Visit the Internet Movie Database's Page for this Movie

In a unique combination of stop-motion animation and computer generated graphics, Fantastic Mr. Fox comes to life on the big screen.  This story, inspired by the book by acclaimed author Roald Dahl, is the perfect movie to watch with friends and family.

George Clooney, as Fantastic Mr. Fox himself, leads an all-star cast including Meryl Streep, Michael Gambon and Bill Murray to name a few.  Wes Anderson’s screenplay honors Dahl’s book (which is always nice to see, as some movies insult the books which served as their respective inspiration).

Fantastic Mr. Fox, his family, and friends (and sometimes frenemies) embark on a soul-searching journey as they seek out the balance between “civilized” life and their nature as wild animals.  This juxtaposition is playfully displayed each time the animals eat or even when they disagree with one another.

In addition to each forest-dweller’s soul search, a battle between good and evil ensues as Fantastic Mr. Fox, amid a mid-life crisis, decides to go after the three big farms near his family’s home.  Meanwhile, his son must learn to work with Kristofferson, his cousin, whose perfection generates a tension natural and understandable to viewer.

For anyone who saw and enjoyed Clooney’s comedic presence in movies such as O Brother Where Art Thou and Burn After Reading, Fantastic Mr. Fox is surefire selection at the box office.

Tune in next week for my review of Pirate Radio.

This review is not going to be that thorough and it will only be a review in the sense that I talk about a movie called ‘The Men Who Stare At Goats’ and occasionally mention something from the film. This movie isn’t terrible. It isn’t great. It just ‘is’, and depending on what ‘is’ means to you might determine how much you like the film. This is the way the film meanders. I get the general point that they were trying to make (they kind of spell things out with the bookends), but it seemed that it was more important to the  filmmakers to be quirky/zany than to make a good movie. The actual point wasn’t anything profound, either.

A goat makes it onto the poster before Stephen Root or Robert Patrick or...

The movie begins by telling the audience that the movie is more true than the government would care to admit and then we watch an officer rise from behind his desk and tries to run through a wall. Then we meet a reporter played by Ewan MacGregor, who wants to be a better reporter. His wife has left him for someone that he knows. His life is in semi crisis and takes a turn for the _______ when he meets a man that tells him of a secret government project that he was a part of that tapped into the powers of the mind called the New Earth Army. He also speaks of a very psychically talented man who owns a dance studio now. The reporter chalks this all up as nonsense and travels to the Middle East to hopefully get to do combat reporting and be a REAL reporter. Then he meets the man who owns the dance studio played by George Clooney.

Clooney staring at a goat...

Clooney repeatedly tells MacGregor’s reporter that he is a ‘Jedi Warrior’ and soon becomes convinced that MacGregor is one also (of course! He’s Ben Kenobi in the 3 Crappily Unfunny Star Wars movies). From there on, Clooney tries to convince MacGregor that he has psychic powers and they wander around and interact with people in seemingly random events until they….

Hippie officer Bridges with Clooney, Spacey and the New Earth Army

It sounds like a funny setup. I did chuckle throughout, but it wasn’t THAT funny. They didn’t put all the clever lines into the trailer, but there never are any real big laughs. This movie also wasted some great actors in this. Jeff Bridges plays an absurdly  flower child officer who sports a pony tail while guiding the team members of the New Earth Army. Kevin Spacey also makes an appearance, has a couple of funny lines  and then just stands around in the background and kind of looks at the other actors with more lines than him. They make you think that he’s going to be the villain, but no. There isn’t really a villain. There’s some drug use scenes in the film. there is the ’staring at goats’ which is in the title. Clooney gives a typically slapstick performance as he’s done in movies like ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou?’, Leatherheads, and Burn After Reading. MacGregor is a likeable actor, who seems to end up in less than stellar films for some reason. He’s a good actor (see his earlier films with Danny Boyle). I also was glad to see another movie with Stephen Root. He’s a top notch character that rarely gets mentioned when people talk about great actors… but they should.

He doesn't look like this in this movie....

The biggest sin of this movie is that it’s VERY predictable… I felt like I was the one writing the script  and from parts of  movies that I’ve already seen. I was even picking what songs they were going to use. The minute Clooney said his caharcter liked Boston (the 70s Rock band) I started humming “More Than A Feeling” and within a few minutes they were playing. I guess I laughed though.

The biggest saving grace of the film was that the characters of the film were likable, excluding Robert Patrick’s character in the movie and a few terrorists… But even some of the terrorists in the film were just being kept down by ‘the man’. In the film makers’ view, the terrorists don’t want to hurt anybody and they’re just VICTIMS, man (Say that like Jeff Bridges in the Big Lebowski)! Anyway… If I sound like I’m not sure what to write about this one; I’m not. This is one of those movies that as soon as we walked out of the film, we’re talking about anything but this movie. “Hey just killed 2 hours… Let’s go get something to eat…” I chuckled along with them for the most part, but it wouldn’t have been a big deal had I missed this one. It’s the kind of film that now that I’ve seen it, I don’t really care to seek it out again, but if I’m vegetating in front of the TV some night and it comes on some cable channel, I’d probably watch it. 3 of 5 whatevers….

Demorei o máximo que pude para ver esse filme. Para falar a verdade, eu nem queria ver esse filme. A razão? Medo. Meu maior medo era o hype imenso que esse filme carregava em cima dele. A fita nem tinha começado sua vida nos cinemas e todos já diziam que seria “o melhor filme de todos”. Confesso que sou um pouco (pouco é muito e muito é pouco) chato. Principalmente quando gosto de algo. E sempre gostei dos filmes do Tarantino. Não, eu não acho o cara um gênio. Acho um ótimo e divertido diretor. O maior triunfo do Tarantino é saber lidar bem com o clichê. Algo que todos tentam e a maioria fede ao fazer tentar fazer isso. Tarantino trabalhava numa locadora. Ou seja, estava rodeado pelo clichê o dia inteiro. Afinal, os filmes que costumam passar nas televisões das locadoras são, em sua maioria, algo que se tornou clichê com o tempo. Junte se a isso o seu talento e ironia referente à violência e você têm um ótimo diretor. Seu primeiro roteiro foi “Assassinos por Natureza”/ “Natural Born Killers” (com Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr. e Tommy Lee Jones no elenco) o qual Oliver Stone dirigiu. Talvez seu maior roteiro, mesmo sendo bastante revisado pelo próprio Stone.

O primeiro roteiro de Tarantino já mostra o quanto ele é light.

Também não vi Burn After Reading/Queime Depois de Ler pelo mesmo motivo. Muito é falado antes de o filme ser lançado. E também é de um dos meus cineastas favoritos. O fato dos irmãos Cohen terem entrado no mainstream me assusta até hoje.

Assustado com os Irmão Cohen no mainstream!

Quem já acompanha as peripécias deste blog sabe que costumo mais descer o pau do que elogiar: tirando Y: The Last Man, Ren & Stimpy e Billy & Mandy eu fui só reclamações e maldições. Mas de qualquer forma, não fiz tantas resenhas assim…

Então já deve ter alguém pensando: lá vai esse chato descer o pau no filme. Mas…

…o filme é muito bom! É melhor que Pulp Fiction? Não! É melhor que Kill Bill? É igual e diferente do mesmo modo. Ver um filme do Tarantino tem sempre uma sensação parecida, mais ou menos como ver Kubrick pós-Lolita. A sensação é parecida e os filmes não. Tarantino já conseguiu deixar sua marca no seu modo de fazer filmes. Não sei como explicar, mas quem conhece o trabalho dele já sacou o que eu quis dizer. Assim como Kubrick tinha aquele modo de sempre valorizar aqueles sorrisos aterrorizantes, cenas no banheiro e outras coisas. Não me entendam mal. Não estou comparando um com o outro. Kubrick era um gênio. Um dos maiores da história do cinema. Tarantino ainda não o é. É ótimo e divertido. Mas não sei. Ainda falta algo e tive a impressão de que com Bastardos Inglórios ele deu mostras de que está à procura desse algo mais.

