INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

Whenever Quentin Tarantino releases a film, the nerd world goes hay-wire. Some fanboys are so inherently loyal to the man that no matter how bad a film he releases, they will sing it’s praises, even if they have no idea as to why they’re praising it. To be honest, I haven’t really liked a Tarantino film since Jackie Brown. The films he released before this were classics. The films after Jackie Brown are far from classics. But the Tarantino dream project that is Inglorious Basterds finally hits the screens after over a decade of speculation. Worth the wait?

France. 1944. The war is going badly for the Germans. D-Day is coming. For some reason that is never explained, Lt. Aldo Raine has gathered eight Jewish-American soldiers to undertake a mission in Nazi-occupied France. They are to kill, and scalp one hundred Nazi soldiers. The strategic value of this mission is moot. It makes for pure pulp story-telling. Meanwhile, a young Jewish-French girl named Shoshanna, who escaped certain death at the hands of the Jew-hunter Col. Hans Landa has come into possession of a cinema in Paris. It is here that she and the Basterds will cross paths on the night of the premiere of Josef Goebbels’ latest propaganda film, Nation’s Pride. A night that could provide the revenge Soshanna has sought for the murder of her family and a prime opportunity for the Basterds to end the war.



The name Inglorious Basterds has been bandied about Hollywood for well over a decade. It was Tarantino’s oft-mentioned dream project, and sounded like something only the nerdiest of film fans could hope to see. After all this time, it’s a little bit of an anti-climax to see Inglorious Basterds. It’s not a bad film, don’t get me wrong. It’s very enjoyable. But like Avatar is in danger of suffering come December, the film never lives up to the hype. Inglorious Basterds after all has a number of incredibly large flaws. And a great many of them are down to the casting.

Firstly, Eli Roth. I know he and Tarantino are friends. That’s great, and good for them. But casting as Donny Donowitz, the Bear Jew was a bad mistake. The guy cannot act in any way. Every line he delivers is worse than primary-school nativity play over-acting. It is a prime example of why directors cast their characters and don’t just pick randomers on the street to flesh out their characters. Secondly, and most damningly, Brad Pitt. For some reason, as the film progresses, Pitt just plays Aldo Raine as Marlon Brando in the Godfather, but drunk and lairy. It’s less a performance than a series of bad acting decisions strung together with a ludicrous southern accent. However, having said that, he does have the best line in the film. One word. Which had the entire audience doubled-over with laughter. So fair dues to him for that. And finally, Mike Myers. What in the name of all that is good and pure was Quentin Tarantino thinking when he cast Myers as a British general. It’s hands-down the worst piece of out-of-place casting I’ve ever seen. You literally expect Myers to burst into Austin Powers mode at any moment he’s on screen. It’s shockingly bad and something I wish I could purge from my memory.



Having said all that, the rest of the cast is quite excellent. The entire film is stolen by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. He’s the embodiment of grinning menace. A sort of Cheshire cat with a luger and a hatred for enemies of the state. His performance is fantastic, creepy and the best thing in the film. Also well worth mentioning are Michael Fassbender as the British soldier, Archie Hilcox, Diane Kruger as German actress and spy, Bridget Von Hammersmark and Mélanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfuss. When these characters are on-screen it takes the stink off the performances of those listed above.

Tarantino’s script is both excellent, and a problem at the same time. When it’s good, it’s very, very, very good. When it’s bad it’s either dull or baffling. The film is split into chapters. Some work, some don’t. The opening chapter, Once Upon A Time In Nazi-Occupied France is a masterpiece in tension and drama. It’s Tarantino at his best. No obscure pop-culture ramblings. Just unbelievable tension, reminiscent of any of the great moments in Pulp Fiction. It’s stunningly good. And then you have comedy moments that fall flat on their faces. You’ve the Basterds. I sincerely hope you’re not going to see these guys kick-ass. It doesn’t happen. In fact, most of them appear for a moment on screen and aren’t heard of again. It’s a shame. I had half-hoped for a Dirty Dozen-esque men on a mission type film done by Tarantino. That’s the fanboy in me struggling to break free. But this doesn’t happen. Like the last few of Tarantino’s films (and the next few if IMDB is to be believed), this is a female-revenge movie primarily. And while that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s getting a bit predictable at this stage.



So after all this waiting, Inglorious Basterds is great, but at the same time, a disappointment for a number of reasons. Ludicrous casting, a sometimes genius, sometimes weak script, and an ending that is so far beyond ridiculous that you just buy it for what it is all adds up to an enjoyable if not classic experience. You get the feeling the film is slightly rushed. It starts so well, has some fantastic scenes that merely involve characters talking to each other and the tension is thick. But it’s let-down by the fact that Tarantino is never quite reigned-in. It happened to a terrible degree with George Lucas and Star Wars. Thankfully, though, Quentin Tarantino can actually write something half-decent. And despite how good the film is, it’s just disappointing to think of what Inglorious Basterds could have been.


