I don’t smoke, but I do light candles, so I buy matches pretty infrequently.  (If I smoked though, I would totally light my ‘rettes with matches, because HOT! Also, I would use the term ‘rettes. Conclusion: I would be a somewhat affected smoker.)

Every time, I freak out at how cheap a box of matches is. TWENTY CENTS! Fire is one of the most revolutionary human discoveries, but we can buy multiple easy-to-make portable fire opportunities for twenty cents. Insane.

Actually, that was all I planned on writing about today but then I took an accompanying photo (hey, I’m not allowed to talk about boys anymore, might as well cover the banal stuff real well), and noticed something interesting…

On the right, you have my old matches, proudly proclaiming their contents: 50 safety matches. On the right – whispering down in the corner of the pack – 45. [On the top - gratuitous Jo Malone]. And there goes my last haven of ‘the good old days’. I feel like BJ Novak providing the revelation of the shrinking creme eggs!

Still! Less than a half-cent each!  AMAZING!

Ryan Howard played by BJ Novak on The Office.

I know, I know. I’m a little late on this one. I really could care less. Inglorious Basterds was probably top 10 best movie I have ever seen. What ever amount of cocaine Quentin is taking at this point in his career has allowed him to reach an equilibrium status of movie making. If that makes sense. I don’t care if he is using a dildo to slap his actors in the face. This movie was a fucking hit.

IMDB.

88% via Rotten Tomatoes

If you haven’t seen it already, it’s 2 and 1/2 hours of awesomeness. I really didn’t want it to end. And I had to pee like I just woke up from a coma. The movie starts out with an amazing character Col. Landa played by Christoph Waltz inspecting a Jew-hider with extremely hot daughters. Landa creates a sneaky plan and yadda yadda yadda, a hot blond escapes.

After an extremely long first scene, you finally meet the Basterds which include Brad Pitt and his wonderful 70’s porn mustache. Eli Roth and BJ Novak accompany him. The other Basterds aren’t famous or at least known to me. After the first time you see the Basterds in action, you realize the “Bear Jew” or Eli Roth is a badass motherfucker. He has one of those Bahston Red Sawx accents and is all about Teddy Ballgame. Oh and he also beat people’s heads in with a bat. Roth looks like he put on a shit ton of muscle for this film. (IMDB has it at 35 lbs.)

The next notable Basterd is Hugo Stiglitz. He had few lines but you can tell he was awesome. For the first time in my life, I wanted to be Jewish. After seeing Stiglitz’s badassery.

And lastly, Brad Pitt as Aldo the Apache. They called him this because frankly cousin, he liked to scalp saurkraut sammich eatin peckersuckers. One of the only things I didn’t like was the fact that he had a gigantic scar on his neck and no one told you how it got there. Well the only things I didn’t like were when the Basterds weren’t on camera (which was much more than I thought it would be) and the fact that that scar was there.

The ending was entirely fictional and the movie as a whole was highly comical. At least to me. It was very gory and my g/f even cried when the Jews got killed in the first scene. So it brought a whole range of emotion out of us.I thought the acting was great and it looked like they had a lot of fun making it and that sort of atmosphere can make a movie better. Like Team Chemistry in football.

Logic’s Grade: A+ (Best movie I’ve seen in a long fucking time)

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (Estados Unidos – Alemania 2.009, 153 Minutos, Bélica)
Dirección: Quentin Tarantino.
Guión: Quentin Tarantino.
Reparto: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Daniel Bruhl, Eli Roth, Samm Levine, B.J. Novak, Til Schweiger, Gedeon Burkhard, Paul Rust, Michael Bacall, Omar Doom, Sylvester Groth, Julie Dreyfus, Jacky Ido, August Diehl, Martin Wuttke, Richard Sammel, Christian Berkel, Sonke Mohring, Michael Fassbender, Mike Myers, Rod Taylor, Denis Menochet, Cloris Leachman, Maggie Cheung.
Fotografía: Bob Richardson.
Música: Varios autores.

Valoración: 7/10

Sinopsis: En la Francia ocupada por el tercer Reich opera un grupo de soldados aliados conocidos como “los Bastardos”. Su misión es causar el terror en las filas enemigas gracias a la enorme crueldad de sus métodos. En Francia también intenta sobrevivir Shosanna, una joven judía que tras presenciar como el malvado coronel Landa acababa con su familia, finge ahora ser la propietaria de una sala de cine. El destino de los Bastardos, el de Shosanna y tal vez el de la guerra se cruzarán en “La Noche Alemana”, un show especial en el que se estrenará la esperada película pronazi “El Orgullo de la Nación”. Todo tendrá lugar en la sala que regenta la joven y a la premiere acudirán los más altos cargos del Reich. Una oportunidad perfecta para que los Bastardos corten la cabeza del ejército alemán de una vez por todas y Shosanna pueda vengarse del hombre que mató a su familia.

