Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Year: 2012 (UK Release 2013)
Director: Kathryn Bigelow 
Screenplay: Marc Boal
Starring: Jessica Chastain, Chris Pratt, Edgar Ramirez, James Gandolfini, Jason Clarke, Jennifer Ehle, Joel Edgerton, Kyle Chandler, Mark Strong

Synopsis is here

NOTE: I do not explicitly mention the finer details of the films plot and it's conclusion, the review does talk about the latter moments of the film.

A lot about how I feel about Zero Dark Thirty evolves around how I took it's final moments. Far from being the sensationalized climax that many would think, Zero Dark Thirty's muted raid and aftermath and near anguished final shot do not claim any relief in my eyes. Quite the opposite when placed in consideration of the two hours that came before it. We see a release of sorts but little comfort. Many will argue this point, but the power of Bigelow's film lies with the viewer themselves. The film is so matter of fact, that it takes the form of whomever the viewer is. For me, the film captures something that many wish to forget, that the search for Bin Laden and so called the war on terror may become one of the darkest moments in American History.

A precise and upfront procedural, Kathryn Bigelow's film is the perfect foil for her previous war film The Hurt Locker (2008). Whereas the drug of choice for Jeremy Renner's character was disarming bombs and the danger it entailed, here we follow Maya (played with an unwavering intensity by Jessica Chastain); a no nonsense CIA agent whom is attracted to little more than the task at hand. When asked what else she has done for the CIA in the decade long search for Bin Laden, her response is that she has nothing. Like a Michael Mann film, the job is everything to Maya. She is the "man who does work". It's clear that the act of water-boarding repulses her, but this is the job and morals only seem to get in the way. 

This is not me condoning what I saw. It's also not the film stating that such torture gains results (it doesn't, in fact it only leads to more dead ends). But the films matter-of-fact tone is what makes the film such a difficult watch. The events are taken as is and never glorified. Characters leave the work they do, to do something "normal". What does that suggest? To me it suggests that what they are doing is not working. Such scenes only highlight the ugliness and desperation that is running through the compound. 

The film is a fractured one, both in narrative and moral compass. Along with torturing and wiretaps,  we witness scenes in which Arabs can be brought off with fast cars for information (as long as nothing comes back to them), while true legitimate leads can be turned (or double bluffing) with dangerous results. Nothing is clear except Maya's assertiveness which never wavers over the films ten year time frame. Bigelow and Boal's film eschew more typical plotting, deciding more upon viewing the search as a series of vignettes. Bigelow punctuates some of episodes with amazingly terse set pieces with the tension cranked up to the hilt. By the time we get to the films 18 minute climax (which held a similar tone to Mann's final sequence in Miami Vice), we're primed. I may know the ending, but I found myself riveted at how the incident would occur.  This is where the films muted, realistic approach to proceedings is at its most effective, displaying the finalisation of the search, not as a victory but as an uneasy closure. 

Bringing us back to the films lingering final moments, where it all comes to a head for this character. After all the time we've spent with Maya, the choices she's made, and the effect her decisiveness has had on this situation, it is only now everything "comes together". While The Hurt Locker dealt with the "warriors", here we deal with the "planners". It's telling that Bigelow has found a female protagonist for this role. While similar to many of her previous leads, the simple choice of gender creates another dynamic. We notice how she's positioned in rooms, her relationships with others (including other women) and areas of her life that have been given up for the task at hand. Like The Hurt Locker, we now notice what the drug of war takes away. Bigelow has spent her career taking pieces of her characters souls with varying degrees of success. Here in Zero Dark Thirty we see Kathryn Bigelow at her best, taking away a part of human essence in one of the most intellectually taxing American films of the last decade. Expect no catharsis.

Review: Lincoln

Year: 2012 (UK Release 2013)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Screenplay: Tony Kushner

Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon Levitt, James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson and John Hawkes

Synopsis is here

With its 12 nominations hanging gracefully around its neck, I feel an unusual sense of entitlement to Lincoln, even if it's it's just my scatterbrained thoughts thinking it.  If Django Unchained; with its blaxploitation leanings and myth making fantasy  is the graphic novel of slavery, then Lincoln is the essay. Tarrantino may proclaim his filmmaking as non-political, but it's clear that he no fool. The sight of hip-hop's most enigmatic rebel, 2Pac (posthumously teaming up with James Brown no less) on the films soundtrack, and the near casting of one Will Smith may say different to a certain few. Lincoln on the other hand is not only about the 16th president of the United States but focuses on one of his biggest political achievements: The passing of the 13th amendment, and the abolishment of slavery.

Lee was quickly question about his view on the sandbox orgy of violence and revenge and yet no one appear to be as forthcoming to Lee's views on Spielberg's Lincoln. I feel it's safe to say that due to the two film-makers past, the desire for a heated reaction seems to be the purpose as opposed to any real conversation about the material at hand. Yet Spielberg has managed to place forth a film full of political posturing which asks for a certain amount of reverence about its subject and subtext with apparently little issue.

Django may not be a biting political critique on black slavery, but it's certainly more interested in race in the frame. Lincoln for all its congressional hearings and the like, spends what could be seen as a minimal time with black faces. Yes, the film is called Lincoln, and a powerful performance from Daniel Day-Lewis reminds us not only of the actor’s skill and talent, but the human touch that made the president the icon he became. Despite this we only gain three noteworthy moments of interaction with Afro-Americans. The first two are amongst the strongest scenes in the film, while the last (a climatic reveal) is awkward at best. The opening scene in which a young black solider ponders upon the future to Lincoln is a simple yet effective moment which boils down the very reason why the amendment should be passed. A later scene in which Lincoln and his now free house maid reflect on what lies ahead, also re-enforces such importance. These scenes; broad as they are hold the type of emotional weight that Spielberg is known for, making it a pity that through the more restrained eye of Lincoln such moments are few and far between.

That said, Spielberg does republican politics a better favour than Fox news, with many scenes deftly passing forth the massage that while democracy can be a dirty and difficult game, progression is not a dirty word. Lincoln is quick to alert that the tensions of old are not a thing of the past and the aggressive political standings seen right now, will only leave the country in more turmoil. Day-Lewis' performance drives home the human element that seems to be lacking with the politicians we see today. Others have been sniffy with Lincoln's grandfather-like meandering tales, yet without them the film would lose the humility we need to connect with him as a character. It also cuts through some of the pomp and bluster of some of the films dryer moments.

Daniel Day Lewis' performance is a striking one, yet it does little to elevate the weightless family side plot that runs alongside the politics. Supposed emotional scenes with Joseph Gordon Levitt and Sally Field are weak and do little to bring everything to the head. It's odd to see a Spielberg movie have such an awkward footing when it focuses on family aspects, yet this is a more restrained Spielberg feature which dances around some of his more typical sentiments with a certain shyness. Unlike many; I tend to warm to those moments usually due to the earnestness that they are approached with. In Lincoln however, it's just the facts with less of the blacks and of course the people have been quick to remark on the accuracy. 

Still; Spielberg (with Day Lewis in tow) manages to bring a board sense of decency and gravitas to many moments of the film.Also; while the film lacks a certain grace in it's closing segments (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter deals with the inevitable outcome with a little more subtly),  Spielberg still remains a man to go to for visual wit. The sight of James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson and John Hawkes blundering around the place like 18th century stooges is a winning one. As is Tommy Lee Jones who is bullish form. Such scenes do not outstay their welcome. 

Said moments however are diamonds in the rough of a film, that weaves in and out of important and impotence. Turgid family sequences clash with intriguing political discourse. Stand out displays, slap against struggling performances. Racial politics are the mainstay of the movie, yet the people don't seem to matter as much as the reasoning. Lincoln will serve history teachers well in the long run with its calm and sensible depiction. Django on the other hand, gives us a outlandish superhero amidst the cinematic landscape of comic book adaptations. The restraint and awards may do a lot of favours for Lincoln, yet when it comes to race in the frame Django's hip hop stylings may build a stronger connection over similar material.

