Saturday, August 29, 2009

Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

In the genre of exploitation films, there are numerous sub-genres. The blaxploitation film, rape-revenge, splatter, sleaze...the different types seem almost endless. But one that hasn't been explored yet is the World War II exploitation film*.


That has changed. In Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds we have been given our first exploitation film covering WW2. And it kicks ass.


The multi-pronged story should be familiar to most of you by now. A unit of Jewish-American soldiers, led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), are air-dropped into Occupied France to terrorize the Germans. They take scalps and bash in heads, the bashing courtesy of "The Bear Jew", Sergeant Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) and his bat. They even have a German soldier who murdered Gestapo officers (Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) in their band. At the same time, a cinema owner in Paris who happens to be a Jew using a false identity is forced to host a German film premiere attended by the Nazi heirarchy, which is targeted by an Allied OSS operation. And tying all these different stories together is SS Colonel Hans Landa, "The Jew Hunter", played by Christoph Waltz.


The title may say "Inglourious Basterds", but the story is Landa's. He ties it all together. Nothing in the story would happen (except for one scene) without his involvement. And Waltz plays him to perfection. He is smooth, polite, intelligent and deadly. The opening scene where a Jewish family hiding under the floorboards in a French farmhouse are discovered and killed by Landa's unit is some of the best film-making you will ever see. Landa is exceedingly polite to the French farmer, but you know from the first how dangerous Landa is. From beginning to end, no other character grabs your attention on the screen like Landa. Waltz is all but assured a Best Supporting Actor nod and in a perfect world, he'll take that Oscar. Actually, in a perfect world (as noted by CHUD reviewer Devin Faraci), Waltz would get a Best Actor nod. That is how good Waltz is in Inglourious Basterds.


The sole survivor of the Jewish family massacred in the opening scene is Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), who becomes the aforementioned cinema owner. She is the second most important character to this film. Dreyfus puts the climactic scene into action, an act of Jewish revenge upon the Nazi elite that is stunning and beautifully shot. But it begins to make you wonder why Tarantino named this film Inglourious Basterds when they are, in many ways, tangential at best to the unfolding story.


This isn't to degrade their performances. Pitt chews a bit of scenery as Raine but is a very enjoyable character, one that reminded more than a little of Lee Marvin's Major Reisman in The Dirty Dozen. Roth is obviously enjoying his role as Donowitz, even as he mangles a Boston accent**. And Schweiger's Stiglitz is memorable in the short time we get to know him. But by and large, the Basterds are mostly ciphers who appear only a few times before the film's conclusion.


And while Tarantino plays it straight for the most part, there are moments that sort of stick out. The British OSS scene is pretty camp, with the British officers (Michael Fassbender and Mike Myers) really playing the effete, snobbish stereotype to the hilt***. While the two scenes with a narrator (Samuel L. Jackson) are okay and are very much in Tarantino's style, they don't exactly fit in with the film he has created here.


But those are very small points against what is a great film. The dialogue is sharp and enjoyable, a contrast to the overly-wordy Death Proof. The memorable scenes are numerous (the two that stand out for me are the opening scene in the farmhouse and the climax in the theatre). And there are the moments of violence that every war film needs. And they aren't there simply to be there; every act of violence has a reason for coming into existence. This film is one of Tarantino's best, and one of the best so far in 2009.


Personally, I enjoyed all the nods to German cinema in this period. The mention of Leni Riefenstahl and the Pitz Palu. The appearance of Emil Jannings, one of the great actors of the 20s and 30s (and Nazi sympathizer to his lasting damnation). And the "film within the film" Nation's Pride (directed by Roth) looks like the kind of film Goebbels was funding at that time****.


There is some criticism that must be addressed. Some people are slagging Inglourious Basterds for ignoring the Holocaust, or for turning Jews into Nazis. All you can say in response is that...you missed the point. This is an exploitation revenge flick, not a serious look back at World War Two. Tarantino isn't making the next Downfall or Defiance here. Who in their right mind thinks that Tarantino is going to make a meaningful film about World War Two? Are these critics familiar with his work?


