Movie Review: The Informant!

1 Reply

The poster for “The Informant!,” at first glance, reminded me of the poster for “The 40 Year Old Virgin.” Not only did both include two overly jolly men, but there was just something about them that made me happy every time I looked at them. Like the poster for “Virgin,” there was something so incredibly funny, and so incredibly strange about the poster for “The Informant!” that I just had to see it. It turns out, the movie is both of these things, in ways different than you might imagine.

“The Informant!” is based on the true story of one of the biggest (and weirdest) financial frauds in American history. However, it tends to take its history quite lightly. After a title card informs us that the film is based on a true story, we are treated to the sentence “So there.” Off the bat we are being told to expect nothing short of a comedic version of true events.
The corporate fraud focused on in the film is that of the major price fixing [Editor's Note: Please, don't make me try to explain what that is] that took place in the early 1990s at the Illinois food processing company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). The seemingly innocent biochemist turned businessman Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) becomes an informant for the FBI, who looks to bust the company. However, agents Bob Herndon (Joel McHale) and Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula) soon realize that Whitacre’s ineptitude might get them into more trouble than they could have ever imagined.
Commercials for “The Informant!” have made it out to be purely comical. While the film is hilarious at times, it’s not as much as a comedy as you might expect. While director Steven Soderbergh could’ve taken this exact same story and turned it into a dramatic, suspensful thriller on the level of “The Departed” or his own “Traffic.” Instead, he twisted it around and turned it into a light-hearted, comedic thriller with serious undertones. I’m happy he decided to take this path. Had the film been more serious, it probably would’ve seemed much less original.
Parts of “The Informant!” feel like a tribute to the great film noir of the past. Everything from the opening credit font, to the tangled web lies, feels right out of the paranoid thrillers of the 1970s. Meanwhile, the somewhat jazzy musical score could be traced all the way back to “The Maltese Falcon.”
Maybe the greatest reward the film gives is the pleasure of seeing Damon play Marc Whitacre with complete scrutiny. Damon pulled a De Niro for this performance and gained over 30 pounds to fully embody the everyday schlub that Whitacre truly was. In his performance, Damon is funny at all the right moments, tricky at all the right moments, and serious and self reflective at all the right moments. But most importantly, he always looks like he’s just having a good time in the role. When it doesn’t look like an actor is having a good time in a comedy, you know you’re in trouble. Damon looks like he’s having a blast.
Making up the rest of the ensemble are many comedians who now seem to be slipping into more dramatic roles. McHale, who started this week off good with his first real acting job ever in “Community” scores once again, getting one of the film’s biggest laughs with just a small facial expression.
While some perceive the humor to be a little smug and condescending, I remain a firm believer that in a smart film, structure relates to function. And here, the function is to almost give us the feeling of how overly smug some of the men must’ve been, thinking that even as they drew themselves closer and closer to being caught, that they remained invincible. Also fascinating is Whitacre’s narration. It doesn’t really do much to enhance the story or give us background details, it is basically just a stream of consciousness. It gives us a feeling of what goes through Whitacre’s head everyday. However, some of these details may actually be important. Or they may not. Maybe they’re just leading us into a big trap. The truth never is what it seems.
As the great line in “Some Like it Hot” goes: “Well, nobody’s perfect.” “The Informant!” certainly isn’t. It doesn’t really get interesting until the FBI gets involved, and often times its not as funny as it thinks it is. But it was one thing: really entertaining. It is so rare that you see a movie like “The Informant!” that provides the audience entertainment in a sophisticated and adult way. It is hip, yet it is also versed in the classics. It provides a history lesson without putting its audience to sleep.
But after all is said and done, you know what the funniest part of the film is? The fact that the real joke of the film is on you.
Recommended for Fans of: Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Catch Me If You Can, Wall Street, Traffic, The French Connection, The Maltese Falcon, Chinatown

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia Season 5 Premiere: Foreclosures, Octomom, and Hummingbirds

Leave a reply

I guess it makes sense that “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” would begin a new season with a pointless conversation about whether or not it’s illegal to own a hummingbird. After all, it’s not like they have anything valuable they could be giving back to society.