7/10

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008) - David Fincher

There are certain films that you know are made for awards ceremonies. Sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button certainly comes across as one of those types of films. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But watching them, you know exactly the type of audience the film is made for. David Fincher takes a different direction than the dark thrillers he’s known for by directing Benjamin Button. But will the unknown territory work against Fincher’s style.

Benjamin Button is a baby born on the night World War I ends. His mother dies in birth and his father, a rich factory owner is horrified when he sets eyes on his baby son. Benjamin is born with a condition that causes him to age backwards. He is born an old man and gets younger as he gets older. Benjamin ends up living in an old folk’s home, where he simply appears to be one of the people staying there. But as he gets older, and his faculties return, Benjamin wants to get out and see the world. Despite his love for a young girl, the granddaughter of one of the old folks, Benjamin must see the world. And so he sets off, unsure where his travels will take him.



A lot has been made of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button being very similar to Forrest Gump. And in ways, they are quite similar. They both feature protagonists who are unique in the world. They both long to go out and see different things. They are both in love with an unattainable girl. So, yeah, I’ll admit it could be argued that they’re practically the same movie. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Benjamin Button. Despite all the similarities, Benjamin Button’s still a very entertaining film to watch.

Firstly, it looks amazing. Fincher’s one of the great directors working today. Working with cinematographer, Claudio Miranda, Fincher creates a film steeped in detail and gorgeous colours. Aside from the special effects, which I’ll get to in a moment, the quality of the production is second to none. 1920s New Orleans looks amazing. Russia feels cold and sharp. And the golden era of 1950s America is suitably golden. And the special effects themselves are fantastic. The old (or is it young) Benjamin Button really looks as if they somehow aged and shrunk Brad Pitt. The only thing that still remains elusive when it comes to creating CGI people is they eyes. No matter how expensive and professional the CGI, they still can’t get human eyes right. There’s just something empty about them. I guess the eyes really are the windows to the soul!



Pitt’s performance is good enough for the role. The thing about Button is, he seems to be an observer in his own world, rather than somebody who drives events. When it came to Forrest Gump, while Gump was observing the things he witnessed, he did have a significant role to play in the events. Button seems to be drifting from event to event and allowing things to happen to him. And this reflects in Pitt’s performance. He just seems to be observing and isn’t required to do very much. Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the object of Button’s affections. While the character does come off as a bit of a bitch, Blanchett plays her very well. The rest of the characters are played by some very good character actors, including Elias Koteas, Jared Harris and Jason Flemyng and are all very good in their roles.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button’s not as memorable as Forrest Gump. Nor is it really deserving of the 13 Oscar nominations it’s received. I’m sure it’ll win a good few, but it’s in no way the film of 2008. It’s entertaining, and inoffensive, but it’s not going to set the world on fire. Fincher’s direction is rock solid. It looks amazing, and the performances are good, if not the best we’ve seen the actors deliver. And it should be seen on the big screen. But as I said at the start, some films are made to get awards. This is one of them.


8/10

BURN AFTER READING (2008) - Ethan & Joel Coen

The Coen brothers are riding high on success, both financially, and critically of No Country For Old Men. The film was a dark thriller, so to follow it up, the Coens shot a comedy, something they have had success in the past with The Big Lebowski and O Brother Where Art Thou. In Burn After Reading, they set up a premise that sounds like a thriller, but fill the cast with characters who are both incredibly stupid and belong in a screwball comedy.

Osbourne Cox is a CIA analyst. His alcoholism has caused the powers that be to review his work situation and downgrade his status. Enraged, Cox quits the agency and begins his memoirs, which threatens to expose certain ‘explosive’ elements in his career. Cox’s wife, Katie is sick of Cox, plans to divorce him and hook up with Harry Pfarrer, a serial internet dater she’s been having an affair with. Katie makes a data CD of Cox’s computer information which inadvertently ends up in the hands of Chad Feldheimer and Linda Litzke, two idiotic fitness centre employees who decide to use the information to blackmail Osbourne Cox for money so that Linda can get cosmetic surgery.



And so the ensemble cast have a great time getting laughs and hamming it up. It’s just a shame they’re the only ones really having a laugh. The trailer for Burn After Reading was very promising. It showed some of the craziness of the cast and provided a few laughs. But unfortunately they showed pretty much all the laughs. I warn you, if you’ve seen the trailer for this movie, you will see everything, and I do mean everything coming way before it happens. The little plot twists are blatantly obvious, the laughs are already had and there is little left in the way of mystery. It’s a prime example of why trailers should be kept to the very minimum of footage.

