantino's best.</span> </span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #333333;">
</span>

(Read Less...)

Inglourious Win!

Inglourious Basterds begins in German-occupied France, where Shosanna witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa. Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris, where she starts a new life as the owner and operator of a cinema. Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish soldiers to engage in targeted acts of revenge. Known to their enemy as “The Basterds,” Raine’s squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of The Third Reich. The film transitions so smoothly through the chapters that it is organized into. The story was utter brilliance with excellent direction and cinematography. The acting of Pitt was pure and authentic (and hilarious at times). There is little to say about "Basterds" that hasn't already been stated above. Serious Oscar consideration in screenplay, and acting for Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, and Mélanie Laurent. 4 out of 4 stars.

Inglorious Basterds

Out of most Hollywood film makers that make such great films I think Quentin Tarantino loves movies more than anyone. All his movies are full of love and attention to detail. I love the man because for a person who loves movies more than anything I appreciate his passion. Hey there is a bigger movie geek than me out there! I love all his movies and I think 9o% percent of them have recieved my highest rating and I think he is on five of my top ten lists. "Inglorious Basterds" is another Tarantino masterpiece and a complete joy and blast to watch. He is my favorite director next to Scorcese because he takes his time telling his story. He loves the spoken word and loves long scenes of wonderful dialogue. He takes his time creating suspense with scenes bulit on dialogue and you know an explosion of violence is about to happen. Your palms start to sweat and he creates such a powerful tension that finally explodes. The first half hour of this movie is edge of your seat suspense and is so powerful that when it is over you still realize there is a lot of movie left. This first half hour is better than most full length features made this past year. The actor on display most in that beginning is Christoph Waltz and you haven't seen him before but you will damn well remamber him. He is completely amazing and a joy to watch creating one of the most sadistic bad guys you will ever encounter. His is a shoo in to win best Supporting actor at the Oscars. Also Brad Pitt is hilarious and awesome as the leader of the Basterds and with all the Angelina Jolie hoopla you forget how great an actor he is. When Pitt's character speaks Italian it is one of the most laugh out loud moments in a movie this year. Melanie Laurent is also very good here and she has a timeless beauty that reminds me of Catherine Deneuve. She gives such a great performance that will get her noticed by Hollywood right away. This is a war movie like no other that is one of the best times I have had at a movie this year. This is another Quentin Tarantino classic that I can add to his list of masterpieces. What a great movie marathon weekend I am building with Tarantino movies. He loves movies more than most directors and it shows. He is my movie soulmate and I can't wait to see his next movie!

(Read Less...)

Vincent Snavely

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: Tarantino manages to serve up one of his better films in this rather fun and unique re-imagining of end of World War II, filled with his trademark witty dialogue and violence. The film is however way too long, putting a major dent in an otherwise very clever film.

THE GOOD: Regardless of whether you like his style or not, director Quentin Tarantino manages to create a unique cinematic experience with every one of his films. “Inglourious Basterds” is no exception and is actually one of his best, offering an unusual, multi-layered story that simultaneously contains a clever plot, fantastic characters and Tarantino’s trademark style. Although the title refers to a crack team of Nazi hunters led by a perfectly cast Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, the main protagonist appears to be “Shoshanna” (Melanie Laurent), who escapes after her family is slaughtered by a Nazi death squad and finds herself in a position where she can destroy the entire Nazi leadership in one foul swoop. However, there are also at least two other stories going on, with the British and Americans hatching a plan to likewise wipe-out the Nazi leadership at the same opportunity as Shoshanna, and the nasty but engaging Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who is hot on their heels as the defacto bad guy. The film unspools like a novel, broken up by chapters, and as such, it does not follow a conventional film structure. In the hands of another director this would have gone south but Tarantino shows just how good he is at shaping all of these disparate storylines in to one cohesive narrative that all come together in the climax. The dialogue is fantastic, particularly in its use of building tension in most of the scenes. Rather than have a gory blood-fest of violence, Tarantino uses the dialogue to slowly build the tension until all hell breaks loose (and even then, it is somewhat restrained). Surprisingly for a Hollywood film, Tarantino has actually used an incredible amount of foreign languages with subtitles rather than using English throughout. “Inglourious Basterds” is a fictional take on history that is fun to watch and is a prime example of Tarantino doing what he does best.

THE BAD: The film is way too long. The issue lies in the otherwise spectacular dialogue scenes. Tarantino uses the dialogue to build tension between characters, particularly in the sequences where you do not know whether the good guys will beat the bad guys. However, the dialogue in some instances just keeps going and going and going, where some select editing would have tightened it up, made the tension-build stronger and delivered a much cleaner and fast-paced film. The first sequence with Col. Landa and the Frenchman hiding Jews under his floor boards is an excellent example. The tension is good, but the dialogue manages to include “Hello, how are you? Having a nice day. Well that’s nice,” etc, etc. In each of these scenes, you know about half way through where it is heading, and you find yourself ahead of the scene rather than in it. If Tarantino had chopped about thirty minutes out of the film, a feat easily accomplished, “Inglourious Basterds” could have been a masterpiece of filmmaking.

