In Contention

Tag: Inglourious Basterds

  • Mixed early reviews for ‘Basterds’

    Inglourious Basterds

    UPDATE: Variety’s Todd McCarthy bucks the trend with a decidedly enthusiastic review. He cites some problems, including first-half tonal inconsistencies, but otherwise finds himself swept up in Tarantino’s self-reflexive games:

    By turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, the picture is a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor that’s new for the director.

    The best characters are non-Yanks, all of whom speak their own languages and one or two others to boot. But this commendable gesture toward linguistic accuracy is virtually the only realistic aspect of the picture, which otherwise soars on its flights of fancy and deliberate anachronisms — the use of David Bowie’s “Putting Out the Fire” at a crucial point is particularly inispired — and flattens out only when Tarantino gets too carried away with over-elaborated dialogue scenes, a problem that could easily be addressed with some slight trimming between now and the skedded August opening … (It’s) never less than enjoyable and more than that in the second half.

    EARLIER: Blogger reactions to “Inglourious Basterds” may be scattered, but the first two trade reviews (we’re still waiting for  Variety to chip in) read fairly similarly, and not very positively at that.

    The critics agree that there are tasty morsels in the stew — rapid consensus seems to be emerging that Austrian star Christoph Waltz spectacularly outshines the rest of the ensemble — but accusations of overlength, indulgence and narrative inconsistency are to be found.

    Are we talking another “Death Proof,” a specialized item that will have its critical and public champions but doesn’t return its maker to the world-beating crossover status of this earlier work? It’s early days in terms of gauging critical response, but with the Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw crucifying the film (a “colossal armour-plated turkey from hell”), and the Telegraph indifferent (“not so much inglorious as undistinguished”), it seems the detractors will be plentiful.

    (more…)

  • First ‘Inglourious Basterds’ reactions

    Christoph Watz in Inglourious Basterds

    UPDATE: Jeff Wells’s unenthusiastic take lines up with what I had personally feared from reading the script:

    It’s not great. It’s a Quentin chit-chat personality film in World War II dress-up. It’s arch and very confidently rendered from QT’s end, but it’s basically talk, talk, talk. Tension appears in a couple of scenes (especially the first — an interrogation of a French farmer by a German officer looking for hidden Jews) but overall story tension is fairly low. A couple of shootings occur but there’s no real action in the Michael Mann sense of the term except for the finale. No characters are subjected to tests of characters by having to make hard choices and stand up for what they believe — they all just talk their heads off, is what it comes down to.

    EARLIER: Total Film’s two men on the spot are split on the film. Sam Ashurst finds his expectations happily exceeded, and seconds the good word for Christoph Watz:

    This is Quentin’s best film since Jackie Brown. It might even be his best film since Pulp Fiction … QT’s magpie eye has never been sharper, swooping down on Italian cinema and plucking the very best shots, framing and music to create a deserving homage to the spaghetti westerns of my youth.

    Make no mistake, this is Landa’s (Watz’s) film. He is the Blonde Jules of the movie; the stand-out character that will be on everyone’s lips when they’re walking out of the screen.

    (more…)

  • ‘Basterds’ online

    Blame the lack of U.S. star power on the Croisette this year if you like (the NYT’s Brooks Barnes claims there’s an abnormal amount of empty hotel rooms around), but it sounds like a particularly quiet day at Cannes — and elsewhere.

    If you want to make it a lot noisier, check out the relatively new official “Inglourious Basterds” site here. Grinding guitars, gunfire every time you click a tab … it’s every bit as subtle as you’d expect and want from the film, even if it doesn’t tell you anything you didn’t already know, or thought you knew.

    The ample quoting of dialogue throughout, however, reminds me just how many misgivings I had about that script. Perhaps the clunkiness needs a visual context. I’m genuinely curious to see how this goes down — the film makes its Cannes debut on Wednesday.

