Saw the new Quentin Tarantino film, Inglourious Basterds, and thought it was excellent, despite it being a bit too long and containing spasms of unnecessary flourishes.While the trailer makes you believe the story is about an elite group of Jewish American soldiers rampaging around Nazi occupied France, the meat of the film revolves around a plot to bomb/burn down a cinema containing high ranking Nazis.
And instead of loads of gun fights and explosions, the majority of the film (the best parts anyway) involve lengthy interrogations, disguised as conversations.
The opening is a breathless scene between the Jew hunter, Nazi Col. Hans Landa (brilliant brilliant Christoph Waltz), harassing a poor farmer in French and English regarding a missing Jewish family. The other stand out scene is in a basement tavern with British agent, Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) verbally fencing an SS officer (sorry, can't figure out who plays this part).
Other scenes worth mentioning are Landa sharing a strudel with cinema owner Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) in a cafe, Shosanna getting ready for the big movie premier (with a use of David Bowie's Cat People which rivals the use of Stealer's Wheel's Stuck in the Middle with You in Reservoir Dogs), and when love struck Nazi filmstar/sharpshooter Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) confronts Shosanna in the projection room.
I think the balance of the Inglourious Basterds group of soldiers, lead by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and Shosanna works well as it give me reason to care if the cinema plot worked. The heart of the story belongs to Shosanna.
And although the Shosanna story line has the stronger narrative, the Raine strand gives the overall film more energy and makes it more edgy. It also sets a overblown, almost parodic tone to the film, or how else could you so casually rewrite history if you were taking it so seriously?
The film is also about reputations and stories. Raine wants the Nazis to fear them. Landa is given two nicknames (The Hangman, and the Jew Hunter). Raine is given a nickname (the Apache), as are members of his team (the Bear Jew, etc...). Zoller's killing exploits has made him famous amongst Nazis, so much so a movies has been made of him.
And the film might be a bit too long, and the style of the film isn't consistent, but so what? Take the Bear Jew montage with the Samuel Jackson voiceover. Why was that there? It jumps out, then is never used again. The hand written arrows pointing out characters also seem out of place, lazy even, instead of thinking a more cinematic way of introducing them.
The film could be trimmed to make it tighter, but to be honest, it would watching a spectacular troupe of back-flipping, fire-juggling acrobats and complaining that their sequins were crooked.
And I did really enjoy it. I liked the madness of it all. I liked the way I didn't know where it was going, didn't know who would live and who would die. I also didn't mind the fact it was amoral (which I think it is) because you can't take a film like this too seriously anyway.
Inglourious Basterds isn't a war film, and isn't even a Jewish revenge tale. It's a mish-mash of violence, myth making, tension, and glorious movie making exuberance.
5 comments:
Yeah you liked it more then I did. It is most definitely a good movie. Tarantino does construct some great scenes but it doesn't hang together at all. If it wasn't for the acting and some truly memorable scenes I would label this as mediocre, but as it stands its a good solid flick however I want, and expect, more from Tarantino.
I think your writer's voice sounds more and more like Roger Ebert every time I read another of your reviews. Make of that what you will.
i do love roger ebert, probably my favourite film reviewer on the interweb.
philip french is my second.
In real life, when I see him at charity quizzes and media events, Philip French moves like a 120-year-old and reminds me of almost dead Rod Steiger (the last bald years). I always think I should say something to him, cos he's always sitting on his own, but if he replies, his frail body might collapse through the sheer effort.
So better not risk it.
His reviews, however, though he still pulls some exceptional ones out of the bag on occasion, are way too didactic. I like the incomparable history he doles out, but there's so much of it, it drowns the nice critical fireworks that are hidden therein.
Of living ones, I like Anthony Lane the best, one of the two New Yorker critics (David Denby Schmenby). When he likes stuff I like. When he doesn't FUCK HIM, fucking stuck-up husband of Daily Mail columnist Alison Pearson.
But you should buy his collected journalism Nobody's Perfect. Because it is brilliant. He's got a way with words, unlike 99% of the film critic community (and that's a high high estimate)
i'll give the book a go.
and you should say hi to philip french the next time you see him, or else you may never get the chance again. tell him your pal (ie me) likes his film reviews, even though you think he's too didactic.
Post a Comment