Featured Post

Letterboxd Reviews

So as you know, I stopped writing lengthy reviews on this site this year, keeping the blog as more of a film diary of sorts.  Lo and behold,...

Friday, March 05, 2010

Movie Review - Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Time to admit I was wrong. Just checked out this flick again on dvd and Tarantino has crafted a witty and thoroughly entertaining film. Scenes that I thought were much too long seemed to flow much better upon a second viewing. Pitt, Waltz, and Laurent were great. Yes, it's gimmicky at times and yes Tarantino goes over the top too often (that "music video" scene introducing the last chapter is ridiculously silly), but (in the complete opposite fashion of the last time I viewed this) the 150 minutes flew by.

So, I grossly misjudged this flick back in August '09. Take a look at my old review and the new rating below.


Original Post: 8/24/90
Starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger, and Mélanie Laurent
Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Admittedly, I'm not a Tarantino savant. I've only seen Pulp Fiction (which I think is good), Kill Bill Vol 1 (which I think is amazing and near perfect), and Kill Bill Vol 2 (which I think is a pretentious pile of you-know-what). The problem with Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is that I feel like he's only copying himself. Nothing about this new flick feels original. You want long scenes of dialogue that are essentially about nothing? They're here. You want violent deaths? He's got you covered. You want moderately cool camera shots and odd musical accompaniment? He doesn't let you down in that regard (even though he's copying these camera shots and reusing some music he's used in his other flicks). The thing is that even though I've only seen three other Tarantino movies, I've seen all this stuff before...and it's getting old.

As my fellow movie-goer and I were discussing after the flick last night, the movie wants you to think that this movie is about this group of Jewish-American soldiers headed by Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine known as the Basterds who trek across Europe killing and scalping Nazis. However, the flick really focuses on Christoph Waltz's Nazi "detective" Hans Landa. At the start, Landa is seeking out Jewish refugees, but as the flick continues, Landa starts to track down the Basterds.

Although that's a short summary for a movie that's over two-and-a-half hours long, that's really all you need to know. Tarantino peppers his movie with incredibly long scenes of loquacious dialogue that, admittedly, end with something cool happening, but force the viewer to sit through interminable chitchat. There's probably 45 minutes of good (even great) stuff in this flick, but it's nestled amongst 110 minutes of pretentiousness.

And that's the thing -- there is some really super stuff here. The last reel of the film is amazing. Nonstop entertainment and a fitting end to the flick. Additionally, all the acting is pretty top-notch. I was dreading director Eli Roth as a Basterd (because if Tarantino's acting in Pulp Fiction is any indication of directorial acting chops, Roth was in trouble), but he was oddly funny. Christoph Waltz is also quite good in what I'd consider the lead role of the film. Unfortunately, it's during his scenes where the dialogue never seems to end. The two ladies of the flick -- Diane Kruger's German movie star working undercover for the Allies and Mélanie Laurent's Jewish movie theater owner with a stunning revenge plan against the Nazis -- were also enjoyable to watch.

The film, however, belongs to Brad Pitt. After watching the previews, I was not looking forward to Pitt's performance at all, but Pitt seems to realize that there's no point in taking himself seriously here. He's over-the-top, but not so much so as to remove the viewer from the "realism" of the flick. With the recent Burn After Reading and to a lesser extent Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the Oceans flicks, Pitt definitely has a knack for comedy and he needs to pursue humor much more than the emotional melodrama of Benjamin Button.

As I'm watching the film, Tarantino just begs you to ask the question, is he a good director because he mimics other filmmakers/techniques/ideas and mashes them together into one movie? Or is he simply a copycat (even of himself, at times) who is adept at fooling people into thinking they're watching something original? Maybe that's a little harsh, and, if I'm being honest, I don't really ever want to see a "normal" straightforward Tarantino film. Despite the fact that I may not be effusively praising this flick, I would still much rather watch Tarantino at least do what he does than watch nearly any other action flick that came out this summer. But he's really kind of a joke to me now...he needs to expand his horizons a bit. Lord knows it's not as if he's making a movie a year, so maybe he needs to take some time and try something a little different on his next venture.

So, Inglourious Basterds is a conundrum. There's some really good stuff here, but it's too few and far between. The rating below is not going to fall into the "recommendation" category, but I actually urge folks to go and see it simply because, if you're a movie fan, it's worth viewing simply to be able to have a discussion post-movie. This movie commanded the longest post-movie discussion between me and my pal since My Sister's Keeper (you may think that's a joke, but the post-screening talk on My Sister's Keeper went on for over an hour). And should you watch the flick, I ask you this question...what exactly is Tarantino saying about film in general? The movie is very focused on the notion of cinema and what it can do to/for the masses and I don't necessarily think he's saying something positive (I'm sure he thinks he's cool because he's ironic in that regard...).

The RyMickey Rating upon initial release: C
The NEW RyMickey Rating (as of 2010): B+

8 comments:

  1. Does a movie have to have a meaning to be good, can't a movie just be very entertaining?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It doesn't have to have a meaning to be good (see Drag Me to Hell and Orphan).

    In order to be good, however, it shouldn't have multiple scenes of seemingly purposeless dialogue followed by two minutes of something that actually matters.

    I didn't hate this flick, but it felt like rehashed Tarantino (and I haven't even seen all of his movies).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm just going to quote a review I read after watching the movie since it more eloquently puts what I wanna say.
    "There is a point to the talk, however, that goes beyond the filmmaker showing off his skill with words. All these scenes precede instances of sudden, violent action and the threat of bloodshed is heavy in the air. With every sentence, the tension mounts. Tarantino uses these sequences to prime the audience, teasing them until the suspense is nearly unbearable, then releasing it in one explosive burst."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "teasing them until the suspense is nearly unbearable" -- which was okay the first time he did it, but he does it three or four or five more times!

    ReplyDelete
  5. And it worked, for me at least.

    I was more tense during this than I was in Orphan, Drag Me to Hell etc.

    Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Adjusted my rating up a half-point. Still not in the "recommended" section, but just a half-point away from that. The flick, overall, is still not sitting well with me, but I think I underrated the acting in my overall rating.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've been in a conundrum myself on whether to see this movie or not. [And WHY since I get to see movies for free. :-)] I'm with you on Tarantino - the one-trick-pony wears on me at this point like a YouTube viral video, clever at first but, you know, come on now...

    And Brad Pitt. I'm a 40+ year old woman who he actually doesn't do anything for. Handsome guy, sure, but ehhhh really. With that said, I have come to admire his acting greatly. Since 12 Monkeys I a pleasant excitement in seeing him tackle the odd roles - non-sexy-leading-man stuff - and succeeding, IMHO. But because everyone thinks he's SOOOOO GORGEOUS I usually don't want to like him. But I really do think he's a great actor.

    So, I guess in writing that and reading about at least a sizable portion of the movie being pretty good, maybe I'll venture out this weekend and see this movie. I'm mean, what's it really going to cost me but time. :-)

    ReplyDelete