RATING: 7.5/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

A Basterd's work is never done

Tarantino tackles WWII. Well, sort of...

After the epic waste of film that was Death Proof, his next piece of cinema would either make or break his reputation as one of the most talented auteurs of our time.
So, Inglourious Basterds was released at Cannes 2009 to mostly positive reviews. Are they justified? Yes.
From the opening shot of the film you're immediately reminded its a Tarantino film you're watching. So the temptation to start grinning is hard to fight, because usually his films are a joy to watch. And this is no exception.
The film centers around a group of Jewish American soldiers known as the Basterds. Fronting the Basterds with a scarred neck and hick-American accent is Brad Pitt, playing the role of Lt. Aldo Raine. Their mission is simple: find, kill and scalp as many Nazi's as possible. "Sound good?" Aldo asks the rest of the Basterds. "Sir yes sir!" They enthusiastically reply in unison.
The rest of the film centers around their plot to blow up the leaders of the Third Reich (Hitler, Goebbels, Bormann) as they attend the premiere of Joseph Goebel's Nazi propaganda film 'Nations Pride'.


As is the trend in most QT films, this film contains scenes of violence that is not for the faint of heart. Though violence is not frequent, and instead we are treated to many talky scenes which stretch for many minutes. But they are never boring, as each of the characters are so much larger-than-life.
A particularly amazing scene that is worth a mention is set in a small tavern/bar in a basement, where we see British officer Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), two Basterds and German double-agent Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) try to outwit a suspicious Gestapo officer (August Diehl). It is brilliantly written and by the end of it you're on the edge of your seat because you just know its building to something.


Funnily enough the Basterds only appear in 3 of the movie's chapters out of five. Instead our attention is drawn to a Jewish young woman called Shoshanna, who fled to France after being pursued by the 'jew hunter' Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Waltz is definitely the best actor in the film, and it should come as no surprise if he gets an Oscar nod.
Shoshanna is played with understated skill by French actress Melanie Laurent, who's character has plans to get revenge on Landa, who killed her family. She is the owner of the cinema where the film's blistering climax takes place.
Quentin Tarantino has excelled himself with a dazzling script, well drawn out characters mixed in with humour. And it is a funny film, and it gets funnier as it goes along.


Basterds is as good as Pulp Fiction, who many believe is QT's best work. Though in many respects it is better. It is more complex, more clever, more witty without trying to be overtly humerous.
Brad Pitt's line at the end of the film "This might just be my masterpiece"...is damn near accurate.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Last updated: 2010-01-21 04:46:08 by richincolour

inglorious basterds review

origin: http://thepeoplesmovies.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/inglorious-basterds-review/