Bastardos Inglórios é o chamado Historical Fiction (ficção histórica). A fita se passa na Segunda Guerra Mundial (entendam que esse era mais um dos meus medos: Nazistas de novo?!). Mas Tarantino não esgotou ainda mais o assunto. O nazismo e a guerra podem passar apenas como coisas secundárias.

Agora, para não falar só de Tarantino, o elenco foi muito bem escolhido. Começando com Christoph Waltz (“Ordinary Decent Criminal” / “Um Criminoso Decente” – vejam esse filme também!) no papel de Hans Landa. Waltz é o melhor no filme. Sua atuação é bárbara e mereceu o Cannes de melhor ator. Michael Fassbender (“Bando of Brothers” e “300”) como Lt. Archie Hicox (o inglês que troca tiros na virilha no pub) muito bem também. Eli Roth (demorei a lembrar quem era esse doidão. Ele faz parte do grupo Splat Pack, que é um grupo de cineastas de filmes de terror que decidiram voltar a fazer filmes de terror mesmo – pesados, “Saw”/ “Jogos Mortais” é de um diretor desse grupo. Eli Roth é o diretor de “O Albergue” que, confesso, não sou fã) é Donny Donowitz / O Urso Judeu, impecável sua ultima aparição na qual ele atira em Hitler até o rosto dele virar pedaços de carne moída no liquidificador. Diane Kruger (a Helena em “Troy” / “Tróia” e Abigail Chase em “A Lenda do Tesouro Perdido”) interpreta Bridget von Hammersmark. Diane Kruger já foi uma modelo de sucesso na década de 90, se não estou enganado. Que bom que deixou de ser modelo, parece que sob a correta direção e em um filme bom (diferente dos citados na qual ele atuou) ela tem talento. Daniel Brühl (“Adeus Lênin” e “The Edukators”) é Fredrick Zoller, ou o herói de guerra alemão. O cara é realmente bom. É só ver os filmes que o cara fez. Til Schweiger (“Tomb Raider” e “Rei Arthur”) é  o alemão que muda de lado. O cara no filme é hilário. Não sabia que o cara era bom (afinal olha os filmes que eu citei que ele fez), mas ele o é. Mélanie Laurent faz Shoshana. Essa eu não conhecia, mas também é muito boa. Omar Doom é Omar Ulmer. Gedeon Burkhard é o tradutor dos Bastardos. B.J. Novak (“The Office”) é o Little Man (não lembro bem como ficou em português, se foi Pequenino ou algo do tipo). Mike Myers (o Austin Powers) é o general inglês que comanda a idéia do assassinato de Hitler. Rod Taylor (“A Máquina do Tempo” de 1960, baseado no livro de H.G. Wells) faz o Wiston Churchil. Denis Menochet (“Hannibal Rising”) faz o fazendeiro francês do inicio do filme. Christian Berkel (“Operação Valquíria”) é o barman do pub onde rola aqueles tiros na virilha. Jacky Ido (esse eu não conheço) faz Marcel. August Diehl (“The Counterfeiters” e “The Ninth Day”, ambos alemães) é o oficial da Gestapo, especialista em sotaques, que troca tiros na virilha. Alexander Fehling (“And Along Come Tourists”, também alemão) é o cara que está comemorando o nascimento do filho onde dão tiros na virilha. Sylvester Groth é Josef Goebbels, ministro da propaganda de Hitler. Groth também interpretou Goebbels na comédia My Leader – The Truly Truest Truth about Adolf Hitler (também alemã). Quem também interpretou Goebbels foi Martin Wuttke – que é Hitler no filme de Tarantino – no filme Rosenstrasse (alemão também, mas se tiverem tempo – e paciência para achar – vejam). Julie Dreyfus (Sofie Fatale em “Kill Bill”) é a interprete francesa de Goebbels. O curioso é que parte do elenco desse filme são também diretores. Um exemplo disso é Enzo G. Castellari que no filme é um general nazista. Castellari é um diretor italiano, conhecido pelos seus Spaghetti Western como Any Gun Can Play, Kill Them All and Come Back Alone, Seven Wichesters For a Massacre e,…, The Inglorious Bastards – Quel maledetto treno blindato. Os bastardos de Castellari e de Tarantino são parecidos. Com certeza o filme de Castellari inspirou Tarantino. Os Bastardos no filme de Castellari são soldados americanos que estão sendo levados para uma prisão militar quando um ataque aéreo alemão acaba os “soltando” ao matar todos os guardas. Os soldados decidem fugir e acabam fazendo parte de um plano que consiste em roubar o giroscópio de um foguete V-2 nazista que se encontra em um trem extremamente protegido por nazistas.

The Ingloriou Bastards de Castellari.

Ué, e o Brad Pitt? Bom, Brad Pitt é um grande ator. Quando ele não faz papéis de heróis entediados ou de galã supersexy (como Aquiles em “Tróia” ou Sr. e Sra. Smith) ele manda muito. É só ver filmes como Thelma & Louise, Across the Tracks, Kalifornia (acho que foi aí onde ele aprendeu esse sotaque que ele tem em Bastardos Inglórios), Interview with the Vampire, Lendas da Paixão, Seven (Sete Pecados Capitais), Os Doze Macacos, Fight Club (Clube da Luta), Snatch (mais uma vez ele faz um sotaque genial), Babel, …, deu para entender, né? Ou seja, quando o papel e o filme é bom, ele arrebenta. Por isso não vou ficar falando o quanto ele foi bem nos Bastardos. Tentei falar mais dos outros que, para a grande maioria, são desconhecidos.

Como não poderia deixar de ser…

Pausa para um lanchinho...

…em filme de tarantino nunca falta sangue e nem Samuel L. Jackson. Ele não atua, mas é o narrador. Poucas vezes narra, é verdade, mas ele está lá.

Minha conclusão é: se não viu, veja por você mesmo. Se já viu, sabe do que estou falando.

Hace tiempo que no veía un trailer que hiciera que me dieran tantas ganas de ver una película, creo que lo que me gusta es que se ve como una comedia clásica, algo de espionaje, acción, comedia física y cosas fuera de lugar. Jeff Bridges de militar hippie es bastante prometedor, casi como “His Dudeness”. 

Si algo me molesta son las películas lentas, donde les encanta registrar la belleza de alguien acabándose un vaso con agua, quizá lo que más me gusta de esta película es que pareciera que no tiene más pretensiones que entretener, hacerte reír y punto, algo devaluado por la gente, entretener con algo bien hecho es algo que me parece bastante difícil de lograr.

Por pagoda

Efter att ha ratat Slumdog Millionaire som bästa film år 2008 ställde supercoola Booby den högst berättigade frågan: Vilken var då bästa filmen år 2008?

I min bok var det tre filmer som konkurrerar om den titeln. Överlag var -08 ett väldigt bra filmår, men de som motsvarat mina kriterier och krav är följande:

The Dark Knight

Kanske ett tråkigt val, men det finns egentligen inget dåligt att säga om TDK. Christopher Nolan visade med Batman Begins att superhjältefilmer är perfekt grund för stora frågor och mörker. Med TDK tar han allt flera steg längre, med frågor som om vilka friheter en självutnämnd superhjälte ska kunna ta och vilket värde människor egentligen har. Är en brottslings liv mindre värt än vanliga människors? Är en brottslings liv mer värt än ens eget?

Att Heath Ledger dessutom är bättre än vad man ens kunde föreställa sig var möjligt som Jokern är också en viktig faktor. Äntligen får Batman en riktig antagonist.

The Dark Knight är perfekt. Rakt igenom.

Burn After Reading

Jag är ett stort fan av bröderna Coen och jag är helt övertygad om att de inte kan misslyckas. Även om de inte alltid lyckats, har de likt förbaskat aldrig misslyckats. Lite motsägelsefullt kanske, men allt är inte alltid som det verkar.

