Inglourious Basterds
http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/inglourious-basterds-p00.jpg
You would think, almost 20 years after hitting the big time in bloody fashion with a heist movie that didn?t even have a heist in it, that Quentin Tarantino would be running out of surprises. Well, Inglourious Basterds revels in proving the growing number of doubters, a result of the self-indulgent tedium of Kill Bill: Vol 2 and Death Proof, wrong. Indeed, the fact that the film was even released at all may prove surprising to some ? Tarantino has been talking up his war movie for the best part of a decade, and now it?s finally upon us, it seems Tarantino is dead set on pulling the rug out from under cinema audiences everywhere once again.
As with all Tarantino films, the plot, at heart, is very simple. This time around, it centres on a group of American guerrillas, behind enemy lines in France, who make it their mission to spread fear through the Nazi ranks by defiling the bodies of their victims. Actually, this isn?t entirely true ? the eponymous Basterds barely appear in the film, with the big-name lead Brad Pitt missing entirely for two of the films? five chapters, and as such the subplots in the film are richly developed in a way that Tarantino hasn?t done since Pulp Fiction. Of course, one thing that is unsurprising is that Tarantino is still in love with the human voice, with characters spewing dialogue at every possible oppourtunity. So far, so Death Proof, but as the opening chapter unfolds with a 20-minute conversation between a French dairy farmer suspected of harbouring Jews and the ?Jew Hunter? Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the realisation becomes clear that Tarantino has learned from his mistakes. The dialogue crackles and heaves with unspoken threats and dark implications, with every word spoken in the build-up devastatingly relevant to the payoff at the end of each chapter.
http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/I/inglourious_basterds_xl_01--film-A.jpg
This opening scene, which probably wouldn?t appear in any other war film, sets the tone for the rest of Inglouious Basterds. Rest assured, no matter what you expect from it, this film will still surprise you. It exudes a childlike glee in throwing curveballs at the audience until you give up trying to second-guess it and are forced to enjoy the ride. New characters are constantly introduced, built up, fleshed out and impressively portrayed, then swiftly and unceremoniously bumped off without a hint of drama, or so much as a sniff of a drawn-out death scene. Brad Pitt, as mentioned, isn?t the star of the show and as for historical accuracy? Tarantino doesn?t find the notion appealing, as several scenes take so many outrageous liberties they should not be spoiled beforehand.
Twice already I have touched on the fact that Brad Pitt, comfortably the biggest star in the film, is far from the conventional leading man. This is not to say he isn?t good ? indeed, he is perfect as the Basterd leader Aldo ?the Apache? Raine, and has many excellent lines delivered in an equally excellent Deep South accent. The rest of the cast are also up to the challenges Tarantino gives them, particularly the delightfully British Michael Fassbender, who plays an undercover agent by the name of Hicox, a gent who calls to mind more than a little David Niven, and a short but sweet cameo for Mike Myers who fits a smarmy British general like a glove. The man who really catches the eye, however, is Waltz?s Landa, a simply delightful creation that deservedly won him a best actor gong at Cannes, and, barring several mind-blowing performances in the coming months, will nail him on for an Oscar. He?s cruel and calculating, as we?ve come to expect from Hollywood?s Nazis, but also incredibly warm, friendly and quite charming when he wants to be. He?s an incredibly complex character, and one that Waltz portrays with a childlike glee ? watch how he toys with the victims of his interrogation, and how his personality subtly shifts depending on the company he keeps.
http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/I/inglourious_basterds_xl_02--film-A.jpg
It?s a performance that needs to be seen to be believed, for sure, not because of the phenomenal range of Waltz?s acting, but also because he is very, very funny. Indeed, though Tarantino?s films have never been without the odd dry laugh, Inglourious Basterds is probably the closest thing to a comedy he?s ever done. Most of the characters have their moments, and although the film starts out dry and intense it gradually gets funnier and funnier, and faster and faster, as it races towards an explosive, violent finale. Even the climax itself is so bold and downright outrageous that you?ll find yourself laughing at the most audacious thing Tarantino has ever committed to film. Some will even find what Tarantino does here rather offensive ? an eclectic mix of songs taken mostly from other films, scribbles on the screen pointing out chief antagonists, and an unashamedly cool narration from Samuel L. Jackson hardly afford the reverence Schindler?s List did to its subject matter, but these things all serve to make the film a unique experience. These are all typical ?movie-in-movie? touches to remind you that you are watching a Tarantino movie first and a war movie second, and a damn good Tarantino movie at that.
Ultimately, the deviousness of Inglourious Basterds, and the delight it takes in twisting and turning away from an audience, makes it an odd experience to watch, particularly for those who have no experience with the director?s other work. At two and a half hours, it can start to sag at times, particularly in the transitional third chapter, but as an experience it?s the best Tarantino has delivered since Pulp Fiction. At the end of the film, one character utters; ?I think this just might be my masterpiece?. It?s an appropriate closing line, and one that, upon writing, you feel Tarantino sighed contentedly, as it could well be true of Inglourious Basterds. If you are weary of giant robots, red matter, black holes and CGI guinea pigs this summer, Tarantino?s war epic is the perfect, blood-spattered tonic. War movies may never be the same again.
