It may be a bit pretentious to start the review by stating this: INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is probably my generation's NAKED LUNCH. Quentin Tarantino's latest film has joined next to that film along with Cronenberg's other infamous creation CRASH as a movie that gave myself quite a debate to have. It has some great elements but the full scope of his vision prevents the film from being placed up there with the rest of his films.
The film's biggest problem that has been addressed often is the purely bait-and-switch advertisements for it. The ads set it up as a violent action film like the KILL BILL films with a tongue ripping through the cheek. However, the actual film has a ton of scenes where the dialogue is the bullets being fired. Unfortunately, the lines are more like a chain gun and not a sniper rifle. In other words, there is so much talking that the suspense built for certain scenes is nearly or completely gone by the end. Tarantino's words may be great but it shouldn't have so much attention to itself to suspend the flow of the story. Also, the Basterds aren't really the main characters or given the full spotlight. A more accurate film title would be "Triumph of the Film."
The main story of the film involves a young Jewish woman (Melanie Laurent) on the run after her family has been killed while hiding in rural France from the Nazis. She barely escapes from the grasp of the infamous Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who has been given the fortunate/unfortunate title of "The Jew Hunter." After a couple of years, the woman, revealed to be named Shosanna, is seen operating a film theater. She gains an annoying fan from a German soldier who later is shown to be a war hero. He has just finished a feature film of his exploits with Joseph Goebbels and wants to have the film premiere at her venue. With these recent developments, Shosanna decides to create an elaborate plan to take down the Nazi empire with the help of film.
The importance of film and entertainment during World War II has not been featured or discussed a lot in war films. Tarantino makes a great point with this inclusion, complete with giving the film-within-the-film a Eisenstein-esque style. The climax creates a truly shocking and very disturbing image as film is used a weapon to consume lives and transforms into a violent ghost of memory.
With just that idea, I should have adored this film but the rest of it doesn't work so well. The best example for its problems is the Basterds themselves. Tarantino doesn't give his usual rich characterization to the eight-man group, letting only a couple of them some back story. And when they do get it, these characters then are killed off in their next scenes. He simply tells us this group is vicious and hard to kill but skips over their year-long exploits to show them die horribly. I wished there was more time with them but since the writer/director doesn't want to, I also gave them a lack of attention. Other problems: The editing has a lot of jump cuts which works except for a major character's death and the weird footnotes and titles in the frames of the film turned me off.
The acting is obviously supposed to be over-the-top. While everyone does a fine job with their roles, the most noteworthy one is Christoph Waltz. After winning the Best Actor award at Cannes earlier, he has been the most talked about part of this film and it shows. He redefines the smiling Nazi role and makes Hans Landa appear to be the most sadistically happy of them all. In one such scene, where he sits next to a grown-up Shosanna in a restaurant, Waltz makes waiting for cream to be placed on a strudel to be very scary. Along with his constant switches between four different languages, Waltz has given one of the best of the year and deserves an Oscar nomination.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS wouldn't be Tarantino's most controversial film of all time but it will be his most controversial to discuss. Unfortunately, the specialness of Tarantino didn't work fully for me this time.
FINAL REVIEW: 3 / 5
The film's biggest problem that has been addressed often is the purely bait-and-switch advertisements for it. The ads set it up as a violent action film like the KILL BILL films with a tongue ripping through the cheek. However, the actual film has a ton of scenes where the dialogue is the bullets being fired. Unfortunately, the lines are more like a chain gun and not a sniper rifle. In other words, there is so much talking that the suspense built for certain scenes is nearly or completely gone by the end. Tarantino's words may be great but it shouldn't have so much attention to itself to suspend the flow of the story. Also, the Basterds aren't really the main characters or given the full spotlight. A more accurate film title would be "Triumph of the Film."
The main story of the film involves a young Jewish woman (Melanie Laurent) on the run after her family has been killed while hiding in rural France from the Nazis. She barely escapes from the grasp of the infamous Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who has been given the fortunate/unfortunate title of "The Jew Hunter." After a couple of years, the woman, revealed to be named Shosanna, is seen operating a film theater. She gains an annoying fan from a German soldier who later is shown to be a war hero. He has just finished a feature film of his exploits with Joseph Goebbels and wants to have the film premiere at her venue. With these recent developments, Shosanna decides to create an elaborate plan to take down the Nazi empire with the help of film.
The importance of film and entertainment during World War II has not been featured or discussed a lot in war films. Tarantino makes a great point with this inclusion, complete with giving the film-within-the-film a Eisenstein-esque style. The climax creates a truly shocking and very disturbing image as film is used a weapon to consume lives and transforms into a violent ghost of memory.
With just that idea, I should have adored this film but the rest of it doesn't work so well. The best example for its problems is the Basterds themselves. Tarantino doesn't give his usual rich characterization to the eight-man group, letting only a couple of them some back story. And when they do get it, these characters then are killed off in their next scenes. He simply tells us this group is vicious and hard to kill but skips over their year-long exploits to show them die horribly. I wished there was more time with them but since the writer/director doesn't want to, I also gave them a lack of attention. Other problems: The editing has a lot of jump cuts which works except for a major character's death and the weird footnotes and titles in the frames of the film turned me off.
The acting is obviously supposed to be over-the-top. While everyone does a fine job with their roles, the most noteworthy one is Christoph Waltz. After winning the Best Actor award at Cannes earlier, he has been the most talked about part of this film and it shows. He redefines the smiling Nazi role and makes Hans Landa appear to be the most sadistically happy of them all. In one such scene, where he sits next to a grown-up Shosanna in a restaurant, Waltz makes waiting for cream to be placed on a strudel to be very scary. Along with his constant switches between four different languages, Waltz has given one of the best of the year and deserves an Oscar nomination.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS wouldn't be Tarantino's most controversial film of all time but it will be his most controversial to discuss. Unfortunately, the specialness of Tarantino didn't work fully for me this time.
FINAL REVIEW: 3 / 5
No comments:
Post a Comment