The Cynical Critic(s) | Critiquing movies, music, video games, and the kitchen sink

Aug/09

26

Hitler+Nazis+Pitt+Tarantino=Good

Holy crap, an actual post. Yes, after an absurdly long hiatus, I am back (for now). And since I’m back, I decided to review what happens to quite possibly be the most anticipated summer blockbuster, “Inglourious Basterds”. In case you are unfamiliar with the film, Inglourious Basterds is Quentin Tarantino’s latest flick. The movie itself is based in France/ other random mid-European places during the height of World War II. Brad Pitt stars at Lt. Aldo Raine, leader of the Inglorious Basterds, a group of Jewish-American soldiers out to “do one thing, and thing only, kill nazis,” as Pitt himself puts so elegantly. Also starring is Christoph Waltz as the evil, yet often hilarious SS agent Col. Landa. As well as Melanie Laurent as Jewish heroine, Shosanna Dreyfus, and Eli Roth as Basterd, Donny Donowitz. Well that’s enough for the intro, let’s delve deeper into the movie.

inglourious-basterds-poster

First let me just say that this is a classic Tarantino film. So if you’re reading this article and you are debating on seeing it or not, let me just ask you, have you enjoyed Tarantino’s films in the past? If you have, then check this out. You’ll probably enjoy it. But for those of you who generally pass on Tarantino, you may want to consider doing just the same for this movie. Tarantino really just does more of the same that he’s done with his other movies, and when it comes to major gripes that I had with this movie (if you can even call that a major gripe), it would have to be just that; the fact that Tarantino really doesn’t add a whole lot to Basterds that he hasn’t already added in his other movies.

In fact let’s examine this closer for a second, shall we? Most Tarantino films have a good amount of (seemingly) pointless swearing, lots and lots of dialogue, interesting camera shots, eccentric characters, and of course good fashion violence. On second thought, scratch that. All Tarantino movies have those things (except Jackie Brown. That had porn in it). So then, does Basterds follow this trend? Well, let’s see. There’s certainly not an absence of swearing, so that’s a check. And let’s not forget the diner scene that lasts for a good 10 minutes between Col. Landa and Shosanna, so that’s a definite check for long dialogue. Basterds also has some varied (and might I add, surprisingly smart) camera shots, so another check there. I personally found both Pitt and Waltz’s characters to be quite entertaining, so once more a check. And finally, Basterds has violent action scenes in spades.

So when looking at all these things, Basterds really does look like another typical Tarantino film. The thing is though, that’s not even technically a bad thing. As a viewer and movie critic however, I just sort of wished Tarantino had done something a little different. But maybe that’s what makes Tarantino, Tarantino.  He does things his own way, more or less. When I had first heard about the movie, I had such high hopes for it, and given the background and general idea behind the movie, I really thought Tarantino was gonna knock it out of the park. But what I got instead was just a good, entertaining movie, that seemed vaguely familiar in a Quentin sort of way, and yet  for some reason I feel let down. I probably really shouldn’t be holding this against the film itself, but for some reason I just can’t seem to help it.

Another issue I had with the movie was the lengthy dialogue in some scenes. Now, I know I just stated earlier on in my review that Tarantino is known for his lengthy dialogue scenes, but some of the scenes (one in particular) in Basterds almost get out of hand. Namely, the restaurant scene between Col. Landa and Shosanna. I felt that a large portion of it was unnecessary, and really slowed the movie down to almost a grind. In contrast however, I felt the long dialogue scene in the very beginning of the movie between Col. Landa and LaPadite was both tension filled, and very necessary. From a technical point of view, that was really my only major gripe I had with the film as a whole.

Now that we have got the negative stuff out of the way, let’s move on to what I actually liked about the film. Let me just say that I thought Pitt and Waltz were awesome this movie. Pitt seemed to have his character down perfect, in my opinion. Everything from slight mannerisms, to the way he delivered his lines, to his deep Tennessee accent, really seemed to flesh out his character. Waltz’s performance also really impressed me. I had never even heard of the guy until Basterds, but boy did he do a great job with portraying his character. Waltz did a fantastic job with balancing his action on screen; one second he would have the audience cracking up at his “eccentricness” and delivery of lines, and then the next second he would be horrifying the audience with the sheer brutality of his character. Every scene that he was in really seemed to add another layer of tension to the movie (except the restaurant scene of course, lulz).

I also really liked the camera work and cinematography in this movie. I thought Quentin had a couple of awesome shots, particularly the straight on shot between Col. Landa and LaPadite. And except for those few scenes, I thought the script was spot on, and pretty funny at times. The action sequences were also well done, and really seemed to showcase that classic Tarantino style that everyone has come to love.

The movie itself really seems to have a spaghetti western feel that oh-so many Tarantino movies have (i.e. Kill Bill). And in a lot of ways, it actually kind of works for Basterds, as strange as that may sound when considering the fact that Basterds is suppose to be a war movie, not a western.

\Except for those one or parts that seemed to drag, I really didn’t catch myself looking at my watch to see how much longer the movie had left. Overall, the movie is really just downright entertaining, which realistically probably makes up for its one or two drawbacks. Essentially, Inglourious Basterds is classic Tarantino. So if you’re in the mood to see Brad Pitt killing carving swastikas in to people’s heads, some rather interesting camera work, or nazis getting bashed in the face with baseball bats, then Inglourious Basterds is for you. And if you’re not in the mood for any of that, then chances are you aren’t reading this review to begin with.

8/10

RSS Feed

3 Comments for Hitler+Nazis+Pitt+Tarantino=Good

Silver | August 26, 2009 at 6:02 am

“I really didn’t catch myself looking at my watch to see how much longer the movie had left”…lol, I think I saw ya sneek a few peeks.

Agree with the super long scenes thing. I understand its how QT makes movies, but sometimes we get the point so early that he is trying to make and the scene drags on for an extra 10-15 minutes which can lead to heavy fatigue and paranoia (constantly thinking the scenes about over when its not). Also the beginning scene was so good with the pace and dialogue that it really trumped all the over long conversation pieces…Imagine if a couple of those long scenes were as good as the beginning scene, the movie would really be that much better in my opinion and when your dealing with “Nazi’s” and the tension that can bring in itself, I would expect Tarantino to not have a difficult time making these scenes freaking incredible (like the opener), not just good as most of them were. About the characters after having a ridiculously long sentence prior, Stiglitz was my favorite and Pitt was good. Lol…too tired to explain why, gnight.

Paula Wethington / Monroe on a Budget | August 26, 2009 at 6:13 am

Welcome back to the world of blogging : )

RB | September 2, 2009 at 9:47 am

Tarantino’s fashion violence in Jackie Brown is much more alarming–De Niro’s wardrobe alone still gives me the night sweats.

RB

Leave a comment!

« A Triumphant Return

A New Challenger Approaches! »

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.org