1001 Movie Collection

2 Comments for this entry

• Timber
  March 5th, 2010 on 7:41 pm

  This movie is really pretty outstanding. The opening scene is intense, frightening, shocking, and appauling all at once, and it sets up the entire film perfectly. I really had no expectations for this movie because I had read so many mixed reviews and none of them really said anything, so I actually thought this was a really good movie although a bit drawn out. The film is artfully done beautifully shot and extremely well acted. Now here’s why you may not like this quite as much as I did and why my wife absolutely HATED it. What most expected from this movie: 1- Gore, action, and more gore and more action 2- A story that follows the Basterds as they wreak havoc on Hitler’s army 3- Maybe a few subtitles as the film does take place in France after all 4- Classic Quentin Tarantino comedic dialogue What the film actually is: 1- A character driven story HEAVY on dialogue and other than the last 20 minutes extremely light on action with a couple pretty graphic gory bits tossed in. The last 20 minutes is extremely graphic and violent. 2- The story largely follows the young Jewish girl/woman who escapes the opening scene. The Basterds are just kind of there as an afterthought because they are planning to blow up the same theater. 3- This film is conservatively speaking about 80% subtitled and spoken either in German or French. 4- The only part that is really funny (and it is hilarious) is Brad Pitt “speaking” Italian so poorly that Helen Keller could have picked him out as the American in the crowd. I’ve read negative reviews about how this film is “war porn” and diminishes U.S. veterans in some way, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. First of all this film is pure fiction that just happens to take place during WWII in France. Nothing depicted in this film is based in any way on fact. It is a complete fantasy of what could have possibly happened if Hitler and all the Nazi upper echelon had all decided to go to a jewish owned movie theater to watch a propaganda film. Overall it is an extremely well made film that does just about everything well. It is a little bit drawn out at over 2.5 hours but like I said it is very well done and the acting is superb. 4.5 stars. I’d recommend it but be sure to have an open mind.
• Journey
  March 6th, 2010 on 2:38 am

  This review is from: Inglourious Basterds [Theatrical Release] (Theatrical Release)

  One of the great pleasures of Quentin Tarantino movies is the wonderfully inventive casting that he employs. In PULP FICTION, he revived the career of John Travolta, made Samuel Jackson a star, pushed Bruce Willis into another echelon and even helped get Ving Rhames off to a good start. In JACKIE BROWN, he burnished Pam Grier & Robert Forster’s careers. In KILL BILL, he reinvented Uma Thurman and reinvigorated David Carradine. Even in DEATH PROOF, he introduced the world to the amazing stuntwoman Zoe Bell and gave Kurt Russell the kind of part he’s missed out on for too long. And now, wonderfully, in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, he’s introduced the American viewer to some stellar European actors, namely Melanie Laurent and particularly Christoph Waltz, now an easy favorite for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Tarantino also frequently tries the patience of his viewers with his rococo dialogue and insistence on constantly reminding us that we’re watching a movie. In PULP FICTION, all his “habits” were fresh and new to most viewers (because, really, how many of us had seen RESERVOIR DOGS before we saw FICTION?), but over time, we learned that Tarantino was often just a little too pleased with his own screenwriting and often too pleased with his own directing. In a completely off-the-wall piece like the priceless KILL BILL films, everything worked to form a crazy-quilt whole. In INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, he’s too clever for his own good at times. BASTERDS tells the completely untrue story of how World War II might have ended had a group of bloodthirsty, highly trained American Jews been allowed to infiltrate Nazi occupied France with no mission other than to take Nazi scalps. Oh, and how that mission needed to collide with one fateful night when all the top leadership of Germany attended the gala opening of a new propaganda film held at a movie theatre owned by a beautiful French girl who was actually a Jew who had escaped a massacre that had taken her entire family and now she’s bent on revenge at any cost. And of how her goal coincides with that of an undercover British agent who just happens to be a German film scholar and a German double agent who happens to be a movie star. I know that sounds a little confusing. To Tarantino’s credit, the plot as laid out in this 150 minute film is actually easy to follow. In fact, he’s put everything into easy-to-digest chapters. It does ask us to believe that every important member of the German government & military would all assemble in a fairly public place at one time…but if you can get past that hurdle, there is much vicarious pleasure to be had in watching WWII reinvented by Tarantino. By far, the best part of the film is Chapter 1. It features Waltz as SS officer Col. Hans Landa in what is easily the most chilling portrayal of a Nazi since Ralph Fiennes donned the uniform in SCHINDLER’S LIST. Fiennes role (and that entire brilliant movie) were for altogether different purposes. Landa comes off more like a Nazi Hannibal Lecter (without the strange dining preferences)…he’s a bit of a lone wolf in his own party. He’s feared by all, because he has a wonderful BS detector that helps him root out deception at every turn. In the opening scene, which plays out like a delicate one-act play, Landa comes to a humble French farmhouse and speaks with the owner. We know the owner is hiding Jews beneath his floorboard, and we’re pretty sure Landa knows it too. Just how he gets that information, through one of the most tense interrogation scenes you’ll ever see, is a joy to behold. You literally find yourself not breathing. I leaned forward in my seat. And yet there is never a raised voice, nor a threatening gesture. The screws are applied through intensity of manner. Waltz instantly makes his character a classic. Tarantino the writer has crafted brilliant dialogue, and Tarantino the director films it all with rare taste and simplicity, and Waltz knocks it out of the park. The rest of the film is more uneven. While Brad Pitt is a goofy delight as Aldo Raine, leader of the Basterds…it’s a performance that is more campy than believable. His Basterds, including folks like director Eli Roth and B.J. Novak from TV’s “The Office” are fairly interchangeable. And strangely, we look forward to them conducting KILL BILL PT. ONE type mayhem, yet they actually use relatively little screentime showing them in action. There is one short, effective scene of their own brand of interrogation…but mostly we have to take the word of other characters (like Hitler himself) that these guys are wreaking havoc on the Nazis. And during one jarring moment, we are introduced to one of the basterds with a blast of `70s era Blaxploitation music and a `70s era title card. Why? Yes, it was funny…but it took everyone totally out of the spell the movie was weaving. Just as having Michael Myers, in thick but unconvincing makeup, play a British officer hatching a scheme to blow up a movie theater, was very distracting. Myers accent is impeccable, and he plays the part straight…but he’s still unmistakably Myers and many audience members snickered when they recognized him. Very distracting. It’s as though Tarantino doesn’t quite believe that he can make a straightforward film and have it be riveting. Too bad…because when he gets out of his own way (as he mostly does in the climactic sequences of the film), INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a cinematic treat. The gorgeous settings and lovely costumes even gave Tarantino a chance to show off and have it fit the tone of the film…but he still insists on going off the rails. “Hey, this is a Tarantino movie!” he seems to want to shout at us. And this causes him to get in the way of the stunning Melanie Laurant, who plays the vengeful theater owner. I’ve never seen her before, and she is an entrancing presence, whether in casual slacks or a gorgeous formal red dress. She dominates the final portions of the film. I had a great time at this film, and I recommend it fairly highly. But with 10 minutes less of the sometimes too clever dialogue and 5 minutes less of Tarantino’s showboating, and we might have had a true classic of suspense. See it, though, because the two performances I mentioned are worth the price of admission…heck, the opening scene is worth it.