Inglourious Basterds (2009)

"Say 'auf Wiedersehen' to your Nazi balls. "

Inglourious Basterds (2009) is Quentin Tarantino’s unique WWII epic about language and revenge. The film simultaneously follows Lt. Aldo Raine and his group of Nazi hunting Jewish American soldiers called "The Basterds" and Shoshana a French Jew who barely escapes death at the hands of the Nazi SS and sees and opportunity to exact revenge on the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

I really like how Quentin Tarantino, who is known for his dialogue filled with pop culture references, uses pop culture to his advantage in this film. The characters in this film still talk about pop culture in a very Tarantino fashion, but they talk about actors, movies, music and even historical events that were important and hot topics during the time this is supposed to take place. I think this is very interesting and super smart of Tarantino, and not many other writers could actually pull something like this off in a film.

I believe this film is proof Quentin Tarantino finally settling into his own way of storytelling that works for him. This film stops with clever attempts to reinvent how to tell a film story with different formats, instead with this one he kind of makes up his own quirky way to tell a story. The majority of this film is actually straight linear storytelling, but through clever editing (and some other small tricks) Tarantino cuts away in the middle of a scene or action to explain anything further than the linear story can tell. This is evident more than anything in the sudden interrupting flashback/voice over to explain Hugo Stiglitz, the German soldier who went AWOL and killed 13 Nazi officers. It's stylish and still better than random exposition. Kill Bill (2003, 2004) did this also, to a much lesser degree actually (on top of the mixed-up-chapter nonlinear storytelling) in Volume 1 it cut away to set up a lot of the story while the Bride was trying to 'wiggle her big toe' and in Volume 2 it cut away to explain the Pai Mei flashback while she's stuck in a coffin buried alive. And now, retrospectively, I can see Django Unchained (2012) did this for all of its nonlinear cuts, essentially it's just a stylish and very streamlined way to do a flashback and relate relevant exposition or backstory.

My biggest problem with this film is it doesn't feel like one film, instead it feels like a bunch of separate incidents that are loosely connected. The film is essentially telling two different stories moving forward about about the same thing. For my taste I would have liked to see these two stories crossover more, because as it is side characters cross over and (a couple) events cross over from one story to the other but otherwise they're pretty much completely separate stories. There's actually some kind of humor in the fact that they both climb to basically the same climax and never actually cross [though I liked this better in True Romance (1993) where they actually crossed at the end,] and maybe that's what he was going for, but to me this feels incredibly like a serial TV show with a bunch of different characters moving forward and doing different things than a movie that is nicely interconnected.

Also adding to the feel of a TV show, there's too many characters in this film for my taste. This just makes it so that there's a lot of different things going on in this movie that we have to keep track of, I really didn't even appreciate how much is actually really going on in this film until subsequent viewings. Now a majority of the characters come from the fact that he's telling two separate stories, the antagonists (thankfully) carry over in both stories but each has its own set of protagonists and then halfway through we add even more with the advent of "Operation Kino." I've got to ask why the heck there's so many Basterds? It's fine we show 9 Basterds at the beginning of the film (some of which actually never do anything!), and then we add in the German Stiglitz (that's 10) and then we add the two foreign British agents in Operation Kino. I'm not a fan of useless characters or characters who's sole purpose is to die. At least why couldn't we just start with less soldiers in the Basterds to begin with? And all these protagonists are just for one story of the two in this film.

There's also a couple times the film's characters switch language kind of sloppily for convenience more than anything else. The first one is in the opening sequence, and I always find myself asking would a French dairy farmer really actually be proficient at speaking English during this time? This is somewhat excusable because it's in the very beginning of the film (where coincidences slide) and it sets up the language switching and how it will be used for the rest of the film, but I gotta wonder if it would have been easier and more historically possible if they instead switched over to German? Another time that I noticed this is in the pub shootout the German soldier Wilhelm (who is there celebrating the birth of his son) switches to English, this is solely to accommodate the fact that Aldo Raine shouldn't be able to speak anything else, and we wanted him in this scene even though he had another German-speaking Basterd up top. This convenience is pretty well swept under the rug with a "you speak English pretty well for a German soldier." and an "I know... [lets move along.]" Kinda sloppy, not going to lie but hey at least they addressed it?

When I heard the Quentin Tarantino was working on a World War II war film, I was a little disappointed. I personally don't care much for war films and just assumed this film would be a reason-less gorefest (funny how it actually turned out to be one of his tamer films gore-wise). Instead Tarantino decided to shoot the film like a spaghetti western, and I think that is simply genius. I'd never seen anything like that before, and to combine two seemingly completely different genres in one like this is (in my opinion) absolutely brilliant. Think about it, does this film seem like any other war films you've seen before? No. Tarantino used a majority of western music, had the cinematography mimic that of (primarily spaghetti) westerns, and even put in a lot of little nods to westerns story-wise like dynamite and even throwing in a very dramatic Mexican standoff! The result is very smart, interesting and super unique.