Firstly, the story is very thin. It’s not that complicated despite the many prime characters and their various motivations. The characters themselves are a mish-mash of the sort of dumb secondary characters that have populated the Coens’ films over the years. They’re eccentric and have little quirks that set them apart from the average joe. In this respect, it feels like the Coens are at a stretch to fill the film. There’s not quite enough plot, so the characters are there to distract the audience. Having said that, the characters do provide some laughs. But it’s just not enough to bolster a rather weak script.



The performances, from a very very impressive cast are pretty good. Everyone has played a version of their character before, so they’re in relatively comfortable shoes. There are highlights, though. John Malkovich’s Osbourne Cox is a well-spoken, but dangerously on-edge kinda guy. He’s the person you don’t want to piss off, and Malkovich does this very well. It’s great to see him play this kind of role outside kids’ movies. It’s just a shame there’s not much more of him. Richard Jenkins, a brilliant character actor who’s been around for years has the role with the most meat, despite how little his screen time is. Jenkins’ character really is the most normal character in the film, with motivations that are more real. And Jenkins’ creates a character that’s actually believable amongst many cartoons. And Brad Pitt’s Chad Feldheimer provides most of the laughs in the film. He’s a blonde, idiotic, image-obsessed personal trainer. Yet he does have something of a heart of gold. He’s got ideas that he cannot execute and really dodgy plans. And Pitt plays this brilliantly. He makes Feldheimer someone you feel sorry for when things go wrong for him. Yet you pray for things to go wrong so that the laughs begin. George Clooney’s played the idiot before. In both O Brother Where Art Thou and Leatherheads. His character feels like an extension of those roles, so we’re seeing nothing new there. Tilda Swinton, as Katie Cox also has played the no-nonsense ruthless business type before, and it’s something she does well. And Frances McDormand, who plays the other idiot of the piece has a few choice moments and a few laughs.

Burn After Reading is rather smug. But it’s just not that funny. The ending is far too abrupt and is told to us rather than shown. Which breaks the cardinal rule of screenwriting- show, don’t tell. It’s not a remarkable film, and considering it’s from the Coens, I had hoped for far better. It won’t really jump out in the cannon of Coen films. There are a few entertaining moments, and Brad Pitt continues doing some of the best work of his career. But other than that, it’s all kind forgettable. Burn After Reading is an appropriate title. Because you most likely will forget after watching.


5/10

First look at 'Inglorious Basterds'

Well, it's been a long, LONG time coming, but Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds (and that's not a misspelling) is finally going ahead. And here is the first image of Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the titular Basterds. Personally, I think Tarantino needs to return to the form he last showed with Jackie Brown. His last few films have been more self-indulgent than entertaining. But with a World War II backdrop, perhaps Inglorious Basterds could be a really great flick. Provided the pop culture references and foot fetish is kept to a minimum.

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (2007) - Andrew Dominik

The resurgence of the western takes one more step forward with the release of Andrew Dominik’s The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. After 3:10 To Yuma, you’d think that lightning wouldn’t strike twice for this, the genre that seems to produce the least amount of films. However, this western surpasses James Mangold’s film and is possibly the best film of 2007. In fact, it’s probably no exaggeration to say that The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is a western that belongs with the greats, and certainly the best example of it’s kind since Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven.

The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is not a biopic of the famous folk-hero Jesse James. In fact, the early part of the film depicts Jesse and his brother Frank’s last train heist. With the brothers for the heist are a gang of men recruited from the hills in Missouri. Among the outlaws are the Ford brothers, Charlie and his younger brother Robert. Robert Ford has spent his life idolising Jesse James through magazines and stories. He sees this robbery as his chance to get closer to his hero.
After the robbery, James’ paranoia leads him to hunt down his former gang. Eventually James catches up with the Ford brothers. They have good reason to fear James. Despite this, they join him in his journey to catch up with his former gang. But as Robert Ford’s attempts to get closer to his hero are met with rejection and laughter, his obsession intensifies. If he cannot become close to James, he figures there must be a way to best him.



It’s impossible to know where to begin when analysing a film like this. There are so many elements that contribute to it’s greatness. Essentially, it’s an examination of the cult of celebrity and the effects it can have, not only on a ‘fan’ but on the celebrity him or herself. It’s fitting that Jesse James, one of the most famous men of his time should be played by Brad Pitt, one of the most famous actors of our time. James, in the film, is a figure who lives an almost mythical existence. In an early scene, Ford and James sit and share cigars. Ford is literally gushing over the stories of his hero, who turns to Ford and tells him they’re all lies. Instantly, you see Ford’s embarrassment at his attempt to get closer to his hero. Even way back when, stories of celebrity are blown out of proportion.

