Inglourious Basterds - 2009

So it's come to this.... another Tarantino homage. Writing a review of Inglourious Basterds is not an easy thing to accomplish; kind of like destroying the Third Reich including Hitler, Goebbels and all of his cohorts. But like Tarantino's Basterds I'll certainly give it go.

First and foremost I had already read Tarantino's leaked Basterds script before seeing the film. After reading it I felt a mixture of both dissapointment at a missed opportunity but impressed with his guts at attempting something so audacious. I was however reminded of Howard Hawks' quote about making a good film, "all you need is three great scenes and no bad ones" which at that time I felt was a perfectly apt way to describe my opinion of the Basterds script.

I'm torn here between the utter dissapointment at Tarantino's latest epic, and respect for a director who has maintained his auteur nature and indulged his personality and style perhaps more so than any other American filmmaker today. Plus I can't think of another filmmaker who could make a film so ambitious and deliriously unhistorical as Inglourious Basterds. Also, there are moments when Tarantino pushes his love of cinema to the fore and well, it so damn seductive that I completely fell for the movie. Unfortunately all that served to achieve was to remind me of how dull, overlong and (I never thought I would say this) wordy Tarantino's latest is. Aparently the film is all about language, and there are at least four different languages spoken, but there is also a complete lack of narrative drive.

The three great scenes to which I referred earlier include an excellent, awkward basement bar scene, an incredibly tense and uncomfortable restaurant scene where our heroine comes face to face with the executioner of her entire family who may even recognise her (ordering a glass of milk for someone has never seemed so sinister). Unfortunately with the exception of the ending these scenes fall, for the most part flat. The most redeeming qualities of Basterds are a fantastically sinister performance from Christian Waltz as Hans Landa and some good camera moves - although these are used to better effect in earlier QT films. The film is also raucously funny in places, especially Mike Myers cameo as a British Officer.

For many Tarantino has been on a downward curve since Jackie Brown. For me, he is not only a great writer, but has a truly cinematic eye. I enjoyed Death Proof predominantly because it was shot so fantastically, as well as having a strong script. Kill Bill is better watched as one film, the pacing of the first film offset by the relative calm of volume 2. But with Inglourious Basterds Tarantino's keen eye and wicked ear for dialogue both seem to have deserted him. Brad Pitt is watchable if not exhilarating, Melanie Laurent as Shosanna resembles a young Uma Thurman and is as desirable as she is captivating. Diane Kruger is fun, and competent. The real casting problems exist in Eli Roth's Bear Jew and Hitler, Goebbels and Churchill. Roth, better known for directing Cabin Fever and the Hostel films, also acted in Death Proof, and the problem with him isn't so much his performance but more that, havng read the script, the Bear Jew is described as a, well Bear of a man. And Eli Roth just isn't. I let out a deflated sigh when his character is introduced (another example of Tarantino procastination). As he emerges from a tunnel, you expect so much more than Eli Roth can ever offer. After which his performance just lacks the weight the role demanded.

The main problem though is that, as stated in other reviews, notably The Guardian and Sight & Sound, every scene feels too long. The opening scene seems to last an age, every scene with the Basterds, although on most occasions mixed with humour, are protracted and your attention wavers as neither the story, characters or dialogue are captivating in say a Pulp Fiction way, where scenes are equally long.

Having said all of this I am still torn. This is no masterpiece, and is by definition then the only film of Tarantino's I don't consider 5 stars. But at the same time Tarantino is a pure auteur, and all his trademarks are here. Almost every character dies (and this is no spoiler - its a Tarantino trait), there is at least one close up on feet, the cinema and its history are present and correct; the references are so obscure you'd have to be Tarantino to get them all. The violence is brilliant, unexpected, brutal and explosive.

The soundtrack, which consists of great music from other films does nothing to bring the film to life in the his older films did. This could be the root of the problem. Ultimately I feel the problem most people have with Tarantino, myself included, is that they expect a certain level of genius from him. When I heard he was making a WW2 film I had hoped for a serious film along the lines of Come and See or Apocalypse Now, but really that would have been more dissapointing. Those that have lost faith want Tarantino to be something he is not, and that is something which most other filmmakers are. Tarantino makes films with his own unique brand of brilliance and if I don't consider Inglourious Basterds to be a masterpiece then really that's my loss, because the more I think about it, the more I want Tarantino to keep making the type of films he makes, because no one else does, and his is a voice that cinema needs.

Never matching the brilliance of his early classics, Tarantino mishandles a number of key scenes and the film feels overlong and over wordy. Despite this, there is enough to enjoy, mainly in the performances and violence and QT must be commended for having such confidence to write such a film. Not a catastrophe but certainly not a classic either.