Location: Braehead Odeon           Date: 22nd August 2009
 
It’s taken over 10 years to be written and created for the the big screen and it’s taken long enough for Tarantino to finally get back on form with Inglorious Basterds.
Funny enough there is an actual plot here! oh Yes!! It’s 1940’s Nazi-Occupied France, Lt.Aldo Raine(Brad Pitt) and merry bunch of Basterds a ruthless squad of  American-Jewish Soldiers spread there terror  through the German army. The allies ask for there help take out the whole German High command, including Hitler (yes, Hitler as well!!) who will all be at a Gala film premiere at a cinema in Paris. The cinema is also ran by Shosanna Dreyfus a Jewish survivor (you learn about in the first part of the movie)who also has her own plans for vengance as well.
First of all this isnt the dirty dozen redux as many websites, blogs, movie press have sometimes labelled this, oh no . There is little inspirations from Dirty dozen but not much to call it a redux. This movie isnt all guns blazing, opens up with a long conversation between a French farmer and the “Jew Hunter” Hans Landa played by the brilliant Christoph Waltz. The whole scene you wonder what’s going to happen, and  with scene of the nazi soldiers approaching to the look on the French farmer’s face  seen them you wonder will this be an exacution of the farmer? When Landa is gulping down his glass of milk, his comments on the famers daughters and cows (uses vache which mean cows in French but also can be used as a vulgar term for vagina), the farmer just gets more nervous and reverts to pipe smoking and Landa just goes one better (well have to see what happens next? go see it). I just had that feeling like your asked to hold your breath under water for a certain length and the pressure intensifys and you give up like seconds to go.
The Basterds themselves dont come into the second chapter , well there not in this alot actually in this alot full stop. When they are in it they chomp, they beat, shoot, they bat (roth, all he was good at in this, keep to making horror flicks eli please)and not forgetting scar. The Basterds love to leave a little momentum for one of there nazi hosts , a little swastika carved into there foreheads so leaving a messege for the other nazi’s  know what basterds they are.
Sometimes I asked myself who is really the lead actor here? Pitt or Waltz? Though both where good at what they where asked to do in the movie. Brad Pitt Despite appearing in only 3 of the chapters and doesnt fire a gun he is a very funny charming and the way Raine attempt’s to take in other culture is like asking a drunkman to walk in a straight line (commendable sffort but way off line). Pitt’s character belts out some great dialogue in his deep Kentucky accent and his use of French, German and Italian in oneliners and speeches where just top-notch. It was the impersation of Italian I loved as I spent 2 summers working in Sorrento, Italy and like Raines Accent strong Scottish and in some cases need for subtitles. I think there was also the running “gag” Pitt had in Ocean’s 11 here, alot of scenes where he was always eating, drinking or chewing, mmm?
Pitt was great but Christoph Waltz was the star of the movie. A multilingual power crazed, calculating, confidient, contridicting nasty but at times silly piece of work. “Jew Hunter” (or whatever company he was with called him) he got some the movies best bits, well “That’s A bingo!”, you’ll clearly see why Waltz won the best actor award at Cannes and dont be surprised if he’s up there in Febuary running for one of those little golden statues (oscars). To me Pitt and Waltz complimented each other, they are the movie’s Ying and Yang, bringing balance and order to the Basterds.
As the movie progressed this movie gets funnier and funnier and more and more bullits fire as the bodys hit the floors and the ” Once Upon A time….in Nazi Occupied France” kicks in with it’s O.T.T ending. C’mon all The clue is in the opening title!!! This is no reconstruction of an actual event , this is pure fantasy influenced by an event (World War 2). Tarantino makes it so clear he’s not making Schindler’s list  or any other War movie, this is like the old Marvel Comic title “What if…”, What if a bunch of American Jewish Soldiers killed all the German Higher Arachy!!!.
What gives this movie its finishing touches is the excellent choice of music for the soundtrack and Tarantino knows his cool music from his bad. The Basterds is an Spaghetti Western influenced war movie and the use of Ennio Morriccone gives the movie a very classy feel to it. Even uses a version Cat People (putting out the fire) by David Bowie which did it for me been a big Bowie fan.
The only downpoints for me was Eli Roths acting, he’s okay as a background tough guy, keep to directing. The other was the use of Mike Myers as the posh English general which had a hint of Austin Powers to it, I was Just waiting for some of shagadelic  powers qoutes.
Let’s make it clear Quinten Tarantino is the Movie fanboy living the dream. He uses all the genres, actor, music that has influenced him down the years and create some fantastic pieces of work, he’s went where no fanboy or fangirl has gone before. I cant comment on Grindhouse/Deathproof as I havent seen them but Inglorious Basterds is a fantastic tale of fantasy,carnage, dark humour as well as some Over the top action with excellent dialogue and oneliners. Mr Tarantino the Basterds sees on back on form and we salute you, roll on Machete!
Review Rating: 4/5

Inglourious Basterds

(Read Less...)

Signing off.

Last updated: 2011-05-05 08:20:53 by Maxie

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

One thing I’ve always liked about Quentin Tarantino movies is that they are unpredictable.  You may know the basic outline of the story, but rarely do you know where the scene is heading.  Anything can happen.  Anyone can die.  You just go along for the ride and have fun.  His latest, Inglourious Basterds, is an entertaining, enjoyable film that contains much of Tarantino’s trademark dialogue, humour, gratuitous violence and wacky characters, but it’s not quite the Tarantino masterpiece I had hoped for.

Inglourious Basterds is set once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France, and tells a two-pronged, history-altering tale through 5 interrelated parts.  The less known about the plot the better, or it would spoil some of the neat little surprises (isn’t it always the case?).  Let’s just say there are Nazi hunters, Jew hunters, SS officers, movie stars and cinema owners.  As Tarantino intended, it feels like a western movie set during World War II (complete with western-style music).

Each of the 5 parts has a lot of build up, filled mostly with engaging dialogue.  And that’s the great thing about Tarantino – he can fill a scene with slow, creeping tension just from a couple of guys talking.  However, I got the feeling that Tarantino may have fallen in love with the story and the characters of his own movie too much.  Some of the conversations were just too long and occasionally felt a little tedious – and this is coming from someone who loves Tarantino’s dialogue.  The movie is 2 hours and 29 minutes long, but perhaps could have been about 15-20 minutes shorter to make the overall package a little tighter.
 
Christoph Waltz is dynamite as Colonel Hans Landa  
That’s my main complaint.  Everything else was pretty darn marvellous.  From the meticulous sets to the costume designs to the camera angles, it’s clear Tarantino knows what he’s doing.  Like some of Tarantino’s best works, there are several memorable scenes and images that fans will no doubt re-enact themselves with a chuckle.  And needless to say, the acting from the ensemble cast was superb.  Brad Pitt is hilarious as Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds (though entirely replaceable in my opinion), and Eli Roth is both creepy and amusing as the ‘Bear Jew’.  Michael Fassenbender also impressed me with his screen presence as Lt Archie Hilcox.  Of the two main female cast members, French actress Melanie Laurent outshines Diane Kruger, though both are excellent.  The one that absolutely blew me away, however, was Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, who deservingly won the Best Actor Award at Cannes for his portrayal of the brilliant Colonel Hans Landa.  If the Oscars were held now he’d definitely get my vote for Best Actor.

4 out of 5 stars!

PJM

Last updated: 2010-01-05 22:55:47 by user04

Inglourious Basterds — 9

Godamnit Tarantino! i fucking love you!