Review: The Devil's Double

Year: 2011
Director: Lee Tamahori
Screenplay: Michael Thomas
Starring: Dominic Cooper, Ludivine Sagnier

Synopsis is here

The main hook of The Devils Double is almost too bizarre to be true but the more you put into consideration the type of tyrants that we follow in throughout the film, the more typical the idea seems. Members of Saddam's family having doubles for certain occasions? Why the hell not? You can't be everywhere at once. It's even more handy when you consider the the high risk of assassination.

Based on the true story of Latif Yahia, The Devil's Double is a mixture of psychotic prince and unfortunate pauper as Latif is forced against his will to become the double for Saddam's Son Uday. Both roles are played by Dominic Cooper (I have only seen him in this and as Tony Stark's Dad in Captain America) a la Parent Trap Trickery (possibly) and yet you will never gain a moments confusion. Latif is stoic, upstanding and decent (although weakly accented by Cooper), while Uday is the type of Satan's gremlin that resides in the campfire stories of lesser villains in the films more showy yet stronger role.

Images and ideas of duality are abound, but no one will be looking at this with the identity struggle that inflicted the likes of Bergman's Persona, as the film plays out more in of the style of "Scarface in Iraq". Uday's world is one of excess over decency. Tyranny roams the landscape and Latif unfortunately must live in it as his likeness has seemingly trapped him in a unique hurt locker. That is keeps his sanity so well is not only a slight weakness of the film. His common decency makes him sympathetic, but almost saintly in consideration. Latif only falls into temptation with the flat female fatale character Sarrab; played by Ludivine Sagnier, whose allure is clear from her sultry looks and curves in the right places. This element of the film is not only typical of the genre the film is rolling in but also the most transparent. Sagnier's Sarrab has little to do apart from get Latif hot under the collar and boy does she. When Sagnier is given more to do the audience will probably not be surprised by what happens. This could be said of most of the narrative which delves into scenes of gory violence, sexual depravity and excess that would make Tony Montana feel slightly enviousness.

However, the film never lets up in terms of entertainment. Much like the little seen The Lincoln Lawyer, The Devil's Double works because it's a straight up crime film. Lee Tamahori has stated that the film is not supposed to be a political statement into the Iraq war and the bunkum idea that the film should completely follow the tracks of the true story, makes sure that the film can concentrate in being an avalanche of excess and madness. Strangely in it's extremity the film help create a particular kind of insight.While everything may not happen as the film states, it highlights the decadence of the regime it follows. Nearly all of the craziness is compiled in Cooper's whiny, buck toothed, bug eyed performance of Uday, who is as vile as he is fascinating. The battle that Cooper manages to instigate with himself is itself the reason to watch this film. If not for journey man Tamahori's assured direction of both action and drama. Nasty images of the invisible car fade have been replaced for a particularly golden palette and neatly crafted set pieces.

The Devils Double has Dominic Cooper fighting himself in more ways than one but it's a shame that the film keeps the polar opposites exactly as they are and refuses to make them merge. It's the seductiveness of the dark side (no matter how chaotic) that is missing from what is an effective and stylish crime film.

Review: Essential Killing

Year: 2010 (UK Release 2011)
Director: Jerzy Skolimowski
Screenplay: Ewa Piaskowska, Jerzy Skolimowski
Starring: Vincent Gallo

The synopsis is here

Writer, Director, Painter, Musican and resident nutjob Vincent Gallo reminds me of Roman Polanski; in that despite some of his more bizarre actions (also includes hexing Roger Ebert and now no longer showing his films to a public audience), his talent is something I cannot ignore. As a writer/director his indie feature Buffalo 66 (1998) is one of the most alluring American independents of recent times. To me Gallo is that worst type of person in which his ego is only matched by his talent....and his ego is pretty huge.