Crítica: Llega el Emperador con sus partes nobles (más nobles que las de los demás, supongo) al aire, y muchos ensayan ya los piropos hacia su nuevo e invisible vestido. Las críticas que recibe el cine de Quentin Tarantino recuerdan a veces a las de esas muchedumbres perplejas y desconcertadas ante un lienzo pintorrojeado, que sólo comienzan a halagar cuando entre los borratajos vislumbran la ilustre firma de su insigne autor. Tarantino rodó dos filmes enormes, inolvidables y dignos de toda adulación, y desde entonces tiene un innumerable séquito que le ríe cualquier gracia. Entre los nuevos poderes de Tarantino tras ser rebautizado como el “regenerador del cine actual” están la capacidad de hacer lo que le sale de las citadas partes sin tener que responder ante nadie, recibir de forma automática todo tipo de agasajos sin importar demasiado la calidad de la obra en cuestión y permitirse el ya habitual autobombo exclusivo de aquellos a los que la gran mayoría (incluyéndose, tal vez en primer lugar, ellos mismos) considera genios. Con el nombre de Tarantino en cartel, muchos sacan brillo a las cinco estrellas sin pararse a juzgar sus obras como si fueran las de cualquier otro. Otro enorme poder de Quentin Tarantino es que cada vez que presenta una película se termina hablando más de él y de sus dos obras maestras, que de la cinta en cuestión. Circunstancias de lo divino, supongo. Dejemos por tanto al Dios, saliéndonos de madre, y hablemos por fin de Malditos Bastardos. Gran virtud de la película: sus actores. Y, para qué negarlo, los papeles escritos, de puño y letra, por Quentin Tarantino para cada uno de ellos. Schweiger acojona, Fassbender cautiva, Kruger seduce, nuestro Bruhl se reivindica, Melanie Laurent convence y Brad Pitt se divierte con frescura y consciente de lo paródico de su antihéroe. Y luego está el protagonista de la película, que no es Pitt, sino un gigantesco Christoph Waltz que construye, apoyado en el genial texto de Tarantino, un villano antológico. Lástima que muchos de esos nombres sean sólo eso, nombres en un cartel cuya participación real es puramente anecdótica. Gran tara de la película: Quentin Tarantino es su fan número uno y un enamorado de sí mismo. Por eso, Malditos Bastardos son apenas siete escenas (o capítulos) de duración desorbitada en las que el cineasta se esfuerza por constatar el ya famoso barroquismo de sus diálogos camuflado en un trasunto del genial Sergio Leone. Toda la acción bélica con la que se anunció Malditos Bastardos está concentrada en el trailer, ya que el resto de la película son eternos devaneos cuya conclusión anticipamos desde el comienzo. Sabemos lo que va a ocurrir, pero Tarantino insiste en postergarlo durante veinte minutos más para que admiremos la agilidad de su pluma y la precisión de su cámara. Maravilláos, mientras los minutos pasan… El resto, como de costumbre, es el excesivo barroquismo verbal que ya sufrimos en la agotadora Death Proof, con notables puntos de genialidad que logran rescatarnos del sopor generalizado. Entre ellos ese pirotécnico final, que por alocado y superlativo adivinamos como lo mejor de la película junto con el magnífico Waltz. Por el resto, Tarantino empieza a merecerse un par de buenas collejas. Más que nada para librarle de la atracción magnética de su propio ombligo y para que vuelva a ser el genio Auténtico de sus comienzos. Él puede. Para eso es Quentin Tarantino, ¿no?. 

Estreno en España: 18 de Septiembre.

It was recently announced that Megan Fox will be the host for the premiere of the 35^th season of Saturday Night Live, which will air on September 26. At first, I hated this choice, mainly because I can’t stand Megan Fox. Then I began to see that Fox has the potential to succeed as a host. If she actually goes for it, and doesn’t worry about looking stupid and doesn’t mind poking fun at herself, they could probably get some funny material out of her. And (despite her questionable level of skill) she is an actor. Actors almost always do a better hosting job than politicians, musician, or athletes (though there is at least one exception with Peyton Manning, who was probably one of the best hosts of recent SNL history), since that’s what they do. You can’t expect to send Michael Phelps in there and automatically get comedic gold. But even if Fox does a decent job hosting, it’s still a pretty safe, predictable choice on SNL’s part. They know that most people tuning in won’t even care if Fox is funny. Does anyone ever watch anything involving Megan Fox to admire her talent? So I began to think about people who I think would be edgier, funnier hosts. Last season, the show’s more successful hosts were the oddball, unexpected choices, like Jon Hamm, John Malkovich, and Neil Patrick Harris. So here are ten people who have never hosted Saturday Night Live (to the best of my knowledge), and who I think could do a great job with it.

1. Zach Galifianakis

His comedy style is incredibly offbeat, but I think it would be a refreshing change for a show where the biggest problem is stale writing. In my opinion, there are two kinds of hosting styles for SNL. Some hosts try to compliment the comedy of the show, and if they’re successful (think Anne Hathaway or Zach’s Hangover co-star, Bradley Cooper), they almost seem like they could be one of the cast members. But other hosts are larger than life and steal every skit that they’re in, even if they’re the straight-man. Galifianakis could be the next Christopher Walken.