Inglourious Basterds gets a 9.7 out of 10 from me. Just a fantastic film all the way around. It's just over 2.5 hours and hardly drags at all. And Christoph Waltz is just amazing as Hans Landa. For that performance alone you should see this film as soon as you can.


--------------------


* This is different as opposed to Nazi exploitation flicks. No one would call Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS or One by One a WW2 exploitation flick. Or if they did, they'd be wrong.


** Which is amazing considering Roth grew up in Newton, MA. Still, it's better than those "Pahk the cah" jokes that are nothing like a real Boston accent.


*** That said, the scene with Fassbender in the tavern basement is off-the-charts great, in part because of the very "Britishness" of his character.


**** As a complete aside, there is a quick scene in the film that show Goebbels having sex with his female French translator. This is actually a very accurate depiction of Goebbels. The man was a serial adulterer and earned a rep for trying to get actresses on the casting couch, so to speak.

Read More......

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

100 Films That Should Be Watched At Least Once

This is actually an idea a friend of mine had (thanks, Kevin). The idea is that these films are NOT the blockbusters or the ones that everyone knows (or should know) you should watch. These are the films you should see at least once because they are damn good films. They could be damn good for a variety of reasons, but they are all top notch. Oh, and they are in no particular order. So, off we go!

1. The Incredibles

2. The Iron Giant

3. The Limey

4. Tae Guk Gi

5. Der Untergang (Downfall)

6. Ivan's Childhood

7. On the Beach

8. Time Bandits

9. Shawn of the Dead

10. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia

11. Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid

12. Mister Roberts

13. The Untouchables

14. Dark City

15. Delicatessen

16. Witness for the Prosecution

17. M

18. The Last Command

19. The Blue Angel

20. Morocco



21. Grave of the Fireflies (Hotaru no haka)

22. The Burmese Harp (Biruma no tategoto)

23. Kagemusha

24. Kelly's Heroes

25. Unforgiven

26. L.A. Story

27. Army of Darkness

28. Evil Dead 2

29. Duck, You Sucker

30. So I Married an Axe Murderer

31. Blackboard Jungle

32. Fail-Safe

33. Amelie

34. Betty Blue

35. Harper

36. The Shootist

37. Monument Ave.

38. Key Largo

39. 28 Days Later

40. Children of Men

41. Bird

42. The Dawn Patrol

43. Breaker Morant

44. The Thing (1982)

45. Kronos

46. Kung Fu Hustle

47. Hero

48. The Warrior (Musa)

49. The Fifth Element

50. Galaxy Quest

51. Midnight Run

52. Mean Streets

53. Seven Days in May

54. So Ends Our Night

55. The Best Years of Our Lives

56. Gallipoli

57. The Asphalt Jungle

58. Jeremiah Johnson

59. Lost in Translation

60. The Lion in Winter

61. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

62. The Man Who Would Be King

63. Waterloo

64. Assault on Precinct 13

65. Suspiria

66. Soldier of Orange

67. Excalibur

68. Manhunter

69. To Live and Die in L.A.

70. The Color of Money

71. Eight Men Out

72. Coming to America

73. Sleuth

74. Ed Wood

75. Thank You For Smoking

76. Michael Collins

77. Howl's Moving Castle

78. Miller's Crossing

79. High Fidelity

80. The Full Monty

81. The Player

82. The Boxer

83. The Onion Field

84. Salvador

85. The Killing Fields

86. The Conversation

87. Under Fire

88. Thief

89. Rollerball

90. The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming

91. Gattaca

92. The Naked Spur

93. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

94. Captain Blood

95. Ivanhoe

96. Yankee Doodle Dandy

97. Duel

98. Parenthood

99. Cry Freedom

100. A Fish Called Wanda

Read More......

Thursday, June 18, 2009

It's All About The Timing

Michael Bay feels that he has done as much with Giant, Exploding Robots!!! as one man can do with Giant, Exploding Robots!!! It's the end of an era.


Michael Bay has made his last Transformers movie - the director is set to quit the action franchise because he has "had enough" of making big budget blockbusters.


...


Bay, who is known for his explosive action sequences, is sick of receiving negative reviews from critics who dislike his movie-making style and is determined to move away from the genre.


One film too late, Michael...one film too late.


But the most interesting part is the last line, a quote from Bay: "I need to do something totally divergent, something without any explosions."


When has Michael Bay ever done anything that didn't involve an explosion? Bay has directed eight movies between 1995 and 2009, all of which were explosion-laden. Even The Island gets its explosion freak on. The thing is, I hope he is serious. I hope he goes in a totally different direction, because I really think Bay could do some fun, non-explosion stuff.


Two of the funniest commercials I have seen involved Bay in some fashion. The obvious one was his Verizon ad where he calls everything "awesome" and pokes fun at himself while blowing crap up. The other one he directed; the "got milk?" ad where the history nut wants to call in and answer the trivia question with "Aaron Burr" but can't because he ate a cookie and has no milk. That is some funny stuff and Bay is responsible for it.


So here's a director, a talented director (and he is) who wants to get away from the mega-explosions and do something different. A Michael Bay comedy, perhaps? I have only one word to say to that.


Awesome.

Read More......

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Farewell, Grasshopper

Sad news today as David Carradine was found dead of an apparent suicide in Bangkok, Thailand at the age of 72.


If you are a youngster who came of age in the 90s, then you likely knew Carradine through the "Kill Bill" films where he, of course, played Bill. If you are my age and grew up in the 70s and 80s, though, Carradine will always be Kwai Chang Caine first in your heart. His role as Caine in Kung Fu will always be the image of Carradine that I see first in my mind.


Carradine had an extensive career with over 200 roles played between television and films. His most notable role was playing Arlo Guthrie in Bound for Glory but he also was excellent in Walter Hill's The Long Riders as Cole Younger and as Shepard in Q. But he would star in most anything. Some of my cult favorites with Carradine are The Misfit Brigade, Kill Zone and the awfully-awesome Future Force. John Tucker f-ing rules!


There wasn't another actor quite like Carradine, on or off the screen. One of the last times I saw him mentioned in print was thanks to an absolutely insane screening of Bound for Glory in Los Angeles that had Carradine as part of the panel. To say it got bizarre, insane and completely nuts is an understatement. Read about it for yourself, but here's a taste:


Then the subject of unions arises... and everything goes gonzo, never to return. Carradine says that these are different times from the 1930s and unions no longer serve the purpose they once did, or words to that effect. Almost immediately, as if coiled and ready to spring, a woman in the back starts shrieking that nothing about unions' importance has changed. Carradine reiterates his position. Cox, who has barely said a word up until now, starts shaking his head and mutters, "That doesn't sound like Woody Guthrie to me!" The woman I'll call Union Lady starts marching down the aisle, and now Carradine is shouting back, which might be okay if he wasn't yelling right into the microphone, which does not sound pretty. For about two minutes both of them are going at it at once, and she's the more obnoxious one. But because Carradine's mike makes him five times as loud, he's coming off as the bully. Some audience members are telling Union Lady to shut up; some angrily holler "Let her speak!" Two guys in my vicinity start shouting "Let's hear from Haskell Wexler!" About a dozen people get up and walk out in the midst of this -- one of them, almost unnoticed, being Ronny Cox, who manages to effect the smoothest getaway of all time.

Trust me, the whole read is worth it.


We'll miss you, Carradine. Your death is a hole in the fabric of the country that will never be filled.

Read More......

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Well...This Sucks

Have you ever had one of those days where it starts off by life kicking you square in the balls*? Well, reading something like this to start the day is like getting a sledgehammer shot. Take it away, Devin...


Sometimes I think Tom Rothman is just fucking with us. Like he's just the world's biggest griefer, successfully trolling millions of nerds. I mean, how else can you explain the fact that 20th Century Fox is looking to remake Alien?


That's if Bloody Disgusting's source is correct. According to their source Fox is moving ahead with a remake of one of the most classic horror films of all time, and Ridley Scott is on board as a producer. I have some sources I can check with about this in the morning - not because I want to debunk BD but because I just don't want this to be true.



Fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK! Or, as Devin says later, "Fucking Fox."


How can they even consider something like this? Alien is in the National Film Registry. It is the pinnacle of horror/sci-fi. The only movie that equals it in that sub-genre is The Thing and, oh yeah, Universal is fucking around with that as well.


There is no way that a remake would ever equal the original. And what exactly would a remake bring to the table? Better ship effects? The Nostromo was a fucking space tow truck! There is nothing glitzy about it! It's supposed to be a dark, dirty film. And dark and dirty in 1979 is the same as dark and dirty today. And there is no one, no one who can hold a candle to Weaver as Ripley.


A pox on anyone who would star in this. And a double pox on Tom Rothman, who should be dangled by his ankles into a vat of steaming dog excrement at the earliest opportunity.



--------------



* Ladies, substitute your worst non-pregnancy pain here.


Read More......

Friday, May 22, 2009

Review: Terminator Salvation (2009)

Note: I have tried to make this as spoiler-free as possible. But a couple of minor ones may crop up here and there. If you want a truly pristine viewing experience...you've been warned.


I saw the original Terminator when I was 13. I was too young to see in in the theater in 1984 when it was released (thanks, Mom...) but I begged my dad into letting me rent it on VHS the next year. It totally mesmerized me and is still one of my favorite movies of all time. T2 was a worthy successor, if a little more reliant on action than plot or writing. T3...the ending was really good. Other than that, I could have done without ever seeing it. And I would wager many people have had the same experience, which is why so much buzz has surrounded this movie.


What amazes me is the wide range of reviews for Terminator Salvation (TS), the fourth in the series and a reboot of sorts at the same time. Some people have loved it, some have hated it with a passion (see Harry Knowles' borderline hysterical rant at AICN). So I went into the theater last night not knowing exactly what to expect. Would it be a worth addition to the canon, or would I feel it crapped all over my childhood like The Phantom Menace?


Now, with some time to reflect, I think that TS is not a bad movie. In some ways, it's pretty damn good. But it also could have been a lot better and really missed the boat for how to go forward in the series.


Let's start with the good stuff. Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is a great character. I don't think that his background and secret in this movie are exactly a secret anymore. Worthington plays the reveal about Wright's past (and what has happened to him) really well. He's a character you grow to like over the course of the film and root for. He has one moment when he is trying to enter Skynet Central that breaks his heart and all this emotion plays just across his eyes. It's a great beat that can easily be missed.


Then there is Anton Yelchin, who plays the young Kyle Reese. This was the performance of the film for me. If you think back to the original film and Michael Beihn's Reese, the similarities between the two is rather remarkable. Reese is the tragic figure throughout the entire series; he grows up in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, gets sent back in time to protect John Connor, gets laid once and creates John Connor, and then is killed by a Terminator. That, my friends, is the definition of a brutal life.


But Yelchin's Reese has only a bit of that grimness. He's had a tough life but still has a case of hero-worship for John Connor. He wants that jacket that proves he's part of the Resistance. He wants to earn his stripes. The scenes with Reese and Wright attempting to evade the various robotic hunters (more on that in a second) are great. If there was one giant drawback to his role, it's that McG put him (literally) in a box for the final third of the movie. Which is indicative of a larger problem I will address in a moment.


Moon Bloodgood does a nice job with the limited time she has on screen. As Blair Williams, an A-10 pilot who gets shot down and hooks up with Marcus as they travel back to the Resistance base, she plays a pivotal role in how she reacts to Wright when his secret is discovered. It may be a "duh!" moment for a lot of people, but it's an important moment thematically. And she also has an important role because it gives us a brief glimpse of the extra hell it must be to be a woman in this post-apocalypse world. Of course, she's also a woman who can knock a rapist the hell out. But she also gets short shrift over the final third of the film.


That's about it as far as the good performances go, and yes, I left Bale out on purpose.


Bale's John Connor is a one-note, one emotion character. It's all about finding Kyle Reese and the emotion is pained/angry. That is how Bale plays Connor across the whole film. Now, that isn't necessarily bad if you show something else about him. Hell, if I knew Reese was my future (past?) father I'd be breaking my back trying to find him as well. And I sure wouldn't be happy about killer robots destroying the world. But McG and Bale don't add any more depth to Connor. And so while you appreciate the necessity of Connor in this movie, you aren't exactly revved up when he makes an appearance.


Then you have Bryce Dallas Howard, Common and Jadagrace, who play Kate Connor, Barnes and Star. Three useless characters who add nothing to the film. Especially Star, who is such a blatant ripoff of the Newt character in Aliens (she's mute too!) that you want to punch McG in the throat. These three are given little if anything to do, and what they do is superfluous to the story or could have been done by anyone else.


Now to the special effects and the scenery and the set-pieces...wow. This is where TS knocks the ball out of the damn park. The battle scenes are jaw-dropping. From the first one (a raid on a Skynet facility that goes horribly wrong) you believe in this irradiated hell of a world. There's a set-piece where Reese, Star and Wright are hunted down by this multi-story Terminator that looks like it runs on coal or steam but has a pulse cannon on its shoulder. Oh, and it shoots motorcycle Terminators out of its shins. All these outdoor battles are shot with a washed-out, almost black-and-white look that really emphasizes how damaged the world has become. The various terminators are all unique and look real. Even the final battle at Skynet Central is kickass visually. The scenes are varied and creative (tow trucks can get the job done in 2018). There really isn't anything involving how the film looks that you can object about.


The plot and writing...


Look, for as much as I love Terminator and the whole concept/world...this has never been an "intelligent" sci-fi franchise. They've been violating the laws of time travel since the first film and then violating their own rules they made up for it. There are so many paradoxes and loops that this whole world would've collapsed upon itself by the time a metal Terminator came back in T2.


So for these films to succeed, they have to transcend their own limitations in logic and tell a damn good story and use an emotional hook. The original (which I reviewed for my 100 Best Sci-Fi Movies section) was a fantastic three-person story that was about the salvation of the human race. The second had the old "machine becomes human" hook which buttressed great visuals. The third film largely failed until the end when the inevitability of the world's destruction was realized and the weight of survival fell on a young John Connor's shoulders.


This film should have been about what it means to be human. It touches on it with Marcus Wright. But Kyle Reese could speak to the wellspring of human resilience as he lives a fated life that tries to beat him down and can't. Blair Williams' scenes with Wright speak directly to the idea that humanity transcends simple blood and tissue, and her ability to realize that gives the Resistance a chance to defeat Skynet. This film should have also set up Kyle Reese to be the centerpiece of the new trilogy. He carries more weight than anyone, including Connor. It's because of him that any of this is possible. And for the first 2/3 of the film, McG seems to have been doing just that.


Then it all falls apart at the end. Reese gets shut in a box, Williams disappears and Wright gets a couple of moments (one being nullified thanks to some heavy-handed exposition by Skynet). What we get mostly is John Connor hunting for Reese and fighting a T-800 that looks like Arnie (admittedly a very cool moment) and the most ridiculous revival/wounding/surgery ending ever seen. I'll just say this; it strains every bit of credulity for me to believe that Kate Connor can successfully perform a heart transplant in an open-air field hospital in the middle of nowhere. I don't care if its 2018 or 2318, that's just ridiculous.


Connor cannot be the centerpiece of this trilogy. And yet that is where McG seems intent on taking us. Connor needed to play a role in the first film, to put events in motion and to drive the plot that sets up this new world. But he is useless as the main character in any other film. There is no growth to his character, no depth beyond where he is right now. With the focus on Connor, the other films are pre-ordained to become little more than Michael Bay-esque wankery where all that matters is how big something blows up. The biggest mistake McG ever made was letting Bale play Connor instead of Marcus*. His star power and salary costs will force the focus to be on Connor when it should be on Reese.


The writing is the weakest part of the film, and it speaks to the actors that they rise above it to a large degree. Not only is some of the dialogue wooden (how Bloodgood got her "beating heart" line out without laughing at it speaks volumes to her dedication to acting), but characters are left by the wayside at random and logic holes are common and huge. I'm not even talking about time travel here, since that hasn't occurred yet (for them, anyway).


