Director: Quentin Tarantino
Story: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger, Eli Roth, Mélanie Laurent
Time: 153 minutes
Bottom-line: Waltz’s performance shines out and also covers up the other defects.
This guy: Hey! I just saw Quentin Tarantino’s film, Inglourious Basterds. It made it into my top five films.
That guy: Really? I wouldn’t rate it so high.
This guy: Why? What is wrong with it?
That guy: Why don’t you start by telling why you liked the film?
This guy: OK. I liked the story. It is basically an alternative ending to World War 2. Colonel Hans Landa (Waltz) of the SS is known as the ‘Jew Hunter’, as he mercilessly roots out and murders all Jews in Nazi-occupied France. The scene shifts to somewhere in the US, where Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) prepares a group of eight Jewish-American soldiers, called the Basterds, for a mission in France. In a third track, Shosanna Dreyfuss (Laurent), whose family was murdered by Landa, has her own theatre. Shosanna is happy when the Germans decide to shift the venue of a premiere to her theatre, as her plan is to burn down the theatre when all the important Nazi officials view the cinema. Meanwhile, Raine’s troops team up with another secret agent cum actress, Bridget von Hammersmark (Kruger), and they also plan to place two suicide bombers in the theatre. But the wily and smart Landa figures that something doesn’t quite smell right. Does he root out the bombers? Does Shosanna’s plan work? The film tells the answers. Pretty good story right?
That guy: I agree. The story is good. But it is slow. The first twenty minutes or so, when Landa interrogates a French farmer, are filled only with dialogues. Few dialogues are useless, but the rest of the lines bring out the villainous nature of Landa. These scenes are OK, but as the film progresses, there are many useless scenes. The scenes when Raine’s troop meets Hammersmark last about 20 minutes, but they could have been easily reduced to no more than ten minutes. Similarly, when Zoller asks Goebbels to shift the venue, few dialogues would have been enough. The majority of the dialogues only add to the film’s total time.
This guy: Sure, few scenes could have been deleted. But what do you say about the acting of Waltz and Pitt? Waltz has acted exceptionally in the film, and Pitt has also done a good job. Waltz speaks four languages in the film: English, French, German and Italian! I don’t think anybody else could have played the role as well as he did.
That guy: Very true. Waltz’s acting is the standout of the film, even more than the story or the dialogues. He has to play a character who is cunning, clever and charming on the outside, but has a murderous and villainous nature on the inside. He was a good pick as his German accent adds to the authenticity of the role. Diane Kruger is also German, and hence she also fitted well into the role. Laurent is French, and so her role as that of a French woman (who doesn’t speak any English except for some 3-4 lines) is justified. Tarantino has done a good job in choosing a wide variety of actors, and not going by reputation. Pitt's acting is not great, but his dialogues and the way he says them are excellent.
This guy: There is not much violence, compared to Tarantino’s next film, Django Unchained. What do you think?
That guy: Well, you are right: this is certainly a less violent film than Django Unchained. This is actually good, in my opinion. In that film, Tarantino shows more of blood than anything else! Whereas here, instead of splattering the screen with lots of blood, Tarantino also builds the story quite well, until the ending. Statistics say that Tarantino began writing the script sometime in 1998, but he struggled with the ending. I don’t think what ever he did in the eleven years between 2009 and 1998 made any difference to the ending: it is still lame. I mean, until the last 20 minutes, everything goes so well: all three parallel tracks merging into one, and then, bam! Just like QT’s next film, the ending is just violent and abrupt. Tarantino builds the suspense well, but he doesn’t end it well.
This guy: So, what is your conclusion about Inglourious Basterds?
That guy: Well, long story short, if you are a Tarantino fan, go for it. The plus points are Waltz’s terrific acting, the storyline and few twists here and there. But, the film is extremely slow in some places, and there are few needless scenes and dialogues. Yet, this is a pretty good, enjoyable WWII thriller.
My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%
Story: Quentin TarantinoCast: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger, Eli Roth, Mélanie Laurent
Time: 153 minutes
Bottom-line: Waltz’s performance shines out and also covers up the other defects.