And so begins the fifth season of FX’s strangely genius, totally twisted comedy “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” The show started years ago, being helmed by an unexperienced writer (Rob McElhenney) with a budget under $200. Some thought it would never survive. They were wrong.
Maybe what’s so great about “Sunny” is that it totally abandons the idea of having any sort of continuous story-lines or continuity. Season four ended with Charlie (Charlie Day) creating a fantasy musical that accidently ended up being about being about child molestation in a failed attempt to impress the Waitress (Mary Elizabeth Ellis). Season five finds the gang living in a totally different from the one we last saw them in last November. This time, they’re dealing with a tough economy. And what better way for the gang to celebrate financial meltdown than to totally exploit it?
The season premiere is entitled “The Gang Exploits the Mortgage Crisis.” In it, the boys come up with an ill-conceived get rich quick scheme that involves them buying foreclosed homes and selling them at higher prices. As usual, their parallel universe collapses, and reality sets in. Meanwhile, Dee (Kaitlin Olson) decides to become a surrogate mom for a wealthy couple. The couple seems right out of “Juno,” and her plan emulates Octomom. Sounds perfect, right? Well, don’t underestimate the power of alcohol, or the stupidity of Mac (McElhenney), Dennis (Glenn Howerton), Charlie, and Frank (Danny DeVito).
While some shows tend to decline in later seasons, “Sunny” seems to be getting better and better. As the show has rolled on, each actor seems to be getting a better grip of their character, and finding a way to bring even the tiniest bit of sympathy to five of the most horrible TV characters ever created.
Maybe what helped make this episode so satisfying was that it did what a good “Sunny” episode should do: it placed the gang amongst intelligent human beings and higher standards of living yet still had them act as selfish and obnoxious as they usually would. However, this is also where some sympathy might build for the characters: in this idea that they’re simply misunderstood outsiders. They’re not trying to be bad, they just want to get ahead in life. But of course, their view of success is a little…warped.
The only problem with this episode falls in its very abrupt ending. Although it managed to tie both stories together well, in the end, parts of the episode felt slightly rushed. McElhenney took an hour long story and tried to cram it into thirty minutes. We’ll probably never hear about Dee’s attempt at parenthood, or Charlie’s attempt at a duel ever again, but then again, this gang does still have a bar to manage.

Patrick Swayze: 1952-2009

Leave a reply

Various sources have officially reported that actor Patrick Swayze, known primarily for his work in “Dirty Dancing” and “Ghost,” died today after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. He was 57.

Swayze became a household name in the 80s and 90s, beginning with his patriarch-like role in “The Outsiders” as Darrel Curtis. He’s probably most well known for his performance in “Dirty Dancing,” in which he spewed one of the most imitated lines in the movies: “Nobody puts baby in the corner.” Swayze is also defined by his role in the classic cheesy 80s action flick “Road House.”
The one performance I won’t forget from him is a recent one, his role as the phony inspirational speaker in “Donnie Darko.” In it, he channeled a level of subtle creepiness that was perfectly hidden under what seemed like over-the-top kindness. But when that one twisted secret is revealed about him, no one should have been the least bit surprised. Now, that was good acting; and today, that legacy will hopefully not be forgotten.

The Coen Brothers & The Dude Reunite: Yay(?)

Leave a reply

Normally, I’d be jumping for absolute joy when hearing that The Coen Brothers and Jeff “The Dude” Bridges will be making their first movie together since “The Big Lebowski.”