I straight up love Quentin Tarantino. His movies are some of my favorites of all time. I also notice that he likes to reuse, Time Roth quite a bit and there were parts of this movie where i couldn’t help but think back to the bellhop from Four Rooms at times.

The opening of Tarantinos movies are always fan-fuckin-tastic. This one is no exception. This movie takes place during the Nazi occupation of France, and takes place in France. As much as i hate WWII, it is still a part of history, and having Tarantino take on a history film is weird, but he definatly proved one fucking thing. He still has fucking style.

The movie uses several languages throughout the movie to make it seems like it actually was more real. A good thing to accomplish and i am glad he did that.

I wont go over most of the film as its a great one and it should not be ruined. but there is one point where they talk about the ‘Bear Jew’ a jew who basically homeslams Nazis in the head with a baseball bat.

Then there’s HUGO STIGLITZ! This is a motherfucker whos got fucking style! and Tarantino proves it. When he is introduced, the best thing in the world happens, its both fucking amazing, and hilarious all at once.  I will save that for when you actually see the movie.

The only beef i actually had with the movie, which is odd for a Tarantino movie, is that in the middle there was more dialog than i actually cared for. the movie was over 2 hours, which made some of the dialog to far fetched to be needed, like when they were playing the card game in the bar, you could have cut out that scene out and it would have actually been a little bit better paced.

Although the ending more than made up for the slow parts and the uneeded scenes.

base score 8
-2 for uneeded dialog
+1 for killing hitler
-1 for being a little to long
+2 for filling hitlers face into swiss cheese
+1 for Stiglitz and the Bear Jew
= 9/10

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-01-12 01:48:50 by Tolll

Inglorious Basterds

Quintin Tarantino’s newest film “Inglorious Basterds”, staring Brad Pitt among others, is a bizarre film that, not surprisingly, fits in seamlessly with the similar yet distinctly strange work of Tarantino. Having examined the full body of Tarantino’s work it is easy to understand how Inglorious Basterds came from whence it did. If you buy into Auteurism, which I do, I imagine it would be difficult not to perceive this as uniquely Tarantino — Meaning that to some extent, he is up to many of his old and and somewhat decreasingly effective tricks. Yet, despite holding many of the qualities which makes this film indubitably Tarantinion, such as long dialogue sequences, colorful characters, clearly defined act separations and so on, Ingorious Basterds has just enough different about it to keep it unhindered by accusations of artistic self-mimicky.

Regardless of its new artistic forgings and its reminiscent similarity to old and fondly familiar work, I was still met with a strong sense of mixed feeling after this film’s conclusion. Part of me wanted to love the film for its bold and characteristic Tarantino eccentricty that I know and appreciate. But the other part of me wanted to reject it for that same ever-repeating Tarantino whimsicality. Not necessarily because the formula is no longer is applicable. It surely is, as Inglorious Basterds does mostly demonstrate its effectiveness as Pulp Fiction and others have done for Tarantino previously. But more because it feels as though within that special formula Tarantino at times, in fits of seeming self-indulgence, goes well overboard. Point in case, there are on more than one occasion moments in this movie that obviously breach the point of entertaining and enter the realm of tediousness. One need only view a few dialogue scenes which drag on just a bit too long, hindered by what are jabbering characters and unnecessary dialogue.

Ironically, it is these same scenes which define and make this movie notable. For within these “talkie” scenes are moments worthy of memory and discussion. Given that they are essentially the heart and soul of this movie, Tarantino should hope so.  Yet somehow they seem simultaneously both great and on the verge of being overdone (if that is possible). They are memorable like so many scenes in Pulp Fiction, but somehow seem to fall somewhat short of Pulp Fiction’s weirdly unrealistic authenticity. Though, to be fair to Inglorious Basterd’s it should probably not be measured too carefully against Pulp Fiction, despite their obvious similarities. Tarantino did go for something different here. While Pulp Fiction evokes the emotions of fixating amusement, Inglorious Basterds masters the feeling of “dull suspense”, however paradoxical that might seem. That feeling is so prevalent, I would go so far as to call it intentional. It is as if Tarantino is playing with the idea of mixing Pulp Fiction like dialogue with thriller suspense, to create something entirely different.

So anyone who enjoys film for more than just light entertainment should probably see this. It does something quite different from what most movies would try which alone makes it worth seeing. Be assured though, it does more right than just create a bizarre level of “dull suspense” as I’ve called it. Even if it sucked, which it doesn’t, I’d see this movie simply because it is the work of one of the most influential directors of the recent Hollywood generation and it’s good enough to remind me why Tarantino has developed such a cult following. His ability as a writer/director is definitely on display, clearly visible through some very memorable characters, some truly shocking moments and some great performances. Tarantino constantly impresses me with his ability to draw out excellent performances from his actors. One performance in particular by Christoph Waltz is possibly award worthy depending on his competition. But really, it is Tarantino’s writing that gives the actor(s) the opportunity, so praise should be given to Tarantino as well for writing what are memorable characters.