Essential Killing has an extreme person like Gallo running through the wilds of an unnamed European country, trying desperately to escape his captors and survive the harsh terrain ahead of him. It's quite obvious with a little knowledge of the man and the way this film starts; with Gallo's character blowing three U.S soldiers sky high with a rocket launcher mounted on his shoulder, the man is clearly in his element.

Essential Killing is all about Gallos favourite subject, himself. This isn't a bad thing however because his prize winning performance is one of knife edge intensity. Gallo's sharp features and could-be-from-anywhere face only bolster his compelling (yet muted) display. I love watching acting like this as to me it truly becomes about the performance. The setting, the situation, the desperation and the unbridled need to continue on, is played out within the face and not with trite dialogue. It's great to cleanse the palate with a film like Essential Killing; as while the character is not complex in the slightest (the streamlined plot restricts this), the expressions speak volumes. It reminds me how often I'm trying to keep up with "lets do this to do that" strands of dialogue.

Jerzy Skolimowski complements Gallo's performance with crisp cinematography which highlights the unforgiving landscape as the bright blue skies of an unknown area of the middle east gave way to a vast blanketed winterland scenery of white. the only food appears to be bark and berries and almost any interaction with other people alludes to the films title, although the film isn't as gruesome as you would expect. Skolimowski's wisest decision is to keep the film as apolitical as he could. We merely observe an Arab insurgent trying to survive in alien surrounding and the lack of a agenda illustrates the fight or flee nature we are all hardwired into and yet take for granted.

The film does spill over into abstract weirdness at times, and we are given prolonged moose shots,  hallucinations of dogs (appearing almost like nightmarish echoes of Guantanamo) and at one point the lead character having to suckle a woman's breast at gunpoint for the milk that she was feeding her child. Despite this, the tale of extreme survival of this foreign "alien" in a no man's land (no real geography places us in the same disorientated state as the lead character) kept me at attention. The films foreshadowing brings forth a feel of doom (maybe) but at no point do we feel this man's tale is truly on tracks.

The films abrupt climax will madden some and attract others but in order to get the most out of it, and the film as a whole, one must remember the old cliché that it may not be about the destination but the journey. While I may revel in such commonplace writings, Essential Killing and Gallo's intense performance remind us that cliché is definitely not what the man's about.

Review: Battle: Los Angeles

Year: 2011
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Christopher Bertolini
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez

Synopsis is here:

One of the complaints I heard about Battle L.A over on the twitter was that the film is much like watching a video game. This is because the film appears to be structured exactly like one. Unlike other films I've mentioned with reference to video games (The Losers, Green Zone) this film seems to have completely lifted not only very typical cliche that comes with this type of affair, but also the plot from generic Playstation 1 game. I say Playstation 2 because owning both a PS3 and Xbox 360, I can almost safely state that even generic games on the current platforms are getting better with telling a basic story. I spent the last third of the film waiting for the film to hurry up and finish so I could go home and play Gears of War/Resistance/Killzone for the simple reason that would be far more entertaining.

Battle L.A believes that its cliche ridden narrative, infodump dialogue and stock characters are more than enough for the audience. Reason being that it's "visceral" camera work and action will distract everyone from the very fact that the script doesn't try hard. The problem is that director Jonathan Liebesman's action set pieces have no sense of place. Add this to the characters distinct lack of...well character; and you find yourself watching people you don't care about fighting/dying in a situation that you can't follow.

One of the more increasingly troubling elements with the modern action film isn't that they are nothing but explosion sequences (although this can be annoying), but that the actual footage within these scenes look as if it's been picked at random. It doesn't matter that you as a viewer have no idea whats going on because all you care about is explosions and gunfire. The reasoning behind this chaos is obviously to replicate the confusion and disorder of war. But even the video games that this film has nabbed from (check out all the down the sight shots for example) keep your character in view in order for you to remain in control. I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of realism (in a film about alien invasion for Christ sakes) as long as the film realizes that I am watching the people on screen.

Such disorganized action only makes the the opening introduction of identikit soldiers feel even more ridiculous. It's bad enough that the film wishes to labor these guys with flat one note characterizations (none of the so-called back stories mean anything in the long run anyway), it only makes things worse that after the initial first wave of alien attacks you don't know whose dead or alive anyway. None of the actors infuse these grunts with any personality (considering that one of them is played by Ne-yo what was I expecting?) and the closest thing to an actual character is Aaron Eckhart's Micheal Nantz. This is a wasted performance from a talent actor giving his all to something that doesn't deserve it.

In watching Battle L.A. I am reminded on why Aliens stands out heads and shoulders above other features in the genre. Despite being 25 years old, it's understanding of story, stakes, character and action should not be dismissed. Not only does Battle L.A. not understand such simple mechanics, it simply doesn't care. 

Review: Green Zone

Year; 2010
Director: Paul Greengrass
Screenplay: Brian Helgeland
Starring: Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Brendon Gleeson, Jason Issacs, Amy Ryan

Synopsis is here

Those who are adverse to the shaky cam techniques, that Paul Greengrass uses his two Bourne movies will do well to avoid Green Zone. The chaotic and sometimes madding use of this camera style is all over this film in droves and despite it giving us the immediacy and energy the green zone needs, the blurry out of focus shots and hyper editing is sometimes distracting and can lose the sense of place needed for the action set pieces to make a stronger impact.

However, Greengrass a director that can still manages to utilize this style and still bring about tension and advance a films plot. Case in point: In a pivotal scene between Millar (Matt Damon) and Briggs (Jason Issacs), Greengrass' roaming, almost rabid visual style almost blurs alot of the actual fight but the shot that most important to the narrative reminds in the viewers eye. There's method to the madness it seems.

Visual style aside, Greengrass as made a good solid action thriller with slight political asides. It has a complex but not complicated plot that had me gripped in it's quieter moments and while it may feel a bit too preachy and liberal for some, there's still enough in the story to make you stop and think. I will say however there maybe some out there who will watch Green Zone and feel that the film has told them nothing they don't already know.

What's most interesting about the film for me was it's presentation of it's characters within the films narrative, the antagonists in particular. Its villains are seeped in shades gray. Some motives are clearly underhanded but seemingly for the good of people while others obey orders from their bosses and do not question their higher ups. The crux of the film lies on information from a source who may or may not have been telling the truth, which once again begs the question: Were the Allied Forces far to willing to go to war? The film does well not to answer this fully but leave enough residue to the viewer into what they might think.

Strangely despite looking at the war from a different angle, I found it gels well with the addiction to aggression themes displayed in newly Oscar crowed The Hurt Locker, suggesting that no matter what war may be in our blood and despite our evolution we may just be finding civilized way to feed the primal. With this said Greengrass and screenwriter Brian Helgeland do well to make that despite the questions asked, the film keeps a good pace and remains enjoyable.

It helps when you place a top of his game Matt Damon and a handful of great character actors to head the cast of the film. Damon's character may feel like Jason Bourne with more memory and less martial arts, that everyman charm that was in said trilogy once again shines through in spades. Everyone else (Brendon Gleeson, Amy Ryan, Jason Issacs et all) put in some good work but for me the other stand out of note was Greg Kinnear who provides a Cater Burke feel when ever he's on screen, even when doing nothing....maybe that says more about how I feel about Greg Kinnear!

With both Green Zone, The Hurt Locker and many other films that have appeared in the last few years, it has shown that the war and it's issues have become more open topic to the world of film. As the war rages on it appears that filmmakers are beginning to create mature and yet entertaining works on a difficult subject. Green Zone may feel like Bourne meets Modern Warfare 2 but isn't afraid to ask questions either.

Review: Valkyrie

Year: 2009
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Christopher McQuarrie, Nathan Alexander
Starring: Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Eddie Izzard, Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson

I enjoyed Superman returns more than alot of people but hey I'm usually against the grain with things like that. But in all honestly, I was rather hoping that the Rumors I heard of Bryan Singer returning to redo X men 3 after the rather drab offering given to us by Brett Ratner. So imagine my surprise to discover that in a complete 180, Singer decides his next film is a historical thriller set in WW2?

For all it's controversy, Valkyrie manages to show that it's an adequate thriller, with enough scenes that rise it above made-for-TV level (Singer's visual storytelling still stands out). However it's bizarre lead casting and lack of conflict stands out terribly.

The film tells the tale of Claus Schenk Graf Von Stauffenberg (Cruise), a German Colonel who plotted (3 times) to kill Hitler and free Germany from his rule. Valkyrie concentrates on the final failed plot.

Although Singer's movie is one of his best looking (if not the best) of his filmography, it suffers from a dreadfully artificial tone that breaks up the films better moments. This may be of the "Titanic syndrome" that the film that the film unfortunately harbors. Due to the fact that I the viewer knows how the plot ends before even watching the film, the film needs a something else to keep me gripped.

The film however doesn't have too much in the way of a strong conflict (either internal or external) to help bolster the story in any way. Cruise's Stauffenberg is a man who know longer believes his leader can lead, however we don't look deep enough into the man's insight, I'd like to believe that there's more going on inside the head of the Colonel, but we never see it. Instead we get cumbersome metaphors to the films title (just happened to be listening to Wagner were we?). What appears to be missing for me is Singer's theme of identity and alienation that was so prominent throughout his movies. It's one of the reasons I enjoyed the aforementioned Superman is that Singer. But it's a theme that seems to be missing here. Stauffenberg appears far too confident for a man whose lost is faith and sense of self within Nazi Germany.

But alot of this stems from placing Maverick himself as the lead character in the film. Cruise, a favorite actor of mine, struggles in this role due to his star status. I can easily separate Cruise from his crazy religion and those who can't and hate his films because of it should slap themselves. However, in Valkyrie all I can see is Tom Cruise in an eyepatch. It's clear that Cruise wishes plays the role as a constantly calculating character, but from the awkward German monologue at the beginning of the film (he can't lose his U.S twang) to the clumsy shout for a free Germany at the films climax, it's clear that he hasn't got the range for this. It's a shame because for the most part I can watch him in many things.

Cruise is surrounded by top English talent, and of course we all know that if your English you must play a Nazi at some point in your lifetime as it's cinematic law. It's maybe because of such a law that many of them are coasting on autopilot. Don't get me wrong, it's not that they're bad, it's just that no one stands out, with the exception being the very reliable Bill Nighy.

Flaws aside the film is for the most part a formidable thriller. Singer keeps the pace in fifth gear and still manages to wring a lot of tension from material, especially in the second half when the pieces of the plot begin to come together before unraveling. It's probably a shame that I've watched Inglourious Basterds before this. Tarantino's WW2 fantasy had me more tightly wound in the fact chapter than the whole of Valkyrie, and QT's decision to make his war movie a fairy tale of sorts allows him freedom to roam across the whole of the landscape of the second world war. Allowing to change what he wants at will and bring about something a little different from the norm. Singer's dedication to the material is admirable, but routine. Die hards should get a kick out some this because the film stays true to it's roots, however for me, I would prefer investing in a documentary of Stauffenberg for more insight.

Note: Anyone whose seen this. I'm just wondering if I was the only person who found the score obtrusive?

Review: Inglourious Basterds

Year: 2009
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, Til Schweiger, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent

Don't tell any one but I liked, nay loved a movie. Yes, if your a regular reader of my poorly spelt, miserable reviews, you may see a distinct patten of apathy towards this years films. Once again we are given romantic comedies that abuse our ideals of actual romance, remakes and rehashes of slasher flicks that are still warm in their grave and a truck load of films that are only built around childhood nostalgia than any real form of creativity.

Then we get Quentin Tarantino a filmmaker whose ego is getting rapidly larger with every film that he directs (this is his 6th). A director who is equally despised as he is loved. A guy whose motormouth antics can have cinephiles whooping with joy or puking up bile. He is all these things but most of all he's a lover of cinema.

