Inglorious Basterds

When you go to see a Quentin Tarantino film, you know that, if nothing else, you’re going to get a unique cinematic experience. In the modern cinematic landscape, filled with sequels, remakes, and half-baked plotlines, we can count on ol’ Quentin to go decidedly outside of the box. Whether it’s non-linear storytelling (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs), highly stylized cinematography (Kill Bill), or a totally different method of packaging and presenting a film (Grindhouse), Tarantino is dependably different. Which is what makes Inglorious Basterds such a surprise.

The film, which in typical Tarantino style follows several characters and storylines that eventually all interconnect, takes place in Nazi-occupied France, and our heroes are all of the good old-fashioned Nazi-slaughtering type. Tarantino breaks the film into five ‘chapters’, eschewing the typical construction of modern Hollywood, but unlike Pulp Fiction, where Tarantino uses a similar structure, the storylines here don’t simply abut one another, but actually tie together into one coherent story. So, while Inglorious Basterds has a very Tarantino style and feel to it, the film has a quality of professionalism and maturity that Tarantino’s earlier work just doesn’t have. Rather than angrily refusing to write a script in the traditional Hollywood style, Tarantino successfully works within the confines of modern Hollywood, and the result is a film that feels more polished, finished, and accessible than any of his other critically-acclaimed films.

This isn’t to say the film is a by-the-numbers Hollywood blockbuster. While the film’s cinematographic style is, like the script, more reserved than other Tarantino work, but then there are moments where the framing is so beautiful and dramatic that you’re jarred by the sheer intensity of the shot. The unrepentant violence in the movie, another Tarantino hallmark, is similarly subtler than earlier works. While there are certainly a few very violent scenes in the movie, and one or two grotesque visuals, this isn’t the bloodbath that, say, Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill was. Tarantino doesn’t shy away from the violence when he needs it, but he doesn’t shove it in our face like he sometimes has in the past. The result is that the violent scenes become more powerful (and palatable), and rather than grossing the audience out, they become indicative of the film’s very dark sense of humor.

It’s this sense of humor that carries the film. Brad Pitt is really the star here, as his portrayal of Captain Aldo Raine is bold and brash, over-the-top and silly as hell, and the result is simply fun. Pitt’s ultra-dry humor and audience-winning charm are perfectly cast here, and it’s incredibly effective, adding levity and humor to a subject that can become all too serious very quickly. It’s no stretch to call this movie a comedy, and while Tarantino’s certainly exhibited a sense of humor in the past, this is certainly his ‘funniest’ film to date, and there’s something very satisfying about Tarantino’s style in a lighter, more comedic piece. Tarantino does a superb job milking the comedy out of this film while still keeping other moments as intense and serious as is necessary.

It would be a shame to discuss Inglorious Basterds and not mention the fantastic performance by Christopher Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa, a particularly clever Nazi whose job is to search out all the hidden Jews in France. Waltz is simultaneously charming and repulsive in this role, smooth-talking and out-thinking everyone he meets with such cold class that the audience would fall in love with him, if only he wasn’t a Nazi. It’s a very compelling and believable portrayal, and Waltz manages to bring some complexities and conflict to a character that could easily have been predictable and boring.

Ultimately, this feels like a big step forward for Tarantino. He’s found a way to take all of his hallmarks—the ultra-violence, the stylized camera work, the non-linear storytelling, and the self-aware, very dark sense of humor—and work them into a more mainstream, accessible piece. I’ve always loved Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, as much for their inherent rejection of modern Hollywood as anything else. But there’s no denying that with Tarantino seemingly swallowing his pride a bit, and accepting that his touch could be added to the film in a subtler way, the film is enhanced by his perspective, rather than defined by it. It feels like Tarantino has finally made a movie that isn’t fighting with the rest of Hollywood, and the result is a surprisingly mature and professional feeling film: but one that still reeks of Tarantino.

SCORES:
Directing- 9/10
Writing- 8/10
Brad Pitt- 9/10
Chris Waltz- 10/10
Overall (not an average)- 9/10

District 9

District 9 is, in many ways, a very strong film. The debut feature for writer/director Neill Blomkamp starts with some very interesting ideas. The film's conceit is that Aliens have landed just outside Johannesburg, not on purpose, but out of some unknown necessity, and are now, essentially, refugees. In a day and age where it seems like 9 out of 10 films are adaptations or sequels, this fresh idea was interesting enough to pique my curiosity.

Setting the film in Johannesburg is also a very effective choice. It informs the style of the film very effectively, as many of the accents and characters, which are bright spots for the film, could only exist in Africa. I'd like to think that Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) placed it in South Africa to highlight some of the movie's more interesting points about intolerance and bigotry in humanity, but part of me thinks Blomkamp simply wanted to shoot a movie in his own hometown of Johannesburg. Still, whatever the reason, it's a strong choice and it gives the movie a decidedly unique flavor, which, paired with their interesting original 'alien refugee' concept, makes the movie feel new and groundbreaking.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the script, which in the end is disappointingly by-the-numbers hollywood. While the first half hour or so is pretty interesting, following Wikus Van De Merwe (played by South African newcomer Sharlto Copley, who is outstanding) as he heads up a attempt by MNU (an evil, blackwater-esque security company that runs the alien ghetto) to move all the Aliens to a 'camp' farther away from the city of Johannesburg (world war two parallels abound). This first bit is shot as a documentary, and Blomkamp does some great stuff, using the documentary style to build tension and imply disaster before anything ever happens. Up to this point, the film upheld it's promise of being something new and different.

However, as things (of course) begin to go wrong for Wikus, the edgy uniqueness of the movie begins to fade. Without spoiling it, the plot takes a few fairly typical action-movie turns, and from there on out, starts to become pretty formulaic. Rather then delving into the real meat of the film (human-alien relations, the politics of refugees), it devolves into yet another war movie, eschewing it's own most interesting ideas in favor of big budget explosions and tacked-on love stories.

Don't get the wrong idea, District 9 is a lot of fun. It will definitely keep your heart pounding as much as any other film I've ever seen (it's a thriller in the truest sense of the word), and has enough new ideas and locales that the film still feels fresh and different. And Sharlto Copley is truly excellent in the film, especially considering how much of his acting had to be done to invisible characters added later in CGI. But, as the film turned further and further away from it's fascinating beginning, I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed as a movie that began as so interesting became something so predictable. In the end, it's just another summer alien-blockbuster, albeit one based on some pretty interesting concepts.

SCORES:
Directing- 8/10
Writing- 6/10
Sharlto Copley- 9/10
Effects- 8/10
Overall (not an average): 7/10