Great start, right? Well of course, there’s two sides to everything. Variety reports that it will be a remake of the 1969 John Wayne Western “True Grit.” Unfortunately, I can’t provide much detailed analysis of “True Grit” because I haven’t seen it yet. What I do know is that it’s about a drunken U.S. Marshal who helps a 14-year-old girl find her father’s murderer. Also, this film earned Wayne the first and only Oscar of his career (likely to make up for snubbing his performance in “The Searchers”).
Now, I pretty much always express outrage when Hollywood decides to remake classics. While someone had the decency to kill that “Rosemary’s Baby” remake, that proposed “Bonnie & Clyde” remake has yet to be shot down. And while I’m not surprised that someone like Michael Bay (who was on board for the “Baby” remake) would try and ruin a classic, I would never expect it from the Joel and Ethan Coen, who have come up with some of the most amazingly original stories of the past 30 years.
There isn’t really much good to remakes, but some people do defend them. Often, they can be good, but that’s in the rare circumstance where the director takes the old film and puts a new spin to it that’s entertaining and unique. Perhaps the Coen Brothers are just the people to do that. It already seems that they’re planning on telling the story from the girl’s perspective (apparently in the original, the story is told from the perspective of Wayne). Not only that, but the Coen Brothers shoot most of their best films west of the Mississippi. Adding their unique eye to regional accents and mannerisms probably couldn’t hurt the film either. They can also shoot a pretty good shootout, too.
So, take this project as you will. While I know the Coen Brothers are capable of inventing their own stories, I’ll still probably line up for anything with the names Coen and Bridges on it.
I couldn’t think of a good “Lebowski” quote to randomly incorporate into the article, so this clip is just about as good:

Movie Review: Extract

1 Reply

It seems fitting that “Extract” takes place in a vanilla extract factory, since the film is about as plain as the flavor itself. And the saddest part is, it comes from one of Hollywood’s most creative directors.

“Extract” is a comedy. Sometimes, it’s a spoof on work hell. Other times, it’s a spoof on suburbia. And then the rest of the time, it’s supposed to be a comedic crime caper. It never really takes a stand at specifically which one it will be, and not a single one of these ideas ever seems to connect.
“Extract” is directed by Mike Judge, whose previous comedy about life at work is, of course, “Office Space.” This time, rather than being from the perspective of the miserable mid-level worker, it’s from the perspective of the stressed out boss. Joel (Jason Bateman) owns a successful flavor extract company. He’s about to make a fortune by selling his company to General Mills until a freak accident in the factory leaves a worker without a testicle. His replacement is an attractive con woman named Cindy (Mila Kunis). She seems nice, but she’s secretly trying to con the company out of millions of dollars.
Back at home, Joel’s life is even more complicated. He has major sexual troubles with his wife (Kristen Wiig). This is what will eventually set the stage for some bad advice from a drug-loving bar tender (Ben Affleck) and a doomed relationship with Cindy.
Those are the two plots of Extract. If Judge wanted to make a better movie, he should’ve just stuck to one of them. And in my opinion, it should’ve been the hard working, frustrated boss tries to make things work at work and home. The con woman plot goes absolutely nowhere.
How Judge could make such a poorly executed comedy is beyond me. Not only did he direct “Office Space,” he also created “Beavis and Butt-head.” While many people without a sense of irony thought this show was just plain dumb, it’s actually about the humor of observing dumb people. “Extract” certainly could have had some of that. At one point, Joel points out how all of his workers are giant babies, and he is like their babysitter. We see the workers’ work habits. While the workers’ work habits are annoying, they’re never particularly hilarious. None of them seem to have those Milton-like qualities.
Like any Mike Judge film or show, “Extract” is filled with a wide variety of characters defined by their quirks. Usually these quirks include a less than intelligent brain, or a strange way of speaking. Maybe the best one in “Extract” is Joel’s nosy neighbor Nathan (David Koechner). However, his quirks aren’t shown in a lovable way. They’re shown in a more “I want to punch this guy in the face” way.
Maybe the reason many of the characters don’t work is because Judge underutilizes his obscenely talented cast. J.K. Simmons is barely given a funny line, and his role in the film is never defined. Wiig is great at playing shy and asexual, but again, she’s given few chances to be truly funny. And while I was most looking forward to seeing Affleck (what? he’s funny), he is given too little screen time. I always enjoy Jason Bateman, and here I think he did his best to re-create his other famous frustrated boss role: Michael Bluth–if only this film could’ve been more like “Arrested Development.” However, there are two bright spots. Kiss’s Gene Simmons does a hilarious job portraying a sleazy lawyer, and Dustin Milligan gets some of the film’s best laughs for playing the brain dead gigolo Brad.
I don’t want to give “Extract” as bad a review as I could because I know there’s potential for a great movie in here. That potential is perhaps best seen at the film’s end. The ending has an underlying, subtle humor to it and an almost moving, human quality. It is the ending to a film that never actually existed. That end scene showed the film’s true, wasted potential.
Judge is one of Hollywood’s most under appreciated talents, and I thought “Extract” would become another underrated cult hit. It had potential. If only it had emulated that ending scene and been the kind of satire of American life Judge is so great at doing, than this comedy would’ve been an instant classic.