2. Will Arnett

He’s married to the show’s most beloved recent alumnus, and he was on the already-classic Arrested Development. So why hasn’t Will Arnett hosted? He could definitely be another scene-stealer, and I could see him playing off of the rest of the cast really well. After all, he’s already done movies with most of the shows’ cast members (Hot Rod, The Brothers Solomon, The Rocker), so I think his humour would fit in well.

3. Anderson Cooper

So this probably seems like a weird choice for the #3 slot, but if you’ve ever seen CNN’s “Silver Fox” interviewed outside of the newsroom, you know that he’s a pretty quick guy. Brian Williams did quite a respectable hosting job a couple of years ago, and I think that Cooper could follow suit.

4. Zooey Deschannel

Everyone loves Zooey, and I think that her sunny, laid-back charm would do wonders on the show. She’s got a quirky kind of vibe about her, which be a change from the usual starlets that they have on the show.

5. Demetri Martin

Another stand-up comedian turned actor who has a quirky style about him. He’s very youthful, and I think he would work well with the rest of the cast. His oddball humour seems kind of similar to the work that the Lonely Island team is doing, so I think that he would be a great match.

6. Ryan Reynolds

He seems to be more along the lines of the hosts that SNL usually gets, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see him hosting the show (though we might have to wait until The Green Lantern movie comes out). He’s really funny, and even in some of the so-so movies he’s been in, his charisma still shines. I think he would be a lively choice.

7. Joel McHale

The hilarious host of The Soup already incorporates some sketch comedy into his show, so I think he would adapt easily to SNL’s format. He’s got a new series coming this fall (Community), and will be in the new Soderbergh flick (The Informant!) so now we just need him to bring some of his talent and wit to this venue.

8. Jason Segal

Almost every other big name from the Apatow clan has hosted, so I think it’s probably a matter of time until Jason Segal does, too. He’s a very funny guy, and has that “everyman” quality, which can be very funny. I think he’d be willing to do just about anything on the show.

9. BJ Novak

Steve Carell and Rainn Wilson have both successfully hosted the show, and I think that it’s about time that another Office cast member tries their hand. John Krasinski and Jenna Fischer would probably both be fine choices, but my pick is actually for BJ “Ryan the Temp” Novak. He’s seems like a cool guy, and he always has awesome reactions to wacky situations.

10. Amy Ryan

Okay, so she’s also on The Office, but I think that Amy Ryan would be great, too. Of course, she’s primarily a serious actor, but she’s just so charming as Steve Carell’s love interest, Holly. She’s quirky, but I think she’d also fit in with the style of the show.

So there you have it. Disagree with any of my choices? Have any of your own to add? Feel free to leave a comment!

Don’t go to see Inglourious Basterds expecting two and a half hours of non-stop Nazi slaughtering. That’s not what this film is about (well, not totally), and let’s remember it’s Tarantino we’re talking about here.

The story is Quentin Tarantino’s fictional retelling of World War II, and the movie is brought to life by an amazing cast and fierce directing. There are so many characters in the film, all of them memorable and integral to the plot in some way. This is due in part to excellent acting (Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, and Christoph Walt, just to name a few), but it’s Tarantino’s innate ability to create such well-drawn characters that makes this movie work.

Like a true novelist, QT sees the whole picture. Fans went in wanting a Kill Bill pt. 1-esque bloodbath, but Inglourious Basterds unfolds like a really good, epic book. And not just because it has chapters.

Tarantino is most definitely a writer first, director second. He’s the God of dialog, something screenwriting classes have always taught me to avoid. But it’s the dialog that adds suspense to the film and deepens the layers of the plot. I’ve heard Tarantino liken the tension in the film’s tavern scene to a rubber band being stretched as far as it can go before snapping.

The tension in that scene, and throughout the film, is created through good storytelling. He engages you, and the film plays out like a long, delicious beef stew. The ending of IB was one of the most rewarding I’ve ever seen and it wouldn’t have been nearly as satisfying if the entire film was intense bloodshed.

The cutest line in Bone (delivered by Bartleby, the baby rat creature): “You’re aces, Smiley!”

The funniest line in District 9: “I just want your arm so I can eat it and gain your powers.”

The best thing about Inglourious Basterds: Christoph Waltz, duh!

(Also, pretending that BJ Novak is actually playing Ryan from The Office back in his temp days during the part when he is reacting to his nickname.)

But seriously: Bone is probably the most amazing comic I’ve ever read, on multiple levels.

Seriously: Inglourious Basterds takes everything you love, and also those things you maybe don’t love about Quentin Tarantino and makes them a really fun movie. Also seriously, Eli Roth is still not forgiven for being Eli Roth.

Seriously: District 9 is the best alien-focused movie I’ve seen since Independence Day. What’s that? You think Independence Day sucks? Um, maybe you’ve forgotten that JEFF GOLDBLUM SAVES THE WORLD in that movie, and therefore it’s not possible for it to suck.

An Aside to Gareth Campesinos!

Dear Gareth,

I am sorry that initially, after you released We Are Beautiful, We Are Doomed, I made a post saying that you needed to calm down. Your concert had two glockenspiels and you gripped that microphone and delivered every clever, poignant line like you meant it, and it was great. Also, Aleks Campesinos was awesome as well, but please give her some food. That is all.