I Burn After Reading är allt helt galet. Ingen vet något om någon eller något och Brad Pitt är bara korkad. Och rolig. Varenda scen med Brad innebär en stor skrattorkan. George Clooneys uppfinningsrikedom tillhör också en av många höjdpunkter.

Enligt mig ett komiskt mästerverk utan någon svag punkt. En solklar femma!

Rambo

Jag förstår om vissa tycker den fjärde Rambofilmen bara är en ursäkt för att få visa mycket våld och samtidigt håva in en jädra massa pengar.

Jag kan dock inte hålla med. Sylvester Stallone är ett geni och med hjälp av lätta medel berättar han om den gamle Rambo, som flytt till Thailand efter att hans hemland svikit honom gång på gång. Han har ingen tilltro till världen överhuvudtaget och har gett upp allt sorts hopp.

Men så kommer ett gäng missionärer fulla av hopp och vilja att förändra för nödställda människor i krigshärjade Burma. Olyckligtvis går det snett och de blir tillfångatagna.

Rambo bestämmer sig för att han inte kan sitta bredvid och titta på, så tillsammans med ett gäng tuffa legosoldater beger han sig in i Burmas täta skog för att befria missionärerna. Det blir en (utan dess like) blodig kamp där tuff verkligen skiljs från tuff och där Rambo ännu en gång tvingas göra upp med sig själv.

Det är en adrenalin- såväl som känslotripp vid varje tittning. I min bok har den allt.

Som sagt, jag förstår att andra ser bristerna. Jag ser dem också, men jag är väldigt förlåtande när det gäller Sly.

-

Man kan nog dra många slutsatser om både mig som person och min filmsmak med hjälp av dessa tre filmer, men det får någon annan stå för. Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Revolutionary Road och The Curious Case of Benjamin Button tillhör även favoriterna från 2008.

I’m finally allowing myself to admit there may be diminishing returns with every subsequent Coen brothers movie I view. It’s the formula that gets to me. For all their mastery of every aspect of the art of film – from script to soundtrack to direction to cinematography to editing – the plot of nearly every Coen brothers movie can be reduced to the single phrase: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

That said, I still laughed my ass off at Burn After Reading.

On a continuum of their films, with No Country representing the darkest extreme and Big Lebowski representing the lightest, and Fargo at dead center, I’d place it about midway between Fargo and Lebowski.

Brad Pitt, as always, is an unfortunate distraction in the proceedings. You know what it’s like: you’re trying to get into a movie but can’t get past the fact that Brad Pitt is there being Brad Pitt, all ham and fist, blocking you from actually connecting with the story.

And George Clooney. How many times is he going to play a fast-talking shifty womanizer for the Coen bros? I actually enjoyed it in Oh Brother, but it’s become a pretty thin schtick.

The others are top-notch, however. The Coens always seem to elicit the best from their crew. I thought Richard Jenkins in particular as the tragicomic gym manager with a somewhat unusual past played his role with superb understatement.

vi posso assicurare che in questi anni ce l’ho messa tutta per trovarlo pessimo. complice sicuramente anche il fatto che girasse per il pianeta tirandosi dietro quell’infinita muta abbaiante di fans (femmine, a nostro discredito) adoranti, visto che a me gli uomini che piacciono alle donne non sono mai sembrati interessanti. e a peggiorare le cose ci si mettevano anche gli uomini. tutti a dire, “come uomo non entro nel merito, ma come attore ha davvero talento”. il talento. quello che io avevo deciso che lui non dovesse avere, per non mettere a repentaglio la saldezza del mio pregiudizio, secondo il quale un attore bello (che poi a me lui come tipo neanche piace, troppo biondo per essere un uomo) ha successo soltanto per la sua avvenenza.

joe

brad pitt nel ruolo di richard in "babel"

è ora di finirla. basta. mi pento! brad pitt è un bravissimo attore.

ecco, l’ho detto.

non volevo ammetterlo ma l’ho sempre trovato bravo: “seven”, “vi presento joe black”, sono tra i miei films preferiti, la sua interpretazione del marito disperato di cate blanchett nel meraviglioso “babel” di Iñárritu è commovente, anche il bizzarro benjamin button lo è…e un grande attore è in grado anche di fare la parte di un imbecille e sembrarlo sul serio: avete visto “burn after reading”?

senza contare che in tempi più recenti brad pitt ha incontrato IL mio regista…e da una mente geniale come quella di quentin tarantino insieme a un talento come quello di brad pitt non poteva che nascere il personaggio straordinario e indimenticabile di aldo raine…bastardi senza gloria è davvero un film mozzafiato…

che ne dite, basta come atto di contrizione e come lode alla bravura di brad?

chad, in "burn after reading"

benjamin e daisy

signori, un applauso al tenente raine...

The Coen Brothers, a multi-Oscar winning pair of neurotic and irreverent Hollywood filmmakers, made a so-so film in 2008 called “Burn After Reading” where the tagline was “Intelligence is Relative.”

The film deals with a CIA agent played by John Malkovich whose personal memoirs contained in a disk are accidentally discovered by two dimwitted gym trainers played by Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt. Though the film itself lacks the usual panache we have come to expect from Joel and Ethan Coen, the story is supposed to satirize the U.S. intelligence community and how everyday idiots can become bigger threats to national security than terrorists.

This film and Steven Soderbergh’s 2009 film “The Informant!” are both spoofs of the ineptitude of government agents and the people who are in power in our country. One would think the smartest people in our society would be the ones in power, but that is not always the case.

The general American public would argue that our previous president, George W. Bush, was not the brightest bulb in the drawer despite reaching the office of President of the United States. He only became Commander in Chief because of his family name (his pappy was once the Prez as well) and the very nice Supreme Court who ruled controversial ballots in his favor over his challenger, Al Gore.

In our current administration, several Obama cabinet and lower cabinet members had trouble paying their taxes. This is especially ironic considering Democrats are traditionally the ones who favor higher taxes over lower ones. This goes to show that everyone is capable of either being stupid or ignoring the law.

But indeed it does make one wonder who really is in charge of our country. Do we actually have the smartest people in high public offices; or do we have bumbling idiots whom enough folks were gullible enough to vote for?

Then again, sometimes you had no choice who to vote for. I don’t think too many Americans were enthusiastic about either Bush or Gore, or even John Kerry for that matter. This past election, where we had a choice between a charismatic African American and a well-respected Vietnam War veteran, was one of the first elections in a while where the person, not the party, counted more.

All this shows that perhaps the best people aren’t the ones who are in positions of power. Politics and the art of governing a country are often times two very different monsters. Politics is show, theatre, intrigue, social networking. Governing a country is an intellectual task that requires knowledge of history, economics, mathematics, political theory, and multi-cultural understanding.

Those who want to enter politics are often in it for a variety of reasons. Some want to genuinely change the country (or city, or county, or state) for the better, others are in it for the fame/money/reputation, and some people might be in it for no other reason other than it seems like the right thing to do.

Those who get elected aren’t necessarily the ones with the best ideas. They are the ones who seem the most trustworthy, kind, patriotic, charismatic, and/or partisan. If you live in a hardcore red or blue state, you better feed the base or you will have no chance of collecting votes.

I have always believed that the real people who are qualified to be president, or senator, or any high public office, are usually in academia. They are law professors, college professors, or political scientists working for a think tank. They could even be journalists who have studied politics for a long length of time. Either way, people who understand politics, international relations, and history at a deeper level.

This is not to say that our current elected leaders do not have that expertise. Barack Obama was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Most of our other leaders have university degrees in political science, international studies, or law. I am not implying that Washington D.C. is full of nothing but power hungry dunderheads, though sometimes that assumption is tempting to make.

But there is somewhat of a backlash against intellectualism. Obama and Hillary Clinton were accused of being “elitists” who couldn’t relate to the everyday working man or woman. This explains why Obama tried to go bowling (and failed miserably) and Hillary was seen at a tavern chasing down brewskis. Republicans already have the “good old boy” reputation down solid, so it’s the Dems who need “work” in that area.

