Some random thoughts on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, because if Tarantino isn't going to bother to make a complete movie why should I bother with a complete review?
I'm not saying that INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is the worst movie ever made, but let's put it this way; Weinstein asked Obama if a movie could be eligible for the Cash For Clunkers Program. There's also a rumor that Weinstein asked Tarantino to cut 45 minutes out of the film after a screening at Cannes and 'Q', as the hip kids that have never heard of Quincy Jones call him, actually added one minute just to piss Weinstein off.
It's Tarantino's attempt at making an European film, at 2 and a half hours, your-a-peeing about halfway through the film... but that's ok, because the second act gets so boring you can leave for a few minutes and miss nothing.
Too long, not enough action and too many subtitles. I don't go to the movies to read. Tarantino likes to have people sitting around tables and talking, which, in English, can be fine; but when you have to read everything they're saying you can't watch the actors and you miss their performance. Christoph Waltz has great in all his other scenes, so I assume he was great too in the five hour opening scene, but I can't be sure because I was too busy reading to notice.
Tarantino's movie has nothing what so ever to do with the original Enzo Castellari movie, other than the title (kind of) and the fact that they both occur during WWII. Although Tarantino remembers WWII a little differently than the history books do. Castellari's film was a low rent version of THE DIRTY DOZEN, Tarantino's Jewish Dozen are actually the weakest part of the film. You'd think a bunch of misfits running around slandering people would be right in 'Q's wheelhouse, but not this year.
Now if you ever need an example of movie narration that is used as a crutch for poor storytelling, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS would top the list. Who the hell was Samuel L. Jackson supposed to be? He just pops in, gives a little Disney-esque voice over to fill in some gaps, and pops back out. Lame. On the plus side, as much as I didn't want to like him, Eli Roth was good as the Red Sox fan.
As good as Christoph Waltz's performance is, Brad Pitts' is it's diametrically polar opposite. You can't blame Pitt though. Didn't Billy Bob Thornton used to be a good actor before he hooked up with Angelina Jolie too?
I would imagine it would have to be very hard to make a two and half hour film and have absolutely no character development in there anywhere, but boy genius Q does it. My big question is, Why do the same people that cheer Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS recoil in horror at the thought of Al Ghraib? Same basic idea, ain't it?
 email this column to a friend
Comment on this Column:
Sorry, you must be a member to add comments to columns.
Join or Login. |
 Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Reviews through RSS
|
| Ask a Bitter Man |
Every Thursday
Lance Norris gives us his opinions on the state of film, vents about Hollywood, and generally lets his thoughts fly.
|
| Contact |
If you have a comment, question, or suggestion, you can send a message to Lance Norris by clicking here.
|
|