Shouts and handclaps,

Melissa

Usual QT flare, plus awesome Nazi killing! Winner! 9/10 [IAN]

Buy it

I walked into Inglourious Basterds expecting to be disappointed. After all the good buzz, the many months of buildup, the excellent ensemble cast, and the irresistible premise of a bunch of Jewish-American soldiers hunting and killing Nazis during World War II, I thought there was no way Quentin Tarantino’s latest film could live up to the hype. Plus Death Proof had been the inferior half of Grindhouse and, as much as I loved both volumes of Kill Bill, neither lived up to the standard set by Tarantino’s early films, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I wondered if Tarantino had peaked in the mid-‘90s.

My fears were quickly put to rest. Inglourious Basterds is brilliant. If there’s any justice in the world – and there may not be – it will receive plenty of attention when awards season comes around. In this film, Tarantino returns to form. He hasn’t been this good since Pulp Fiction. His usual flourishes are there – the verbose script, the division into multiple chapters, the converging storylines, and (in one scene) the director’s famous foot fetish. But while Tarantino retains the idiosyncrasies that make his work immediately recognizable, the new movie is a little more mature, a little more serious-minded than his previous films.

This is not to say there are no moments of dark humor or self-indulgence or excessive violence. No, those are found in abundance. The director probably is not capable of making a film with an entirely straight face, and that’s a good thing. There are many over-the-top moments in Inglourious Basterds, notably the introduction of ex-Nazi Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger) and the inexplicable narration of Samuel L. Jackson. During these wacky bits, you can almost hear Tarantino chortling off-camera. But beneath the Tarantino trademarks is a serious, compelling story that will glue audiences to their seats and stick with them long after they go home. His stylistic conceits, rather than being the main attraction, serve as moments of levity while the plot moves steadily forward.

The promos for the film focused mostly on the Basterds themselves, the vengeful soldiers led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). While the Basterds are important figures throughout the movie, and they do supply much of the film’s entertainment value, the story does not really hinge on their quest to collect 100 Nazi scalps apiece. At the movie’s heart is Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a beautiful young Jewish woman who narrowly escapes being murdered by the Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz, in a tour de force performance) in the film’s opening scene. The movie’s climax, and the most important storyline, concerns Shosanna’s attempt to exact her revenge several years later.

Inglourious Basterds works so well because Tarantino’s abilities as a writer are as sharp as ever. The dialogue crackles whether it’s in English, French, or German. I specifically remember two very long scenes that consist almost entirely of dialogue, but remain tight and suspenseful because Tarantino and his actors communicate subtext so well. In the first, Landa interrogates a French dairy farmer (Denis Menochet) who is hiding Shosanna’s family beneath his floorboards. In the second, three of the Basterds disguise themselves as German officers and rendezvous with a German movie star (Diane Kruger) who is now spying for the British government. A real Gestapo officer intrudes on their meeting and insists on joining the Basterds and their famous friend for drinks. In both scenes, the characters play games of verbal cat-and-mouse. Col. Landa already knows the farmer is hiding Jews beneath his house, and the farmer knows he’s been caught. Likewise, the Gestapo officer strongly suspects the Basterds are not who they claim to be, and the Basterds know their cover could be blown any second. The characters are playing chicken with words. Who will blink first? Who will be the first to acknowledge that he knows that they know that he knows…

For the most part, the actors do an excellent job. This was probably not a challenging role for Pitt – he basically throws on an absurd cracker barrel accent and hams it up for the entire movie – but it’s a lot of fun to watch. Waltz deserves an Oscar nod for his creepy and surprisingly funny performance. And the two female leads, Kruger and Laurent, make their characters sympathetic and entirely believable. It’s easier to question the actors playing the Basterds, but most of them don’t get many lines anyway. Tarantino gave the role of Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz to friend and Hostel director Eli Roth, who is much better behind the camera than in front of it. Despite his limited skills as an actor, Roth sells the part well, if only because you get the impression that, had he been born a few decades earlier, he would have enjoyed brutally murdering some Nazis. Aside from Roth and Pitt, most of the Basterds get very little screen time, but I was pleased to see B.J. Novak (of The Office) pick up a few good scenes near the film’s end.

Many people use the word “auteur” to describe Tarantino. That’s partly because of the creative control he exerts over his films as both writer and director, and it’s partly because he has such a distinctive style. But “auteur” has a pretentious connotation that I don’t believe fits Tarantino’s philosophy. I could be wrong, but my guess is that he doesn’t consider what he does high art. Tarantino loves cheesy, low-class movies, kung-fu and blaxploitation and low-budget horror flicks, and his own work reflects these tastes. Tarantino is, first and foremost, a movie fan, and I always get the impression watching his films that his only goal is to make a flick that he would have enjoyed watching himself when he was a kid. Inglourious Basterds takes a strange turn near the end that might not work for some viewers. While most of the film is grounded in gritty realism, the ending explodes into highly stylized, surreal, bloody mayhem. I would love to describe it in detail, but doing so would spoil the ending for anyone who reads this. I believe that, when Tarantino wrote his ending, he asked himself how he would like to see a World War II film end if he were sitting in the audience, and he ended it that way. It’s outlandish and absurd and improbable, but it’s also very satisfying and a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Tarantino ends Inglourious Basterds with a postmodern wink at the audience, a little nudge in the sides they can take home with them. The final line, delivered by Pitt’s Aldo Raine, could also be Tarantino’s assessment of his own movie. And, while I won’t spoil the line for you, I will say this – both Raine and Tarantino could be right.