Some people think politicians who are overtly smart and intelligent are prone to ignore the everyday “Joe Six Pack” and their common problems. Others feel we need the best and brightest running our country, not those who can best identify with the little people.

Intelligence may be relative, but there will always be a place for smart people. Smart people assist in improving technology, science, medicine, the arts, and any other kind of research that helps society become better. When it comes to running a country, that might be a whole other story.

How much of politics is scientific and how much of it is an art? That might come down to whether you value book or street smarts more. There might be something said for the classic debate between intelligence and wisdom. A wise person is not necessarily the smartest one in the room. They are the ones with the most insight, sensitivity, life experience, and observational power. Intelligence is something that cannot be learned.

But can wisdom be learned? Or does it come more natural to some people compared to others? We assume that wise people make the best decisions in life, but what about intelligent folks? How, for example, did the Kennedy administration get us into the colossal blunder that was the Vietnam War when everyday military grunts on the ground knew all along this would be a mistake? There must be something said for proximity to the problem.

 All these questions can boggle the mind. Maybe we need intelligent people to answer them.

Another Slippery Slope, photo by ElectriqueKingdom

'THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS' Movie Poster

Looks hilarious. George Clooney (who THRALL WORLD loathed for years following the unforgivable disaster, “Batman And Robin”) has suddenly emerged as an actor we look forward to seeing following his roles in “Syriana”, “Burn After Reading”, and “Solaris”. Batman has more than recovered and excelled and so, it appears, has Clooney.

——-
——-

Die Weide muss langsam aber sicher ausgebaut werden, denn Körber und Hammes brechen Rekorde. Dieses Mal mit der bis dato längsten Episode. Neben den Neuigkeiten aus dem Genre Fernsehen, wie der 95.000-Euro-Strafe für den Call-In-Sender 9Live und die nun doch ausgestrahlte „Zimmer frei“-Folge mit Martin Sonneborn, geht es heute um das große Thema „Zuschauer sein“. Wie ist die Atmosphäre bei einer Fernsehaufzeichnung? Die KüHe berichten am Beispiel „Harald Schmidt“ und betreiben gleichzeitig eine Nachlese zur vergangenen Ausgabe.

Obgleich der Film-Block diese Woche etwas kürzer ausfällt, weiß Herr Körber über „Burn After Reading“ zu referieren, der – zugegeben – nicht auf der regulären Liste der Filmschule zu finden war. Wieso, warum und vor allen Dingen weshalb es dazu kam, erklären die beiden in der Folge.

Weitere Themen: Wir haben erneut den „KuH der Woche“ gekürt, der uns dieses Mal in die Vergangenheit führt. Außerdem feiert der KuH-Tipp den TV-Herbst mit den vierten Staffeln von „Stromberg“ und „Pastewka“. Einen Vorgeschmack auf die beiden Serien gibt es in der KuH. Und: Erste Einsendungen von schlimmen Radio-Claims, denn die Suche nach den schrecklichsten Slogans geht weiter. Natürlich darf auch der Titelschmutz in dieser Folge nicht fehlen.

Link aus der Sendung:
Gesehen bei Comedian Jimmy Carr: Beziehung? Nein! Wir sind doch nur „Fuck Buddies“…

Spezial
Euch sind mehr als zwei Stunden geballte KuH-Power einfach zu viel? Kein Problem! Unser neuester Service für unsere KuH-Hörer: Der KuH-Quicky. Zwei Stunden und 18 Minuten komprimiert auf eine Minute und 38 Sekunden.

Viewed: October 21st, 2009

I really don’t know why I’m posting this. Whoever said this film was a comedy: they lied. It wasn’t a comedy. It wasn’t a drama. It wasn’t a time period piece. It was … awkward. That’s it.

Let’s start from the top. I went to a different theatre than the one I normally go to: Alliance Cinemas. The Cumberland theatre? First of all, I’m disappointed with them because they screened the documentaries I needed to see for The Oscar Project for 14 days only and I missed them. They weren’t playing anywhere else… I don’t know if they are now? So upset! Next: I went to this theatre because I remembered it being cheap. Last time I was there was for last year’s Oscar research, and saw “The Reader.” I paid a whole $7 for my ticket. Pretty awesome, right? Went there this time — of course, they’ve raised their ticket prices and it’s $11.50 now. It’s not even worth $11.50 — the theatre isn’t fantastic… it’s old and has only 4 screens. Sucky. Whatever, I paid my ticket and climbed the stairs to get to Cinema 3, walked in … the theatre smelled like a wet dog. Ugh, disgusting. The first seat I sat in had hair all over it, and when I got up to change my place, the film started… 5 minutes early. And so, I was trying to find a new seat in the dark. I’ve counted: I have 9 bruises.

Moving along.

The Oscar Buzz on this film comes from it’s directors: Joel and Ethan Coen, the boys who brought you “No Country for Old Men,” an Oscar winner for Best Picture, and last year’s “Burn After Reading.” Their style of writing and directing is purposely a little off. But, in previous endeavors it’s worked out for them.

This time? No.

It can easily be a Best Picture nominee. Especially considering the return of the 10 nominations in the category this year. I mean, they have to fill up the spots somehow, right? Right. But, that’s it. Best directors? Another strong possibility. You can see a similarity in each actor and actress in this film… like a character similarity. They all seem very disinterested in everything — and I think that’s a director thing. Like, the director’s plug or take on the character, and then the actor or actress just obliges. Sure.

The whole thing was annoying. Like — a few funny moments here and there, but you’ll find that everywhere. I was just annoyed the whole time. Everything makes you cringe or shudder in disgust. There’s either people slurping soup for minutes on end, or constant drain noises, or continuous yelling scenes. There’s a lot of silent moments, too. Where no one says anything, or has any facial expression, for a long long long time. It’s all just very awkward. Perhaps it was supposed to be funny, but no one really … laughed. Oh, well.

The one thing I will give this film is the screenplay. It was fantastic. The detail, the meaning behind the words, the speeches. Fantastic. Very impressive. Again, it’s done in the typical Coen style, but, hey — when something’s good, you stick with it, right? Right.

At the beginning of the film, there’s a very very strange scene about a couple who lives in the middle of no where in the middle of winter, and they argue about whether or not the husband has seen a ghost. There’s a murder (although it’s debatable about what’s actually going on … no one knows?) and it’s all in a foreign language. The scene ends, and you think … you think … that it will have some connection with the rest of the film. Nope. I have no idea why it’s there. I have no idea what it means. Random, and again — annoying. Now, the ending of the film pissed me off like no other ending has. It ends mid scene. A tornado starts to form outside the Hewbrew school, and the lead character gets a phone call about an xray he took at the beginning of the film (another incredibly awkward and annoying scene) and then … credits. What!? What!? Was there something I missed? What just happened!?