This guy: Hey! I just saw Quentin Tarantino’s film, Inglourious Basterds. It made it into my top five films.
That guy: Really? I wouldn’t rate it so high.
This guy: Why? What is wrong with it?
That guy: Why don’t you start by telling why you liked the film?
 |
| Brad Pitt as Lt. Raine |
 |
| Waltz as Hans Landa |
This guy: OK. I liked the story. It is basically an alternative ending to World War 2. Colonel Hans Landa (Waltz) of the SS is known as the ‘Jew Hunter’, as he mercilessly roots out and murders all Jews in Nazi-occupied France. The scene shifts to somewhere in the US, where Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) prepares a group of eight Jewish-American soldiers, called the Basterds, for a mission in France. In a third track, Shosanna Dreyfuss (Laurent), whose family was murdered by Landa, has her own theatre. Shosanna is happy when the Germans decide to shift the venue of a premiere to her theatre, as her plan is to burn down the theatre when all the important Nazi officials view the cinema. Meanwhile, Raine’s troops team up with another secret agent cum actress, Bridget von Hammersmark (Kruger), and they also plan to place two suicide bombers in the theatre. But the wily and smart Landa figures that something doesn’t quite smell right. Does he root out the bombers? Does Shosanna’s plan work? The film tells the answers. Pretty good story right?
 |
| Diane Kruger as von Hammersmark |
 |
| Melanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfuss |
That guy: I agree. The story is good. But it is slow. The first twenty minutes or so, when Landa interrogates a French farmer, are filled only with dialogues. Few dialogues are useless, but the rest of the lines bring out the villainous nature of Landa. These scenes are OK, but as the film progresses, there are many useless scenes. The scenes when Raine’s troop meets Hammersmark last about 20 minutes, but they could have been easily reduced to no more than ten minutes. Similarly, when Zoller asks Goebbels to shift the venue, few dialogues would have been enough. The majority of the dialogues only add to the film’s total time.
This guy: Sure, few scenes could have been deleted. But what do you say about the acting of Waltz and Pitt? Waltz has acted exceptionally in the film, and Pitt has also done a good job. Waltz speaks four languages in the film: English, French, German and Italian! I don’t think anybody else could have played the role as well as he did.
That guy: Very true. Waltz’s acting is the standout of the film, even more than the story or the dialogues. He has to play a character who is cunning, clever and charming on the outside, but has a murderous and villainous nature on the inside. He was a good pick as his German accent adds to the authenticity of the role. Diane Kruger is also German, and hence she also fitted well into the role. Laurent is French, and so her role as that of a French woman (who doesn’t speak any English except for some 3-4 lines) is justified. Tarantino has done a good job in choosing a wide variety of actors, and not going by reputation. Pitt's acting is not great, but his dialogues and the way he says them are excellent.
This guy: There is not much violence, compared to Tarantino’s next film, Django Unchained. What do you think?
That guy: Well, you are right: this is certainly a less violent film than Django Unchained. This is actually good, in my opinion. In that film, Tarantino shows more of blood than anything else! Whereas here, instead of splattering the screen with lots of blood, Tarantino also builds the story quite well, until the ending. Statistics say that Tarantino began writing the script sometime in 1998, but he struggled with the ending. I don’t think what ever he did in the eleven years between 2009 and 1998 made any difference to the ending: it is still lame. I mean, until the last 20 minutes, everything goes so well: all three parallel tracks merging into one, and then, bam! Just like QT’s next film, the ending is just violent and abrupt. Tarantino builds the suspense well, but he doesn’t end it well.
This guy: So, what is your conclusion about Inglourious Basterds?
That guy: Well, long story short, if you are a Tarantino fan, go for it. The plus points are Waltz’s terrific acting, the storyline and few twists here and there. But, the film is extremely slow in some places, and there are few needless scenes and dialogues. Yet, this is a pretty good, enjoyable WWII thriller.
My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%
No comments:
Post a Comment