–Nick Roberts

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

Haven’t gotten a chance to check it out yet, but I’m pretty keen to see Inglorious Basterds A.S.A.P. When I first heard about it, I was naturally a little suspicious as to whether the twisted history tale of Hitler’s defeat by an American-led guerilla group would be watchable (even under Tarantino’s eye). But having seen the reviews, the trailers and some behind-the-scenes stuff, it’s definitely won me over, even without the dreaminess that is a 1940s-styled Brad Pitt (see above).

Gossip Jackal’s got the numbers.

Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds” took the win this weekend at the box office earning $37.6 million.

Possibly due to the star power of Brad Pitt, this is the biggest opening ever for a Tarantino movie beating out “Kill Bill Vol. 2” which grossed $25.1 million in 2004.

Pushed out of first into second this weekend was the Neill Blomkamp directed and Peter Jackson produced movie “District 9”. The alien sci-fi film brought in $18.9 million for a ten day total of $73.5 million.

Holding steady in the top three in its third week was “G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra” with $12.5 million.

“The Time Traveller’s Wife” starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana wasn’t too far behind in fourth with $10 million.

Finally rounding out the top five with $9 million was the Amy Adams and Meryl Streep starrer “Julie and Julia” from director Nora Ephron.

If you want to see a movie that mixes the exact right amounts of everything you want it to, do yourself a favor and go see Inglourious Basterds…now. At just over two and a half hours, it’s not a short movie, but it flies by. It only feels like an hour and a half and there are only a couple scenes that are a little slow moving, but these scenes have more than enough tension building to keep you engaged and not bored at all. At the end of the two and a half hours, I actually wanted more.

Despite all of the humor in this film, Inglourious Basterds is still very powerful and even difficult to watch at points. Starting right away in the opening scene, Tarantino sets the tone and makes you very uncomfortable as Col. Hans Landa visits a French family suspected of hiding Jews. I actually found this scene a little hard to watch. It was almost too much. Almost. After that, we get some pretty graphic violence that is more than enough, even for seasoned horror and action movie fans. From there, Tarantino very perfectly molds together two different stories that start off very unrelated, but come together quite well.

I won’t say much else because I want to leave the spoilers out of this one. I think much of what makes this film so great when you see it is not really knowing what’s going to happen next. Sometimes, you’re right and other times you’re not. And sometimes, what you want to happen, doesn’t.

Besides a couple of questions I have about some of the characters’ decisions toward the end of the movie (not actually gripes, but just a little interested in why), the only thing I’m torn about was the use of BJ Novak. Part of me thinks that his character may have been a little bit of a waste for him until the end, but part of me feels like it might have been a stretch to use him more. There was already a lot going on as it was and using him more probably would have felt a bit forced an overdone. So, I guess I’m happy with the way it was.

Rating: A+

PS: Eli Roth should stick to making movies like Cabin Fever and do less acting.

Questo brought up a form of the question today on his Twitter:

i wonders what society reaction would be to a pre reconstruction african slave revenge fantasy flick directed by spike lee called vanglorious mo@#$%ckas. in which escaped african holocaust survivors get they nat turner on and start bloody murder revenge on all who participated/benefitted in the slave trade (africans too).

He was obviously shooting for a “Hell no!  Hollywood would never let something like that happen!” response.  But why not?  I would love to see this movie; a lot of people would.  We don’t exactly live in a world where (rational/worth discussing) people believe that slave owners are too sympathetic to act as convincing (i.e. hate-able) bad guys in movies.

Along with, you know, just being a good movie, one of the big reasons Basterds has worked for audiences is because Nazis are evil (sorry if I’m being too controversial here), and 5000 WWII movies are released every year that, obviously, portray the Nazis as the ultimate villains who rarely get punished on screen the way most villains do.

For this argument we can essentially throw out the audience’s feeling about real Nazis.  We know that the Nazi threat is crushed but only after inconceivable damage to humanity is done.  Seeing a bunch of representations of people who will eventually be destroyed but are currently at the peak of their destructiveness isn’t nearly as fun to watch.

In film world, most Nazi movies take place smack in the middle of the war, ignoring the beginning and end.  We don’t get to see the recruitment, nor the surrender, we just see them methodically kill people while one or two victims’ have “triumphs of human spirit.”   Consider Inglorious Basterds the long overdue retribution against a group of characters who almost never are made to suffer in the hundreds of movies already made about them.