Yet it’s this celebrity status that makes Jesse James a melancholic and paranoid character. Brad Pitt, who I’ve enjoyed in maybe a handful of roles delivers a career-best performance as the outlaw. James is a quiet, contemplative character, yet underneath his outward control of every situation lies a man who is incredibly dangerous. The slightest provocation turns James from a quiet man into a cold-blooded murderer. When the Ford brothers are exposed to this side of James, they begin to realise how close they are to death. But despite this, James seems to be in a perpetual state of embracing death. It’s almost as if he expects it at any moment. Pitt conveys every side of James character so convincingly that it would be very surprising if his performance is overlooked come awards time.



Playing against Pitt is Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. It’s his performance that is central to the film, and he is outstanding as Ford. His character is in awe of James. He’s a young man who’s life has been shaped around the exploits of Jesse James. When his time comes to meet his hero, he’s does everything he can to endear himself to the outlaw. Yet his attempts are rejected outright. In fact, he’s laughed at by everyone from his own brother to James himself. And with each rejection, Ford descends deeper and deeper into resentment. After he kills James, in what is a cowardly manner, Ford builds a career riding on this one incident. Yet he finds that the celebrity he has garnered brings him nothing but misery. Instead of being a hero who brought down Jesse James, Ford is regarded as a coward, and finds himself as paranoid as his hero once was. It’s a brilliant contrasting performance to Pitt’s James. One of the film’s highlights is a scene involving Ford comparing his life to that of James. His adoration for his hero is met with ridicule bordering on contempt, and watching the two actors face each other is fascinating.

The rest of the cast, including Sam Rockwell, Sam Shepard, Jeremy Renner, Paul Schneider, Zooey Deschanel and Mary-Louise Parker all deliver brilliant performances. Yet in the face of the two central characters, these performances play second fiddle.

Aside from the brilliant cast, the other highlight of The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is the direction and cinematography. This film is probably the most beautiful film of the year. Shot by Coen brothers collaborator, Roger Deakins, the film is incredibly reminiscent of the films of Terrence Malick, in particular Days Of Heaven. The west has rarely looked as beautiful and mythical. Andrew Dominik’s direction is sublime. The tone of the film is quiet and melancholic, like the title character. Dominik’s previous film, the brilliant Chopper, also dealt with a character who was almost a folk hero. Another outlaw who has achieved almost mythical status. There are some outstanding scenes, including a brilliantly shot train robbery. But it’s the character interaction that is in focus here. It’s a long film, running two hours and forty minutes in length. Yet, it’s not a minute too long or a minute too short and is edited perfectly.

The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is possibly film of the year. I’d previously thought Eastern Promises would be the film that would emerge as the film of 2007. But after seeing this film, it’s a very difficult choice. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford might have the edge. It’s just a stunning looking film with two incredible performances. What’s definite about it, however, is that it is absolutely memorable in every way, and that's the key to a brilliant film.


9/10

OCEAN'S THIRTEEN (2007) - Steven Soderbergh

Stephen Soderbergh occasionally takes a break from the ultra-serious in order to bring a film of pure entertainment to the cinema. Ocean's Thirteen, the third outing for Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his pals (Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, etc), sees the gang try to bring down the casino belonging to Willie Bank (Al Pacino). One of the original eleven, Reuben Tishkoff, has been royally screwed over by Bank, and it's up to the gang to hit him where it hurts- his pocket and his pride. Bank's latest casino is having it's gala opening. The new casino showcases the latest in technology, boasting a security system so sophisticated, it is deemed impenetrable. But as we've come to expect, challenges like that have never put off this gang of thieves, and they employ the usual array of gadgetry and cons in order to pull off their latest heist. However, this heist is going to cost them a pretty penny, so they employ the talents (and my talents, I mean cheque-book) of the old enemy, Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) who has a vested interest in seeing Bank fail.



Well, there's not much that can be said about this film that isn't going to sound familiar. I must admit, I've never been a fan of this series. After a mediocre first film came a bloated, smug, self-important travesty of a sequel, so I went into this film not expecting very much. Which is probably the best way of approaching it. Just like the casino featured in the film, everything on screen is slick and glossy. Screenwriters Brian Koppelman and David Levien have learned from the mistakes made in Ocean's Twelve, and deliver a much tighter script, doing away with all the extraneous plot lines, and focusing immediately on the task at hand. Soderbergh's direction is perfectly fine. He delivers a film that oozes cool and glamour. Everyone from the previous films is back except for Julia Roberts. This is a film about the boys. And they all slot back into the roles they've become accustomed to with ease.



There's not much else that can be said for Ocean's Thirteen. It's pretty basic stuff, and not particularly groundbreaking. But I guess it's not supposed to be that way! Perfectly acceptable but nothing special.

5/10