John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris wrote Skynet to be as intelligent as my old Commodore 64. This all-powerful computer has John Connor in its sights. And rather than just flood a floor of its building with super-heated steam, poison gas or even just blow up part of itself to kill Connor, it goes through an elaborate charade to unleash an Arnie terminator on him. It's like Skynet is a Bond villain, and not even a good one like Bloefeld. And then there is Skynet's occasional knowledge of Reese, which is baffling because Skynet should have no idea about who Reese is to Connor or why a T-800 would un-nerve Connor. And sometimes the script realizes that. And then sometimes it doesn't, such as when the robots use Reese as bait to lure Connor into Skynet Central. At this point, only two people know who Reese will become; John and Kate Connor. No one else, including Skynet, should have that knowledge. Hell, in the original they use the time-travel tech to go back and kill Sarah Connor, which tells me that Skynet should never have a damn clue as to who Kyle Reese really is. And yet you have Terminator after Terminator scanning him and using him as bait. It makes no freaking sense at all.


And there is too much exposition. They have a clever idea in the script that seems like a boon for the Resistance but results in the destruction of the Resistance command. And just as Skynet's plan (as brilliant as their pursuit of Connor is idiotic) comes to fruition, we are treated to a 15-second piece where one of the commanders explains for us what we are already watching happen. You'd have to be a dumb as a post to not know what was unfolding, yet Brancato and Ferris felt the need to tell us anyway. And then there is Skynet's lengthy history recitation with Marcus when, once again, we already know what happened. Exposition is bad enough when something isn't shown. It's 100-times worse when something is shown to us and yet the writers insist on telling us about it anyway. It shows a level of contempt for the viewer. To which I reply, "Hey, I'm not the idiot who wrote Catwoman, am I?"


Take all of the above together and what you have in Terminator Salvation is a damn good stand-alone action flick. The problem is that it is the first part of a trilogy, and McG has basically cut his own legs out from under him going forward. The last third of the film made clear that John Connor will be the focus of the trilogy and he simply isn't a deep enough character to pull that off. His story has no arc at this point. And neither will the franchise. That said, I enjoyed this movie for the most part. The world is believable, the visuals are stunning, the battles are intense and the Terminators are varied and creative. Throw in a trio of good actors making a weak script almost believable and you want to forgive McG for his baffling choices over the last third of the film. You don't, but you want to.


I'm giving Terminator Salvation a 7.9 out of 10. What I fear most is that this is the highest score any film of the trilogy will receive. It is so hard to make a strong second film even when you have great material because it's a bridge between inception and conclusion. For every Empire Strikes Back you get a dozen M:I-2s. I don't see McG making the former.


-----------------------


* Bale as Marcus would have established him as the main character in this movie, which would have been an infinitely better choice. The original ending could have resolved this problem as well going forward. McG should have had the balls and foresight to stick to the plan. Imagine if Cameron had given in back in 1984 and let Arnie play Reese...


Read More......

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Verbinski Upgrades

This is a much better choice for his next film.


It's no longer a pirate's life for Gore Verbinski.


After spending the better part of the last six years directing the "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy, which grossed $2.6 billion worldwide, Verbinski has informed Disney and producer Jerry Bruckheimer that he will not helm a fourth installment that's expected to set sail in 2010 with Johnny Depp back as Captain Jack Sparrow.


Sequel is in development but not yet greenlit. It's unknown how Verbinski's ankling will affect the pic's schedule.


Verbinski will instead focus on other projects that include "Bioshock," a Universal Pictures adaptation of the bestselling vidgame that has a John Logan script and is likely to be Verbinski's next film as a director.


If you are not familiar with the game, Bioshock is, in many ways, a work of art in first-shooter form. It has a deep storyline that delves into Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism among other things. It's a fantastic game and begs to become a feature film. Verbinski and Logan would have to work at screwing up this film to not have it work.


And Pirates...after At World's End, didn't everyone feel the string was played out on this series? Where's the justification for a fourth film beyond greed? Films made for that reason tend to not work out too well. Nevertheless, although the quality will suck I am sure enough people will turn out to make it all worthwhile for Depp to revisit the role of Jack Sparrow one more time.

Read More......