Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Aug. 16th, 2009 09:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerIt took very little persuading from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rozk to join her this afternoon for a viewing of Tarantino's latest. Mind you, the generally rather lukewarm reviews had left me a little apprehensive, and whilst I'm not at at squeamish I was somewhat wary that I might be letting myself in for a Sunday afternoon gorefest.
Well, Roz and I had a bit of disagreement coming out. She thought it was right up there with Pulp Fiction, whereas I merely thought it was very, very good indeed.
Yes, Inglourious Basterds is extremely violent; furthermore, the violence is often brutally sadistic. This is not, I emphasise, a film for anyone with any level of squick. But at the same time it is rooted in such an over-the-top blackly comedic premise that - if you buy the premise of the film at all - you probably won't find it out of place. And the premise of the film is the key. The trailers present it as a 'combat mission' film along the lines of Where Eagles Dare or The Dirty Dozen. It's not. Inglourious Basterds is a caper movie - a very darkly and brutally comic one at that. It's also an extended homage to the Spaghetti Western, a fantastic masterpiece of film-making, and in places screamingly funny. There are scenes that on reflection are about four times the length almost any other director would have written them, but Tarantino makes them into almost perfect little mini-movies of their own.
Oh yes, and it's a pity that film scripts aren't eligible for a certain specialist SF award (see here, but be warned that viewing that link implies a monumental spoiler for the film) as otherwise I think Tarantino would be in the running. Hell, a sequel certainly would.
(As an aside, I now wonder if this is why so many film critics had problems with the film. I think they may have just completely bounced of the ending in incredulous and irate incomprehension; "He just totally changed the end of World War 2!" In an odd kind of way, Inglourious Basterds may be a film that sf readers are inherently much more comfortable with.)
I have one odd nagging question though: why make up Mike Myers to look like Martin Clunes so as to play a British general, when you could just employ Clunes instead?
rozk to join her this afternoon for a viewing of Tarantino's latest. Mind you, the generally rather lukewarm reviews had left me a little apprehensive, and whilst I'm not at at squeamish I was somewhat wary that I might be letting myself in for a Sunday afternoon gorefest.Well, Roz and I had a bit of disagreement coming out. She thought it was right up there with Pulp Fiction, whereas I merely thought it was very, very good indeed.
Yes, Inglourious Basterds is extremely violent; furthermore, the violence is often brutally sadistic. This is not, I emphasise, a film for anyone with any level of squick. But at the same time it is rooted in such an over-the-top blackly comedic premise that - if you buy the premise of the film at all - you probably won't find it out of place. And the premise of the film is the key. The trailers present it as a 'combat mission' film along the lines of Where Eagles Dare or The Dirty Dozen. It's not. Inglourious Basterds is a caper movie - a very darkly and brutally comic one at that. It's also an extended homage to the Spaghetti Western, a fantastic masterpiece of film-making, and in places screamingly funny. There are scenes that on reflection are about four times the length almost any other director would have written them, but Tarantino makes them into almost perfect little mini-movies of their own.
Oh yes, and it's a pity that film scripts aren't eligible for a certain specialist SF award (see here, but be warned that viewing that link implies a monumental spoiler for the film) as otherwise I think Tarantino would be in the running. Hell, a sequel certainly would.
(As an aside, I now wonder if this is why so many film critics had problems with the film. I think they may have just completely bounced of the ending in incredulous and irate incomprehension; "He just totally changed the end of World War 2!" In an odd kind of way, Inglourious Basterds may be a film that sf readers are inherently much more comfortable with.)
I have one odd nagging question though: why make up Mike Myers to look like Martin Clunes so as to play a British general, when you could just employ Clunes instead?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-16 09:05 pm (UTC)Similar type of question when Stephen reported on the cast for GI Joe: why would they cast Jonathan Pryce as the US President? Would absolutely no American actors agree to do the part?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-22 04:42 pm (UTC)I need to see it again several times - once at least to note and track all the film posters around the cinema.