Inglorious Basterds

Watching a Tarantino movie is a bit like watching the Phoenix Suns. I root for them, they show flashes of greatness, but about midway you realize they are bound to disappoint.

Without question, Tarantino is a director to be reckoned with. Some of his visuals are spectacular and continue to improve with each film. His work with actors is unparalleled. The man gets incredible performances from mediocre actors. Who else can say that?

As a writer, he is gifted with dialog, despite going back to the same bag of tricks. This is fine, but we cannot say his dialog has improved over time. In fact, it has gotten worse. But that's a bit like saying Clemens lost a little bit on his fastball late in his career. It is true, but still a fastball to be feared.

It is equally clear, Tarantino as a writer is inept at story structure, plotting, and efficiency. Not since his films co-written with Roger Avery, do the stories possess any symmetry. Scene after scene is overly long and tiresome. It is not an exaggeration that towards the end of the second act there were audible snores in the audience at the 10:25am show from which I just returned. It reminded me of the audience member in Deathproof shouting profanities at the screen during the interminable dialog scene between the women in the diner.

Inglorious Basterds has much to enjoy. Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz could both earn Oscars if they gave out two for supporting actors (ps there are no leads in this movie). The opening scene is brilliant and could be a stand alone short film. Maybe it should be. The same cannot be said of Basterds. It is not a stand alone film. It is Kill Bill III. I guess we can call this middle Tarantino. Middle Tarantino are the Kill Bill's, Deathproof, and Inglorious. Early Tarantino are True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction. The more I think about Jackie Brown, it really isn't really a Tarantino film. It is better put with the Elmore Leonard trilogy - Get Shorty, Out of Sight, and Jackie Brown. It makes more sense in that context.

Middle Tarantino films are not made for citizens. Who can you recommend these films to? Only movie geeks. Why Tarantino has retreated to the back of the video store whence he came, I do not know.

I thought Basterds might be Red Dawn in Tarantino-land, a bunch of guerilla jews killing nazis in every more elaborate and clever ways. Not at all. It is dialog-driven, sitting at the table, conversation after conservation film with a few moments of grotesque, turn-away gore. The title is misleading. I have every reason to believe Tarantino intended the film to be about the Basterds, but either didn't shoot it or couldn't write it.

And while I can be a fan of overly-ambitious filmmaking, I-can't-believe-he-went-for-that-and-should-be-praised-for-even-trying, like when my friend Brian jumped of 11 stairs on his rollerblades (prior longest jump was 7 or 8), Inglorious is not that movie. The "bold" moments aren't so much bold as just odd. Like why do we have two ECUs in a row for a scoop of cream?

It also suffers from a common mistake in action movies or romantic comedies where there is a simple solution to a stated problem, but the path is not taken. Why? To keep the movie going is the answer. But this is simply bad plotting.

If I'm being too hard on the movie, it is because my expectations were up. I may have come away defending it if it were not for the last line. Who are QT's friends? They must tell him to remove that bit of boorish gloating. I mean who is he kidding?