This film, like many other Tarantino films, has an absolutely amazing cast. I'm super glad that Tarantino decided to use some foreign actors in the foreign parts because Christoph Waltz really makes this film for me, I just think he's simply amazing as "the Jew hunter" Colonel Hans Landa. But Brad Pitt, Michael Fassbender, Mélanie Laurent, Diane Kruger and Daniel Brühl all have very awesome and memorable roles in this film also, the acting is just great all around.

But my favorite thing about this film is the use of language. Unlike countless American films that use a cheap dubbing of sorts on the script level and subbing in say English in place of German (and maybe adding in an accent) when characters are in other countries, this film doesn't and as a result uses Language to build suspense for the characters in the story. This story takes place in Nazi-occupied France, there's Germans walking around in France and most of our protagonists are American, the film takes this even further by adding in British soldiers and a brief stint of Italian too as the plot develops. The film has a series of sequences (at least 3?) that are interrogations and a character's knowledge and use of language is a key factor in each of these conversations. Also the way that Tarantino masterfully divulges a little information about who knows what in each conversation adds so much suspense not only for the characters but also the viewer who is right there with characters during these sequences, trying to figure out how much each character really knows.

Inglourious Basterds (2009) is something new for Tarantino but also a return to great form too. Highly recommend it. 5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!





Want more Tarantino goodness? Check back all month for my Tribute to Tarantino in honor of his latest film Django Unchained (2012).

Go back to Tarantino's first film with Reservoir Dogs (1992), check out the first script he wrote (but didn't direct) True Romance (1993), The smash hit that really put him on the map Pulp Fiction (1994), another film written by him but in the hands of another director From Dusk till Dawn (1996), his blaxploitation-influenced crime film Jackie Brown (1997, The two part revenge epic Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) and Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004) or his tribute to grindhouse cinmea Death Proof (2007).

Even though I've gone through every film he's directed, I've got more films planned all month so be sure to check back!



Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film (and 8 other Tarantino hits from his 20 year career) in this new set (now on Blu-ray) through these links:

Death Proof (2007)

"You redneck, lunatic bastard!"

Death Proof is yet another tribute to grindhouse cinema from Quentin Tarantino this one however, also is a tribute to the car movies and TV shows from the 70s (you know, the kind that are pretty much completely non-existent these days). This film was released as part of Grindhouse (2007) in US theaters following Robert Rodriguez's zombie film Planet Terror.

Let me start this review by stating right off that there's going to be spoilers with this one, I can't really talk about the film without revealing things that happen that are supposed to be somewhat of a surprise so once again if you want the full first time experience of Death Proof stop reading now, and go rent the film. Death Proof is about Stuntman Mike a sadistic former stuntman who gets his jollies by killing women in cars at fast speeds.

[This review will focus on the 114 minute, theatrical cut of the film]

Turns out Eli Roth makes a very convincing creeper. Hmmm.

One major thing that doesn't work in this film for me is the structure. I applaud Tarantino for trying to make different films and always push the boundaries on how a story or a film can be told, but there's a good reason why everyone uses the three-act structure... because it works. This film is a two-act story (you know like a play?) and I don't think this is inherently the only problem with the film, I think that this may have worked if we didn't spend so much time trying to get to know these characters and then kill them all off at the halfway point. Yes the only character who carries over in the two parts is Stuntman Mike, the antagonist. While this is interesting and a nice thing to try, I just don't think it's successful. I really think he's trying to do too much with it: not only is he trying to split the film right down the middle between a "successful kill" for Stuntman Mike and an {everything goes wrong kill" for Stuntman Mike, but he's also trying to surprise you with the fact that he kills the protagonists at the halfway point. While yes, this worked in Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), I'm sorry you did not emulate it well.

The other major problem with this film is the transparency of the writing. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Tarantino films, and an even bigger fan of his writing and dialogue. This film however, did not do it for me. This film found the line of how much "Tarantino talk" I can really take, because frankly the first half is actually just pretty damn boring. The majority of the first half is four girls talking about (as far as the story is concerned) pointless stuff. AND they all sound like Tarantino [something I had had a problem with the way Alabama spoke in True Romance (1993)]. I just don't think that Tarantino must have many female friends because I don't know any females who talk like the girls in this film. The part where they're talking about how far one of them has gone with her boyfriend is especially cringe worthy, and awkwardly written and there's this extra long take of this film is circling a table with them all talking, that honestly I could have completely done without. It drags on for WAY too long, and there is next to nothing important gained from this conversation but yet it stayed in the film for the director's flair. This is a classic example of a director not knowing how to cut his own fat.

Oh and atrocious Quentin Tarantino cameo alert! Dude seriously, stop giving yourself speaking roles.

One good thing about this film is the Stuntman Mike character played by Kurt Russell. I had no idea that Kurt Russell could be SO creepy. His character is very well reasoned, he's interesting and also somewhat strangely funny. My only problem with Stuntman Mike is that Kurt Russell plays it almost exactly like Bill from Kill Bill (2004). I don't know if this is just the way it's written or if this was Tarantino's direction, but I can't listen to Stuntman Mike and not hear Bill, I'm gonna chalk this one up to the transparency of the writing again.

And basically the only reason I'd recommend people see this film is the car chase at the end. This is without a doubt the greatest car chase in the last 30 years, if not, one of the greatest ever filmed! This was filmed at full speed, without constantly cutting between different cameras, with real stunts and it really feels like a breath of fresh air compared to how action and car chases are filmed these days.

Death Proof (2007) is easily the low point of Quentin Tarantino's career, so much that I'd say it's pretty much completely un-noteworthy with the exception of the amazing car chase hiding out at the end of the film. 2/5 Stars.

Happy watching!





Want more Tarantino goodness? Check back all month for my Tribute to Tarantino in honor of his latest film Django Unchained (2012).

Go back to Tarantino's first film with Reservoir Dogs (1992), check out the first script he wrote (but didn't direct) True Romance (1993), The smash hit that really put him on the map Pulp Fiction (1994), another film written by him but in the hands of another director From Dusk till Dawn (1996), his blaxploitation-influenced crime film Jackie Brown (1997) or the revenge epic split between two volumes Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)and Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004). I got films planned all month, so be sure to check back!



Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film (and 8 other Tarantino hits from his 20 year career) in this new set (now on Blu-ray) through these links:

The Man with the Iron Fists (2012)

"The Chinese have a saying, 'dangerous men will meet in our streets' and so it was."

The Man with the Iron Fists (2012) is a loving tribute to the martial arts and kung fu films of the 70s, this is the premiere directorial (and dream) project of RZA leader of popular rap group The Wu-Tang Clan, he writes directs and stars in this film. The film follows three different kung fu heroes who must team up to stop the traitorous Silver Wolf and his friends from stealing a large amount of gold.

This movie is packed with references to old Shaw Brothers films, so if you’re a fan of that stuff this is the movie you’ve been waiting for. And they are all incorporated well enough and convincingly that they meld well with this story and I don’t think any of them really seemed out of place to me.

Another strong point of this film is each of the characters seemed really “epic.” This is a rather standard practice in the old kung fu films, each character needs a really epic introduction and seem very powerful and menacing. This film does a very good job at replicating this and each of the characters RZA creates not only seem strong and powerful and unique but I feel like for the most part they could fit right along with all the crazy characters from kung fu films in the 70s.

Unfortunately I felt the “world” of The Man with the Iron Fists was a bit confused. It seems like standard China from any martial arts film (wacky or otherwise) but the Blacksmith character (played by RZA) is in it for some reason. He doesn’t act, dress or talk like the other characters in the world. Eventually why he's there is explained but for the first half of the film all you get is “he’s not from around here.” Russel Crow’s character gets a decent enough introduction (though another world nitpick, how come Lucy Liu speaks Chinese originally (subtitled!) and then switches to English? Doesn’t everyone speak "English for Chinese" or does everyone in this mystical China actually speak English for some reason? The biggest problem with this is no one would notice or think twice if you just kept it all in English, but having some parts subtitled just makes it confusing and calls attention to it! But overall it felt like it was really weird that this world is basically typical Ancient China from numerous kung fu films but then there’s one black dude and a couple white dudes that really stick out, no one seems to know why they're there, and no one seems to think anything weird of it. I think if I was presenting this story I would have gone for a more diversified world, where all these different “cultures” are living together in one place (you know like a fantasy story allows). Like I said, they do get around to explaing how the Blacksmith got there and his backstory which I was okay with but the big wrestler guy Brass Body is left as an anomaly, and his power’s never explained either for that matter… how did he get his tattoos and nose piercing when it seems like he can’t control it (his "power" seems like a reflex) but I guess I'm just being nitpicky wanting to know what's the deal with one of the main villains who isn't anything like any of the other characters?

This film is almost too truthful to the old kung fu films (similarly to Tarantino’s Jackie Brown), in that the plot is WAY too complicated. First off there’s way too many characters, it’d be fine to have three separate heroes but then there’s a ton of different villains and all of their partners/allies/henchmen (did bronze Lion actually end up doing anything?) and all the other (supposedly) good guys that the villains kill. This is all way too convoluted and could have been done a lot simpler. The film starts with a good 15 minutes of pure backstory exposition recited in voice over!! I feel like RZA though he’d only get once chance at this so he wanted to make it as epic as possible, but did he really think he’d be able to do a 4 hour film or something?!

On top of all that it seemed to me like a lot of the specific plot points could have been done better: we’re meant to think it’s a horrible thing that the Blacksmith lost his arms, but he’s was already planning on quitting the life and leaving with his girl for the entire first half of the movie! This weakens the effect of an iron worker losing his ability to work big time! Also there’s a point near the end where we’re supposed to feel sorry (and it’s set up to be very dramatic) for these whores who are being abused and taken over by bad guys who are hiding out in their place (whores in distress). But first thing, THEY’RE WHORES and second Russel Crow’s character’s introduction was doing that same exact thing, abusing whores! Probably worse! And yet he's a good guy! There’s lots of things like that in this movie that just don’t seem that well thought out.

The camera work in this film bothered me. I mean if RZA’s cinematographer watched any of the old kung fu films he would know that usually the camera is usually pulled out very far so that you can see the entire kung fu actions, you do push in for specific punches and dramatic moments but for the most part the camera shows the full body. Not this film. Anytime someone fights the camera is pushed in to a medium close shot (torso length) so you really have no idea of the full stance/punch/attack the character is doing. This seems like something you’d do if the actors didn’t actually know how to use marital arts, but RZA trained for 1-2 hours a day over 2 months in Hung Ga style to prepare for the role, and he hired a bunch of seasoned Chinese martial artist actors so one would assume most everyone knew how to do their art (except apparently the cinematographer!) Also the bad camera work adds to this but the film has very bad geography and this is something I feel like the old kung fu films were really good at. In this film people’s places in the scene are constantly moving in relation to the shot and scenery for no reason in this film. Granted this isn’t something that’s easy to do and a common mistake for a first time director, but this just adds to the list of things that lead me to believe the cinematographer didn’t know what he was doing.

And the last point I want to bring up is that I feel like the film didn’t have any clue what kind of tone it was supposed to be. A lot of the old kung fu films have a very witty and silly tone to them, but still achieve very dramatic moments. This film looks like a comedy from the script level (there’s lots of wordplay jokes and puns/put-down that are all very humorous, on top of humorous events written into the film) yet the lead RZA acts like he’s trying to win an Oscar! Now, more likely than anything else, RZA probably just isn’t a good actor but he’s also the writer and director, so he’s gotta make sure the whole thing works together! AND he's working across from this guy Byron Mann who’s playing Silver Lion, the main antagonist who's constantly hamming it up and playing the role in silliest way possible! Byron seems to know what type of movie this is, why doesn’t RZA?!

I gotta say that this film has an amazing soundtrack, this is something RZA is really good at putting together (also check out Kill Bill Volume 1 and Blade: Trinity) Supposedly RZA asked Quentin Tarantino to do the soundtrack for this film because he thought he’d be too busy writing/directing/acting (and because he did it for Tarantino’s Kill Bill Vol. 1) but after reading the script?? Tarantino refused and said that he felt RZA himselft should do it. I think this was an excellent decision. RZA is very talented at developing an original soundtrack that mixes old and new together wonderfully and still really fits the tone of the film. I mean who knew rap goes together with kung fu so well? (probably the guy who started a rap group called Wu-Tang Clan haha).

Also I think RZA was really good at coming up with all the different fighting styles and weapons in this film, they’re all pretty original and unique but very creative and really fit the tone and style of those old 70s kung fu films.

Man with the Iron Fists (2012) is a great tribute to the old Shaw Brothers and other kung fu films form the 70s and a great experiment in mixing the old and new but suffers from a convoluted story and plot that could have been a hell of a lot simpler. Now supposedly this film was cut down from a 4 hour first cut(!), so if RZA eventually releases a directors cut that’s somewhere in the 2 hour range I might give this film another look and a second review. 3/5 Stars.

Happy watching!





This is the "unoffical" lead-in to next month here at The Good, The Bad and The Magnificent, which I have planned as a Tribute to Tarantino in honor of Quentin's most recent release Django Unchained (2012), so check back tomorrow and all month for more Tarantino-ish goodness!



Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links: