Inglorious Basterds
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:24 am
Wow.
Tarantino proves once again that he knows his way around a camera. Often the camera work draws attention to itself, but almost never in a bad way (though I do tend to get dizzy when the camera revolves around a point as quickly as it does near the beginning of the scene in the theater lobby). The long shots and slow pans compliment the pace of the Tarantino-trademark dialogue perfectly as usual.
And although the characters don't have most of Tarantino's favorite topics (movies, music, comic books, drugs) to talk about, the banter is still distinctly that of the auteur.
I feel as though large portions of the movie have been cut inelegantly. At the film's end, by my count, there were four Basterds entirely unaccounted-for. This is but one indicator of a larger problem: there's so many characters that many of them seem like dead weight. Most of the Basterds don't get more than a couple of lines apiece and accordingly little screen time. Even the ones whose parts are substantial (such as BJ Novak's character) don't really get characterized; he's just a hacked-off Jewish-American soldier. Maybe that was the point? But then why would Tarantino go through the trouble of characterizing any of them at all?
The acting is superb all around, especially villain Christoph Waltz, who is philosophically evil, a calculating and devious foe who is able to act his part in fluent French, English, German, and Italian. The actor and his character are probably the best thing about the movie, though Brad Pitt is not to be underestimated. The rest of the Basterds are fine, but they all needed more screen time to stand out (of course, the film runs very long already, which poses other problems...).
In all, it's an enjoyable film. It's shot beautifully, and the dialog and action are both jam-packed full of goodies. I took issue with something that happens near the end, but I don't want to mention it here (spoilers, etc). Perhaps later. And in white text.
Overall I give it an A-. Worth seeing.
Tarantino proves once again that he knows his way around a camera. Often the camera work draws attention to itself, but almost never in a bad way (though I do tend to get dizzy when the camera revolves around a point as quickly as it does near the beginning of the scene in the theater lobby). The long shots and slow pans compliment the pace of the Tarantino-trademark dialogue perfectly as usual.
And although the characters don't have most of Tarantino's favorite topics (movies, music, comic books, drugs) to talk about, the banter is still distinctly that of the auteur.
I feel as though large portions of the movie have been cut inelegantly. At the film's end, by my count, there were four Basterds entirely unaccounted-for. This is but one indicator of a larger problem: there's so many characters that many of them seem like dead weight. Most of the Basterds don't get more than a couple of lines apiece and accordingly little screen time. Even the ones whose parts are substantial (such as BJ Novak's character) don't really get characterized; he's just a hacked-off Jewish-American soldier. Maybe that was the point? But then why would Tarantino go through the trouble of characterizing any of them at all?
The acting is superb all around, especially villain Christoph Waltz, who is philosophically evil, a calculating and devious foe who is able to act his part in fluent French, English, German, and Italian. The actor and his character are probably the best thing about the movie, though Brad Pitt is not to be underestimated. The rest of the Basterds are fine, but they all needed more screen time to stand out (of course, the film runs very long already, which poses other problems...).
In all, it's an enjoyable film. It's shot beautifully, and the dialog and action are both jam-packed full of goodies. I took issue with something that happens near the end, but I don't want to mention it here (spoilers, etc). Perhaps later. And in white text.
Overall I give it an A-. Worth seeing.