I probably dont’t have to repeat this, but I’m a HUGE QT fan. I feel as though Tarantino’s flicks are creating a solid mold for creative storytelling in movie form for years to come. True Romance is one of my favorite stories of all time, Reservoir Dogs was brilliant, Pulp Fiction speaks for itself and the Kill Bill Saga seemed to be setting the stage for the second coming of QT. The only problem was that once Kill Bill fell out of the picture, I think Quentin went a little too genre with his flick Death Proof. Don’t get me wrong, it was still a pretty great watch, but it was significantly less influential than most of his previous work. Fast forward to this year’s Inglourious Basterds, and I’m sorry to say that Tarantino is still in a bit of a rut. Keep in mind that because flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs were so good, I expect amazing things every time I watch a QT movie, but Inglourious Basterds didn’t live up to the hype. It was still one of the better films I’ve seen this summer, but I expected something more from QT.
The story was very Tarantino. Based mostly in revenge and character development leading up to a bloody climactic mess, QT never disappoints. He writes with a goal in mind all of the time and sometimes audiences have to wait until the very last scene to see everything tie together. Inglourious Basterds was no different in that the story moved in a lot of different directions at the same time, only to meet in the end for a satisfying resolution. Written in classic Tarantino fashion (a variety of shorts assembled based on telling the entire arc), Inglourious Basterds tells the fictional tale of a group of Jewish soldiers who terrorize the Nazis, a vengeful theater owner and one of the baddest muthafuckas QT has ever written in Colonel Landa. QT bases his stories mostly around the development of his characters and always makes a point of explaining their motivations through a series of conversations of who they are as people, not just plot devices. Normally this is the strength of a QT flick, but for some strange reason, this was the major downfall for Inglourious Basterds. It could be because my generation is so used to QT explaining things through pop-culture like TV, movies and music, but I really felt the story slowed down during these typical Tarantino conversations because I couldn’t relate to the material as much as I’m used to. The dialogue was still tight and moved quite quickly, but the details that usually make these conversations memorable really weren’t there for me. One of the reasons why a lot of the dialogue might have gone over my head is because a lot of it was in a different language. I don’t have a problem with reading subtitles but I never expected to have to read through the brilliant Tarantino dialogue on the bottom of the screen while it was being spoken in German, French and Italian.
The cast of Inglourious Basterds is really what stands out. With strong actors like Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger you knew the performances would be great – and they were. The only strange thing was that all of the aforementioned actors were completely outdone by Christopher Waltz as he played the villain Col. Landa. Waltz isn’t a household name, but after breaking out in this flick, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start hearing this name for a long time now. His deadpan reaction to his surroundings were amazing, but nothing compared with the brilliant way Waltz was able to play evil with a smirk. By the end of the flick you wanted the most terrible things to happen to him and in my mind, makes his performance spot on. Pitt and crew delivered as usual, but it really was Waltz that stole the show for me.
The typical Tarantino style of shooting a flick is difficult to hammer down to a few points. One of his strengths really is his versatility in shooting two person conversations, then completely switching to a well choreographed action sequence. Inglourious Basterds is a good example of his versatility in that he uses a combination of rolling establishing shots, close-ups and long cuts for characters on the move. No complaints here as I think I’ve become accustomed to how QT shows us everything we should know as an audience.
Inglourious Basterds is a good flick – it’s just not a great Quentin Tarantino flick. I applaud him for trying to do something a little bit different than we’re used to in doing a multilingual fictional period piece, but I think in doing so, he really hurts the pacing of his own film. This flick has some great moments and as always some memorable characters, but you do have to wait for them and wait quite a while sometimes. I’m going to have to give Inglourioius Basterds a 7 out of 10 on the flightless bird scale. This could have been the fact that I was expecting something a little bit different, but I really believe Tarantino has more in him than what he shows on screen. I recommend checking it out in a few weeks time when all of the hype has calmed down.
[...] weekend, if you haven’t checked it out and aren’t sure if you should, then read the Bloated Penguin’s review here (don’t worry there aren’t any spoilers). Here’s a movie poster from Tyler Stout [...]
I recently saw the film and I though it was great. Colonel Landa, Christopher Waltz, really stole the movie from the beginning scene ith the French farmer to the one where he questioned the actress. This is a very intellectural movie in that all bases were covered before moving on. I can understand why viewers will have a hard time figuring the characters out becuase everything moves very slowly. Everything is calculated and even the special effects are paced. I really enjoyed it.
Gunit
I wholeheartedly agree with you “wooooooooo! BINGO!!! is that how you say it???”