Dumb Move of the Day: SNL Fires Michaela Watkins & Casey Wilson

Leave a reply

Unlike many out there, I still haven’t lost my faith in “Saturday Night Live.” It’s been on for 34 years now and every now and then it goes through a rough patch only to have a major comeback later on. But the announcement today that cast members Michaela Watkins and Casey Wilson would be fired after just one year as featured players was a big blow to my faith in the show.

To be fair, Wilson was funny, but never provided anything too special. Then again, she was on for just a year and she did show promise. Also, she had a few very good celebrity impressions up her sleeve (including a very accurate one of Christina Hendricks on “Mad Men.”
Most disappointing to me is the decision to fire Watkins. She was on for barely one season. Is that enough time for a person to show their true talents? She was definitely one of the best recent additions to the show, and I really looked forward to seeing more of her work this season. During her short lived SNL career, she did pretty brilliant impressions of Ariana Huffington and Joan Rivers. She also became well known for her obnoxious blogger character which a lot of people found annoying but I liked because I’m also an obnoxious blogger.
So far, no reason has been provided as to why they were fired. However, just last week it was announced that Jenny Slate and Nasim Pedrad would be joining the cast. I thought they’d be additions, not replacements. Maybe the reason for this firing was budget cuts. Or maybe Lorne Michaels is trying to get SNL back on track. If so, he’s doing so the wrong way. Although I still find SNL funny, the real problem is the writing, not the acting (in fact, this ensemble is one of the best in years). If Lorne really thought it was time to make some changes, he instead would’ve demoted the writing staff to Leno and gave these two promising newcomers a second chance. 
This article is the closest thing to an explanation.

Summer ’09 in Movies

Leave a reply

Summer 2009 came and went. It was a summer of record highs and record lows. No, I’m not talking about the temperature; I’m talking about what happened inside the movie theater. Every summer, Hollywood tries to blow away audiences with high budget blockbusters and high concept comedies. This summer, as with any summer, a select few struck a chord with moviegoers. Now is time to examine the 2009 summer in movies.

Summer started strong. To no one’s surprise, Pixar scored another hit with “Up.” Even without 3D glasses, “Up” was as stunning as it was moving.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the summer came earliest: “The Hangover.” What at first seemed like a typical buddies-go-to-Vegas-comedy turned into the funniest movie of the summer. What made the film work so well was it’s mixture of psychological thriller with slapstick comedy and Carrot Top cameos.

Perhaps the two most anticipated comedies of the summer, “Bruno” and “Funny People,” did not quite win over audiences. Of all the movies this summer, these two no doubt alienated audiences the most. I, however, was on the side of admiration. While “Bruno” didn’t reach “Borat” levels of hilarity, it’s impossible not to be impressed by Sacha Baron Cohen’s shameless audacity and ability to get a laugh even in the most frightening situations.

“Funny People” is the third film directed by Judd Apatow (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up”), and certainly his most different. It’s his first film dealing with death, and his first one with an organized plot structure reaching an unknown conclusion rather than a plot that was a string of unpredictable events leading to a known conclusion. I don’t know which approach is better but in the end, both work.

