After two days of everybody I ran into telling me how much they loved Inglorious Basterds I finally made it to the theatre on Sunday night. I settled in to watch what I was assuming would basically be a reimagining of Kill Bill set in WWII Europe (Kill Adolf?). What I saw was basically a dramatic stageplay. A series of really long dialogue scenes where most of the characters sit in chairs and don't really move or do anything. The dialogue is pretty good, for the most part, but damn is there a lot of it.
One would think that the title characters would carry the action. They don't. The Basterds are actually only in about a third of the two and a half hour movie, and (PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT) they really don't play much of a role in how the final sequence plays out. (For those that have seen the flick, I think we can agree that everyone they killed was going to die anyway.)
Tarantino, as always, gets incredibly strong performances from his entire cast. While Brad Pitt steals every scene that he is in, that's kind of expected because, well, he's Brad Pitt. All of the Foreign actors in the film played their characters extremely well, and Christoph Waltz is phenomenal as the villain, Colonel Hans Landa, aka "The Jewhunter."
That said, I'm not sure what QT was thinking with this movie. While the scenes featuring Pitt and The Basterds are lousy with Tarantino's fingerprints, the rest of the film is sort of an odd tribute to early twentieth century European cinema. My suspicion? I'm guessing he wrote Inglorious Basterds, realized that it could've been titled Kill Adolf, and then added an entire new storyline to run alongside his slaughter/revenge plot so people didn't think he'd fallen into a rut. This other story, because it's so complex, ultimately dominates the screentime in the final cut. Pitt and The Basterds are limited to only a couple of really good scenes, and you've pretty much seen them both in the previews and advertisements.
The movie isn't bad, but it wasn't what was advertised. Had I gone into it without seeing all of the commercials and trailers, I'd probably have liked it a lot, actually. But, since I had seen all the best parts of the movie before paying my nine bucks: I give it a 2.5 out of 4.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I, sir, must disagree with the rating. On your scale I would give it 3.5 out of 4. I don't think it's fair to knock a film for it's marketing strategy. If the trailers hadn't featured Pitt and the Basterds, the movie wouldn't have made any money (at least not in this economy). I do agree with your assessment of the film itself though. The tension throughout each scene was amazing. Hitchcockian in their suspense even. Waltz had better win the Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars next year by a landslide. He absolutely owns the screen and every scene he is in.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very fair critique, but I stand by my rating. For me personally, if the Basterds had been in more scenes, the film would've been more entertaining. Your points however, are well made and well taken. And I thank you for being the only person to read my blog.
ReplyDeleteDamn! I had hoped to be the only person reading this blog. Albeit it's been almost a month between readings, but....
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any of the previews, so maybe I will like it. You've piqued my interest at least. Thanks for that.