Zombieland

Gimmicks. I hate gimmicks. What is a gimmick?
gim·mick
–noun
1.
an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
That to me says, 'Hey look at me! Hey look what I can do! Hey, over here!' It's a tool used purely to grab someones attention. Like a three year old in the presence of a camcorder. There is not much really going on except the purpose of making people notice. I hate gimmicks.
Zombieland is a story about a young man who is attempting to survive the zombie apocalypse. Now keep in mind, this is a comedy. In this regard the film works. It's a new take on the now stale zombie film. Is it somewhat sad that all it takes is someone to say, 'Zombies are funny.' and suddenly everyone is blown away by the genius of it? Something tells me studio execs have seen scripts like this before, maybe even as good or better, and simply trashed it because to them zombies don't make money by making people laugh. Anyways, Zombieland certainly established it's unique brand of humour early. The main character lives by a set of 'rules' to survive death. These rules pop up throughout the film every time a situation occurs to which the rule applies. This is funny yet for some reason the filmmakers go away from the rules for nearly a third of the film. What gives? The rules ARE funny so why stop using them? It essentially renders them a gimmick. A tool used not to advance the story or characters but to be funny when it suits it's purpose. In addition, the film itself really has no story. It uses a cliched narration to move the characters along and reflect the inner thoughts of our main character when we can clearly tell what's going through his mind. For an idea of how narration can be used in a smart and effective manner both to provide humor and character, watch Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.
I hate gimmicks. Unfortantely, they're prevalent in today's film making industry because the entire generation of young filmmakers were raised on Quentin Tarantino movies. The problem is, you can't do it like Quentin did. Not even Quentin can anymore. They feature non-linear storylines, flashbacks, on-screen titles and various stylistic features that ultimately do nothing for the film except make people who don't know any better get excited. Man, I hate gimmicks.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

What is it that makes a film a box office success? Is it the combination of stars, script and budget? Some would have you think so. Alright, I concede. Those things are all true. The general public wants to see their favorite stars doing what they do best in films that look like they were manufactured at an Apple store. Put a high-powered machine gun and some machine gun-like dialogue together with a Will Smith or Tom Cruise and you've got yourself a recipe for big money. Be afraid though average viewer. For you this cheque will likely bounce.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a crime-thriller delivered to our shores from Sweden. The film is the highest grossing in Sweden box-office history so it comes highly recommended or is popularity in Sweden the best litmus test for overseas success? If a film makes money in Sweden, does it really make a sound? If The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is evidence enough it certainly does. Just not always in tune. The film is mosaic of extreme gratuity and mainstream conventions. It heads down a certain path, one that ultimately cannot be backpedaled, and then parks itself into a corner. With each scene the movie evolves from a dark, intriguing film into a conventional serial killer thriller. That is to say revelations rely on twists rather than intrigue — and always at the most opportune moment (Oh my! He's in danger!). This is where the film hiccups.
When a film is a box-office success in any country, it's because it appeals to the average fan. People who only watch the films they anticipate they'll enjoy. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is unique in that it blends the thematic inventiveness of a foreign film with the conventions of a mainstream film. Which is to say its message is inconsistent. For every hit, there is a miss. So if a film makes money anywhere outside North America, does it make a sound? Yes, it does — every once and a while.

Iron Man 2

By mid-May, summer blockbuster fever is well under way. The first of the major big-budget films has already hit box offices to whet the palate and provide a taste of what is to come. Are the early indications positive? Are the appetizers flavorful? What is to be expected of the main course?
Iron Man 2 i the follow-up to the immensely successful original. Virtually the entire original cast returns to reprise their roles headlined by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Downey Jr. has once again found the perfect pitch and tone for Tony Stark, a virtual anti-hero in many ways who remains too admirable and good-intentioned to be anything less than a defender of justice. Tony Stark is perhaps the best superhero character ever adapted to the screen. The supporting cast is good – adequate to the point of being collateral damage of Downey's dominating performance. The standout has to Sam Rockwell — a scene stealer in every role — as Stark's competitor Justin Hammer. Originally one of the last choices for the role of Tony Stark, Rockwell portrays Hammer as Stark 2.0, Stark Lite, the diet Pepsi of Stark, and the Hammer Zero of Stark. His performance leaves little doubt that had he been cast as Iron Man the role would have lost very little. The story of the film is decent and follows the same blueprint as the first. Its less a story as much as a guideline. Perhaps the guideline it followed is the summer sequel blueprint that reads 'bigger and badder'. Too many new characters doing too much creating too little to enjoy. The production values are excellent as to be expected. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is proving that when in the hands of the right director (Jon Favreau) and showcasing the skills of the right star, a superhero summer sequel can in fact make noise outside of the box office realm.
If Iron Man 2 is any indication, perhaps this summer won't be so bad. It will likely lack substance and concede that the summer is a time where style matters. How else can audiences be convinced to go inside? For those waiting for something with more meat, the summer is not the season. Substance comes later in the year when the weather is more conducive to heading inside, the studios are more flexible and the stories are ripe.