Perhaps summer’s biggest disappointment was “Public Enemies.” What could’ve been a classic Depression-era crime thriller on the level of “Bonnie and Clyde” turned out to be a giant dud, and a waste of the brilliant talents of Christian Bale and Johnny Depp. Perhaps the main reason is that Michael Mann (“Collateral”) only seems to want to direct action, and not characters. On that note, he can’t direct action sequences very well either.

As for the big blockbusters, it was a mixed bag. “Star Trek” scored major points. I did not see “Transformers 2” or “G.I. Joe,” because the movies-based-on-toys trend is one that must soon come to a halt. The tonic to this Hollywood’s blockbuster problem was the stunning “District 9.” Maybe it was such a cure because it was more Cape Town than Tinseltown as it was shot by first time South African filmmaker Neill Blomkamp. The film managed to mix bizarre sci-fi fantasy with an allegory on apartheid and immigration. It was the perfect mix of action and brains I was searching for all summer long.

As usual, the best summer fare came from the art house. Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” is the Iraq War film this generation has been waiting for. Shot eerily like a documentary, “The Hurt Locker” is perhaps the most realistic look at the war put on screen so far. It’s about a bomb diffuser so whenever a bomb goes off, naturally it goes off in slow motion; you can watch metal melting off a car as a bomb goes off. Michael Bay could learn a thing or two from a film like this.

This summer’s “Little Miss Sunshine” Award for indie surprise goes to “(500) Days of Summer.” While commercials have portrayed the film as a romantic comedy, it is far from that. It is the most inventive anti-romantic comedy you’ll see in a long time.

This summer’s award for best film came late. It is one that I should’ve seen coming though: “Inglourious Basterds.” Quentin Tarantino (“Pulp Fiction,” “Kill Bill”) is at the top of his game, employing Spaghetti Western style to Nazi occupied France.

What is it that an auteur like Tarantino proves about this summer in movies? Well, he proves that in the end, originality always wins.

Movie Review: The Final Destination (3D)

2 Replies

When did audiences stop caring about life and start cheering on merciless, unnecessary death? I didn’t realize this was the case until I sat through “The Final Destination.” In 3D. And felt myself cheering too.

Maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing that we were all cheering. After all, what sympathy could be felt for the characters? Not one felt the least bit developed. Well, maybe a little bit. The most I could say is that Nick (Bobby Campo) goes to a race car event with his friends. There, he has premonitions of a disaster in the stadium causing brutal death. Him and his friends, along with a few others, narrowly escape the carnage. They have cheated death. This sets off a chain of events that leads to each of them being killed off in the most unpleasant ways imaginable. Oh, and Nick also has a friend named Hunt (Nick Zano) who’s kind of a tool. I don’t remember any other of the characters’ names. And I don’t really care. 
The actors certainly don’t help bring sympathy to the characters. Their dull and lifeless delivery bring nothing to the script; not that there’s anything good to the script. The dialogue is nothing but a series of platitudes and cliches. At one point, one character actually says “you only live once” and tries to pass it off as original, moving, and insightful. Of course, it is none of these things. 
The film’s director, David R. Ellis, has a strange resume that includes “Final Destination II,” “Snakes on a Plane,” and “Homeward Bound II.” In directing “The Final Destination” he breaks the rule that makes a horror film great: waiting. Don’t try to hit your audience with so much in so little time, you have to let the characters grow. You have to let the fear grow. That’s what makes horror films like “Psycho,” “The Silence of the Lambs,” and “Carrie” so effective: they grow on you. And then, suddenly, they give you and incredible jolt out of the dark.
The debate “The Final Destination” covers is one that has been argued for centuries on and off the screen: fate vs. freewill. Can you cheat death? And if so, will death find you again? “The Final Destination” obviously leans towards the latter. However, it seems to believe that spilling blood and guts is an effective way to prove a point. Believe me, it’s not. If you’d like to see this topic discussed much more eloquently, watch an episode of “Lost” or read “Man’s Search for Meaning.”
Now, most of you wanting to see this movie aren’t looking for a sophisticated debate; you’re looking for escapism. Well, you won’t find it here. Escapism is enjoying a film that provides a sort of world you know can’t exist, but for a limited amount of time, you’ll believe it does anyway. The kind of escapism “The Final Destination” provides is the kind where you can laugh at the ridiculousness of the film. But this is not enjoyment. For real escapism, go see “Inglourious Basterds” instead.
I will admit, this is only the first “Final Destination” movie I’ve seen. I felt confused at first, so my friend explained the premise of the other three to me. The premise was the exact same for each movie, and he seemed to have a good feeling that this installment would go the same way. I doubted him for a second, thinking nobody could possibly carry out the same idea and get away with it three times. He was right.
Note: Don’t let the title fool you. Even though it’s called “The Final Destination,” the film is truly “Final Destination 4.” This just marks a weird trend where studios try to wipe out a franchise history by leaving out the number of the film (ex: Fast & Furious, Rambo). Sorry guys, it isn’t working.

