Inglourious Basterds
Mikey 8 comments
Inglourious Basterds had a lot more riding on it than just Tarantinos' reputation. The directors latest flick was a gamble taken to get The Weinstein Company out of deep financial poo, and even with the $US65 million production cost and a $US35 million marketing bill, it seems the gamble has paid off with over $US311 million at the box office so far.
Set in World War 2 during the Nazi occupation of France, IG is the story of a small group of American-Jewish soldiers with only one agenda - kill as many Nazis as possible. Combine this setting with Tarantinos' story telling style and you'd be correct in guessing it's extremely violent but as tasty as a Royale with cheese.
As part of Raines' outfit, each solider is required to obtain no less than 100 Nazi scalps, and if you're wondering the answer is yes - this is shown on more than one occasion.
The movie introduces a French farmer who is coerced by a Nazi officer into making an impossible choice which I will not divulge here in the interest of not spoiling it, but this act sets up the rest of the film which is really two stories which overlap. One of a young Jewish girls revenge plot and the other of Raines' under cover operation.
The acting is top notch even from the under-rated Brad Pitt as the Basterds over-Americanised leader Aldo Raine, and Christopher Waltz does a particularly good job of turning the audience against him as the decorated Nazi 'Jew Hunter' Hans Landa. Although really it's not hard to hate a Nazi, Waltz' performance is especially anger inducing.
Where it starts to get a bit sloppy though is with pacing. I don't know why Tarantino insists on having characters indulge in unnecessarily long dialogue. At the beginning of the film it works because there is such high tension that you know something terrible is going to happen any moment - but you don't know when - because nothing good can come from a surprise visit from a Nazi officer.
But further into the film during the under cover operation it serves no purpose and comes across as extremely banal. Twenty minutes of dialogue could have been shaved from IG but then the movie would have been a lot shorter. I think I might have just found Tarantinos reasoning.
Snooze inducing extended dialogue aside, Inglourious Basterds is worth a look, even if it doesn't doesn't hold much replay value.
Phil H
Saturday 26th December 2009 | 07:19 PMI loved it. Didn't find the pacing a problem, or the dialogue boring.
And I'm not really a Tarantino fan.
I just saw this, and I have to say: I totally enjoyed it. I-for reasons unknown to me-like Brad Pit, and find his performing ability to go beyond his face, body, and dialogue.
I found this film fairly absorbing, and it had my attention all the way through. It did seem to have what I guess you could only call "The Tarantino Difference." I'm not sure how to describe it, but I would say that Inglorious Bastards had an air of accuracy, combined with an off the wall presentation.
In a world currently filled with movies on the subject of Nazi's, the Holocaust, WWII, and the like, this was refreshingly different, and worth seeing. But, like Mikey, I would say that once is enough.
F-
Trent Greguhn
Sunday 27th December 2009 | 01:37 PM...in response to this comment by Friendo. I agree. For proof of that with Brad Pitt watch A River Runs Through It. Brilliant movie, brilliant script, brilliant acting.
I loved Inglorious Basterds, but I'm also a Tarentino fan. I own a great majority of his movies-- most of them I think, excluding Jackie Brown.
...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. I used to say I'm a Tarantino fan but now I just say I like some of his movies. Basterds was actually OK but as mentioned there were times when it was too wordy.
His worst offence with that was in Deathproof (https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=1293) which had 45 minutes - that's 45 MINUTES - of characters talking nothing but drivel. I mean pure mindless crap that no sane person would speak unless they are narcissistic self indulgent prats with the IQ of a paving brick and a limited vocabulary range. I was embarrassed to just be listening to it.
I don't mind wordy films when there is a point to it or when it actually lends something to the story. But when you realise the movie would have worked without those talky scenes, you also realise Tarantino only does it for filler.
Phil H
Sunday 27th December 2009 | 07:18 PMOh, actually, the main thing I liked about Inglourious Basterds was the fact that it made no pretence to historical accuracy. This puts it in my eyes far above most war films, such as Clint Eastwood's revisionist Letters From Iwo Jima.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 06:03 AM...in response to this comment by Mikey. Death Proof I do own, but will agree with you. The first half of the movie with all that "character development" and the girls talking about who knows what that doesn't mean a thing to anyone. And then what happens? Well, no spoiler alert, but you know what I'm talking about Mike.
I love Kurt Russell, Rose McGowan, and Rosario Dawson, but at one point with the dialogue enough is enough.
The term I use to describe this film is "self indulgent"
Tarantino has been a self indulgent filmmaker and has been praised for it up until the Death Proof and the first half of the movie is fast forward material all the way.
This film is just one more that solidifies my opinion that the role of Creative Producer is not only on its way back, but is desperately needed.
Kim OJ
Saturday 26th December 2009 | 07:12 PMThe dialog is one of Tarantino's trademarks, and I agree that it is too much here. The comparison with a Royal with Cheese is warranted, since this definitely is a fast food movie. The Nazi Jew-Hunter makes for the only interesting character, and I think it could have been an more interesting movie if he had carried more of the plot.