  • Cannes: sizing up the Competition, part two

    Charlotte Gainsbourg in AntichristContinuing yesterday’s survey of the runners and riders in the race for the Palme d’Or…

    “ANTICHRIST” (Lars Von Trier)

    The pitch: You’ve seen the trailer. Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe star as bereaved parents who retreat to a remote woodland cottage to nurse their grief, only to be terrorised by unnamed forces of evil. (English dialogue)

    The history: Over his seven previous Competition appearances, Von Trier has enjoyed a gradual ascent from the Technical Grand Prize for 1984’s “Element of Crime,” to the Jury Prize for 1991’s “Europa,” to the Grand Prix for 1996’s “Breaking the Waves” (1996) to, at last, the Palme d’Or for 2000’s “Dancer in the Dark.” Nothing since then, however, with his masterful “Dogville” coming up surprisingly (and undeservingly) empty-handed.

    The outlook: The film may appear to be familiar (albeit bloody terrifying) horror fare in the trailer, but we should know by now never to presume what a maverick like Von Trier has up his sleeve. Cannes is usually averse to the genre, so whether the film made the lineup because it’s something more subversive, or simply because it’s directed by one of their favourite sons, remains to be seen. Either way, the film will need to be something special to get Von Trier back in the winner’s circle – after all, “Dancer in the Dark” proved so polarising, juries have been unwilling to take a chance on him since. He tends to put his actresses through the wringer, so perhaps there’s a chance for Charlotte Gainsbourg here – but who knows?

    “SPRING FEVER” (Lou Ye)

    The pitch: Erotic drama follows a young man hired to survey a married man’s homosexual affair; tangled relationships ensue as the spy and his girlfriend become sexually drawn to the adulterous couple. (Mandarin dialogue)

    The history: Not counting an unfortunate 2006 withdrawal after his “Summer Palace” fell foul of Chinese censors, this is Lou’s second Competition appearance.

    The outlook: There is a great deal of goodwill in the world-cinema fraternity for Lou, who has fought a continuous battle with the Chinese censorship board. His last film, the politically charged “Summer Palace,” resulted in the director receiving a five-year ban from filmmaking – a ruling Lou is flagrantly flouting by screening his new film (which was shot in secret on handheld cameras) at this year’s festival. It’s a courageous move, and I think there’s a strong chance the jury might like to demonstrate their support for the embattled auteur with a prize of some variety.

    (more…)

  • Troublemakers united

    IrreversibleYours truly began a two-part Cannes preview this morning, but there is plenty more such coverage around if you’re beginning to get festival fever. I particularly liked Jonathan Romney’s rundown in the Independent, in which the critic points out an interesting trend in this year’s lineup: namely the convergence of several renowned enfants terribles in one year.

    There’s almost always one title in contention whose extremities — whether of sex, violence or other — set tongues wagging along the Croisette, but this year looks to be particularly hard on the faint-hearted. Quentin Tarantino’s bound-to-be-grisly “Inglourious Basterds” looks positively milquetoast compared some of the other fare on offer, including “Oldboy” director Park Chan-Wook’s decidedly adult vampire tale “Thirst” and Lars Von Trier’s seemingly unnerving foray into horror territory, “Antichrist.”

    Michael Haneke’s new effort doesn’t look like a box of kittens either, but as Romney writes, none of these filmmakers instil quite as much fear in mild-mannered filmgoers as Frenchman Gaspar Noé:

    These days, the shocks come a little stiffer. A hardened colleague of mine walked out of Gaspar Noé’s Irréversible (2002) after the opening salvo of 13 blows to the head with a fire extinguisher – thereby missing considerably worse to follow … With Enter the Void, it’s more than likely that he’ll attempt to up the ante on Irréversible. Touted as “a hallucinatory maelstrom”, it involves a stripper’s brother who reviews the violent circumstances of his death, from the afterlife. Laden with special effects and screeching neon colours, Noé has promised it will be more psychedelic than violent – but at two-and-a-half hours, it certainly won’t be an easy ride.

    I’m interested to see whether Noé can build more critical cache this year beyond the controversy that greeted his previous work — for all its look-at-me theatrics, “Irréversible” is a much better film than it’s usually given credit for. With several other title jostling for the attention of the more excitable media outlets this year, perhaps there’s more of a chance people will find the film beneath the fuss.

    And as Romney points out, if anyone can handle it, it’s a jury that includes such notably fearless figures as Isabelle Huppert and Asia Argento. Bring it on.

