I just Netflix'd Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, and unfortunately for me, I had heard great things about this movie. I don't like hearing good things about movies that I want to be good because then the expectations are high, and chances are that the movie will not be able to live up to what it's been built up to be.
Did the Basterds live up to what I was expecting?
Yes and no. I had heard a few different things regarding the movie, which gave me some preconceptions of the movie.
1. The acting was phenomenal.
2. It was a great movie.
3. "Hans" was excellent and probably should win the Oscar based on the opening scene alone.
4. Brad Pitt wasn't in the movie that much, even though it appears as though he's the main character from trailers.
5. Great story, great script, and great writing.
Was the acting phenomenal, really? Absolutely. I think that was the easily the best part of the movie. The worst actor, and probably intended to be, was Brad Pitt. His character is described as being a hillbilly, but for me his presence, became distracting more and more as the movie went on (PS, he was in the movie much more than I was led to believe, or at least assumed for him to be upon hearing comment #4). "Hans" was the best character in the movie, and yes, the opening scene is one of the best scenes of the movie. "Hans", who actually has a real name (it's Christoph Waltz), really makes the movie.
Top to bottom, the cast of the movie is excellent. I would categorize it as an ensemble, and each actor plays their role perfectly. My problems with Basterds don't come until the middle of the movie. Tarantino movie's usually grip me from the beginning, even if I don't know exactly why I'm watching for a little while, and this movie was no different. One scene in the middle, which plays a huge role in the results of the movie and story, just seemed too impossible to believe. SPOILER ALERT: [There is a bar fight, and the protagonist-Basterds leave the bar as is. One would assume that to infiltrate Nazi occupied France undetected and operate without unwanted confrontation, there would be stealthy operations that took place. CLEANING A "BAR FIGHT" WOULD HAVE TOTALLY BEEN SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE. Period. At least burn the place, right?] I tried not to spoil much, but if you read that before you see the movie, you'll definitely have something spoiled. Anyway, those events spring into action a number of other events that effect the outcome of the movie, and it started in such an unbelievable way. After I see the movie a few more times I will be able to get over this, but this still bothers me.
Speaking in cinematic terms, the camera work is really on point. There are a few points in the movie that really stand out as having a masterful execution of the cinematography. Here is:
1. Beginning of the movie: In the house, with the pipes. THAT'S ALL I'LL TELL YOU.
2. Bar Scene: Someone there that shouldn't be. Great panning action, and a reveal. Really great.
3. Towards the end of the movie: In the theater prior to the film beginning.
Scene #3 I reference above is one where there are 2-3 (minimum) conversations occurring in what appeared to be one shot. There are multiple levels to the room that the conversations occur on, and the way the camera was positioned and moved through the room (not to mention the timing of the actor cues) was really a work of art. Again, I only saw the movie once, so I can't confirm that this was one shot, but it felt like one really great shot.
All in all, the movie was very entertaining and I found that the first half of the movie (from a plot perspective) was much more engaging that the second. I was taken out of it a little bit after the ridiculously unbelievable part occurred. It's not that bad, and I should probably just get over it, I'm just letting you know what I think. There you go. Enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment