Apparently I'm not the master writer I thought I was on good ol' ScrewAttack. The two reviews below you may not be Pulitzer prize worthy journalism but the only response I got from either of them was: what are those movies which I thought I wrote about and explained competently.
Why exactly is the gaming fan base of ScrewAttack so alienated by these movies? I can see Rachel Getting Married being slow and having some issues with it's pacing but I thought there would be some Bourne Identity backers for Matt Damon. Is it perhaps a metaphor for the nerd culture's feelings of alienation toward the rest of the world; a sense of loyalty to all sci-fi and action that keeps them away, or a long line of betrayal by smaller, independent work?
Or maybe it's just everyone's busy with school or ODST. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Review: Rachel Getting Married
Starring Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Speaking as a young, mid-twenty something male who still needs a camera and a solid editing job, I really can't give my experience to wedding videos. What I can imagine from these videos is a chronicle of two families becoming one in a day of complete bliss where all the troubles and headaches of the family seem to disappear. Unfortunately, this is the real world we live in and the daily stresses of life and family don't magically disappear the moment we cut the cake. When a wedding comes it, it's a time where a family is confronted with each others place and where they fit in it, if sadly sometimes at all. I know this can be a cynical point to take but in family, we have to deal with that every day. In last year's 2008 Oscar contender Rachel Getting Married, the film asks if a family can find forgiveness and communication over a horrible past and find a way for everyone to be happy. I'm not sure if the film ever gives us an answer to that question but it did give us one a pretty great film.
Rachel Getting Married is about Kym (Anne Hathaway), a woman just out of 10 years of rehab, who goes to her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) marriage. While the wedding is being planned for the weekend, Kym cant drive a car to her weekly drug addict meetings, has to stay at home with the family, and tries to reconnect with everyone in the house. Not to give too much away, she has a history that lead to a horrifying tragedy for the family and is lead to be the scapegoat. Now she has to come to terms with the family while battling for attention with her sister Rachel for the weekend.
I think the first thing that struck me about the film is the method of which it was shot. It's all done in what appears to be a documentary style with lots of handheld shots taken inside cars for the conversations and going around on the sidelines for the major scenes going on. There were a few awkward moments throughout the film in terms of camera angles and perspective until later on the movie breaks the forth wall and we see another cameraman with professional film equipment. I then realized what we're watching is a wedding video with everyone in the family part of it; Kym coming and gong from rehab, the tension they share, and the entire family dancing and celebrating serve the purpose of how it tries to hold the family together while still having all this tension and angst. While the characters in the film don't realize it, they are part of it. It's pretty effective cinematography that adds a really interesting context to the story.
The film is all about a lack of communication in a family I think everyone can relate to. I know people like Kym and Rachel who seem to fight for the families love and place. I know the parents who are trying to be the peace keepers of the family. Every family has a member who has made some mistakes in their life and the film is an examination of how a family deals with it, or at least tries to deal with it.
Part of the reason the film works as well as it does is that the direction Jonathan Demme took is to let all the actors approach each scene in a different way and allow a lot of improvisation for the different situations. Demme and his casting director Bernard Telsey obviously have a great eye for talent, everyone is fantastic in this movie. The smaller roles really fit in with the mode and add to the scenes but of course the real praise should be given to both Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt for their just devastating performances. I've enjoyed Hathaway before with The Devil Wears Prada but this really is a career making role and DeWitt is a wonderful discovery for the years to come.
The only issue I have with the film is that it seems to have too much of an investment in the dancing scenes. I can see that music plays a character itself in the film; a constant reminder of Rachel's day competing with Kym, but it could have been cut down by a few minutes. I kept wanting to go back to the tension with Hathaway, DeWitt, and the family but we get so much partying throughout the film. I should also warn you that this can be a slow moving film at times and can alienate the audience but those scenes with the family really are very much worth it.
Other then that, this film is a great examination of mature sibling rivalry and a family dealing with the past. In the end, it does give hope that the family has a deeper understanding with one another but like the characters, we're never really certain of the fate these characters have. It leaves it to you to decide if the new family will find peace.
