Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Inglourious Basterds

"Inglourious Basterds" is as my friend calls Tarantino films "gratuitous," but it's also an absorbing film on many levels, one of which being how (as has been said very often) Tarantino has his films look and how he shifts between "genres" so effortlessly. Filmed by Robert Richardson ("Kill Bill") with what Ebert calls in his review "the deep, rich colors of 35mm" with set decoration by Sandy Reynolds-Wasco (a Tarantino regular), we have a visually sound film here. This is the building block for something good, and we get that.

The film chronicles "Nazi-occupied France" when very key things are happening within it. An unseen force is literally cutting through the heads of the Germans. These are the eponymous Americans, and their methods are as such due to the fact Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) wants to "be cruel to the Germans." The script by Tarantino (which I read beforehand to get somewhat of an idea of what this movie would be, and it was very helpful) gave more backstory on them, or at least Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth), who rivals the collective methods of the group with some gruesome ones of his own. Germans (at least for a little bit) have a resource of their own in Hans Landa, a Colonel who critics have described as "charming" and who is undoubtedly deplorable. Christoph Waltz has gotten a lot of awards attention, and he's, as another friend said, "very good." As that same friend noted, he sounds at times like he's taken a couple notes from Heath Ledger's book, since when he exclaims "That's a bingo!" (a line endearing to users of Itunes) there's a trace of a Joker there (and in a couple other moments, too). Anyways, I probably should get back to the plot.

As Ebert noted, it's a "big" film, and it's a wide one. As noted in the structure of Ebert's review (with "The Hero, the Nazi, and the Girl"), the film is a wonder of three converging plot strands, and has more to offer than just those. If I had to pick a problem, perhaps it would be with Melanie Laurent and her sort of rushed plots. But then again, that section may have suffered from the "loss of Maggie Cheung's part" (as reported by the Playlist). If I remember correctly from the script, the sections were a little more divided correctly with her in it. But nevertheless, the movie is still good. I was worrying about how the "basement fight scene" and beyond would turn out on screen, since when I read it I was a little underwhelmed. But my friend (who thought the film was "bizarre") acknowledged this scene as "ingenious," and I think I have to agree. It's definitely a visual thing.

What I have to say is this: some have said this is one of the better films of 2009. It's good, and actually very enjoyable (sounds like a macabre thing to say, but yes). I strongly recommend (like myself and others such as the Playlist, who may have given me the idea to read it) reading the script beforehand to get an idea of the film you're seeing (like others on CommonSenseMedia among other places have said, "It's not all about the basterds"). For me, it was like I got to see the film twice. This is how you should "experience it", not through just plot details. B

Yes, the film is "self-indulgent" (my friend and/or a lot of other people said this). So was "A Single Man". So how is this one better? More diverting. As Ebert said, "quixotic delights".

8 comments:

S. M. Rana said...

Balance of evaluation, that's something! An A to Sita and A- to Locker! I find myself sort of agreeing!

aspergiansarah said...

Does this movie has as be quotable lines as "Pulp Fiction?" If not, good. This might be interesting to watch because PF was a good movie (and truly one of the most original films I've seen, though it doesn't work too much as a comedy for me- my sense of humor isn't sadistic enough.)

But every time my dad and I watch this I regret it cause he talks about 'tasty beverages' for the rest of the week. I'll have to watch it behind his back.

PS I promised not to write any more on "Up," so I won't. My brother's friend is under the impression "Transformers 2" is great as well. There's a difference, though. The first was actually funny.

Nick Duval said...

This movie does have that line (that was quoted in EW's end-of-the-year list) "I'm not in the prisoner taking business. I'm in the killing Nazi business, and cousin, business is a-booming" as well as some others that you might have seen/heard in the trailer. It is a pretty harsh film in some scenes, though, and I turned away for some long shots (my friend didn't get why Tarantino decided to be so frank in his filmmaking).

--- Nick

aspergiansarah said...

Eh, Blood and guts don't bother me too much anymore. I still have that gut reaction, though- even though the blood doesn't bother me I still can't LAUGH when Marvin gets his brains blown out, even though it's a movie

Sometime Quentin Tarantino and David Slade ("Hard Candy") worry me a bit because I have no clue what I'm supposed to be feeling about it.

Others, like Neil Jordan and Simon Rumley, expect your emotional reaction (in fact, they prey on it) and seem to identify with the horror of what you're watching. The difference is that they actually sympathize with their characters.

*sigh* I must confess I still shake watching school shootings, even simulated ones, and although I can watch intense dramas and comic horror movies, I have not yet reached the point of my dad's friends to see (real) people die on youtube and laugh.

Any thoughts on dehumanization through media?

Nick Duval said...

Tough subject. The whole "it's just a movie" meme justifies the unspeakable. If you've seen the "Kill Bill"s, "a lot of the violence is played for laughs" (a phrase that seemingly lets the viewer untangle themselves from reality and just find macabre things humorous). I think that may be what Tarantino is all about: when the fatal becomes weirdly funny. That's why a lot of people both like him and dislike him.

--- Nick

aspergiansarah said...

There seem to be two differing opinions. One is that movies sporting gratitous violence or just plain disturbing content (watch "The Butcher Boy," which is both a great movie and a very difficult one to sit through) are acceptable if the are handled responsibility. The other is expalined through this exchange with my dad.

Me- So... do you think it's better to take human suffering seriously or play it in a dehumanized way?

Dad- I like, like, "Pulp Fiction" better.

Me- Well... so if someone's head gets blown off and it's funny it's a good movie?

Dad- Um... (slightly fecetiously) yeah.

Me- Seems like a dodgy philosophy.

Yeah. I guess these movies could hurt victims of violence. But, you know, every person on the planet has a movie that would hurt or offend them. It would be hard to keep up with all these hypothetical people.

I just avoid ultra-violent movies I don't really want to watch (don't get me wrong, I find "Shaun of the Dead" infinitely rewatchable and don't need coercion to see "Pulp Fiction")out of personal guilt. But people are surround with depressing sh*t everywhere they go.

I'm not sure a psychological thriller will injure our optimism or tell us something we don't know. Unless you're that British lady Poppy from "Happy-Go-Lucky, who wasn't daft as much as just she shut the negative things in life out of her mind.

aspergiansarah said...

There seem to be two differing opinions. One is that movies sporting gratitous violence or just plain disturbing content (watch "The Butcher Boy," which is both a great movie and a very difficult one to sit through) are acceptable if the are handled responsibility. The other is expalined through this exchange with my dad.

Me- So... do you think it's better to take human suffering seriously or play it in a dehumanized way?

Dad- I like, like, "Pulp Fiction" better.

Me- Well... so if someone's head gets blown off and it's funny it's a good movie?

Dad- Um... (slightly fecetiously) yeah.

Me- Seems like a dodgy philosophy.

Yeah. I guess these movies could hurt victims of violence. But, you know, every person on the planet has a movie that would hurt or offend them. It would be hard to keep up with all these hypothetical people.

I just avoid ultra-violent movies I don't really want to watch (don't get me wrong, I find "Shaun of the Dead" infinitely rewatchable and don't need coercion to see "Pulp Fiction")out of personal guilt. But people are surround with depressing sh*t everywhere they go.

I'm not sure a psychological thriller will injure our optimism or tell us something we don't know. Unless you're that British lady Poppy from "Happy-Go-Lucky, who wasn't daft as much as just she shut the negative things in life out of her mind.

aspergiansarah said...

Oops, sorry about the double comment. Wasn't trying to be annoying, just made a mistake.