- …იმედი მაქვს ხვდება, რომ ჩვენი საინფორმაციო მხარდაჭერის გარეშე, მისი შედევრი, რომელზეც მხოლოდ ისინი იცინოდნენ, ვისაც 900 მილიგრამი “ლირიკა” ჰქონდათ დალეული, ან შიზოფრენიით იყვნენ დაავადებულნი, საქართველოში ბიუჯეტს ვერ ამოიღებს.
- არა მხოლოდ ხვდება, არამედ უკვე დურეკა ჩვენს ხალხს, რათა დაერეკათ მისი ხალხისათვის, ფინანსური კუთხის განსახილველად. ისე, ეგ დაიკიდე, მაინც დიდი ხანი მოგვიწევს მოცდა. ახლა იმ ჰონორარის ათვისებას მივყოთ ხელი, რომელიც ჩვენთვის უცნობმა მამებმა გადაგვიხადეს.
- რა თანხაზე მიდის საუბარი?
- 4 ციფრიანზე.
- ჩვენს ვალუტზე, თუ ტაჯიკეთის?
- ჩვენსაზე, ჩვენსაზე.
- აუ, ასეთი “ჟმოტი” როგორაა, ერთი ნულიც დაემატებინა. წინა ფილმზეც კი არ გადაუხდია მთლიანი თანხა, ჩვენ კი ლამის რეპუტაციის ფასად დაგვიჯდა ის რეცენზია.
- ამჯერად შეფერხების გარეშე შეგვპირდა. თან ავანსიც გადაგვიხადეს წინასწარ.
- ოო, მაშინ სხვა საქმეა. გთავაზობ დავიწყოთ ასე:”ძნელია იკამათო იმაზე, რომ ავთანდილ ვარსიმაშვილის ბოლო ფილმი, ქმნის სრულიად ახალ საფეხურს, ქართულ კინოინდუსტრიაში. ჩვენი კინემატოგრაფისტებისათვის მეტად არასასიამოვნო ჟანრში – სატირაში. მინდა აღვნიშნო, რომ “ყველაფერი კარგად იქნება”, არის უკამათო შედევრი, ღირსი იმისა, რომ ერთ კონტექსტში მოიხსენიებოდეს ისეთ კლასიკასთან, როგორიცაა “მონტი პაიტონი”, “დოქტორი სტრეინჯლოვი”, “ფარგო”, “მოთამაშე” და ა.შ.”. აბა, როგორია?
- გენიალური.
- ჰეჰ, სპეციალისტის დაწერილია.
- ისე, ნახე საერთოდ ეგ ყლეობა?
- უჰ, ყველაზე საშინელი საათნახევარი იყო ჩემს ცხოვრებაში. იმაზე საშინელი, სკოლაში რომ ჩავიჯვი და მასწავლებელმა დაფასთან გამიძახა.
- სექსის სცენა გახსოვს?
- ეგეთი სექსის სცენები უხვად მაქვს ნანახი, სამასწავლებლოსთან, ხელფასის რიგებში.
- შიშველი შორენა ბეგაშვილი?
- ფლეხ, 11 წლის რომ ვყოფილიყავი, გამისწორდებოდა, მასტურბაციისათვის კარგი მასალა მექნებოდა. ახლა კი, ყოველგვარ საჭიროებას მოკლებული სცენა, სილამაზესა და მიმზიდველობას მოკლებული, სილიკონის ქალის მონაწილეობით – ანტიპათიის მეტი არაფერი მიგრძვნია.
- აჰა. ჩემს გვერდით ვიღაც დედა-შვილი იჯდა. ბავშვი იქნებოდა მაქსიმუმ 8-9 წლის. როგორ მინდოდა იცი ავმდგარიყავი და დედამისისთვის ყბაში მომედო?! იაფფასიან ბორდელში წაეყვანა ბარემ შვილი.
- მე ხალხი რომ იცინოდა იმაზე გამოვყლევდი. ან ეს დედამოტყნული, სად უნახავთ სომხები ეგეთი წაკნავლებითი დიალექტით მეტყველებდნენ?
- კარგი, ძალიან გავიჯვით ახლა, დავუბრუნდეთ რევიუს.
- მოკლედ, ამაზე რას იტყვი: “იდეალურადაა სურათში გაშარჟებული დღევანდელი ყოფა ქვეყნისა. ფარული ქვეტექსტები რიგ ეპიზოდებში, ცხადყოფს უნიკალურ ხედვას რეჟისორისა. თავისუფლად შეგვიძლია შევადაროთ ბატონი ავთო, ძმებ კოენებს და “ყველაფერი კარგად იქნება”, “ო, ძმაო სად ხარ?”-ს და “დაწვი წაკითხვის შემდეგ”-ს”.
- ზედმეტი მოგდის მგონი. არ დაგავიწყდეს, ჯერ მხოლოდ ავანსი გვაქვს აღებული.
- ხო, ხო, მართალი ხარ. ისე, ეს გომელაური ძაღლის მძღნერით იხეხავს კბილებს, თუ ოსტინ პაუერსობას აწვება?
- რავიცი, გულის რევის შეგრძნებას და კბილის ჯაგრისის ჩუქების სურვილს რომ აღმიძრავს, ეგ ცალსახა. სხვას ვერაფერს გეტყვი.
- განვაგრძე მე: “ცეკვის სცენა პლაჟზე, ისეთივე ეპიკური მნიშვნელობისაა, როგორც თურმანისა და ტრავოლტას ტვისტი “Pulp Fiction” – ში და ისეთივე სასაცილოა, როგორც ჯონ ჰიდერის სოლო, “ნაპოლეონ დინამიტში”.
- მაგარია. მუსიკაზე გვავიწყდება რამის თქმა.
- არ დამვიწყებია მუსიკის შექება. შენი არ ვიცი და მე რომ მომაჭრა და უკან გამიკეთო, ამას არ ვიზამ.
- 4 ციფრიან თანხაზეც კი?
- გინდაც 5 ციფრიანზე! კარგი რა, სულ ხომ არ უნდა ჩავიჯვათ სულში. თავმოყვარეობა დავიკიდეთ, ჯანდაბას, მაგრამ ვერაფერი მაიძულებს მაგ ყლეობაზე დადებითი ფრაზა დავწერო.
- მაშინ ვწერთ: “ერთადერთი მინუსი ფილმისა, გახლავთ მუსიკა, რომელიც იმაზე უფრო ცუდი მოსასმენია, ვიდრე სახინკლის ტუალეტის კაბინაში, კოლიტით გატანჯული ადამიანის ჭინთვების მოსმენა, რომელმაც რამდენიმე წუთის წინ, დიდი ულუფა ხაშლამა მიირთვა. ერთი სიტყვით, თავიდან-ბოლომდე ყლეობაა”.
- მოიცა, სიტყვა “ყლეობა”-ს ხმარება შეიძლება შეკვეთილ რევიუში?
- ჩვენთვის ყველაფერი შეიძლება კაცო, ტრაკზე მეამბორონ თუ რამე არ მოეწონებათ რა.
- დასკვნით ნაწილში ავღნიშნოთ, რომ ემოციური ფილმია. პატრიოტიზმს აღვივებს და პოზიტივით გავსებს.
- აჰა, და სუიციდისაკენ გიბიძგებს. აუტანელი სიძულვილისაგან მეზობელ სავარძელში მჯდომისათვის მინეტის გაკეთების სურვილს გიჩენს…
- რა გჭირს, მაგას ხომ ვერ დავწერთ?! აუ, ის გახსოვს რა ყლეობ იყო? კუტუმოცახცახე ძაღლი რომ ბარბაცებდა და რაღაც ზე-სირული ტექსტი ედო, მე მაინც გავიმართები წელშიო თუ რაღაც ეგეთი?
- ო, კარგი გამახსენე. “ავთანდილ ვარსიმასვილის გენიალური ეპითეტი, ფილმის დასაწისსა და დასასრულში, წამსვე გვაგონებს ვაჟას და მის “არწივს”. ეს ერთგვარი მოწოდებაა რწმენისა ნათელი მომავლისადმი, რომ ისევ გავიმართებით წელში და კვლავ ვიხილავთ მტრის ბუმბულს, ველად გაშლილ-გაფანტულს”.
- ვირტუოზი ხარ!
- არადა მაგ მომენტზე სულ დედის მუტელი ვიგინე. პრინციპში მთელი ფილმის განმავლობაში, სხვა არაფერი მიკეთებია.
- არ დავასრულოთ? დავიღალე მე. ისე, ბრწყინვალე გამოგვივიდა, როგორც ყოველთვის.
- ფეერიული. ისე, თავი არ გეზიზღება, დადებით რევიუს რომ წერ ფილმზე, რომელიც უფრო მეტად გძულს, ვიდრე უცნობის გადაცემა?
- “საკანზე” მეტადაც მძულს და ვენერიული დაავადების მქონე ვაგინაზეც, მაგრამ რა ვქნა, სამუშაო გვაქვს ასეთი. ობიექტურობაში ფულს არავინ გვიხდის.
- ხო, მართალი ხარ. წამოდი, მეგობრები მაინც გავაფრთხილოთ, რომ ამ დედამოტყნულობაზე არ წავიდნენ.

