I remember the weekend "Inglourious Basterds" came out. It was the weekend I puked up my kidney, had a 137 degree fever, sweat away 20% of my body weight in water, and lost my appetite for four days.
Bright side? I was thin and sexy. Down side? I missed the opening weekend for "Inglourious Basterds." A short review ensues.
Bright side? I was thin and sexy. Down side? I missed the opening weekend for "Inglourious Basterds." A short review ensues.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009)
You can usually pick out familiar cues in auteur cinema. Kubrick had the long tracking shots. Hitchcock had his focus on camera tricks.
Tarantino has gratuitous instances of intestines and brain matter being sprayed in your face.
"Inglourious Basterds" is no different from the other chapters in Tarantino's bloody library, only this time, over-the-top gore complements a pulpy, oh-how-we-wish-it-turned-out-that-way take on Hitler's Nazi reign during World War II. Though dialogue runs rampant, almost to the point that the film's 152 minute runtime starts to slack, the silly, overly-cinematic use of poetic (or in this case, historic?) license results in a fun, though incessantly gory, historical satire.
Despite being pedantic in pace as well as serving as a medium for Quentin Tarantino to jerk off to human carnage for mass audiences, "Basterds," benefiting from wondrous and exuberant performances from Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt, serves up a fun, gory, and overly theatrical fictionalized account of World War II sure to rouse audiences, most especially in its final thirty minutes.
While talk of "Basterds" being the best film of the decade might be a bit of hyperbole, "Inglourious Basterds" is still a two-and-a-half-hour celebration of cinema that brings together superb storytelling and eccentric thespianism in successful form.
Tarantino has gratuitous instances of intestines and brain matter being sprayed in your face.
"Inglourious Basterds" is no different from the other chapters in Tarantino's bloody library, only this time, over-the-top gore complements a pulpy, oh-how-we-wish-it-turned-out-that-way take on Hitler's Nazi reign during World War II. Though dialogue runs rampant, almost to the point that the film's 152 minute runtime starts to slack, the silly, overly-cinematic use of poetic (or in this case, historic?) license results in a fun, though incessantly gory, historical satire.
Despite being pedantic in pace as well as serving as a medium for Quentin Tarantino to jerk off to human carnage for mass audiences, "Basterds," benefiting from wondrous and exuberant performances from Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt, serves up a fun, gory, and overly theatrical fictionalized account of World War II sure to rouse audiences, most especially in its final thirty minutes.
While talk of "Basterds" being the best film of the decade might be a bit of hyperbole, "Inglourious Basterds" is still a two-and-a-half-hour celebration of cinema that brings together superb storytelling and eccentric thespianism in successful form.
A-
Glad you enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteBut BASTERDS *is* one of the best films of the decade, dear sir. BASTERDS is not mere revenge fantasy, but actually a subtextually rich subversion of the propaganda film, making it simultaneously entertaining as well as substantial. There's a reason that it sparked more critical analysis and debate than any other film released this year.
I'm glad you liked it!
ReplyDeleteWithout doubt gives us one very decent film from quite possibly what was the worst decade in film so far.
I have no doubts that "Basterds" will go down as one of the best films of the decade, but I think its flaws - though minor ones, at that - hold it back from being put on such a grand pedestal.
ReplyDeleteBasterds is the way WWII should've ended. I almost lost control by nearly standing up and cheered in celebration in response to Hitler being offed as the two Basterds emptied 100 rounds on him.
ReplyDeleteIf you're recommending it to people, though, you just have to let them know that they need to go in throwing everything they've ever learned about WWII out the window. If you don't, they'll think too hard and go into a coma.
Two nitpicky things that irritated me about the movie:
-Was there any point for Mike Myers and his hideous feigned English accent as seen in Austin Powers and Shrek to be in this movie? The only thing that would've been worse would have been Will Ferrell showing up.
-Why are we cutting away from the movie to watch the Nazi cutting and eating the strudel? Do we really have to shift people's attention temporarily from "How is this girl going to handle facing her family's killer?" to "Why...why the hell do we have a camera shot of dessert elegantly being cut, please?"