Hyperbole? Yes perhaps, but it's the best way to explain his new film. A film which clearly shows a filmmaker in love with what he does. I love films like this because when the directors having a blast then usually so am I and with Inglourious Basterds I was having the best time I've had in a cinema this year.

Sometimes it takes me a bit of time for me to be armoured with a film, Inglourious Basterds got me from the first beautiful shot. Riffing from the great westerns (Once upon a time in the west, The Searchers) Tarantino opens his film with a sequence filled to the brim with pent up tension. It is here we are introduced to two characters that will quickly be entered as favorites in the QT universe. The delectably devilish Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and the real protagonist of the film(yet the marketing says Brad Pitt), the beautiful Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent).

The scene is a brilliant mixture of discomfort and black humor as Hans "The Jew hunter" Landa interrogates a french framer who is hiding a jewish family (including Shosanna) somewhere in the house. I won't say too much as not to spoil it but it is an amazing scene, shot beautifully and setting up the pace and tone of the rest of the film perfectly. The folly of Tarantino's Deathproof is gone, this is a far more focused affair.

Broken down into 5 chapters, IB reminds me of a graphic novel. Like Watchmen, the film is set in an alternative timeline to what you and me would consider fact. This allows Tarantino to liberally play with historical events at his will. "This is not your Daddy's World War 2 film" states the director and he's not wrong here. Not content with distorting history, Tarantino uses his various trademarks (particularly in his writing) to change the audience's perspective on storytelling. Syd Field can fuck off, because the three act structure is thrown out the window. Characters come and go at will and the film comes together more like novel than a traditional movie. It's a bold move, but one that works as we then spend the right time with all these characters and I was left craving more.

With this however the story (weighing in at almost 3 hours) is quite light on plot, but unlike other films which can't justify such a long running time but have one anyway, Inglourious Basterds is never boring. The trailers make out that the film is an all out action movie, but it's not. It's very talkative, however, Tarantino's love for language and ear for dialogue is back to it's best so all the words are so delectable (and superbly lyrical) that it kept me enthralled throughout. The characters and dialogue distracted me (in a good way) from how basic the plot actually is. But lets not get it twisted, because Tarantino's direction of the story is brilliant, so even though it's not the most complex narrative ever written, the film is still unpredictable till the very end.

Speaking of direction, this is some of the man's best work, as it's unbelievably stunning visually. Many (including me) talk about the man's screenwriting constantly but here we are given an unbelievably mature (at times, he still loves being playful with the camera) visual style. As the language jumps from German, to English, to French to Italian (lol you'll see), the look of the film slips from epic to intimate to claustrophobic seamlessly with some to the shots, the best that the man has ever filmed.

Marketing has fucked up (again) and portrayed the film as not only an all out action epic but as a Brad Pitt movie. Here's the thing, it's a ensemble piece of the truest word. Everyone has their moment and all the performances are fun too watch. Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz are fantastic and I will not be surprised if we start seeing them in more American Movies. Waltz turns Hans Landa into one of QT's most memorable antagonists yet. Laurent's display is one of film noir cool and restraint emotions. She's strong, independent and clearly not the sort female character you'd see in your usual mainstream American movie.

The Basterd's themselves will be a mixed bag to most I feel. Eli Roth is clearly not an actor, but I enjoyed his OTT all American joe thing that he did. Til Schweiger is all scowls and sneers (it's great fun) while the twisted popeye-esque face of Brad Pitt is one note but hilarious throughout. Pitt's accent and performance fits Tarantino's dialogue perfectly and his (limited) screen time makes sure that you don't get sick of him too easily (there will be people who will hate him as well as Roth.)

Delibraly paced, visually striking and of course very witty, Inglourous Basterds is one of my favorite films of the year. I didn't expect it to be. After Deathproof I was worried that this would be equally as frustrating. However IB reminds me of the more assured writing and direction that was seen in Jackie Brown than in the horrid overt self-indulgence shown in Deathproof. Those who dislike QT need not apply as the film will say nothing new to you, but those seeking something a little bizarre but extremely entertaining and can't see Moon anywhere should try to check this out.

Listen to the podcast here