In sum, Inglorious Basterd’s somehow seemed both different and very much the same. It is both exciting and boring. It is both clever and self-indulgent. There are brief moments of inspiring work shadowed by drawn out excess. The movie is something of an enigma. I think if I gave it a second viewing, I would find that I love it instead of just like it. Tarantino movies do seem to have a tendency to grow on people after multiple viewings. I definitely think Inglorious Basterds is one of those films. Despite everything, I enjoyed this movie enough to say it is my favorite movie of the summer, edging out The Hurt Locker. But what can I say, I’m a guilty fan of excess dialogue, even when it drags. Thankfully, that excess dialogue isn’t nearly enough to damage the film to the point of rejection. Inglorious Basterds is a film that, despite a few fairly significant flaws, makes up for itself by excelling magnificently in far more areas than it doesn’t.

3.5 Out of 4

Recommendations:

Last updated: 2010-01-02 22:42:27 by user01

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

Inglourious Basterds give us a fictionalized look at an attempt to take down the Nazis during World War II.  It’s a refreshing alternative to all of the other historical accounts of that time since we can actually root for someone to successfully take down Hitler.  Brad Pitt leads the “basterds” as Lt. Aldo Raine, though the movie ties other characters’ stories together and there are long stretches where we don’t even see Aldo or his team.  I would have liked to have seen more of the “basterds”.  After all, they’re in the title of the film.
This is partially the problem with this film.  Director Quentin Tarantino focuses so much time on every scene that the movie really tends to drag on and on.  I’m sure he found each scene necessary to tying the story together, but he didn’t have to make each one so darn long.  The film has a running time of about 2 1/2 hours.  I don’t mind a lengthy film at all but that’s as long as it is paced well and moves along.  This one does not.
There’s an intriguing opening scene featuring the real breakout star of the movie, Christoph Waltz.  He plays Colonel Hans Landa and will probably get an Oscar nomination for his performance.  He even shows his fluency in four different languages throughout the film.  Landa is known as the “Jew Hunter”.  He shows up at a farmer’s house who is believed to be hiding Jews there.   The suspense of the interrogation is riveting.  Landa is the kind of villain that’s so bad that you want him on your side, and he can also be very charming before unleashing his wrath.  I just wish the rest of the film’s scenes were as suspenseful as this one.
The film is a bit all over the place varying between scenes of extreme violence and humor with Brad Pitt providing most of the comic relief.  Some of the scenes seem unnecessary, at least at the length to which they’re so overly dragged out.  This includes one with Mike Myers in a very boring sequence which could have easily ended up on the cutting room floor.  It also doesn’t help when the director overstylizes everything such as an over-the-top introduction for a character who’s never referred to again in the film and barely speaks at all in it.  There are also two female leads who I found rather unappealing and I could have cared less about.  Lastly, I found the film’s resolution to be an act of lazy writing, especially considering that Tarantino spent years working on the script.  Things don’t go the way the “basterds” planned at the end, and I found that the way they get out of their situation was a bit of a cop-out ending.  Things are resolved for them due to another character’s greed and incompetence rather than by they’re own foresight or diligence.  I give Tarantino props for making an ambitious movie as he always does.  But ambition is not enough if it’s not executed in a way that really holds your attention.  While the movie is good enough to get through once, I can’t imagine myself sitting through its entirety again.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Se7en , 25th Hour

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-philadelphia/danny-porcaro

Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite filmmakers, not only because his filmography, despite short, is so competent, but because he defends the same thing I do when it comes to filmmaking: he’s watched how people used to do movies, he plucked the good bits and incorporated them into his own style. He’s an old-school filmmaker, and considering new-school basically consists of a million cuts per second and shaky cameras, I’ll stick with Tarantino, thanks.

“Inglourious Basterds”, though, is not his magnum opus. In fact, this is the first film in Tarantino’s career where Tarantino actually becomes his own enemy. Oh, don’t get me wrong: “Inglourious Basterds” is GOOD. But in all of Tarantino’s previous films, I could watch them and later think to myself “This was a great film”, while this one came with a footnote: “except for a few Tarantino-esque problems”.

The film follows three storylines: the Basterds, an American squad famous for wearing Nazi uniforms (and for their Nazi-killing methods) and currently infiltrated behind enemy lines; Shosanna, a young French girl who survived the massacre of her family and now owns a theatre in Nazi-occupied Paris; and SS Colonel Hans Landa, who carried out the massacre — and many others, which is why he owns the nickname “The Jew Hunter”. These narratives intertwine when Shosanna’s theatre is chosen to host the premiére of Goebbels’ new movie — an event the Nazi high-command will be attending, making the theatre one big fat target for the Basterds and one big fat revenge opportunity for Shosanna. Only it might be a serious problem to both of them, because it’s Landa who’s responsible for the theatre’s security.

Let’s start with Landa, who is, hands down, the best thing in the movie and one of the best — perhaps the best — character in Tarantino’s career, which is saying a lot. An almost disturbingly well-mannered Nazi, elegant and pleasant until he’s got you by the balls. Christoph Waltz (in his first role in an American film) plays him to absolute perfection, from his louder moments (his insane laugh) to much subtler ones (the careful, meticulous way he eats a dessert). The scene where he meets the Basterds during the premiére actually had me choking out of laughter, and fortunately this isn’t the only inspired moment in the film. The meeting between a Gestapo officer and three of the Basterds in a bar is superbly-written and filmed, and it contains an absolutely brilliant moment regarding “King Kong”. And of course, any scene Landa is in fails to disappoint.