© ბაჩო ოდიშარია

Welcome to the first round of the Coen Brothers Character Tournament.  Check out this post for a refresher on tournament rules.  Tonight we open the West Region matchups featuring 16 well-known Coen characters.

And on to the fights.

————————

#1 The Dude (The Big Lebowski) vs. #16 Bernie Bernbaum (Miller’s Crossing)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (2 – 5):  Advantage Bernbaum.
• Luck (5-2):  Advantage The Dude.
• Heart (5-1):  Advantage  The Dude.

The Winner:

The Dude by Unanimous Decision.  With a liter of White Russians pumping through his veins, The Dude outlasts a wilting Bernbaum for the decision.  According to subsequent police reports, Bernbaum retaliated by pissing on The Dude’s rug.

————————

#8 Norville Barnes (The Hudsucker Proxy) vs. #9 Osbourne Cox (Burn After Reading)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (2 – 5):  Advantage Cox.
• Luck (5-1):  Advantage Barnes.
• Heart (5-2):  Advantage Barnes.

The Winner:

Barnes by TKO. Easily the best matchup of the first round.  The unorthodox Barnes exits his corner holding a  nondescript plastic disc while swinging a sand-filled hoop around his hips.  Cox is clearly shitfaced, a 1,200- page manuscript in one hand and a hatchet in the other, staring intently not at Barnes but his corner man, Harry Pfarrer.  Barnes takes the opening, using the disc to open a gash on Cox’s cheek.  Startled, Cox side-steps a second blow while simultaneously bludgeoning Barnes with the full weight of his ambitious yet dry manuscript.  Barnes regains his footing and circles Cox, the swinging hoop making its way up his torso to defend against a potential hatchet chop.  Cox counters with a sweeping manuscript strike to the groin.  Stunned, Barnes backpedals to the ropes.  In a flash, Cox follows with the hatchet, missing wide but severing Barnes’ protective neck hoop.  Barnes musters his remaining strength and executes the rarely seen double somersault between Cox’s legs, reversing his position and unleashing a 360 degree plastic disc slice to Cox’s mid-section.  Drunk but not that drunk, Cox parries with the manuscript.  The binding explodes under the force leaving Cox, with hatchet, and Barnes, with disc, on the brink of frenzy.  Enraged but still a CIA operative trained to be cool under pressure, Cox feigns a second hatchet slice before dropping a Three Stooges double-eye poke on Barnes.  Blinded, Barnes crumples to the mat, holding the now-cracked plastic disk feebly in defense.  Cox, relishing the moment, makes a throat-slash gesture to Pfarrer in the corner before winding up for the finishing blow.  Suddenly, the entire arena is frozen in time as the angelic image of Waring Hudsucker descends from above.  Moments later, Cox is listless on the floor while a rejuvenated Barnes walks away triumphantly, mumbling something about a rock that changes color with your mood.

————————

#5 Linda Litzke (Burn After Reading) vs. #12 Carson Wells (No Country)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (2 – 4):  Advantage Wells.
• Luck (5-1):  Advantage Litzke.
• Heart (5-3):  Advantage Litzke.

The Winner:

Litzke by TKO. Litzke enters the ring looking terrific, thanks in large part to the CIA’s gracious investment in her body modifications.  Wells comes out aggressive, doing at least $25,000 of damage to Litzke’s new cheeks and nose.  At the close of round three, Wells does a bit of show-boating and accidentally walks back to the wrong corner.  Unknown to Wells, Litzke won an intense pre-fight coin flip and had Anton Chigurh working her corner.  A dull thooomp later and it’s Litzke by TKO.

————————

#4 Walter Sobchak (The Big Lebowski) vs. #13 Jerry Lundegaard (Fargo)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (2 – 2):  Even.
• Luck (3-2):  Advantage Sobchak.
• Heart (5-1):  Advantage Sobchak.

The Winner:

Sobchak by KO. Sobchak enters the cage with his league championship bowling ball in hand.  In response, Lundegaard signals his corner man Carl Showalter, who vanishes into the crowd.  Moments later Sobchak receives a phone call saying The Dude is being held for ransom pending the outcome of the fight.  Not one to back down in the face of unchecked aggression, Sobchak nearly decapitates Lundegaard with a 7-10 split.  The Dude is recovered unharmed from Bunny Lebowski’s guest quarters.

————————

#6 Julian Marty (Blood Simple) vs. #11 Pete (O’Brother)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (3 – 2):  Advantage Marty.
• Luck (2-3):  Advantage Pete.
• Heart (5-3):  Advantage Marty.

The Winner:

Pete by KO. Our first upset in the West Region.  At one point it appeared that Pete killed Marty with a devastating right hook.  The fighter lay motionless for what seemed like an eternity before rising to his feet.  It was one of the most remarkable recoveries ever seen in tournament play.  And then Pete literally killed him.

————————

#3 Ulysses Everett McGill (O’Brother) vs. #14 Big Dave Brewster (The Man Who Wasn’t There)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (4 – 3):  Advantage Everett.
• Luck (5-1):  Advantage Everett.
• Heart (5-3):  Advantage Everett.

The Winner:

Everett by TKO.  There was a lot of controversy post-fight.  Big Dave’s camp argued that Everett’s Dapper Dan hair treatment (not to be confused with FOP) was illegally applied to his face, making it nearly impossible to land a punch.  In response, Everett told local press that given the “personal rancor reflected in that remark, I don’t intend to dignify it with comment.”

————————

#7 Barton Fink (Barton Fink) vs. #10 Shep Proudfoot (Fargo)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (5 – 1):  Advantage Fink.
• Luck (1-1):  Even.
• Heart (1-2):  Advantage Proudfoot.

The Winner:

Proudfoot by DQ. Another upset, although this one by disqualification.  Proudfoot, holding a considerable size advantage, unleashed a merciless furry of belt whips to the vastly undersized Fink.  After six rounds, however, it appeared Fink was taking absolutely no damage, with Proudfoot looking near exhausted for the effort.  After consulting with his corner man (Satan), Fink declined to come out of his corner for the next round, stating simply that he had more un-produced scripts to write.

————————

#2 Anton Chigurh (No Country) vs. #15 Gaear Grimsrud (Fargo)

Tale of the Tape:

• Intelligence (5 – 3):  Advantage Chigurh.
• Luck (5-1):  Advantage Chigurh.
• Heart (5-1):  Advantage Chigurh.

The Winner:

Anton Chigurh by KO.  Grimsrud was clearly over-matched from the opening bell, attempting to lure Chigurh to the chipper-shredder set up near his corner.  A poor strategy against the more nimble Chigurh and his scary compressed air . . . thing.

————————

Check back later this week for the first round of the East Region matchups.

