Nineflick

2009, U.S.
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Screenplay/Story: Tarantino

QT loves to challenge the established boundaries of film-making, so it should come as no surprise that IB is, well, surprising. It’s surprising on multiple levels; on the bludgeoningly obvious, typically Tarantino-esque level, such as when he points out Nazi party luminaries with scrawled annotations, or interrupts the story proper for a documentary-style aside on the flammability of nitrate film; but surprising also on underlying storytelling levels, such as the inversion of the damsel-in-distress archetype or the abandonment of the hero-as-event-motivator cliché. What’s left is a bit of a mess, but a completely winning, expertly put-together mess that does nothing to dim Tarantino’s star as one of the great living directors.

I walked into Inglourious Basterds fully expecting a Western set in Nazi-occupied France, and perhaps for a day or two Tarantino had the same goal in mind. Certainly the film opens with a strong Western feel, from the Ennio Morricone strains to the opening confrontation that smacks of Sergio Leone. Inglourious Basterds, I knew, was about a troupe of eight soldiers – let’s call them gunslingers – that parachute behind enemy lines to terrorize, pillage, and generally give the Nazis something to think about.

But the opening Western feel is rather quickly shelved, and to my amazement Inglorious Basterds becomes less and less about the Inglourious Basterds and more about their adversaries and the film’s ostensible MacGuffin, the French cinematiste Emmanuelle Mimieux. The Basterds are each given a fairly equal share of screentime, and so are relatively dilluted characters compared to the larger-than-life villain (Colonel Hans Landa) and the doted-upon Mimieux, the latter being a damsel-in-distress that is not only capable but also much more interesting and relevant than the role typically demands. In contrast the supposed heroes feel more incidental to the events and rather large cast. Even Brad Pitt’s Lieutenant Aldo finds himself in few scenes of consequence and none of drama. His Marlon Brando-channeling performance is played up more for comedic effect than anything else, and one is tempted to say his chief purpose in the film is to let us see Brad Pitt play a southerner.

But make no mistake, there are scenes of genuine drama, which Tarantino assembles in a way that few have achieved. The excellent opening scene is merely a warm-up for what might be the film’s centerpiece, an intense, extended joust between three of the Basterds, a Nazi collaborator, and an SS major. This scene is completely absorbing from start to finish. Tarantino trusts his dialogue enough to let it completely drive the tension, and the result is nothing short of phenomenal. A scene involving the heroine, villain, and additional foils is equally tense.

The ending brings more surprises, which I cannot fully discuss without a big, fat SPOILER warning. Firstly, Tarantino decides to liberally rewrite history, which bothers me slightly from some kind of purist perspective…it’s a bit of a cheat, but ultimately can be lived with. More interestingly, Tarantino resolves his rather complex plot threads in part by making the villain a cheerful defector. I must question this decision somewhat. It sidesteps the traditional climax of pitting good versus evil in a way that recalls 2007’s No Country For Old Men. To my mind it’s a less-effective catharsis that also undermines prior events: the villain isn’t as unambiguously detestable and the uncertainty of the heroes’ success is marginalized. The novelty of such a decision, I believe, comes at too great a sacrifice of the overall dramatic impact.

*** end spoiler ***

Style: 8
I found the stylistic decisions to be less effective than those in, say, Kill Bill, but I think there is little doubt that Tarantino is still at his peak. His oftentimes sledgehammer approach works to both ends, with some adding to the tension and others more disarming the audience for the sake of disarming the audience. I do not doubt that I missed some subtleties with my first and only viewing.

Substance: 9
Relentlessly absorbing, cruelly nihilistic, simultaneously bewilderingly surreal and intensely real – Inglourious Basterds is definitely a ride. The dialogue is great, and a few of the characters are very memorable. Tarantino struggled with the ending and I think it shows, but it’s of small concern next to the towering heights of drama and presence that he achieves.

Overall: 9
Add it all up and it’s a film that’s uneven at points but brilliantly so. The tone of surreal nihilism, the muddled ineffectuality of human affairs, is consistent with Tarantino’s previous works; a potential deeper meaning, if you’d like, is a subtle critique of U.S. American culture, as the film portrays the Americans as irrelevant, uncultured, and inflexible. I suspect that I will find more to this film over time, and that there are layers to be exposed, but its immediate impact is undeniable.

2009, United States
Director: Zack Snyder
Screenplay: David Hayter, Alex Tse
Story: Alan Moore

The first question I must ask in reviewing Watchmen is sort of an age-old question in the arts: how much credit do you give for something that relies on a previous version? Watchmen was supposedly based on some comic book (or something), so the creative heavy lifting had already been done by the time the movie version rolled around. That’s not to say important artistic decisions weren’t made for the movie, but it is, essentially, a “cover version” of the original. My approach is to frame the review around the quality of the interpretation.