<spoiler=Other reviews><url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.122501>Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.128226>Killer7
http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/inglourious-basterds-p00.jpg
You would think, almost 20 years after hitting the big time in bloody fashion with a heist movie that didn?t even have a heist in it, that Quentin Tarantino would be running out of surprises. Well, Inglourious Basterds revels in proving the growing number of doubters, a result of the self-indulgent tedium of Kill Bill: Vol 2 and Death Proof, wrong. Indeed, the fact that the film was even released at all may prove surprising to some ? Tarantino has been talking up his war movie for the best part of a decade, and now it?s finally upon us, it seems Tarantino is dead set on pulling the rug out from under cinema audiences everywhere once again.
As with all Tarantino films, the plot, at heart, is very simple. This time around, it centres on a group of American guerrillas, behind enemy lines in France, who make it their mission to spread fear through the Nazi ranks by defiling the bodies of their victims. Actually, this isn?t entirely true ? the eponymous Basterds barely appear in the film, with the big-name lead Brad Pitt missing entirely for two of the films? five chapters, and as such the subplots in the film are richly developed in a way that Tarantino hasn?t done since Pulp Fiction. Of course, one thing that is unsurprising is that Tarantino is still in love with the human voice, with characters spewing dialogue at every possible oppourtunity. So far, so Death Proof, but as the opening chapter unfolds with a 20-minute conversation between a French dairy farmer suspected of harbouring Jews and the ?Jew Hunter? Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the realisation becomes clear that Tarantino has learned from his mistakes. The dialogue crackles and heaves with unspoken threats and dark implications, with every word spoken in the build-up devastatingly relevant to the payoff at the end of each chapter.
http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/I/inglourious_basterds_xl_01--film-A.jpg
This opening scene, which probably wouldn?t appear in any other war film, sets the tone for the rest of Inglouious Basterds. Rest assured, no matter what you expect from it, this film will still surprise you. It exudes a childlike glee in throwing curveballs at the audience until you give up trying to second-guess it and are forced to enjoy the ride. New characters are constantly introduced, built up, fleshed out and impressively portrayed, then swiftly and unceremoniously bumped off without a hint of drama, or so much as a sniff of a drawn-out death scene. Brad Pitt, as mentioned, isn?t the star of the show and as for historical accuracy? Tarantino doesn?t find the notion appealing, as several scenes take so many outrageous liberties they should not be spoiled beforehand.
Twice already I have touched on the fact that Brad Pitt, comfortably the biggest star in the film, is far from the conventional leading man. This is not to say he isn?t good ? indeed, he is perfect as the Basterd leader Aldo ?the Apache? Raine, and has many excellent lines delivered in an equally excellent Deep South accent. The rest of the cast are also up to the challenges Tarantino gives them, particularly the delightfully British Michael Fassbender, who plays an undercover agent by the name of Hicox, a gent who calls to mind more than a little David Niven, and a short but sweet cameo for Mike Myers who fits a smarmy British general like a glove. The man who really catches the eye, however, is Waltz?s Landa, a simply delightful creation that deservedly won him a best actor gong at Cannes, and, barring several mind-blowing performances in the coming months, will nail him on for an Oscar. He?s cruel and calculating, as we?ve come to expect from Hollywood?s Nazis, but also incredibly warm, friendly and quite charming when he wants to be. He?s an incredibly complex character, and one that Waltz portrays with a childlike glee ? watch how he toys with the victims of his interrogation, and how his personality subtly shifts depending on the company he keeps.
http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/I/inglourious_basterds_xl_02--film-A.jpg
It?s a performance that needs to be seen to be believed, for sure, not because of the phenomenal range of Waltz?s acting, but also because he is very, very funny. Indeed, though Tarantino?s films have never been without the odd dry laugh, Inglourious Basterds is probably the closest thing to a comedy he?s ever done. Most of the characters have their moments, and although the film starts out dry and intense it gradually gets funnier and funnier, and faster and faster, as it races towards an explosive, violent finale. Even the climax itself is so bold and downright outrageous that you?ll find yourself laughing at the most audacious thing Tarantino has ever committed to film. Some will even find what Tarantino does here rather offensive ? an eclectic mix of songs taken mostly from other films, scribbles on the screen pointing out chief antagonists, and an unashamedly cool narration from Samuel L. Jackson hardly afford the reverence Schindler?s List did to its subject matter, but these things all serve to make the film a unique experience. These are all typical ?movie-in-movie? touches to remind you that you are watching a Tarantino movie first and a war movie second, and a damn good Tarantino movie at that.
Ultimately, the deviousness of Inglourious Basterds, and the delight it takes in twisting and turning away from an audience, makes it an odd experience to watch, particularly for those who have no experience with the director?s other work. At two and a half hours, it can start to sag at times, particularly in the transitional third chapter, but as an experience it?s the best Tarantino has delivered since Pulp Fiction. At the end of the film, one character utters; ?I think this just might be my masterpiece?. It?s an appropriate closing line, and one that, upon writing, you feel Tarantino sighed contentedly, as it could well be true of Inglourious Basterds. If you are weary of giant robots, red matter, black holes and CGI guinea pigs this summer, Tarantino?s war epic is the perfect, blood-spattered tonic. War movies may never be the same again.
<spoiler=Other reviews><url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.122501>Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.128226>Killer7