Brad Pitt also deserves applause for understanding so well what Tarantino was going for and embracing it bravely: caricature. Lt. Aldo Raine is a total redneck, something Pitt manages to portray even when speaking other languages (something hilariously shown during the premiére scene) but without ever overacting or trying to be funny — he just turns into Aldo Raine, simple as that. Til Schweiger, playing yet another Nazi* (he is a Nazi before he is recruited by the Basterds), doesn’t do a lot of talking, but does shine in the Gestapo scene (in fact, everyone in that scene puts on a show). And as much as I detest Eli Roth as a filmmaker, I have to hand it to the guy: the moment he tries to convince someone he’s Italian by making an extremely cliche Italian gesture makes his appearance in this film worth it. As Fredrich Zoller, Daniel Bruhl does a great job in making the character annoying even in his moments of humanity — which is actually the point. Diane Kruger wisely distances herself from her inexpressive role (if I can actually call that guest appearance a “role”) as Helen in “Troy” by playing Bridget Von Hammersmark with intensity, and Mélanie Laurent — I might be biased because I fell in love with her but she’s very good as well, especially after she accidentally meets with Landa and, after he leaves, it’s like she’s breathing for the first time since he arrived.

* October 18th update: I am not sure how I accomplished this, but I seem to have confused Til Schweiger with Thomas Kretschmann, the latter being the one who has played a lot of nazis in his career. Sorry about this. For reference, Til Schweiger played the protagonist of Uwe Boll’s “Far Cry” — not a good reference, no.

With such an excellent cast and a brilliant script, what actually stops “Inglourious Basterds” from being Tarantino’s best film — aside from the sheer difficulty of topping “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction” — is Tarantino’s job as director. While he is careful to make sure most of his trademarks (like a fixation for feet, which I, mm, also have) are vital for the story and not just pointless self-reference, some of his habits do slip through. In this case, the use of existing music. This is a film that needed a composer, because Tarantino does not hesitate to punctuate some scenes with music that is some times well-used (the scene where Shosanna escapes from Colonel Landa) or badly-used (the scene between Shosanna and Zoller in a projection room). And while “Inglourious Basterds” is never a dull film, some scenes do stretch for too long and needed a more dynamic pace, which might be due to Tarantino falling too much in love with his dialogue — which is excellent, yes, but not a reason to make a two-minute conversation into a ten-minute one. Also, this is the second time I’ve seen Tarantino go for the melodramatic, in the aforementioned scene between Zoller and Shosanna in the projection room — aside from the music, Tarantino also uses slow-motion — to very good aesthetic result, but emotionally it just falls flat, and the scene had all the potential in the world not to.

(The first time I’ve seen Tarantino go for the melodramatic was in Jackie Brown, in the scene Max Cherry sees her for the first time and romantic music plays in the background)

However, Tarantino is becoming, more and more, a brilliant visual storyteller and flawless in the composition of his shots. There is a particularly beautiful frame that shows Shosanna running away, seen through an open door — which Colonel Landa passes through, obscuring the view in an accurate symbol of what he would mean to her for the rest of her life. And Tarantino’s conversation scenes aren’t just interesting because of the dialogue and the actors, but because the editing is precise (despite the slow pacing) and the shots well-framed. But what Tarantino is really good at is humor, and “Inglourious Basterds” is a histerically funny film at times — it never strikes the same high note emotionally, but when it comes to comedy the movie is pure win. Whenever I think of the scene between Landa and the Basterds in the premiére I start chuckling, and Brad Pitt himself, an actor with excellent comic timing, never misses a joke (I especially like his short monologue about fighting in basements). Tarantino also deserves credit for incorporating so many languages into the film, and even having characters speaking on different languages to confuse each other.

And when I think about how the movie had emotional potential that is never pulled off, I think of the movie’s ending and realize this wasn’t really the point. Tarantino just wanted to kill some nazis. To have fun portraying Hitler as a caricature that is based more on Chaplin’s Adenoyd Hynkel than on the real man, to do a war movie in Tarantino fashion, and for it to be enjoyable. And he pulled that off. “Inglourious Basterds” is a memorable film. It could have been memorable as a whole, not just for a few scenes and a great character, but as it is, it’s a memorable film nonetheless.

PS: I have the habit of reading trivia and goofs in imdb.com. Here’s a bit from this film’s goof section. “Revealing mistakes: At the beginning of the film the Gentile’s daughter is hanging sheets on the line to dry; however, the sheet she is securing to the line is already dry (it isn’t wet).”

Wow! Thank fuck for the thoughtful addition in parenthesis, eh?