  • WEEKLY WRAP: Loving ‘Trek,’ reading ‘Chéri,’ awaiting ‘Basterds’

    Anton Yelchin in Star Trek• In a bumper season for the sci-fi genre, Kris was thoroughly impressed by both “Star Trek” and the lower-profile “Moon.”

    • Meanwhile, we kicked off this year’s Page to Screen series with a look at the literary origins of “Chéri’.”

    • In a sad week for the business, we bade farewell to both actor Dom DeLuise and filmmaker Marc Rocco.

    • Quentin Tarantino declared “Inglourious Basterds” a masterpiece. (And Eli Roth a bastard.)

    • Following “Angels and Demons,” could cinema be the wrong medium for Dan Brown’s storytelling?

    • Continuing our new Sunday Cents feature with a breakdown of “Wolverine’s” box office performance.

    • Speaking of which, the “X-Men” franchise continues to grow new limbs. This time, a Deadpool spinoff.

    • We got a taste of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro” with both a trailer and the opening minutes of the film.

    • Yours truly admitted to some reservations about Christian Bale’s recent work, and lost further cool points by fessing up to his Jennifer Garner weakness.

    • Finally, our contentious quest for the most influential films of all time continues apace.

  • I’m saying nothing

    Ahem:

    Inglourious Basterds

  • Just the one, then?

    Quentin TarantinoYou may or may not have caught this piece on Quentin Tarantino in Sunday’s New York Times magazine. Overall, it’s a fairly flimsy Cannes-oriented interview that serves mainly as an accompaniment to some pretty pictures (very pretty, in the case of the Diane Kruger shots), but two of QT’s statements jumped out at me.

    In the first, he (fairly, I think) defends his decision to hand “Fahrenheit 9/11” the Palme d’Or in 2004 as a reward for being “a movie of the moment” — but when the conversation turns to “Inglourious Basterds,” he offers up this line:

    NYT: On this movie, you worked very quickly. Was that partially to have the film ready in time for Cannes?

    QT: Yes. I wanted to have a masterpiece before the decade’s out.

    I’ll let slide the overweening pride of Tarantino’s statement for a moment — partly because, as many misgivings as I personally have about the new film, it’s that brash confidence that also gave birth to a genuine masterpiece like “Pulp Fiction.” Largely, however, it’s because I detect a note of cryptic self-deprecation there.

    Perhaps I’m reading too much into his wording. But the use of the indefinite article “a” rather than, say, “another,” intrigues me. Is he admitting that, “Basterds” aside, he hasn’t made a masterpiece this decade? If so, on behalf of “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” — and only that, I hasten to add — I’d like to disagree.

  • 5/4 Web Round-up

    Brad Pitt in Inglourious Basterds• Premiering a Brad Pitt character poster from “Inglourious Basterds.” [Ain’t It Cool News]

    • Digging into the world of fan-made films across the pond. [The Guardian]

    • John Hiscock talks to J.J. Abrams about selling a re-imagined “Star Trek” to classic stars and fans alike. [Daily Telegraph]

    • Peter Knegt kicks of “(123) Days of Summer: An Indie Film Guide.” [indieWIRE]

    • Grady Hendrix looks at the comic book history of this weekend’s box office champ: Wolverine. [Slate]

    • Pointless Megan-Fox-looking-hot video that is bound to sell more issues.  I gladly watched. [Esquire]

    • Meanwhile, test your Wolverine wisdom. [USA Today]

    • “Daniel Craig: ‘I’ll keep doing Bond until my knees go’” [The Independent]

    • Mark Olsen talks to the principles on Fox Searchlight’s summer rom-com, “(500) Days of Summer.” [Los Angeles Times]

    • Celebrating Swine Flu in style with a list of 13 deadly movie outbreaks. [Premiere]

  • Almodovar, Campion, Lee in Cannes lineup

    Abbie Cornish in Jane Campion's Bright StarThe official list of films competiting for the Palme d’Or at next month’s Cannes Film Festival is out, and while it’s not a very surprising list — it’s been a given for some time that “Inglourious Basterds,” “Broken Embraces” and “Antichrist,” among others, would be in the mix — it still an exciting one, packed to the gills with auteur works from both regular visitors (Michael Haneke, Ken Loach) and long-absent ones (Jane Campion, Alain Resnais).