Movie Review: Adventureland

2 Replies

I never had the pleasure of growing up in the 1980s. However, after watching “Adventureland,” I almost feel like I did. 

The best period pieces must be made years after the year they are set in, especially if they’re a teen angst dramedy. “Dazed & Confused” was set in 1976, but came out in 1993. “Adventureland” takes place in the summer of 1987. It’s a few months before the “Black Monday” stock market crash, but already the family of James (Jesse Eisenberg) is facing financial trouble. James recently graduated from college. Before going to grad school in New York, he plans on spending the summer in Europe. However, his father’s recent demotion brings an end to his plans, and instead James must work the summer for grad school money.
The job market of ’87 looked just about as bad as the job market of ’09, as James can barely get a job. However, there is one place in the Pittsburgh area that will take him: Adventureland Amusement Park. Taking this job becomes both the best and worst mistake of his entire life.
While working there, James associates with philosophical Joel (Martin Starr), an immature friend (Matt Bush), a failed rockstar (Ryan Reynolds), two awkward bosses (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig), and of course, Emma (Kristen Stewart). In Emma, James finds what he could never find in any other girl.
Besides the relationship between James and Em, “Adventureland” has no strict plot to follow. It would make sense that writer-director Greg Mottola, who also directed Judd Apatow produced “Superbad,” would use this Apatow plot device. However, credit for this goes way back to directors like Hal Ashby. Ashby never attended to make plots; but rather, people. In movies like “Harold and Maude,” Ashby just tried to let the growing relationship between Harold and Maude but on its own. Mottola attempts to do the same with James and Em.
Mottola is not known as much for film as he is for television. He’s directed episodes of two of the best shows ever: “Undeclared” and “Arrested Development.” However, he’s started to become a formidable comedy movie director. While “Superbad” was certainly well made, “Adventureland” truly shows his talents for he both wrote and directed it. Therefore, “Adventureland” feels like a much more personal film, as he is bringing to life his own story and not somebody else’s. That is probably why every shot is filmed with both giant and pain and an ounce of joy, a sort of uplifting light of love seems to shine from above throughout.
“Adventureland” is to the ’80s what “Dazed & Confused” was to the ’70s: an extremely stylish, extremely accurate piece of nostalgia. Like any good director making a period piece, Mottola focuses on the little details to make the movie feel exactly like the ’80s. And it does. He emphasizes everything from the cars, to the outfits, to the way people dance. He especially emphasizes the music. He uses many bands popular in the ’80s; mainly the soothing sounds of Lou Reed & The Velvet Underground. The soundtrack, while great to listen to, is there for a reason. It’s not only there to remind us of the decade we’re watching, but to also reveal little minor things about the characters. For example, Mike’s (Reynolds) inability to name the song “Satellite of Love” correctly reveals his underlying phoniness.
The characters for the most part, are well cast. Eisenberg broke out in 2005 with “The Squid and the Whale.” While he played Walt in “Squid” with much more hidden sadness and an outer layer of betrayal, all of James’s emotions are on his sleeves. Eisenberg plays him with flawless awkward vulnerability. He is no doubt one of the best young actors out there today.
 Perhaps the film’s biggest mistake is Reynolds. He is a decent actor, but he really doesn’t bring much to the character. While it would’ve been nice to see Mike played with much more vulnerability, Reynolds just makes him seem like too much of an invincible human being. Maybe that’s because Mike is a little smug, but he obviously has some marriage problems. 
Another small mistake made by Motolla is the criminal underuse of Hader and Wiig. The pair is only in a few scenes. However, Hader steals every moment he’s in, bringing that same zaniness to the film that has made him one of the funniest people in comedy. Wiig manages to be funny by just standing there and making creepy faces. I don’t think it would’ve killed them to give her a few more lines, but maybe she’s just one of those comedians like John Belushi whose funnier when they aren’t saying anything.
Perhaps “Adventureland” is such a convincing nostalgia film because not only does it feel like your looking at the 1980s, but it also feels like a movie that could’ve been made in the ’80s. The influences of such ’80s icons as John Hughes and films such as “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” feels tangible. While I enjoyed pretty much every minute of this hilarious and moving dramedy, some references did escape me. Oh well, I guess you just, kind of had to be there.
Recommended for Fans of: Dazed & Confused, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Graduate, Superbad, Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Harold and Maude, The Last Detail