- The Informant! – 2009 – ♥♥  -

di

Steven Soderbergh

Il motore trasportante dell’ intero ultimo film di Soderbergh sembra proprio essere il suo protagonista e la sua paradossale storia vera o verosimile è il fulcro della comicità del plot. E’ ciò che “avrebbe” potuto trasformare un film con tutte le carte in regola per essere un thriller drammatico di spionaggio industriale in una commedia.  ”Avrebbe” appunto, perchè le intenzioni ci sono tutte ma di fatto nel vedere questo film ci si accorge subito che qualcosa sembra non volere decollare. L’ intenzione di Soderbergh , dopo essersi avventurato nel biopic del Che era forse quella di ritornare alle atmosfere più leggere e truffaldine alla Ocean’s e sicuramente ispirarsi ad una storia vera che ha molti elementi paradossali poteva giocare da valido spunto nella realizzazione di questo intento. Anche se l’argomento truffa è ultimamente argomento gettonato a Hollywood. Solo un anno fa i fratelli Coen ci hanno regalato il loro Burn After Reading e ancora prima Spielberg ci ha deliziato con una riuscitissima commedia dai sapori cialtroneschi come Prova a prendermi. Entrambe commedie che hanno come filone conduttore delle truffe. In The Informant! si respirano colonne sonore in stile commedia anni ‘60 e titoli di testa molto seventy anche se la storia è ambientata nello scorso decennio. Già da questi elementi si nota come Soderbergh sembri tentare uno stile che risulta un pò un pout porri atto a distrarre lo spettatore fino a non mantenerlo lucido nel giudicare i fatti del film. I fatti, appunto, narrano di un impiegato medio, Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), che di spontanea volonta decide di collaborare con l’ FBI per sgominare una illusoria talpa che, a suo avviso, starebbe sabotando il lavoro della sua ditta. Matt Damon per l’occasione ingrassa e viene abilmente imbolsito per entrare nei panni di un tipico “uomo senza qualità” vittima della sua ossessione che lo spinge a voler diventare dirigente. Visionario Don Chischiotte della sua personale idea di “giustizia” si difende a suon di menzogne patologiche che fanno del suo personaggio il vero intrattenimento del film. Un personaggio sicuramente interesante quello interpretato da Damon che finisce però per essere soltanto una macchietta nel film di Soderbergh e sembra  privo di introspezione psicologica. Ogni sua bugia patologica o delirio espresso sotto forma di voce fuori campo sembra soltanto voler distrarre lo spettatore, confonderlo dall’ esprimere un dettagliato giudizio di colpevolezza. Ed è difficile proprio puntare il dito verso ciò che è giusto o sbagliato in The Informant!. Lo stesso agente dell’ FBI interpretato molto bene da Scott Bakula ha un atteggiamento paternalistico verso Whitacre proprio perchè è facile non restare lucidi dinnanzi alla patologia dell’ abile mentitore protagonista. In definitiva è abile, il regista della famosa epopea truffaldina di Ocean, a tenere serrati i ritmi della sua commedia che diventa più facile da seguire solo nella seconda parte quando viene allo scoperto parte della personalità del personaggio interpretato da Damon. Per il resto restano dialoghi farraginosi e non semplici da seguire, interminabili e nella maggior parte dei casi soporiferi per i non appassionati dello spionaggio industriale.

( Whitacre da sfogo alle sue menzogne patologiche)

(...anche con l' FBI)

Last night as I was watching TV and a trailer for the movie Men Who Stare At Goats aired. I had never heard of the movie and have no idea how long the trailer has been airing so you have my apologies if this is old news.

Apparently this is a true story about reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) and his attempt to discover the secrets of a US military experiment to try and harness the paranormal abilities of its soldiers called Warrior Monks. George Clooney plays Lyn Cassady, one of these Warrior Monks, that has been called back into action after the program’s founder, Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), goes missing and is found in rogue psychic Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey) training camp.

The whole story seems too far fetched to believe but that is besides the point as the trailer is outright hilarious. My fear with this movie is that it will end up being another Burn After Reading where an all-star cast is gathered and all the amusing scenes of the movie are stuffed into a 3 minute trailer which left me bored and disappointed.

Men Who Stare At Goats is out November 6th

Warning: total spoilers.

By and large, I’m a fan of Quentin Tarantino. Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2 and Death Proof are among my favourite films, and I’m far from averse to cinematic violence. I hadn’t heard much about Inglourious Basterds, but given that it was Tarantino, I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

This is not a course of action I would reccommend to anyone.

Inglourious Basterds is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. It is a Tarantino production only insofar as there is graphic violence, and even then, it’s not up to his usual standard. But I’m getting ahead of myself: first, before we proceed any further, a plot summary.

Our story begins in Nazi-occupied France, where Col. Hans Landa, central antagonist of the film and nicknamed the Jewhunter, is in the process of questioning a local dairy farmer, whom he suspects of harbouring a Jewish family. Drawn out over roughly half an hour, their conversation serves to introduce three plot elements: Landa’s facility with languages, his conversational eccentricity, and the eventual massacre of the Dreyfus family, who are hiding beneath the farmer’s floorboards. The latter is relevant not only as a means of demonstrating Nazi brutality, but because the teenage Shoshanna Dreyfus, our soon-to-be heroine, escapes and flees for the hills.

Cut to Brad Pitt – sorry, Lt. Aldo Raine – addressing a group of Jewish American soldiers, the titular Inglourious Basterds, as they prepare to head behind German lines. Their mission, as described by the distantly part-Apache Raine, is to collect the scalps of one hundred Nazis apiece, a task they are positively hankerin’ to accomplish. Over an hour passes before these two plotlines meet up, but then, at two and a half hours long, the film is quite happy to take its time. Eventually, however, all becomes clear, or at least marginally less uncorrelated: now four years older, Shoshanna Dreyfus is running a cinema in Paris under an assumed French identity, where a young Nazi soldier, Fredrick Zoller, the subject of a soon-to-be-released propaganda film produced by Joseph Goebbels, starts to take an interest in her life. Almost instantly, Zoller decides that Shoshanna’s cinema will be the venue for the premiere of his film – at which point, enter the Basterds and some British allies, who, with the help of German actress-slash-double-agent Bridget von Hammersmark, are planning to blow up the opening night, thereby killing not only Goebbels, but all of the Nazi high command and even the Fuhrer himself. Shoshanna, meanwhile, having been forced to endure a meal in the company of both Goebbels and Landa, has her own plans for eliminating the Nazis on opening night, operating parallel to, but not in concert with, the efforts of the Basterds.

Wacky hijinks, as they say, ensue. Or at least, that seems to have been the general intention. But despite its complex tangential plotting, eccentric supporting characters and bizarre premise, Inglourious Basterds is anything but entertaining. Though usually a master of black humour, witty dialogue and satisfying revenge plots, Tarantino has, in this instance, unfathomably failed to perform in even one of these categories, let alone all three. The grand finale, which features Hitler being shot with a machine gun as the leaders of the Nazi party burn to death, fails on so many levels that it’s difficult to articulate; and when watching Jewish soldiers gun down Hitler in a Tarantino movie isn’t even remotely funny, satisfying or relevant, then it’s fair to say that, somewhere along the line, things have gone spectacularly wrong.

More than anything else, Inglourious Basterds stylistically resembles a Tarantino version of the most recent Cohen Brothers offering, Burn After Reading. Both featured casts composed almost entirely of vile, morally bereft characters, none of whom were the least bit likeable, which consequently made them difficult to watch; both featured loosely interwoven, anti-cathartic plotlines where an excess of human error and mad violence saw everything go horribly wrong; and both starred Brad Pitt as a weird guy with a moustache, although at least in Burn After Reading, he was given a couple of good lines.

At every turn, the viewer encounters a mess of contradictions. We are meant to enjoy seeing Nazis shot, burned and beaten to death on principle, as Lt. Raine’s opening speech makes abundantly clear – a somewhat redunant message, as this will be the automatic position of most viewers. But from thereon in, the Basterds themselves are endowed with no personalities, no histories, no redeeming qualities: they are viscious, avenging demons, which might still be workable were it not for the fact that every Nazi they encounter is given more depth, more humanity and better dialouge than the whole group put together. This makes for some grim, uneasy scenes: there is simply nowhere for the viewer to turn. Raine and his men are faceless brutes, impossible to like, while the Nazis, though more complex characters, are still Nazis. With both sides thus rendered unpalatable, the only hope of narrative salvation lies with Shoshanna Dreyfus, but even there, the audience is denied. Tarantino has a solid history when it comes to revenge films, particularly as orchestrated through the actions of strong, wronged women, but in the final wrap, despite the fact that Landa is directly responsible for murdering the Dreyfus family, he ends up the only Nazi of our acquaintance left alive. Indeed, Shoshanna never so much as singles him out for revenge, instead concentrating her suicidal efforts on bringing down the whole Reich establishment, and while this is not a cardinal sin in and of itself, it stands as a massive and poorly-executed departure from Tarantino’s stock in trade.