Everyone knows Michael Myers is not really dead at the end of any Halloween movie.  That doesn’t stop the filmmakers from showing him get shot, stabbed, or beheaded in each installment.  The mass-murderer has to get what’s coming to him in the end or the movie just feels like a snuff film.

There aren’t as many slave trade, Vietnam War, or Rwandan genocide movies as there are WWII movies but the similarities are still there.  We see these evil characters who do horrible things and can’t really get the punishment they deserve without ruining the credibility of the movie.  As a movie-watcher, it’s frustrating to watch someone you hate essentially get away with it, even if you know how everything ends in real life.  Any of these atrocities are good fodder for a revisionist history revenge tale.  It would be nice to see the unavenged get some justice against the people who wrong them in movie after movie after movie.

Or.  Tarantino could knock out all of the other potential Basterds material with one Bill and Ted-esque movie wherein Eli Roth and BJ Novak travel through time beating the sh*t out of every evil real life villain they learned about in History class.  It might not be high art but the catharsis would be there big time.

***

If any of the above reads as insensitive, it isn’t meant to be.  Obviously none of these subjects would be anything without the true life cultural capital built in.  I’m looking at these as constantly recurring film characters, maybe even film archetypes.  If you have to question whether I think Nazis are bad you are an idiot.

Yesterday was the first time in a long time that I saw a movie on opening day. I think the last time was when X-Men 2 came out. With an expectation that the theatre will be full, my friends and I grabbed a seat at the back an hour before the movie started. Of course it was empty and pretty much stayed empty until fifteen minutes before the movie started. I had my doubts about this movie. I kind of wanted to watch it but overall it seemed like a movie that I would not enjoy and a movie that I would not want to see again. Quentin Tarantino surprised me though, overall it was actually a pretty good movie. I would say it is his best film since Pulp Fiction, of course I actually have not seen all of Pulp Fiction so I can not say that it is as good haha.

The movie revolves around eight Jewish-American men lead by Brad Pitt’s character, Lt. Aldo Reins Tennessee native. Their mission, to brtually kill any Nazis they find to spread fear and crazy rumors across the Third Reich, like the ‘Bear-Jew’. The company’s objective is to make sure every Nazi soldier hears about them and become so afraid of the rumors that every time they go into battle, they think they are fighting against the Basterds.

I expected the movie to be action packed with crazy stunts and a lot of gun fights but unfortunately I was let down by Mr. Tarantino. There are not that many gun fights and the only action scene is at the end. I can not be surprised though as Mr. Tarantino is not known for making action movies like Michael Bay. With Tarantino, the movie is more about the talk and the dialogue. While watching the movie, I did not really care fo the plot. It’s pretty much like every other WWII movie, try to end the war but there is a twist at the end of the movie that is unlike the other WWII movies you have seen. What really surprised me though is the dialogue and the writing, this movie has one of the best dialogue that I have ever scene in quite a long time. I loved the fact that the characters speak in different languages other than English. I hate it when I see these kinds of movies only to see everyone talking English…like in Valkyrie. I don’t think EVERY German knew how to speak perfect English. The setting was in France, and I was really surprised the movie had Germans speaking French. Pretty much the only time you hear English is in the first chapter and when the Basterds are talking.

By the way, the storyline is segregated into five chapters (I think). Each chapter is pretty much a story on its own but the audience does not get lost. There are two stories that the movie revolves around, the Basterds and the French Jew who owns the Cinema. Everyone knows the Basterds and their storyline; kill as many Nazis as they can find and cut the scalps from their heads off. The other movie which the audience does not see in the trailers is this French woman who owns a cinema and is reluctantly forced into hosting a premiere for a biopic movie on one of the greatest German war heroes ever. This war hero was trapped in a bird’s nest for three days and he picked off about three hundred American soldiers. Coincidentally, the soldier who plays himself in the movie is attracted to the French woman and tries everything to make her love him. He even has his movie premiere at her theatre. Everyone’s seen this device in story telling; there are multiple stories going on and in the end they all converge on each other to make a spectacular ending. That’s what this movie is, two separate stories and in the end they come together. What’s amusing to me though is that none of the Basterds and the French woman do not meet so it makes the whole ending like a coincidence and not like those other stories where all the characters in separate storeis meet each other at the end.

If you aren’t a stickler for historical fiction, then you’d be fine with the ending as they successfully assassinate Hitler. I didn’t spoil the movie for you because Hitler’s assassination takes a back seat to the main story line. That’s just a bonus Tarantino put in but no one expects it because we all think that the movie would follow historical fiction. There are some gory scenes that people in the theatre were evidently disgusted by. The whole scalping of the dead Nazis thing, everyone could see their brains. They made it so easy though, when the Basterds were scalping their Nazi counterparts, it was like slicing a hot knife through butter. They cut it so easily but it makes me wonder though as if they were scalping them, they would have to cut through bone in order to see the brains and that would be really hard to do with just a knife.