If nothing else, Watchmen is very, very faithful to the comic book. There are some liberties taken with the action, a few lines transposed here and there, and a reworking of the ending, but much of the film directly follows the imagery and flow of the book. I give Watchmen credit for sticking to the source material (apparently not always as obvious a decision as it seems), and a little bit of extra credit for the generally good creative liberties taken.

In that regard, for starters, I think the movie is very kinetic and well-paced. A great many scenes are sped up or slowed way down, decisions that work and keep things creative and interesting. I also liked the aggressive lighting effects that used in some shots that, for lack of a better way to put it, made things feel more like a comic book. This is most noticeable (along with the interesting pacing) in the fantastic opening sequence, set to Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are A-Changin’. This is perhaps the nicest credit sequence I’ve seen, with a very interesting look, an excellent song choice (also referenced in the book), and a great introduction to Moore’s universe.

The movie opens with one of its brisk, exciting action sequences – sue me, but the Matrix-style combat still has not gotten old. The action also does a good job of establishing the superheroes as individuals to be feared, even if that benefit comes at the expense of realism (seriously, how many punches to the face can a guy take?) The casting is generally solid. Jackie Earle Haley makes for a fantastic Rorschach and Patrick Wilson looks remarkably like the Nite Owl. Dr. Manhattan was a little too distant for my tastes; his line about there being no structural difference between living and dead bodies always seemed too grossly insensitive to be consistent with the character, even in the book, and in the movie he actually uses the line on live TV (which seems just inconceivable to me – he’s not THAT out of touch). I also found it a little odd that Dr. Manhattan actually glows. I guess it works ok, but…that just didn’t occur to me.

It was pointed out in another review that Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias was one of the weaker casting calls, and on a second viewing I found myself agreeing. He’s not particularly subtle as the movie’s heavy and at the same time does not really channel the character as well as I’d have liked. Weaker decisions are also noticeable in the soundtrack, where the many instantly-recognizable songs tend to pull you out of the film (where they didn’t seem simply inappropriate to begin with). Some have critiqued the modified ending, but I actually think it works pretty well. It’s believable enough and avoids the complexities of a CGI squid (a word which actually appears on one of Veidt’s control panels).

Style: 9
I loved the action, I liked a lot of the camera work (just check out the dynamics of the shot where Veidt takes out his assassin – whabam!) Interesting lighting effects and rapid shifts in pacing keep the eye intrigued.

Substance: 7
It’s the greatest comic book ever written in part due to a fantastic cast of characters, most of which are represented very effectively here. Ozymandias IS the weakest link. Some of the line transpositions bothered me a bit, but that’s really a nitpick to a nitpick.

Overall: 8
Overall I thought this was a very strong interpretation of Moore’s original work. It could be improved by degrees with less of a sledgehammer soundtrack and a couple better decisions here or there. But overall I’d like to think Alan Moore could walk out of the theater with a little less British/artistic angst than usual and a few buckets of popcorn resting happily in his belly.

United Kingdom/United States, 2009
Director: David Yates
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Story: J.K. Rowling

I believe film is fundamentally a storytelling art, and that good books often make the best movies. Consider Ben-Hur, Gone With the Wind, the Shawshank Redemption, the Godfather, and the Fellowship of the Ring, to name a few. The Half-Blood Prince is my favorite Harry Potter book for its grippingly dark chapters, the ongoing mystery of the Prince, and some excellent Hogwarts asides. Happily, this all translated very well into what I believe is the best Potter movie to date.

This is contrary to a lot of movie critics, but then I am somewhat unusual in that my respect for the Potter movies has increased rather than decreased with each installment. While many cite the declining sense of wonder of the franchise, I always felt the early Potter movies were too unfocused, a melee of special effects that (perhaps inevitably) felt more wondrous on page than on screen. I also have a tough time with raw actors, and indeed some of the weaker moments in Prince are due to Frank Dillane’s overacted Tom Riddle.

But the central cast is older now, with their craft better honed and the storylines more mature. The romance between Ron and Hermoine comes off a little awkwardly, as I thought it did in the novels, but it provides some nice moments between the three friends (happy is the story that trusts its characters to play off each other). The movie benefits from the familiarity we have with the troika and their real-life counterparts, and there are scenes where I was struck by how enduring Rowling’s creations really are.

A few strong story threads prop up Prince throughout. I might quibble that some moments and moods did not translate perfectly from the book, but this is still the emotional apex of the series. The journey into the seaside cave is nearly as powerful as the written version, while the final scenes have a desperate quality heightened by the consistently moody cinematography. There are times when the movie overreaches a little – I could have probably done without the wand-lifting scene after an otherwise powerful moment – but overall, this is a movie that moves well and looks nice.

Style: 8
I was surprised by how much I liked the look of this film. Yates imbues the landscape with towering clouds and twists of black lightning that befit Voldemort’s ascension. Wide shots frequently convey the scope and grandeur of the Hogwart’s grounds, and the Quidditch sequences seemed tighter than ever. Though there is less overall eye candy than in the earlier movies, on a macro level I think Prince is more visually accomplished.