Smaller problems, too, abound. Samuel L. Jackson’s token voice-overs are bizarre, given that (a) he doesn’t have so much as a cameo role  and (b) the film is otherwise entirely unnarrated. The deliberate misspelling of Inglourious Basterds is shown only once, carved into a rifle butt, with no explanation. We see one character flash back to being whipped, presumably by the Nazis, in an incident which has hitherto never been mentioned, but which appears only minutes before the subject is killed, thus rendering it pointless. Shoshanna and her lover plan death for the Nazis, but while suicide is never discussed, neither do they try and save themselves. History is completely abused in orchestrating the grand finale, but tiny fragments of accurate socio-historical minutiae, like accents, hand gestures and detailed cinema knowledge, nonetheless prove the undoing of multiple characters. Arguably, this latter point is the straw which breaks the donkey’s back. Having spent over an hour painstakingly building up one suite of characters, Tarantino then kills all save one of them in the type of scene which is best described, in the immortal words of Something Positive webcartoonist Randy Milholland, as belonging to the ’Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies‘ oeuvre.

I wish I could say otherwise, but when push comes to shove, Inglourious Basterds is two-point-five hours of my life – and yours – that can never be reclaimed. If you want to see a gripping action film with brilliant scripting, awesome effects, humour, genuine insight and future cult status, then I suggest you buy tickets for District 9. Anything else is folly.

After a long day blogging and looking for an internet stream to watch football I decided to spend last night watching some telly.  It may not be a very exciting way to spend your Saturday night, but I happen to like watching TV.

The main thing that I wanted to watch was the first episode of French drama, Spiral, as I’ve been waiting three years for the second series to make an appearance.  I soon decided against it as watching a programme with subtitles would have required too much concentration.  Instead, I watched Friday’s Derren Brown special, How To Control The Nation.  It was an enjoyable hour’s entertainment and built up to the ’special film’ that would stick you to your chair.  Suffice to say, I didn’t stick to my chair.  I felt a mixture of disappointment and relief; half of me would have loved to have been stuck, but the other half would have been horrified that I’d been ‘controlled’.

After that, I thought I’d give the Coen brother’s Burn After Reading a try, which I had recorded last week.  I managed to get about ten minutes in to it before I had to switch off in boredom.  Looking for a bit of light-hearted popcorn TV to compensate, I watched this week’s episode of A Town Called Eureka.  It was a silly episode (but then, aren’t they all?), where the town got frozen solid and featured some very dodgy special effects.  I do like the new relationship between Jack and Tess, despite the fact that they’ve just completely dropped the years of build up in his relationship with Allison.  Jaime Ray Newman has done a great job of making Tess a likeable character that feels like she has been around since the show started.

I recorded both X Factor shows with little intent of watching them and deleted both after about 3 minutes.  Not even Holly Willoughby can keep me watching The Xtra Factor, so the rot must definitely have set in.

It was a result and a surprise that Liverpool were the first match on Match of the Day.  It was clearly an exciting match, but there was some shocking defending by the Reds and it needs to be sorted out pronto.  Listening on the radio, as I mentioned here, really didn’t do the game justice;  I didn’t even pick up on the good run and cross by Ryan Babel which led to Torres’ second goal.

The last thing I watched was this week’s Chuck.  It actually held together really well as an episode, one of the best so far, but the will-they-won’t-they stuff between Chuck and Sarah is really starting to bug me.  They should really make a decision on what direction they’re heading in with it and stick with it.

All in all, it was a decent effort and I managed to claw back some space on my planner.  Now I just have to get myself psyched up enough to watch Spiral.

I was hoping the general response to Burn After Reading, and the fairly negative reviews I’d seen, had been blown out of proportion.

I thought the film looked quite cool from the trailer and featured a lot of actors whose work I normally enjoy.

And it wasn’t that I didn’t enjoy this film… just that, well not much actually happened

An ex-C.I.A man decides to write his memoires but a disc containing them is lost, found in a locker room by workers at a gym. The gym workers set about trying to blackmail the ex-C.I.A man with disasterous consequences. Chuck in some affairs and a generally depressing back drop and you have Burn After Reading.

I thought John Malkovich was pretty good as Ozzy Cox (the aforementioned ex C.I.A man) with nice performances from Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand as the gym workers.

The way the characters all tied together was well done, if a little obvious at times but the fact of the matter was I didn’t really care about any of the characters.

Thankfully it only clocked in at around 90 minutes as it felt like it was dragging, even at that stage.

Burn After Reading isn’t the worst film I’ve ever seen but it’s boring for the most part and that is a feature I’m not really looking for in a film.

Rating: 4/10

I watched the Coen Brother’s ‘Burn After Reading’ late last night in the hostel. Although it had mixed reviews with many critics thinking it should be burned before watching, I thought it was alright. As always 2 paragraphs or so of my thoughts on the last flick I took-in are available on the Flixter link.

A new little friend was made while I watched the film. A smallish black mongrel dog who had followed someone into the hostel in the day decided to curl up next to my feet, he even had a little bark while I left him to visit the gentleman’s.

The woman behind the desk at the hostel says he can’t stay here but they will do their best to find him a home, if I had one myself he could make it his too. I hope it works out for the little scamp.

After I’d finished with B.A.R. 2 toff lads (light purple sweaters over their shoulders and everything) from Oxford put ‘The Big Lebowski’ on. That is a very hard movie to put down, but it was half 2 in the morning and I’ve seen it many times before so I managed it, well after half an hour anyway.

I finally finished ‘Moby Dick’ this morning and while I enjoyed it in patches, I didn’t really like it on the whole. It’s very hard to follow the narrative and for huge stretches the narrative is just abandoned altogether and you get a cold scientific description of every tiny facet of a whaling ship and every all the anatomy that makes a whale, I’m talking hundred of pages like that. I do really want to see the film with Gregory Peck in now though.

The last 2 thirds of Don Quixote are back on the agenda now.

Right, my plan is coming together, I’m staying 2 more nights at this hostel which I like and then I’ll (hopefully!) get the 19:00 mini-bus to Chisinau on Friday which takes 12 hours. Then 2 nights in Chisinau (which I’ve just booked a hostel for) and a train back into Romania on Monday to get me to Bucharest. Beyond that it gets quite complicated as I have to consider where I’m going to get a ferry to Italy from. That will decide my route for the 6 or 7 countries I intend to try and visit between now and then.

When I finally got out to have a look at Brasov the first place I visited was the St. Nicolae Church (not my photo BTW) as it’s 1 minute from the hostel. It’s quite a simple building inside and out but it had a very nice serene charm to it, even the grounds outside it were really peaceful.

After that I begun an epic trek up Mount Tampa in the Carpathians. If you use the marked paths through the forest it should take about an hour and be relatively easy. I decided to do the majority of it off path though with a lot steeper shortcuts between the swerves of the path. This was a lot more challenging (especially in a pair of these) but good fun. It was tough to find a route sometimes but I really enjoyed it overall, it took me about 35 minutes. It was getting quite late and the sun was going down on the way back and also locals had warned me to watch out for bears, so my route back basically consisted of me jumping or sprinting from tree to tree or rock to rock and hoping not to build up too much momentum to not be able to grap it, I had a few dicey moments but no mishaps in the end.

Just into the forest where the trails begin is a restaurant named Casa Padurarului, I decided to stop for a well earned beer but the food smelt nice and was reasonably priced so I decided to indulge.

I ordered mititei (grilled meat rolls) as a Romanian artist (of the pis$ as well as the painting variety) in Sibiu had raved about them to me. You buy them individually so I asked the waitress how many would be an adequate amount for a main course, she said you need 4 or 5 so I ordered 6, ahem. Boiled potatoes as a side again and I had Ursus Premium again to drink, it is the ‘King of Beer in Romania’ after all. This lot came to 16 lei (4 quid more or less) and the food was absolutely succulent and scrumptious, my only regret is not ordering 14 of the rolls.

I’m really liking Brasov, it’s one of my favourite places so far.

Search of the day that’s brought someone here is a tie between ‘rat cat dog San Francisco’ and ‘red star belgrade mad dogs and englishmen’.