The movie was really great up until the ending. I did not like the ending nor did I understand why the main antagonist did what he did. Hitler’s not the main antagonist in this movie. The Jew Hunter as they nick name him is the main antagonist. Unfortunately this movie is like a lot of Tarantino’s movies where EVERYONE dies. This is pretty much at the ending but I was puzzled as to why though because for some of the characters that died, they could have easily avoided the confrontation but they chose not to and in the end they go on a suicide run…whichw as pretty much the plan in the first place. My only beef with this movie is the ending because it seems like a slap in the face if you ask me with what happened. All together though, I enjoyed the movie. It was refreshing to see it, you just have to not be bored by like two hours of dialogue and only about half an hour of action which comes at the end. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies where that I would not want to see again; it is not for me.

Between Inglorious Basterds and District 9, I would choose District 9. Mainly because District 9 is one of those movies that make you think.

Inglourious Basterds has to be one of Quentin Tarantino’s best films. Contrary to Tarantino’s trademark style this movie runs chronologically, allowing for less concentration on the part of the viewer. Overall it seems that he has matured in his film making and brought together a beautiful piece of cinema. Not to say I haven’t enjoyed most of his films, Kill Bill aside, but this one was much stronger and did not need the time travel that was necessary in his past films to show every conceivable perspective through each character’s eyes.

The true star of the movie was not the well-known cast members like Brad Pitt, Mike Myers – who has a guest appearance, or BJ Novak – of The Office fame, but rather Colonel Hans Landa played by Christoph Waltz. Waltz, who currently lives in London and is fluent in German, English and French, displayed a fantastic performance. In many scenes he had a John Malkovich like delivery, but his range throughout the movie is very impressive.

Over the course of the movie Tarantino’s twisted sense of humor is shown quite often in the fashion we have come to expect from his work on films like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. He also pays homage to past movies like his insertion of a brief clip from Alfred Hitchcock’s 1936 movie Sabotage, among other works.

The movie was well written, shot, edited, and the cast was perfectly chosen. I believe it is the strongest film Tarantino has put out to date – don’t just take my word for it, German film critics are even praising it. If you have the chance to see it, do.

You probably heard we ain’t in the prisoner-takin’ business; we in the killin’ Nazi business. And cousin, Business is a-boomin’.

– Lt. Aldo Raine

Quentin Tarantino’s latest film, Inglourious Basterds is an homage of spaghetti westerns, film noir and subversive movies about massacring a bunch of Nazis in the past couple of decades. It is currently #192 on the Top 250 of All Time on IMDb. It was a good movie, but I had some problems with it that I will discuss in the spoiler section.

Breaking from his formula of a broken narrative, letting the audience put the pieces back together. This is a tale a group of people that want to destroy the Third Reich, thus ending WWII.

It starts when Shosanna Dreyfus’s (Mélanie Laurent) family is massacred by Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and his crew of SS soldiers. She escapes extermination through the French countryside. She assumes a different identity as Emmanuelle Mimieux, an owner of a French cinema house.

One night, she is visited by an SS soldiers named Frederich Zoller (Daniel Brühl) that is taken with her. She tries to reject his advances. She finds out that he has become a German hero by killing over 250 Allied soldiers. He has a propaganda film made about him called Nations Pride.

Frederich wants to have the premiere of the movie to be at her cinema house. Shosanna has some ulterior motives about the premiere night with her boyfriend, Marcel (Jacky Ido).

Simultaneously, the “Inglorious Basterds” headed by Lt. Aldo “The Apache” Raine (Brad Pitt) with eight other Jew vigilantes like Sgt. Donnie Donowitz (Eli Roth), Pfc. Smithson Utivich (BJ Novak), Cpl. Wilhelm Wicki (Gedeon Burkhard), Pfc. Omar Ulmer (Omar Doom) and last but not least, Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger) have struck fear to the Third Reich with killing their forces and scalping them.

British officer Lt. Archie Hicox (Micheak Fassbender) has to the team up with the basterds along with double agent, German actress Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) to infiltrate the premiere and destroy the highest ranking officers of the Third Reich including Hitler.

This movie is made for cinema freaks. The primarily deals with people that love movies, the climax takes place in a theater. There were some obvious winks to audience.

It was more subdued than his other films. The performances were good across the board with a special mention to Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Laurent. I thought they were terrific in the film.

There were some problems with the pacing of the film. The dialogue dragged on for a long time. A few trims could have tighten up the suspense.

Judgment: It’s not a masterpiece, but a good film all around.

Rating: ****1/2

(SPOILER SECTION)

Being familiar with Tarantino and his work, I am aware that a lot of things are not going to be explained like Aldo’s scar on his neck, his Mike Myers in freckled prosthetics, but I digress.

I had a problem at the climax of the movie when the Basterds are about to carry out their mission. Aldo is captured after Bridget was killed by Landa, he is placed in the back of a truck with Utivich. Where the hell did he come from?

When they planned to get the Basterds in, he was not included in the infiltration. Was he a lookout? I don’t understand that.

In addition, when Aldo and Utivich go to another place, Landa is right there waiting for them. He was at the theater when Aldo was captured. Where the hell did he come from? Did he teleport there? There was no car in front of the truck. What’s the deal?