Substance: 7
There are some lovely moments between the three central characters as they confront the complexities of growing older. The storyline is more urgent than that of previous installments, culminating in a couple excellent scenes. Between Ralph Fiennes and now Hero Fiennes-Tiffin and Frank Dillane, the series just can’t seem to get Voldemort right.

Overall: 7
Like all of the Harry Potter movies, the Half-Blood Prince sometimes wanders towards melodrama. But more frequently it is beautifully executed and quite memorable. It benefits from the strength of Rowling’s plot and the maturation of its principals, ultimately resulting in the most engaging Harry Potter to date.

2009, United States
Director: J.J. Abrams
Screenplay: Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci

Star Trek (2009) is a bit of a poster child for movies that “I don’t get.” It’s not that the plot was confusing or anything, but rather the average movie-goer’s reaction. I was in London when Trek came out, and the Tube was littered with posters proclaiming a litany of praise for the film: “Four stars!” “Summer movie of the year!” “Best Trek movie ever!” And so on. The poster was literally covered with 20 quotes like this. Now I think this exuberance is reflective of an average movie-goer’s opinion of this film, as well as a great many Star Trek fans. My disconnect with the world might be best summarized thusly:

“What movie were you watching?”

I know, I know, I’m a curmudgeon before my own time. But help me understand by what rubric people were giving this movie such high praise. Is it because the special effects are so spot on? Or the cast so winning? Because it certainly does have a fine look and a winning cast. But surely, surely these viewers were not heaping the praise on the movie’s plot, or writing? Were they?

To me, Star Trek was an average summer film. It got some superficial things right. It didn’t particularly shine in the action department, but then we do not expect Star Trek to. The deeper problem is that it was boring. It did not reinvent the characters like, say, a Batman Begins (and I’m not even the biggest fan of that movie). That’s a problem, because we already know all these characters. It revisits them not for their own sakes, but perfunctorily. Kirk is a renegade because we see him in a clichéd scene in which he recklessly exceeds the speed limit as a kid (at a rather unbelievable age, I might add). This is followed up by your garden variety bar fight scene. Spock is an outsider because we see him in a clichéd scene in which kids pick on him in school. The rest of the film does not venture beyond even these cursory character outlines. It establishes the broadest sort of characterization for the rest of the cast (Uhura is a workaholic, Scotty a smartass, Bones a cynic). It does not allow them to reflect and interact, perhaps because there is a quota for spaceship battles in the runtime.

Lacking any sort of meaningful conversation, there is a lot of fluff in this film. What is the point of watching Scotty getting stuck in a tube for five minutes? Is this supposed to be funny? It’s a joke that went whizzing over my head like a full torpedo spread. What’s the point of his alien sidekick? Or of (spoiler, I guess) the awkward relationship between Uhura and Spock? The starship battles look pretty enough (I actually really liked the look of the ships), but they are so one-sided they are not remotely dramatic. Similarly, Kirk is chased by a giant snow beast only because we expect such things in a Star Trek film, not for dramatic purposes. At least when it happens in The Empire Strikes Back we get to see Luke use the force.

The writing is generally weak. The main villain is exactly like every other Star Trek movie villain, only less so. There is amazingly little time spent on his motivation. He does not feel threatening (even though he has one bad-ass mining ship) because as a character he is so laughably sketched out. He could have been summarized with the opening line: “Uhh, I’m from the future, and I’ve got like this blue-collar/Romulan angst, so fuck you all.” Do not even get me started on the deus ex machina laziness of assembling the Enterprise crew due to the convenient deaths or resignations of senior officers.

Style: 7
Great looking film, fine cast (though, when was the last time they got the casting wrong in a reboot/adaptation? It’s getting more and more uncommon.) Leonard Nemoy was perfectly cast for the role of “old Spock.”

Substance: 4
The jokes fall flat, and the plot is so classic Trek that there is nothing interesting or new about it. Innovate, please.

Overall: 5
Star Trek was an average movie at best. One of the rebuttals I’ve heard is that the movie effectively set up the alternate universe and thus the sequels. This is true. But couldn’t it have accomplished the same thing in a better movie? Doesn’t the mere existence of a Star Trek reboot, y’know, reboot the franchise? I don’t get why you wouldn’t demand more.

Happy holidays, faithful reader!

As I finally complete the “B’s” of Roger Ebert’s Great Movies list, it occurs to me that I need to focus more on modern movies (preferrably films opening in the theater) to keep things interesting and relevant.  So hopefully over the the holidays I’ll be able to get outdoors a little bit and actually watch some contemporary movies. My Netflix queue is still mostly devoted to the Great Movies, with “C” being a surprisingly short buffet.  Hey, maybe I’ll get through this list after all.

Keep in mind, I’m happy to review any movie you name. Just allow 1-2 weeks for shipping and handling.

Thanks for reading!