Written by André Navarro on October 14th 2009 

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-22 13:07:35 by andre_navarro

Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Perhaps the most anticipated motion picture of the year apart from the upcoming James Cameron’s sci-fi epic Avatar, and the Terrence Malick’s fantasy drama Tree Of Life, Inglourious Basterds is the new film by Quentin Tarantino. His name alone guarantees theater after theater of filled seats. After all, he is the Oscar and Golden Palm (Cannes) winning writer-director of Pulp Fiction (1994), the undisputed masterpiece of ‘90s popular cinema.

That was only his second film. The first, Reservoir Dogs, released in 1992 in an explosive debut remains highly influential till this day. Between Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds, he made two volumes of Kill Bill (2003, 2004) which established him as a rare filmmaker who could balance commercialism and auteurism in his works, and two other less well-known films in Jackie Brown (1997) and Death Proof (2007). Thus, his new WWII Nazi picture comes with high expectations, and Tarantino aces them effortlessly.

Inglourious Basterds stars Brad Pitt as the leader of a band of Nazi-loathing Jewish-Americans who spread fear throughout the Third Reich by brutally killing Hitler’s men. They collaborate with a double agent (played by Diane Kruger) on a plot to assassinate Hitler and his top guard in a small theater screening a pro-Nazi film in a high-key event. This is, however, only one side to the story.

The other side documents a young woman (played by Melanie Laurent) who owns that abovementioned cinema and has a plan of vengeance of her own after she survives a family massacre by the Nazis years ago. The link that connects the two narrative strands together is a ‘Jew-Hunter’ played by the immensely-talented Christoph Waltz (who won Best Actor at Cannes for this role) whose multilingual skills allow him to shine in the different language contexts during the film.

No genuine fan goes to see a Tarantino film for the acting, though it is generally solid. Instead, they look out for its artistic merits, the layers of dialogue, its soundtrack accompaniment, and the ‘what-the-hell?’ factor of it all. Inglourious Basterds, true to Tarantino fashion, features a brilliantly-crafted narrative which is heavy on dialogue filled with sarcasm, black humor, and referential discourse over cinema and popular culture. There are trademark long takes of ‘roundtable talks’ which create a high level of suspense, often ending up in violent and bloody shootouts.

The art direction and costume design brings authenticity to the setting but the film is still a fictional WWII tale. This fictional aspect is further emphasized through the use of mostly Western music (in particular Ennio Morricone’s) which makes the film seems like an opera of various, unclassifiable styles. For the weak hearts, there are a few look-away moments including the carving of a man’s forehead with a sharp knife, the scalping of heads that reveal gross brain matter, and an unflinching exhibition of how it would look if you beat someone to a pulp using a bat. It would be sick to enjoy such violence, but Tarantino gleefully wants us to.

Inglourious Basterds offers 150 minutes of pure cinema and a decent share of narrative twists. Told in five chapters, it is engrossing, and at times mind-blowing. There is not a dull moment in this masterpiece of screenwriting and directing. The critics are right in saying that “this is Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction”. A stunning return to form, Inglourious Basterds is a powerful reminder of the unique talents Tarantino possesses. Admittedly, as with Kill Bill, Death Proof, and even Pulp Fiction, his latest picture makes quite no sense. But the enfant terrible of popular cinema shows us why nonsensical makes just perfect sense.
 
SCORE: 8.5/10
[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010), To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), The Visitor

Singapore's Most Prolific Film Blogger @ www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com

Inglourious Basterds

"We ain't in the prisoner-takin business. We in the kiliin Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin". This line, spoken by Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, should just about sum up Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. The "We" in question: eight Jewish-American soldiers (accompanied by German defect Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) that have vowed to deliver 100 Nazi scalps each to their leader, the aforementioned Raine. Their group's name: the Inglourious Basterds. Don't ask about the spelling. It's never explained. These men have made quite the impression on the Third Reich, angering Hitler himself and landing on the radar of "the Jew hunter" Colonel Hans Landa (superbly played by Christoph Waltz). Showing no fear for possible death, the Basterds join a mission called Operation Kino. The mission, being carried out with the help of German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark (a traitor to her own country, clearly), involves suicide bombing a movie theater that happens to be inhabited by the four major heads of power in the Third Reich, including Hitler. Little do the Basterds know that while they carry out their plan, the owner of the movie theater, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) has her own scheme in the works. When Dreyfus was a teenager, her family was murdered by Hans Landa, and she considers this to be the perfect time for revenge. Will either parties succeed in their mission? History says no, but Quentin Tarantino didn't set out to make a historically accurate film.