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds

Leave a reply

Who said history has to be accurate? Don’t tell that to Quentin Tarantino, who pulled off his newest masterpiece in a brilliant revisionist style. “Inglourious Basterds” is the work of a world-class auteur at the top of his game.

When I first heard years ago that Tarantino was developing a war film, I was hesitant, unsure of whether Tarantino’s directing style could fit into a war movie. But then I realized, it is the perfect genre for him. 
Of all of Tarantino’s films, “Inglourious Basterds” has the most traditional narrative structure. While all of his other films hop through time in no particular order, this one moves through time in order with only a few brief flashbacks. What’s extremely unconventional about it though, are it’s multiple different stories that only loosely connect. 
The first story starts in the early days of World War II, in Nazi occupied France. Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), is a French Jew who narrowly escapes death at the hands of brutal Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Four years later, Dreyfus is still living in France under a pseudonym, operating a movie theater and hoping to one day get revenge on the Nazis.
The second story focuses on a group of Jewish American soldiers also in France. This troop, nicknamed the Basterds, also plans to get revenge on the Nazis and their reign of terror. The troop is led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Raine commands his soldiers to attack the Nazis with absolutely no sympathy. He also demands that each man bring him 100 Nazi scalps (and he gets his scalps).
Now, where do these two stories connect? Well, both are revenge missions, and both seek their revenge in the exact same place. Shosanna and the Basterds never meet face to face, but all I can say is that if they ever were to meet, they’d all be pretty good friends.
In almost every way, “Inglourious Basterds” shouldn’t be a good movie. It has long expanses of meaningless dialogue, little action, and major historical inaccuracies and politically incorrect stereotypes. It’s kind of like “Lawrence of Arabia.” But these things don’t serve to make the movie worse; they end up making it even better. Only a mind like Tarantino can take flaws and turn them into idiosyncrasies. Only Tarantino could capture people talking and turn it into amazing, real conversations about the meaning of life. The dialogue is harder to quote because most of the film is spoken in either German or French, However, Raine and Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz (Eli Roth) give more than enough catchphrases to go around. 
Oh, and that dialogue. No matter what language, Tarantino’s dialogue is always so pleasant to listen to; not a single word out of a character’s mouth ever seems corny or contrived. 
And yes, the movie is violent. Very violent. On the Tarantino violence scale, it would rank slightly higher than “Pulp Fiction” but slightly less in “Kill Bill.” The violence is often ridiculous, but is also somehow the most realistically violent of all of his films.
Tarantino has a habit of reviving the careers of many once great actors (John Travolta, Michael Parks, Pam Grier, David Carradine). The careeer revived in “Inglourious Basterds” is that of Christoph Waltz. Much has been said about Waltz’s performance, and every accolade is well deserved. He plays Landa as both friendly and creepy at the same time. He can seem friendly by making small talk and then intimidating by doing something like ordering someone to get him milk. He is never a villain who seems psychotic, he just seems scary because of his overstated friendliness. It is without a doubt that Landa’s Cannes winning performance will also get nominated for an Oscar.