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Speaking as a young, mid-twenty something male who still needs a camera and a solid editing job, I really can't give my experience to wedding videos. What I can imagine from these videos is a chronicle of two families becoming one in a day of complete bliss where all the troubles and headaches of the family seem to disappear. Unfortunately, this is the real world we live in and the daily stresses of life and family don't magically disappear the moment we cut the cake. When a wedding comes it, it's a time where a family is confronted with each others place and where they fit in it, if sadly sometimes at all. I know this can be a cynical point to take but in family, we have to deal with that every day. In last year's 2008 Oscar contender Rachel Getting Married, the film asks if a family can find forgiveness and communication over a horrible past and find a way for everyone to be happy. I'm not sure if the film ever gives us an answer to that question but it did give us one a pretty great film.
Rachel Getting Married is about Kym (Anne Hathaway), a woman just out of 10 years of rehab, who goes to her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) marriage. While the wedding is being planned for the weekend, Kym cant drive a car to her weekly drug addict meetings, has to stay at home with the family, and tries to reconnect with everyone in the house. Not to give too much away, she has a history that lead to a horrifying tragedy for the family and is lead to be the scapegoat. Now she has to come to terms with the family while battling for attention with her sister Rachel for the weekend.
I think the first thing that struck me about the film is the method of which it was shot. It's all done in what appears to be a documentary style with lots of handheld shots taken inside cars for the conversations and going around on the sidelines for the major scenes going on. There were a few awkward moments throughout the film in terms of camera angles and perspective until later on the movie breaks the forth wall and we see another cameraman with professional film equipment. I then realized what we're watching is a wedding video with everyone in the family part of it; Kym coming and gong from rehab, the tension they share, and the entire family dancing and celebrating serve the purpose of how it tries to hold the family together while still having all this tension and angst. While the characters in the film don't realize it, they are part of it. It's pretty effective cinematography that adds a really interesting context to the story.
The film is all about a lack of communication in a family I think everyone can relate to. I know people like Kym and Rachel who seem to fight for the families love and place. I know the parents who are trying to be the peace keepers of the family. Every family has a member who has made some mistakes in their life and the film is an examination of how a family deals with it, or at least tries to deal with it.
Part of the reason the film works as well as it does is that the direction Jonathan Demme took is to let all the actors approach each scene in a different way and allow a lot of improvisation for the different situations. Demme and his casting director Bernard Telsey obviously have a great eye for talent, everyone is fantastic in this movie. The smaller roles really fit in with the mode and add to the scenes but of course the real praise should be given to both Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt for their just devastating performances. I've enjoyed Hathaway before with The Devil Wears Prada but this really is a career making role and DeWitt is a wonderful discovery for the years to come.
The only issue I have with the film is that it seems to have too much of an investment in the dancing scenes. I can see that music plays a character itself in the film; a constant reminder of Rachel's day competing with Kym, but it could have been cut down by a few minutes. I kept wanting to go back to the tension with Hathaway, DeWitt, and the family but we get so much partying throughout the film. I should also warn you that this can be a slow moving film at times and can alienate the audience but those scenes with the family really are very much worth it.
Other then that, this film is a great examination of mature sibling rivalry and a family dealing with the past. In the end, it does give hope that the family has a deeper understanding with one another but like the characters, we're never really certain of the fate these characters have. It leaves it to you to decide if the new family will find peace.
Review: The Informant!
Starring Matt Damon
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Now that the summer season is done with sequels, shoot-em-ups, and sequels to shoot-em-ups, it's finally time for the independent, edgier directors to step up to the plate with some new, original content (thank God). And who better to start the year with the man who does things as different as the overlooked Bubble and Che to the moneymakers like Out of Sight and Ocean's Eleven. Yes, Steven Soderbergh is keeping up his busy year with his latest comedy The Informant!
The film is inspired by the book with the same name minus the exclamation point and is about Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a vice-president working for a Fortune 500 Corn manufacturing company. While examining the numbers for the companies farms, Mark discovers a virus contaminating the corn and tries to tell about it but the corporate heads wont listen. Upon discovering the corn is being contaminated by a Japanese company, the company decides to call the FBI to investigate. This is one of those movies that's hard to discuss because it would give away a lot so not to spoil anything, the story goes into conspiracies left and right.
Soderbergh is ultimately going for a stylized dark comedy in this film: it's all done with this perky, 60's score complete with woodstock style titles. The whole film looks like it's set in the time period but is actually set during the mid-90's. Part of the reason for it, not to give too much away, is that Whitacre seems to be someone who loves revolves all his philosophies off movies, magazines, and television. It works well to put is in the world of Whitacre who seems to glamorize his world as a spy movie with him being the hero of the moment; just like the title proclaims, he's excited to be here. The cinematography overall is really memorable without throwing it in our faces while having a purpose to the character.
The Informant! is a movie that reminds me of Fargo; its about a group of liars who exploit their customers who we're supposed to make fun of. It's a commentary of corruption that's funny but ultimately a sad look at our society; after you see it, you say to yourself "that was actually quite depressing."
I think my biggest issue I have with the movie is how it's told. The story and plot are both well executed and makes it's points about the examinations of the businesses and of the main character Whitacre; but it just feels like Whitacre himself isn't as engaging. I unfortunately think the problem is one thing: Matt Damon. He's certainly a great actor in other films and can be a fun character to watch but he just feels wrong for this material. Whitacre is a kind of arrogant doofus who thinks he's doing the right thing and basking in his own glory in his small little world, it could have made for great character study. There seems to be a lot to dig up with the character but Damon just doesn't seem to flesh out this character well enough; I really didn't buy him playing this kind of arrogant person.
It's really quite a shame too, The Informant! in it's core is a pretty great film but because Damon is so miscast, he cant really carry it all the way through. It's got some great craftsmanship and has an original, fun take on the corporate corruption genre but unfortunately collapses under it's own weight. It's certainly not a bad film, it's just a miscast film. Soderbergh so far has come out with three movies this year alone with The Girlfriend Experience and Che, one of my favorites of the year so far. Perhaps after all this work, he should take a vacation himself.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Now that the summer season is done with sequels, shoot-em-ups, and sequels to shoot-em-ups, it's finally time for the independent, edgier directors to step up to the plate with some new, original content (thank God). And who better to start the year with the man who does things as different as the overlooked Bubble and Che to the moneymakers like Out of Sight and Ocean's Eleven. Yes, Steven Soderbergh is keeping up his busy year with his latest comedy The Informant!
The film is inspired by the book with the same name minus the exclamation point and is about Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a vice-president working for a Fortune 500 Corn manufacturing company. While examining the numbers for the companies farms, Mark discovers a virus contaminating the corn and tries to tell about it but the corporate heads wont listen. Upon discovering the corn is being contaminated by a Japanese company, the company decides to call the FBI to investigate. This is one of those movies that's hard to discuss because it would give away a lot so not to spoil anything, the story goes into conspiracies left and right.
Soderbergh is ultimately going for a stylized dark comedy in this film: it's all done with this perky, 60's score complete with woodstock style titles. The whole film looks like it's set in the time period but is actually set during the mid-90's. Part of the reason for it, not to give too much away, is that Whitacre seems to be someone who loves revolves all his philosophies off movies, magazines, and television. It works well to put is in the world of Whitacre who seems to glamorize his world as a spy movie with him being the hero of the moment; just like the title proclaims, he's excited to be here. The cinematography overall is really memorable without throwing it in our faces while having a purpose to the character.
The Informant! is a movie that reminds me of Fargo; its about a group of liars who exploit their customers who we're supposed to make fun of. It's a commentary of corruption that's funny but ultimately a sad look at our society; after you see it, you say to yourself "that was actually quite depressing."
I think my biggest issue I have with the movie is how it's told. The story and plot are both well executed and makes it's points about the examinations of the businesses and of the main character Whitacre; but it just feels like Whitacre himself isn't as engaging. I unfortunately think the problem is one thing: Matt Damon. He's certainly a great actor in other films and can be a fun character to watch but he just feels wrong for this material. Whitacre is a kind of arrogant doofus who thinks he's doing the right thing and basking in his own glory in his small little world, it could have made for great character study. There seems to be a lot to dig up with the character but Damon just doesn't seem to flesh out this character well enough; I really didn't buy him playing this kind of arrogant person.
It's really quite a shame too, The Informant! in it's core is a pretty great film but because Damon is so miscast, he cant really carry it all the way through. It's got some great craftsmanship and has an original, fun take on the corporate corruption genre but unfortunately collapses under it's own weight. It's certainly not a bad film, it's just a miscast film. Soderbergh so far has come out with three movies this year alone with The Girlfriend Experience and Che, one of my favorites of the year so far. Perhaps after all this work, he should take a vacation himself.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Upcoming Reviews
Here's a list of things I care enough to write about:
The Informant!
Starring Matt Damon
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Twilight
Starring Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Other Possible Movie Reviews:
Rachael Getting Married
Army of Darkness
Tron
The Informant!
Starring Matt Damon
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Twilight
Starring Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Other Possible Movie Reviews:
Rachael Getting Married
Army of Darkness
Tron
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Review: Ponyo (Gake no ue no Ponyo)
Hayao Miyazaki. The man who has been called the Walt Disney of our time is back with another adventure of youth, fantasy, and jaw-dropping imagination. In an era that forgot the wonders of what a pen and pencil can do over a computer program, Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki have crafted a glorious reminder of not just a forgotten art, but a forgotten time in our lives when we were five years old and where there was a friendly monster waiting to soar you into your fondest childhood daydreams. The undisputed king of 2D animation is back to trade in his usual wings of flight for fins under the sea with his latest film Ponyo.
The movie tells the story of two very young children; Sosuke, (Frankie Jonas) a boy living on a cliff with his mother while his father sails a freighter around an ocean based town, and Ponyo, (Noah Lindsey Cyrus) a sort of twist of a goldfish with a human face and Goddess-like powers. She's the daughter both Gran Mamare (Cate Blanchett), a Goddess of the water, and of Fujimoto (Liam Neeson), a sort of Underwater Alchemist mixing potions to try and restore the ocean from, you guessed it, us foolish humans. When Ponyo manages to escape from Fujimoto's submarine and swims to shore, she grows a fondness for Sosuke and manages to get some human blood and turns human herself. Unfortunately being the daughter of a goddess and having a crush on Sosuke, the world's balance has been damaged to the point of Tsunamis and moon being out of balance. So it's up to the two to decide if our fishy friend should turn human for Sosuke or go back to the ocean to restore the world's balance.
Miyazaki has always been known for having a very high amount of imagination and it's certainly on display here. There really are dozens of images I took from the film such as Ponyo's school of fish, Fujimoto's submarine, the ocean goddess, and even the land itself. Any picture from the movie would make a wonderful screen-saver or portrait with the town, Ponyo and Sosuke, and a particularly spectacular scene involving the moon, the ocean, and the goddess. Trust me, it is certainly a sight to behold.
There were, however, a few distracting moments particularly with the audio. The score of the film draws a bit too much attention to itself. Some of the great scores are those that flow with the images giving a feeling that is invisible and helps create the mood but here, there were a few parts I felt it was competing with the images.
If there is also a common criticism I can give about Miyazaki's films, it's the Disney dubbing. Yes, I am an otaku and speaking as one along with a film geek, the subtitles are usually the better of the bunch. The criticism I have, however, is it tries to hold our hands to stuff us stupid americans wouldn't get. One example is when Fujimoto is gliding along a sea of dirt, we hear him give a comment about us filthy humans. All the trash and dirt around is more than enough to get your point across about it. It's Hayao Miyazaki, Disney; he knows how to get his visuals across.
I certainly didn't have a problem with the acting though, the timing for everyone is spot and and everyone is a strong fit for their roles. Liam Neeson's panicy authoritative tone was perfect for Fujimoto and I found young Noah Lindsey Cyrus as Ponyo increadibly charming in this version. I wouldn't mind giving Noah a young actor's award.
Who'da thought Ponyo could run like Sonic?
It's certainly no secret that Studo Ghibli is known for it's children-aimed entertainment but this movie is undoubtedly it's most child friendly movie they've made. It has the youngest heroes of the bunch, both 5 years old, the movie is rated G, and the song the end song is certainly something you'd hear in a Daycare center. In comparison to Miyazaki's other works while going through a fairy tale and having an enormous amount of depth and surreal imagination, this movie seems the least deep and much more fairy tale. It's much more simple having this world literally revolving around a princess and young boy's true love for one another.
It wasn't until I thought about it when I realize it's simple nature is by design for what the movie is trying to do. Ponyo is ultimately going to be compared to The Little Mermaid which I didn't realize until later is a pretty steryotypical flick. Why would Ariel give up being a princess for a human with blue eyes? I can imagine the adventure of it all, but it's just saying how this woman loses her independence for a dude. How this film compares to Ponyo is, well, Arial's a young woman while Ponyo's learning her first words. The movie's best quality is it's childish charm of seeing two five year olds playing marriage. It's the same warm feeling you would get if you saw your son give a flower to a girl in kindergarden. The simple design of the movie is a kind of celebration of childhood innocence and friendship through a wondrous fantasy inspired by sea-bearing myth.
To give you, faithful readers a final word, this is probably the least deep story of the Studio Ghibli library (kind of ironic being under the sea) but it's truly another that shines like a pearl; and no matter how old you are entering this movie, you leave with the joy of a five year old.
The movie tells the story of two very young children; Sosuke, (Frankie Jonas) a boy living on a cliff with his mother while his father sails a freighter around an ocean based town, and Ponyo, (Noah Lindsey Cyrus) a sort of twist of a goldfish with a human face and Goddess-like powers. She's the daughter both Gran Mamare (Cate Blanchett), a Goddess of the water, and of Fujimoto (Liam Neeson), a sort of Underwater Alchemist mixing potions to try and restore the ocean from, you guessed it, us foolish humans. When Ponyo manages to escape from Fujimoto's submarine and swims to shore, she grows a fondness for Sosuke and manages to get some human blood and turns human herself. Unfortunately being the daughter of a goddess and having a crush on Sosuke, the world's balance has been damaged to the point of Tsunamis and moon being out of balance. So it's up to the two to decide if our fishy friend should turn human for Sosuke or go back to the ocean to restore the world's balance.
Miyazaki has always been known for having a very high amount of imagination and it's certainly on display here. There really are dozens of images I took from the film such as Ponyo's school of fish, Fujimoto's submarine, the ocean goddess, and even the land itself. Any picture from the movie would make a wonderful screen-saver or portrait with the town, Ponyo and Sosuke, and a particularly spectacular scene involving the moon, the ocean, and the goddess. Trust me, it is certainly a sight to behold.
There were, however, a few distracting moments particularly with the audio. The score of the film draws a bit too much attention to itself. Some of the great scores are those that flow with the images giving a feeling that is invisible and helps create the mood but here, there were a few parts I felt it was competing with the images.
If there is also a common criticism I can give about Miyazaki's films, it's the Disney dubbing. Yes, I am an otaku and speaking as one along with a film geek, the subtitles are usually the better of the bunch. The criticism I have, however, is it tries to hold our hands to stuff us stupid americans wouldn't get. One example is when Fujimoto is gliding along a sea of dirt, we hear him give a comment about us filthy humans. All the trash and dirt around is more than enough to get your point across about it. It's Hayao Miyazaki, Disney; he knows how to get his visuals across.
I certainly didn't have a problem with the acting though, the timing for everyone is spot and and everyone is a strong fit for their roles. Liam Neeson's panicy authoritative tone was perfect for Fujimoto and I found young Noah Lindsey Cyrus as Ponyo increadibly charming in this version. I wouldn't mind giving Noah a young actor's award.
Who'da thought Ponyo could run like Sonic?
It's certainly no secret that Studo Ghibli is known for it's children-aimed entertainment but this movie is undoubtedly it's most child friendly movie they've made. It has the youngest heroes of the bunch, both 5 years old, the movie is rated G, and the song the end song is certainly something you'd hear in a Daycare center. In comparison to Miyazaki's other works while going through a fairy tale and having an enormous amount of depth and surreal imagination, this movie seems the least deep and much more fairy tale. It's much more simple having this world literally revolving around a princess and young boy's true love for one another.
It wasn't until I thought about it when I realize it's simple nature is by design for what the movie is trying to do. Ponyo is ultimately going to be compared to The Little Mermaid which I didn't realize until later is a pretty steryotypical flick. Why would Ariel give up being a princess for a human with blue eyes? I can imagine the adventure of it all, but it's just saying how this woman loses her independence for a dude. How this film compares to Ponyo is, well, Arial's a young woman while Ponyo's learning her first words. The movie's best quality is it's childish charm of seeing two five year olds playing marriage. It's the same warm feeling you would get if you saw your son give a flower to a girl in kindergarden. The simple design of the movie is a kind of celebration of childhood innocence and friendship through a wondrous fantasy inspired by sea-bearing myth.
To give you, faithful readers a final word, this is probably the least deep story of the Studio Ghibli library (kind of ironic being under the sea) but it's truly another that shines like a pearl; and no matter how old you are entering this movie, you leave with the joy of a five year old.
Review: Inglourious Basterds 2nd Look & Controversy
I'm not ashamed to admit that I can miss a few things the first time around. Once in a while there are movies that I don't fully understand what I saw until I saw it again. After two viewings of Martin Scorsese's The Aviator I was able to fully grasp what Scorsese was doing and I fell in love with it. Someone once said that if if you watch a movie and are left thinking about it later wanting more, it's a sign of a truly great film. Apparently I owe an apology to Mr. Tarantino because 2nd time around his latest film Inglourious Basterds is indeed one of the best films of the year.
Last time I wrote about this film, I criticized it for having too much dialogue that took too long to get anywhere but it turns out that's not the truth. All the dialogue the second time around does have a purpose and helps the suspense going all around. The Tavern scene is miles better and plays with one of the films central themes: performance as a weapon. All the characters in the film are putting on some kind of show in order to survive. Col. Landa plays the role of the detective with his pipe prop and changes languages because he has an audience. It all works so well the second time and builds the suspense even thought I know the ending of the scenes.
There are, however, only a few nit-pics I would make for it: the Kill Bill soundtrack for some of the scenes still doesn't work. When Michael Bay used the soundtrack from Kill Bill in The Transformers, I never thought in a million years that Tarantino would do the same in his movies. It would make sense if the music had a meaning to the situation but it just feels really out of place. But all the other music choices play with the audience and help build suspense for all the scenes. Just lose the wink at the camera and we're all set.
Now one thing that a few critics have pointed out about this film is it's ending. In a Newsweek article by critic Daniel Mendelsohn said that by having the ending be what it was, it's a form for Jews to be as horrible as the Nazis were. Another critic responded to the article by saying that the ending is a form of Holocaust denial. I can see there arguments however I disagree that it's a form of Holocaust denial or that anyone should forget about the horrible things that happened. First of all, what Tarantino has happen to one character at the end is his way of reminding people never to forget what happened during WWII.
Basterds a Holocaust Denial Film?
Second; speaking as someone of non-Jewish decent, is seeing an Ass-Kicking Jew movie necessarily a bad thing? To me, film is a way to release some feelings of anger and remorse over moments in history, personal life, or any problems. In Japan, they get this kind of violent material all the time from Ichi the Killer to Violence Jack and that country hardly ever sees violence. I remember in an interview how one of the actors from Germany found the ending as rewarding as anyone did; they certainly are not a fan of what Hitler did.
Also, I do think it is a bit unfair to Tarantino to label his film a holocaust denier. The movie is about how movies portrayed this moment in history form before the war started with propaganda and after the war ended from the 70's to this day. There's still something to have your mind digest with movies but all a movie does is cast light against celluloid. Film should never try to be reality because the minute it hits that editing lab, it is pure fiction and I think Mr. Tarantino recognizes that.
Well, getting past the controversy, a lot of the problems I had with this movie aren't problems anymore. It's a thrilling, satisfying revenge flick filled with suspense, great acting, and really does remind me of why I got into film reviewing in the first place.
To give only one spoiler Brad Pitt says to another Basterd "This just might be my masterpiece." Well Tarantino, I think I just might agree.
Here's hoping Christoph Waltz has some Milk at the Oscars
Link to Daniel Mendelsohn's Article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212016
Last time I wrote about this film, I criticized it for having too much dialogue that took too long to get anywhere but it turns out that's not the truth. All the dialogue the second time around does have a purpose and helps the suspense going all around. The Tavern scene is miles better and plays with one of the films central themes: performance as a weapon. All the characters in the film are putting on some kind of show in order to survive. Col. Landa plays the role of the detective with his pipe prop and changes languages because he has an audience. It all works so well the second time and builds the suspense even thought I know the ending of the scenes.
There are, however, only a few nit-pics I would make for it: the Kill Bill soundtrack for some of the scenes still doesn't work. When Michael Bay used the soundtrack from Kill Bill in The Transformers, I never thought in a million years that Tarantino would do the same in his movies. It would make sense if the music had a meaning to the situation but it just feels really out of place. But all the other music choices play with the audience and help build suspense for all the scenes. Just lose the wink at the camera and we're all set.
Now one thing that a few critics have pointed out about this film is it's ending. In a Newsweek article by critic Daniel Mendelsohn said that by having the ending be what it was, it's a form for Jews to be as horrible as the Nazis were. Another critic responded to the article by saying that the ending is a form of Holocaust denial. I can see there arguments however I disagree that it's a form of Holocaust denial or that anyone should forget about the horrible things that happened. First of all, what Tarantino has happen to one character at the end is his way of reminding people never to forget what happened during WWII.
Basterds a Holocaust Denial Film?
Second; speaking as someone of non-Jewish decent, is seeing an Ass-Kicking Jew movie necessarily a bad thing? To me, film is a way to release some feelings of anger and remorse over moments in history, personal life, or any problems. In Japan, they get this kind of violent material all the time from Ichi the Killer to Violence Jack and that country hardly ever sees violence. I remember in an interview how one of the actors from Germany found the ending as rewarding as anyone did; they certainly are not a fan of what Hitler did.
Also, I do think it is a bit unfair to Tarantino to label his film a holocaust denier. The movie is about how movies portrayed this moment in history form before the war started with propaganda and after the war ended from the 70's to this day. There's still something to have your mind digest with movies but all a movie does is cast light against celluloid. Film should never try to be reality because the minute it hits that editing lab, it is pure fiction and I think Mr. Tarantino recognizes that.
Well, getting past the controversy, a lot of the problems I had with this movie aren't problems anymore. It's a thrilling, satisfying revenge flick filled with suspense, great acting, and really does remind me of why I got into film reviewing in the first place.
To give only one spoiler Brad Pitt says to another Basterd "This just might be my masterpiece." Well Tarantino, I think I just might agree.
Here's hoping Christoph Waltz has some Milk at the Oscars
Link to Daniel Mendelsohn's Article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212016
Old Blog: Thanks to the g1's
When I got back from my internship at ScrewAttack.com, I made this little video to the community. Published Sept. 7th, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)