Australia

Ah, the Second World War. Nations were battling over political ideologies. Bombs were dropping. Love was in the air. Families were broken up. Young lovers were separated. Some people got it back. Others didn't. However, extraordinary circumstance can lead to extraordinary stories.
Australia is set at the outset of the Japanese joining World War II. It's about a British socialite who travels to Australia to help resuscitate the cattle property owned by her husband and in the process falls in love with the country, the aboriginal people, and a rough cattle drover. The film starts quickly and if you don't pay attention you could miss a few things. It switches character perspectives very quickly while combining specific dialogue that is difficult to follow. After that speed bump it settles into a solid romance film. It feels very much like an Australian Casablanca — two star-crossed lovers battling the circumstance of the war to be with each other. The film adds in some racial themes regarding the treatment of aboriginals to add a made-in-Australia authenticity to the film. All in all, it won't blow you away but it will tug on some heart strings.
The generations of people that have come since World War II will never know how it effected the lives of the people. We have no great war ourselves — other than the war on terrorism — which hardly hits as close to home. Films like Australia and Casablanca serve to educate and teach. Regardless of whether you like romance films or not these films will always serve to remind us how valuable the people we love are and how not to take them for granted.

The Ring

Spooky is as spooky does. Or so says Forrest Gump. Ok that's a lie. Yet the concept is still the same. Spooky movies are only spooky if they do spooky. A movie could brand itself a horror film and not be scary at all. Isn't this in some way a misplacing of trust? Of all the genres, horror and action are perhaps the two most tied to their titles. If you go to see a horror film you expect horror. If you don't get it, the film is a failure.
The Ring is a 2002 American re-make of a Japanese horror film. The story focuses on a journalist named Rachel (Naomi Watts) who investigates a mysterious videotape that kills it's viewers within seven days of watching it. The plot is steady and effective. It's refreshing (or not, considering the film is almost a decade old) to watch a horror film that actually has well-defined story and characters. Under the direction of Gore Verbinksi (The Weather Man), the film picks and prods at the mystery until the picks and prods cause a tear. I was not at all scared by the conventional means of the term but I was uncomfortable. The film succeeds because it focuses on atmosphere and imagery rather than shocks. The colour scheme, although sometimes annoying, work to create the feel of a gloomy time and place. The videotape itself is full of creepy images that work to build the overall suspense.
Scary movies need to be scary. It's quite simple. If they aren't, they fail. The Ring succeeds at being scary without necessarily making you jump out of your seat. It's like a cold - you feel the scratch on day one and gradually you're consumed by it. That's how scary is.

Paranormal Activity

WHat is it about faux-documentaries that can be so terrifying? Its similar to how when a character breaks the fourth wall on screen it can be unsettling. It removes the imaginary wall that separates the viewer and reality from the the film and fiction. Watching film is essentially a voyeuristic experience. We as the viwer are privy to the professional, personal, and private lives of the characters on screen. We see whast no one on screen other than that character gets to see. SO when a film is shot as as a documentary but really is not, we feel like we are watching real people. We are no longer thematic voyeurs, but real voyeurs.
Paranomral Activoty is a faux-doc about a couple who live in a haunted house. The boyfriend, Micah, decides to tote around a handheld camera to capture everything on video for research purposes. Really, he's just excited. The film mostly consists of static shots of the couples bedroom and what happens at night. For instance, the door moves twice in one night. Another night, the girlfriend Katie gets out of bed and stands for three hours. The occurences start out unsettling and as the characters learn more and more about whats going on, and Micah starts doing things that more or less piss off evil spirits, things get worse. I won't blow it, but there are some genuinely terrifying moments. The keyword is some. While it's an intriguing film, the acting and basic handling of the subject matter is shaky and removes some of the atmosphere. Its a film where as a viewer we wait for some serious scares and get none.
Paranomral Activity is in the same vein as The Blair Witch Project. Whereas that film had solid acting and creates a more defined and scary mythology to pair with, Paranomral Activity falls short in those areas. Still, you have to give the filmmakers credit as they grossed a motherload compared to their budget,

Brooklyn's Finest

Cops and robbers. It's an age-old story. The cops are traditionally the good guys and the robbers are traditionally the bad guys. As it should be. Well, not necessarily. Sometimes the lines are blurred. Sometimes the cops are also the robbers or vice versa. Sometimes the dynamic supersedes the profession and is a matter of right and wrong. Good and bad. What happens when a cop is a bad person but is not a robber? What happens when a robbers is really a cop but he's a good person? Everything is turned on it's head.
Brooklyn's FInest is a cop tale about when the lines are blurred. Director Antoine Fuqua has come to perfect, or at least own, the law morals story. This is a step above his last similar film, Harsh Times, and a step below his piece-de-resistance, Training Day. Brooklyn's Finest is a story of three Brooklyn cops, a Narcotices officer hard up for cash, an undercover cop who's starting to confuse his allegiances, and a street officer a week from retirement. Their lives are shaped by their experiences in the streets and their paths all lead to a fate of redemption in one form or another. Ethan Hawke is solid as Sal, the narcotics cop, who begins breaking certain laws to get the cash to buy a house to provide for his family. His story is a spiritual one in the sense that it focuses much on family and religion. He's fighting to stay loyal to both but we known which one goes first and thus, in these stories, what type of destination he is likely heading to. Don Cheadle is also solid as Tango, an undercover cop who sees the streets and the people in it as his own. He knows this is happening and doesn't like it but is compelled to. He desperately wants out but we know where his likely destination leads as well. Richard Gere is excellent as Eddie, a poor cop who's mailed it in the last week on the job. He's stuck reluctantly mentoring rookie cops and sees nothing but bleak futures for them and the streets he worked. He's semi-suicidal. His story is perhaps the most important as his destination is the most clear. Does this mean he is set for redemption? The three stories blend together to cerate a seamnless portrait of the job these men do and the world they inhabit. It's not pretty but neither are they.
Cop films are a crowd favorite. Therein lies a problem because most average cinema goers do not embrace hard and gritty films such as this. It's brutal. The streets can be and often are violent and lewd places. SOmeone has to work them. Those people are cops. It's not glamorous and its hard. They deserve better from the people they serve.

9

Since they're introduction, animated movies have been a childrens genre. They look nice and conveys an innate innocence that live action doesn't. In addition, its humble beginnings consisted of very bright primary colors which appeal to young children. The modern day animated films are CGI-based and generally utilize the same basic principals - they're bright, light-hearted, and innocent. Unlike virtually every genre, the audience it appeals to hardly changes from generation to generation. Making animated movies a staple in film and a highly bankable genre.
9 is the story of a post-apocalyptic future in which machines (naturally) have conquered the earth and eradicated human beings. The only life that exists is in the form of small doll-like creatures who each bear a number marking on their backs. The film kicks off with our titles character, 9, coming to life. He quickly meets 2 and when 2 is captured, 9 feels responsible and with the help of a number of the other characters seeks to save him and stop the machines. Keep in mind that this isn't a childrens movie. There is action and violence (granted, it's innate object on innate object action so gore is relative). Its a mature subject matter. Not many kids would find a desolate future world appealing to their simple enjoyments. While the narrative is basic, it excels in its simplicity. This isn't a hard film to follow nor understand. In this sense, the theme gets across quickly and easily. Some will criticize the fact the film doesn't fully explain when it takes place or what made the world or why, but it doesn't matter. It makes you wonder and ask questions. This is not a film that relies on those elements to be successful. Did Stanley Kubrick have to explain A Clockwork Orange? This is a passable film. It's not boring but it doesn't indulge.
Animated films are simple in their execution. Make attractive characters, make attractive places, make attractive story and dialogue and BAM, you have a hit. The glorious thing about it is that unlike any genre, that's all it requires to work. Yet they affect the viwer in much the same way as a live-action film. At the end of the day, it may be the simplest to execute but the most powerful in practice.

Candy

The junkie. A person who is hooked on drugs. Attached to? Obsessed with? In love? The relationship between a junkie and their drug of choice can best be described as a love and hate. They love their drug for what it does for them but hate it for what it takes from them. Its an extremely dependent relationship.
Candy is an Australian film about a couple who are as equally dependent on each other as they are on their favorite drug: heroin. The couple are Dan, played by Heath Ledger, and Candy, played by Abbie Cornish. They have different dependencies on the relationship. Candy loves Dan. She loves what he is and how he is. Dan loves Candy for loving Dan. He loves how she makes him feel. This slight difference is the basis for the three stages, or chapters, of their relationship: heaven, earth, and hell. This is a very most personal drug film. Director Neil Armfield takes the camera and places in the nucleus of their relationship. It creates a unique perspective on their lives. Unlike a film like Trainspotting which, while not a positive spin on drug usage, it does not romanticize it. Dan and Candy resort to begging, petty crime, and pawn their bodies to get their fixes. Uniquely, its their fix that holds them together. The acts they take are the glue. It binds them to each other and conversely deteriorates them. Holding the film together is the honest performances by Legder and Cornish. While he was awarded posthumously for his role as the Joker, his turn as Dan is a much more potent performances. Not to be outdone, Cornish delivers a beautiful turn. She makes Candy a tragic figure, the kind of woman who is worth fighting for but is lost by way of her love for Dan.
Drugs are no laughing matter. Some people use them recreationally and never suffer the consequences. Others do it once and have signed their death warrant. Candy looks at the beauty of love in the face of the tragedy that is a junkie's life. The performances are top-notch and rememberable. Even career-defining. One day the public will see it, too. When that day comes, they will be hooked.

Frankenstein (1931)

Monsters and cinema have gone hand-in-hand since the early days. Silent films had monsters (see. Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), and with the advent of sound it was only natural to keep it going. Monster movies could go from making you imagine the sound of the scare to hearing it. It made it so the screams the viewer hears are not only their own. Monster movies connect with film fans because they're unique and pique the interest in all of us that is the fear of the unknown.
The original Frankenstein is loosely based on the novel published by Mary Shelly in 1818. The film deviates dramatically from the book. The film depicts the Monster (for the record, the scientist who creates the Monster is Frankenstein) as an evil, brainless fiend. The novel depicts the Monster as a curious, somewhat intelligent, but extremely misunderstood creature. The Monster is not truly a danger to all around him, but the public's fear of his features often led to violent incidents. The film makes the Monster out to be exactly that. He kills out of anger and confusion. In a way, it makes sense. Most films in the early years did not focus on sympathetic antagonists. It was as simple as good and bad.
Frankenstein has been done in various forms over the years. The sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein is considered one of the penultimate horror movies ever made. A faithful retelling of the novel was adapted by Kenneth Branagh in 1994 and starred Robert De Niro. Perhaps the best Frankenstein movie was the least serious adaptation, Albert Brooke's Young Frankenstein, which was a comedy. Regardless, the Monster is and will always be an icon in movie history. One of cinemas greatest and earliest cult characters. Perhaps one day someone can bring it back to life. Then the film world can once again utter the words, "It's alive."

(500) Days of Summer

There are two people in the world: people who believe in love and people who don't. Is love a force of life or whimsical fallacy? Love can compared to global warming. Some people, no matter the facts that deny its existence, believe in it. Others don't need facts to believe its real, they can feel it and see the effects on the world. Its a matter of faith.
(500) Days of Summer is a whimsical take on the force of love. Its a simple premise not unlike many romances before it of guy meets girl and they are destined to not end up together. The execution of this story is fantastical yet ingrained in a very real sense of how relationships exist. Its not a story that tries to hide behind its cute and colorful backdrop. Zoey Deschanel is pitch-perfect as Summer, the new-age offspring born to a divorced family. Thus she doesn't believe love exists. Deschanel has a charisma that we cannot deny. You know she will break our hearts as she breaks his, but we are too fond of her to accept it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Tom, he the new-age offspring born of pop music and movies. Thus he really believes in love. He plays the role like a character. This isn't to say he lacks unique characteristic but the role is ultimately one of acting to reflect the situation not dictate it. If the moment is one of depression, he plays depressed. This is not to criticize, it's how the role works and how the story works. Deschanel is more ingrained in the dictation of the story, more defining. Her actions dictate the feeling from scene-to-scene and Gordon-Levitt punctuates that feeling. It's a beautiful dynamic. (500) Days of Summer is wonderfully relevant. We know these characters. They are our friends, our family, or ourselves. We can relate to the offbeat, sweet girl who is bound to break his heart. We can relate to the lovestruck guy who believes too much in the concept to see whats really in front of him.
Love is a defining force of life. Love is not fake. Its not a holiday created by greeting card companies. Some find it easy to deny that it exists. True, it is easier to assume that there is no unifying force between two people. Its easier to step away from someone by not believing in love. Love can be described as a matter of faith. Some just have more faith than others.

Lust, Caution

Sex in film is often reserved for art house films, slasher flicks, and B-movies. Sex is bad for studios because any instance of sex can lead to an unfavorable rating. Studios want films accessible to as many demographics as possible and sex in film does not allow people younger than 18 into theaters. Intense scenes of a sexual nature can also harm a films appeal to audiences. It's difficult to watch a rape scene or a particularly graphic sex scene from a subjective perspective. When used right, and tastefully, sex can be an effective thematic device to convey and number of emotions or themes.
Lust, Caution is a period piece set in World War II era China. It's the story of a young woman played by Wei Tang who becomes involved in a dangerous game of espionage to kill a traitor. Director Ange Lee does a superb job depicting a time and place, a feeling, a sense of what China was like during the war. I admit, I am not Asian and unfamiliar with Asian social or cultural norms. Yet it was easy to understand what the how and why the characters act and see the world around them. That's perhaps the real highlight of the film. Lee accomplishes the difficult task of creating a world that dictates the characters and yet feel like it's the characters all along. Some people will dislike this film. It's long (two hours plus), deliberately paced, and the characters change in subtle manner - which most people perceive as not at all. That's a shame because it's a film that accurately depicts the human condition. We don't change the way most films would have us believe. Human nature is not to in a moment realize we have been wasting our entire lives and become free spirited on a whim. We change over time not at a time.
It's a shame that so many people will discount this film because of the what are popularly perceived as thematic 'flaws'. Graphic sex scenes, a slow pace, and what an average moviegoer would consider unsympathetic characters, do not go far in tendering it's mainstream appeal. That's fine with me. I'd rather be among the fraternity of people who do appreciate the existence of art under those circumstance.

The Unborn

Good horror has gone the way of the dinosaur. Due to the importance of box office dollars, modern horror has morphed into a monster that lacks the metaphorical soul of it's predecessors. Because money is so important, studios have a greater hand in the finished product of a film. They want sleek, sexy, and thus marketable horror. The problem is that horror does not operate that way. That's like being afraid of a Ferrari. People are afraid of the dirty pickup truck with tinted windows. Why? Character.
The Unborn is a horror film about a young, sexy female who finds herself haunted by the evil ghost of her unborn twin. If anyone has spent even five second learning about how to write a script, they'd know that the first ten minutes set the scene, the characters, and the dramatic premise. Let's just cut to the chase and say The Unborn doesn't really do that. This is a problem with so many mainstream horror films nowadays. They feel the urge to get you in right away. It's the equivalent of fast food. You get it fast, you eat it fast, and it makes you regret it for a few hours after wards. We meet Casey. She's out jogging, looking sexy (why are they all sexy?), and she sees a dog wearing a mask. Spooky. Then she finds a baby in a jar. Spooky. It cuts to her sitting on a bed video messaging her pal, "So what do you think the dream meant?" Huh? How cheap an explanation is that? No jarring wake up? No sweaty, was-that-a-dream transition? Weak. The film offers very few scares and a number of inane plot point's that really defy common logic. Would you ever volunteer to help with an exorcism when it's explained that the spirit can possess anyone at any time? Not to mention, the sequence in which we learn what the evil spirit is lasts all of three to four minutes. Isn't it scarier to slowly peel away the layers until we find the rotten center?
Modern horror is not a genre that produces a lot of quality in film today. It's a genre that has always been supported by smart minds (Roman Polanski, George A. Romero) who understood how to create subtle unrest in a viewer so that every creek in the floor is significant. There appears to be no one around who understands that anymore. It's people who think that because CGI is such a powerful tool, the more of it that is used, the better. It's people who use large budgets yet put it all into how the film looks. Not how it feels. In the end, isn't that what horror is supposed to do?

Shutter Island

A serious condition that has been a headline grabber in recent years is that of post traumatic stress disorder. It is a condition that has been around for as long as people have fought each other on the battlefields. It's been known as shell shock and battle fatigue. It is a disorder that develops in people who have experienced a severe psychological trauma. For soldiers, that can be an everyday experience. Films have explored this area before, notably in The Deer Hunter. It is becoming more prevalent as the central element of plot and character.
Shutter Island is directed by the esteemed Martin Scorsese. His previous romps in the thriller field have been lukewarm. Cape Fear was weak to say the least. Yet Scorsese finds something with Shutter Island. A certain note or feel that escaped that previous work. More like he decided to change instruments altogether. The film is set in 1954 and follows U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he investigates a missing persons case on the secluded mental institution of the films title. It hits you right away: this island is no fun. It looks like Shawshank prison on crack. The place and staff feel....wrong. Ben Kingsley finds a remarkable uneasiness about his character that builds on you. Max Von Sydow is equally as unsettling. And yet all theyre characters really do is...well, act like doctors of the criminally insane. Perhaps that's whats scary. They appear perfectly normal considering the patients they tend to. These are seriously deranged individuals, what does it take to be the one who treats them? The film ends with a whimper when it could have bellowed. Its unfortunate because it nearly messes up the film as a whole by this much. The body of the film is solid oak and withstands the damage. Some people may criticize certain moments of editing, but it's effect is achieved based on the content.
The film explores the state of the human mind. Unlike many films which follow the thriller script to a 't', Shutter Island provides new and character driven content. Not to mention, for those who pay attention, Scorsese does an effective job paying tribute to the great crime noire thrillers of the '50's.

Being There

It is a long-held belief that if an actor plays a mentally handicapped character in a film they are guarenteed are Oscar nod. While not always true, Cuba Gooding Jr please stand up, it is accurate more often than not. However, to quote Robert Downey Jr. as Lincoln Ossirus in Tropic Thunder, "You never go full retard." How politically correct. How true.
Being There is the story of simpleton gardener named Chance, who by chance (no pun intended) finds himself the focus of popularity. Some actors have a way about them that they can succeed in any number of comedic roles. Peter Sellers is one of the best. He plays Chance in an honest, even style. This isn't a Forrest Gump-type of simpleton - he doesn't openly engage others and charm their pants off. Chance is pleasant and off-handily appreciative. He speaks when spoken to and answers with a polite, "Thank you. Thank you." Somehow this betrays his basic ruminations as statements of profound insight. Sellers plays it that way. The character doesn't have any idea that what he is saying or doing is confused for something greater. That's just how he is. This eventually gets him involved with the President, foreign emissaries, and late night talk shows.
It's a shame Sellers did not win an Oscar for his role. Granted, 1980 was a stacked year (Roy Schider arguably could have won for All That Jazz and eventual winner Dustin Hoffman justifiably took home the statue). It feels that Sellers as Chance is more important a character somehow. A deeper looker at people in general. We go about our lives trying so hard to impress that we are not always ourselves. We are different people at work, at home, with friends, or family. In the end, life is perception.

Inglourious Basterds

With age comes wisdom. The longer we stay on this Earth, the more we know. It's basic logic. That can be both good and bad. The greater our knowledge, the more responsibility we must take in our lives. Some people abuse that responsibility and twist it for their own benefit. There are some who twist to the balancing point between good and evil. Some of the greatest leaders in history have been it's smartest. In a way, Quentin Tarantino is a tremendously smart and charismatic character. Has his experience come to benefit his work or cause it to fail?
Inglourious Basterds is a World War II tale revolving around a number of characters on different sides, from different countries, with different affiliations. Basically, it's a Tarantino tale. Tarantino is at times brilliant. There is do denying that. He's arguably the best writer there is in the business. His work is always incredibly well written and thought out. Basterds is no different. Yet it is...different. And yet it is...brilliant. The opening sequence is arguably as good as anything he has ever filmed. The scene moves and develops so effortlessly. It's a perfect opening sequence for this film. Then the film degrades into scenes of bad acting and oddball plot devices that seem out of place to the point of being, well, pointless. The Basterds are led by an underwhelming Brad Pitt (who does get credit for being amusing).
Tarantino is a talented filmmaker. He is among the best writers in the business. Few people can juggle all the elements of a film as deftly. Yet, it has given Tarantino a self-awarded sense of righteousness. Tarantino makes films the way he wants, regardless of whether people understand or not. It has only gone to feed his ego. Then again, unlike most filmmakers who become more conventional with age, at least Tarantino still does things differently.