The true villains of World War II, Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, are played here with perfect inaccuracy. Martin Wuttke plays Hitler as  a whiny baby and Sylvester Groth plays Goebbels as a soulless zombie and something of a suck up. While Waltz has gotten the majority of praise, a large amount of it belongs to Groth. Through Groth’s eyes, Goebbels doesn’t seem like a zombie just from the things he says, but also from the things he does. In one scene, he shakes Shosanna’s hand but he doesn’t quite give it a tight grip. In fact, he barely grabs it with his cold, white hand. It looks almost like a skeleton who can walk and talk. 
Also scoring points are the Basterds. I always knew Pitt was talented, but not even his performance in “Fight Club” can top this. His Aldo Raine comes from Tennessee, and he talks in a perfect Southern droll. Roth is also a scene stealer. Roth is known for directing torture porn like “Hostel.” However, he should stick to acting. His overly hammy Boston accent becomes one of the funniest parts of the movie. And yes, the movie is funny. Tarantino’s sense of humor is one of the darkest in cinema; many of the jokes here are dark as ever. However, many are as light and hilarious as Raine’s horrible grip on the Italian language. A scene like that almost feels like something out of a Sacha Baron Cohen movie.
Tarantino is known for referencing hundreds and hundreds of movies in everyone of his films. In this one, he often draws references to his own films. The opening scene reminded me something of the Royale with Cheese scene in “Pulp Fiction.” Like Jackson, Waltz first disarms the character through light banter before suddenly unloading on him. The revenge mission feels almost like The Bride’s in “Kill Bill.” 
Tarantino also references many of his favorite movies. You can see a shot that looks like “Scarface” or a camera movement that feels Hitchcockian. What’s referenced most here though is Spaghetti Westerns. Spaghetti Westerns were Italian westerns that were made in the late 1960s popularized mainly by Sergio Leone. As I watched “Inglourious Basterds” I realized what it truly was: a Spaghetti Western presented as a war film. There are Mexican standoffs and a score that often resembles the brilliant music of Ennio Morricone. 
The plot of “Inglourious Basterds” is almost directly based off of the plot of “Once Upon a Time in the West.” Like “Once Upon a Time in the West,” “Inglourious Basterds” is about two different people getting revenge on the same person for different reasons. Both reasons however, have something to do with the loss of family or brotherhood. “Inglourious Basterds” also contains long stretches without much action. However, while Leone reveled in long silences, Tarantino revels in lots and lots of talking.
“Once Upon a Time in the West” is also the best western ever made. “Inglourious Basterds” is one of the best war movies ever made. Not only that, but it is also the most audacious for daring to change the face of history. It really makes sense as to why “Inglourious Basterds” is so revisionist: every Tarantino movie exists in its world with its own interconnecting characters and its own brands. Even though “Inglourious Basterds” doesn’t take place during modern times, it feels as if it could’ve taken place in the same world as any other Tarantino film.
“Inglourious Basterds” was one of few movies I’ve seen recently where I left feeling reinvigorated, feeling as if all my faith in cinema had been restored. Only someone like Quentin Tarantino can do this. He reinvented the crime drama, the kung fu film, and now, the war film. Being a great director doesn’t involve any film school, just a great imagination and a love for movies. And not to mention, a strange and interesting view of the world.
One more thing: we never find out why the title is misspelled. Tarantino says he’ll never explain why, and in a way it’s better like that. The spelling is a part of Tarantino’s world, and we’re lucky that we even got this good of a glimpse of it.
If you liked this movie, you’ll also like: Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Dollars Trilogy, Carrie, Scarface, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Grindhouse, The Wild Bunch, No Country for Old Men