As much as I hate Tarantino films, there's still a lot to say about his films and I think one of the reasons this is, is because his films are so praised and regarded much higher than I think they deserve. Thus is the reason his films can be written about so much, or have to be written about so much, because there has to be evidence and justification on why his films from a technical standpoint are trash. And, thus, why he is overrated.
One thing about Tarantino movies that I've come to expect: he will have a bunch of good acted scenes in the movie that will not add up to the whole of the film. These scenes will be well acted and for the most part visually appealing and competently directed. This movie is no different.
I also must say I haven't seen a Tarantino movie since the atrocious Kill Bill vol 1 which didn't even wet my appetite enough to see Kill Bill vol 2. How bad was part one? So bad I have no intention of seeing part two anytime soon, thus is the hatred for part one, which I sometime I might write about, but that's for another review. That being said this is the first time in a long time I've ventured into the world of Tarantino, since then I've seen and had my movie experience widened a lot.
First thing - the acting in this movie is reason alone to see it as everyone adds their brilliance to each scene there in. That is the one thing I can honestly say I like about Tarantino - he actually lets his actors act and doesn't overshadow them with flashy special effects, wild camera work, or crazy action scenes. He lets them act. I think this is one of the reasons so many actors come to the table when he makes a movie because they will get a chance to act. Christoph Waltz is by far the highlight of this movie. He chews his dialogue with aggression and passion as he switches from English, French, and German with an easiness that is scary. He is simply chilling in his role, as well as being mesmerizing and very hypnotic. Where he came from I don't know because it seems he came out of nowhere but when he landed he landed with a nuclear blast felt around the movie world. Every scene he is in is simply boiling over with tension and brilliance that is simply captivating. Another actor who is in one of the best scenes in the movie is Michael Fassbender - who also seemed to come out of no where and land with the same kind force as Waltz and who I must confess is the one reason I wanted to see this movie because everything I've seen him in from X-Men First Class, Shame, Hunger, Centurion, Prometheus, and Haywire has been simply amazing even if the movie wasn't that great (Haywire and Prometheus). His finest and final scene in Basterds is one for the ages. I just wish I could have had a scene with him and Waltz together, that would have been worth its weight in gold.
Tarantino knows how to build a scene with tension - witness "The Bull Jew" scene where the sound of the bat hitting the rock ricochets with force throughout the scene, building tension with each ping against the rock. Or the scenes with Waltz at the beginning of the movie and at the restaurant with the Jewish girl. Tarantino does tension with an uncanny ability as these scenes were filled to the brim with uneasiness on an almost Hitchockian level and then he pads the rest of the movie with so much pointlessness that it gets nauseating .
Now the one part of Tarantino that I don't understand. His ability to tell a story is simply on a level I don't understand and is confusing at best. I could write a thesis on how Kill Bill part 1 was one of the worst written revenge movies ever made and that would just be for starters.
Basterds only further convinces me that Tarantino likes scenes but not story telling or any structure to speak of. The main character of the movie is the Jewish girl whose family is murdered at the beginning of the movie, thus setting up the basically revenge plot of the movie. But as the movie gets into motion there's never any exploring of her character further than her family is murdered. That is her whole character in a nut shell. She has no character development beyond the revenge motive and thus is reduced to a two dimensional character that's really hard to root for because there's nothing that gives her substance. I know nothing about her but her motive of revenge. Compare this with the movie Ben-hur and the title character of that movie who we really get to know as the movie progresses as not just a revenge seeker but as a person: he likes horses and it good with horses and racing chariots, he comes from a rich family, is the head of household, has compassion when it would seem fit not have compassion, is in love with a servants daughter and this is just stuff from the top of my head at not having seen the movie in a long time. Not so with Basterds, revenge is the only motive of character, all else would bog things down. Even with the Basterds themselves there's no real three dimensional characters there's only cliches and stereotypes. They're nothing more than strange accents with minor gimmicks. But what more do know about them then they want to kill Nazis with a savagery that drives on the serial killer side? Nothing.
Now the big question. Who has character development and three dimensional structure in this film?
Two the Nazis, they are, honestly, two the characters I liked the best out of the movie and I had - more or less - sympathy for: Waltz's Natzi "Jew Hunter"and Daniel Bruhl's Fredrick Zoller, the hero sniper. I got to know their characters really well throughout the movie - and by the end of the movie I actually liked them and was somewhat rooting for them. In fact they are two of the most defined three dimensional characters in the movie. Even the Basterds I didn't like because I never got to know them beyond the fact they like to kill Natzis. This is all Tarantino's fault as a storyteller for not giving me something more to hang my hat on than: revenge for killing her parents and we just like to kill Nazis. It's pure laziness on his part.
This is just starting. The name of the movie is Inglorious Basterds, who don't even show up in the movie until about an hour into the story. And like I said above the main character of the movie is the Jewish girl from the first part of the movie. This wide jump in storytelling is pure insanity and makes no sense at all, and like I said above, it's pure laziness, but then I've come to expect nothing else at all from Tarantino because after all if you know anything about his history, he's studies some of the best movies Hollywood has had to offer.
It shows.
No comments:
Post a Comment