Quentin Tarantino’s latest is the long in development WWII epic that is not really a war film but a dialogue heavy affair like all of Tarantino’s work and the result is slow burn plot that builds amazing tension through fantastic characters all culminating in an explosive final act that could potentially re-write WWII history.
Split into five chapters, ala Kill Bill, there are a trio of characters/groups that are at play here. Fist off is Aldo Raine. Lt. Raine is the leader of the Jewish American platoon of soldiers dropped behind enemy lines in France to do only two things, kill lots of Nazi’s and take each and every one of their scalps. Next we have Hans Landa, or “the Jew Hunter” who is a detective for the Nazi regime seeking out the truth of the regimes occupied countrymen who may be hiding Jewish families from the authorities. One of these families put in question is at risk in the opening chapter of the film and the hate and fear that derives from this encounter produces our third protagonist Shosanna Dryfus. Dryfus owns a movie theater and after catching the attention of a young Nazi soldier, her theater is put into the running to be the host of the world premiere of the perceived German masterpiece, Nation’s Pride. These three paths eventually fall in line and lead them to the premiere where the Nazi high command is in attendance and their intentions lead to ups and downs along the way.
Now, first and foremost, this is not the movie The Weinstein Company is selling; not even close. In fact, it isn’t even remotely the movie Tarantino has been selling us in interviews for all these years. A men on a mission tearing up Nazi’s movie this is not. That doesn’t mean that they “basterds” aren’t doing this over the course of the films timeline, we just don’t get to see put a minuet glimpse of it. Instead we focus on the path of Shosanna and the staging of the “basterds” final steps to infiltrating the film premiere. The first two chapters serve as these characters introductions/motivations, the second two put plans in motion, and the final chapter is where everything comes together. Now, is this a bad thing, no, not in the least bit, it is just not at all what we were expecting, more so if we have been clamoring for this film since before Kill Bill.
What Tarantino puts on screen is a tension filled time bomb orchestrated with amazing precision. Filled with wonderful and epic dialogue that is pop culture relevant for the time frame of the picture, it’s as if Tarantino wrote this thing right after the end of the war with all the references he plugs in there. The film is also quite funny at times and full of unique, interesting, and fun characters that are a joy to watch. At the top of this list is Hans Landa who is just so wicked and evil, yet intoxicating and charming, we just never know which way to take him. Aldo Raine also delivers the best laughs in the film and almost everything out of his mouth is good for at least a chuckle. Our third lead Shosanna is also just as compelling, but more for her situation and tension on what she might do while being slowly sucked under the Nazi thumb.
The actors in the film are also quite good, with Christoph Waltz’s Hans Landa leading the charge as the most stand out performance. Waltz comes from pretty much nowhere and dominates and steals every scene he is in. His cunning, his swagger, his lack of compassion throw you all over the place and he might turn out to be one of the most likeable evil Nazi’s ever to grace the screen. He is the one you will be talking about after seeing this picture and is actually probably the star of the film, even though Pitt gets top billing. That isn’t to say Pitt is terrible though, in fact he is quite good and a hell of a lot of fun as southern roughneck Aldo Raine. As I said before, he is full of laughs and attitude to spare it’s just that he isn’t in the film a whole lot, especially with the way they are marketing the film. He is absent for two entire chapters of the film and is barely in a third, which isn’t a criticism, just letting you Pitt fans know what you are getting into. The “basterds” themselves are actually quite faceless and are pretty much banished to the background. Eli Roth gets the most screen time, with BJ Novak getting a scene as well, but outside that everyone in the “basterds” is a line here or there. Diane Kruger has probably the fourth meatiest role as German film beauty Bridget von Hammersmark and she takes full advantage of every scene she gets. Using her looks and words to keep her head above water when thrown into a sticky situation with a cellar full of Nazi’s, Krueger shines showing both confidence on the surface while fear bubbles underneath through he eyes. Daniel Brühl and Mélanie Laurent are the focal points of chapter three revolving around Laurent’s (Shosanna) encounter with Brühl’s Fredrick Zoller who is the star of the real life events and of the film in question for the premiere. Lastly, Michael Fassbender is wonderful as a British soldier who joins the “basterds” and is caught in the mix up at the local tavern. Playing it cool and collected, he carries the scene as the conversation slowly burns the tension higher and higher, it is quite a marvelous scene.
In the end, Inglourious Basterds is a talky and alternate take on WWII history that builds wonderful tension with fascinating characters. While you might be caught off guard by the films dialogue heavy and deliberate nature it is all extremely well done and is almost constantly engaging. The action/violence that does show up is a bit over the top and gratuitous, in fact the premise and outcome of the film is quite silly as well. The ending is borderline absurd, but it is so much fun to experience and aware of itself that it all works. This is not to say the film is silly though, as the intensity of three of the chapters is quite a bit to handle and has you cringing with nerves, just remember that film is kind of winking at you and trying to have fun as well. Tarantino’s latest is an excellent and fun piece of cinema, I just don’t know where it will settle overall in his filmography; I am going to have to see it once or twice more before I decide that. As for you, if you like Tarantino, do not miss it, just don’t expect what you are expecting, the film is anything but that.
Inglourious Basterds is an A