To those of you who are wondering, no, the Basterds were not real people. The events and people in Inglourious Basterds were all figments of writer/director Quentin Tarantino's imagination (excluding Hitler, of course). So if you have to write a school paper about World War II, I wouldn't sight Inglourious Basterds as a source of information. That paper, though probably extremely entertaining, would definitely get an F.
Inglourious Basterds was an original film to say the least. It was very noticeable that Quentin Tarantino had a great time both writing and directing this film. Even with some lagging parts in the screenplay, the fun that Tarantino is having never completely ceases. The Basterds have fun scalping their enemies, and we have fun watching them have fun. It seems grim, but it's the truth. It also helps to have two excellent lead actors on screen. Brad Pitt is terrific as the Nazi-hating Basterd leader from Tennessee, making every moment he is on screen a pleasure to watch. However, the real star is on the opposite side of Pitt's Aldo Raine, and that is Christoph Waltz, an Austrian actor that I quite frankly had never heard of. Waltz is brilliant as the sinister Hans Landa, and I would not be surprised if he earned an Oscar nomination for his performance.
But Inglourious Basterds was not a complete joy. I mentioned some lagging moments earlier, and I really meant there were LAGGING, DRAGGING parts. In the middle of the film, there were multiple scenes that I felt could have been shortened and possibly even removed. However, I come to expect this from Tarantino after watching Pulp Fiction. But just because I expect it doesn't mean I should accept it. Lots of the dialogue was uninteresting and I found myself drifting occasionally. The only actors that had consistently interesting lines were Pitt and Waltz. In one scene that takes place in a bar, neither Waltz or Pitt are on screen, and the ensuing 10 minutes were a chore to sit through, even with a concluding gunfight. My main criticism of Inglourious Basterds is one that I fear I won't be able to explain fully. After I watched Reservoir Dogs, I had known I just watched a Quentin Tarantino film. After I watched Pulp Fiction, I knew I had just watched a Quentin Tarantino film. The same thing after the Kill Bill films. If you have seen these movies, you probably know that feeling that I am talking about. But after Inglourious Bastards, that feeling was mysteriously absent. There were noticable Tarantino touches throughout the film, but as a whole, it just didn't give me that special feeling that his earlier films did. I would not be surprised if I am the only person that thinks that. If somebody argued that point with me, I may be proven wrong.
When all is said and done, Inglourious Basterds was a mostly very entertaining film. The ending will leave you satisfied, and maybe even laughing (I know I was). The great performances from Waltz and Pitt keep the pace steady whenever they are on screen, which is good because the film is 2 hours and 32 minutes long (an issue caused by previously mentioned pointless, rambling dialogue). And oh yea, Tarantino doesn't dissappoint in the blood and gore department either. My rating (7/10)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

God why did I miss this when it was in theaters!!!
A Jewish cinema owner (Mélanie Laurent) in occupied Paris is forced  to host a Nazi movie premiere, where a radical group of American Jewish  soldiers called the Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), plans  to roll out a score-settling scheme. The face-off is about to go down —  that’s if Col. Hans Landa aka “The Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz) doesn’t  get in the way.

First of all, Tarantino is really a genius. He combines the elements  of thriller, drama, comedy, action, and a bit of spaghetti-western. And  to be truly honest, they all work so well in this film.

The one thing I really loved about this film is that it just says no  to real-life history, and adds in its own history, told by Quentin  Tarantino. The way this was historically inaccurate was actually pretty  inspiring, because I’m actually starting to get sick of the WWII  holocaust Oscar-bait films that Hollywood puts out every year, and I  feel like Tarantino is just basically putting up his middle finger to  that whole machine.

I liked how Tarantino uses color in this movie, especially the color  red, to paint his picture. This is not just a throwback to the War  movies of old but it is updated style with an edge for the more  sophisticated viewer. Tarantino takes some creative license with history  to produce a complicated and very nice mix of unpredictable edge of  your seat entertainment that keeps you guessing until he is ready to  reveal the plot.

I really did like the script here and thought it was a lot more  different and updated than regular Tarantino scripts, but is so  overused. The overly constant talking of the film got a little out of  hand for me by the 1 hour and 30 minute mark, and it made me actually  feel bored and wish that they would just finally cut to the chase.

The characters are what really brings this film high up here with  Tarantino’s best. You get a look at these larger than life characters,  who do nothing but just kill and kill and kill Nazis, and thats all they  want to do. They become the good guys right from the get-go and you see  yourself cheering for them to win throughout the whole film. The only  problem I had was that they weren’t in the film as much as you would  expect. I would have liked to see them a lot more since you know it kind  of is called Inglorious Basterds.

Brad Pitt is basically what brings the heart and comedy to this film.  He brings out a lot of the funny parts between all the gore and  tension, and as much of a character-shtick that he was playing, he was  playing what Tarantino ultimately wanted him to be overall. But this  film is not much of the Brad Pitt show as it is the Christoph Waltz  show. How can this guy be so good at playing someone so evil?? He is so  great and so amazing at playing this “jew hunter”, who we want dead but  by the same token he sort of transcends into this guy we are sort of  amused by.

I also liked how half of this film was sub-titled and for some a lot  of reading will be involved. But for me I respect this and how he  supported this idea, and didn’t just go with suddenly everyone being  able to talk English, like I see in so many other film. Also, there were  a lot of random little film references that at points kept me  interested but then kept me a little left out. It was random to see a  little blaxplotation reference, but it didn’t matter in the end cause I  still had a great time with this film.

Consensus: One of Tarantino’s best work to date, Inglorious Basterds  is entertaining, amazingly-well acted, and perfectly written. I just  felt that some time could have been shed off from all that damn talking!

9/10=Full Priceeee!!!

(Read Less...)

life has its own ways of working out<br />
visit my movie review site at www.dtmmr.wordpress.com Feel Free to comment or request any movies at any time! :)