    I’ll dig into the selection in more depth later, but for now, here’s the list:

    “Broken Embraces” (Pedro Almodovar)
    “Fish Tank” (Andrea Arnold)
    “Un Prophete” (Jacques Audiard)
    “Vicenre” (Marco Bellocchio)
    “Bright Star” (Jane Campion)
    “A L’Origine” (Xavier Giannoli)
    “Map of the Sounds of Tokyo” (Isabel Coixet)
    “The White Ribbon” (Michael Haneke)
    “Taking Woodstock” (Ang Lee)
    “Looking for Eric” (Ken Loach)
    “Spring Fever” (Lou Ye)
    “Kinatay” (Brillante Mendoza)
    “Enter The Void” (Gaspar Noe)
    “Thirst” (Park Chan-Wook)
    “Les Herbes Folles” (Alain Resnais)
    “The Time That Remains” (Elia Suleiman)
    “Inglourious Basterds” (Quentin Tarantino)
    “Vengeance” (Johnnie To)
    “Face” (Tsai Ming-liang)
    “Antichrist” (Lars Von Trier)

  • Please no

    I don’t know.  I look at this still and I think, “God, I’m destined to despise every inch of this film.”  That’s what seriously goes through my mind.

    (from left) Eli Rotha nd Brad Pitt in Ingourious Basterds

  • Cannes-bound?

    With the “news” (which has, of course, been common knowledge for the better part of a year) that Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” is set to compete at Cannes, it’s time to start contemplating what else might appear in the festival lineup.

    For my money, one of the safest bets has to be Ken Loach’s latest, “Looking For Eric.” A comedy centred on a working-class football fanatic who receives life coaching from legendary French footballer Eric Cantona, it looks like a refreshingly fanciful departure for a filmmaker celebrated usually for bleaker social-realist fare. That may not exactly sound like a festival gimme, but it’s been almost two decades since a Loach feature didn’t compete at one of the three major European fests — Cannes being the most hospitable of his work.

    Loach has an enviable track record at the Croisette — though 2005’s “The Wind That Shakes The Barley,” which finally netted him the Palme d’Or after eight attempts, never really caught on after the festival. The chirpy teaser below suggests to me that “Looking For Eric” may find more of an audience, even if it’s less award-friendly than previous Loach efforts. (Thanks to commenter Han for the tip.)

  • Not feeling it

    My consistent disinterest in anything Sam Raimi has ever touched aside (“Spider-Man 2” and maybe “For Love of the Game” excepted), why do I hate every inch of this “Drag Me To Hell” trailer?  Is it the choice to force Allison Lohman into the role of a leading lady I can buy (which I can’t)?  Is it the the use of David Arnold’s “Kasuf Returns” from “Stargate” plopped over the last half of the trailer to over-amplify the urgency I should feel at the film’s goings on (which it doesn’t)?  Is it the eye-rolling nature of the horror genre for God knows how many years, something Raimi has come to exemplify, at least in my own mind?  Is it the Mac guy, distracting as always?

    Maybe it’s all of the above.  But chalk this up right next to “Inglourious Basterds” as one of a few films I most certainly wouldn’t call “anticipated” this year:

  • Watch this face

    You can’t lose much by making “star is born” pronouncements. If you’re right, you get to brag about your stunning foresight, and if you’re wrong — hey, nobody remembers anyway.

    But back in October last year, as I watched stunning young French ingenue Léa Seydoux illuminate Christophe Honoré’s lovely, woozy teen romance “La Belle Personne,” I was convinced there and then that I was seeing a major talent in the making. The César voters agreed, nominating her for Most Promising Actress. (The film, which you may remember I liked a great deal, got a limited U.S. release over a fortnight ago — catch it if you can.)

    So I was excited to see her name pop up on yesterday’s press release for Ridley Scott’s as-yet-untitled Robin Hood venture. My guess is the role won’t amount to much — but hey, Marion Cotillard did her time as eye candy in a Scott film (let’s not name it, shall we?) a little over two years ago, and she’s doing all right for herself these days.

    Seydoux will also be seen shortly in “Inglourious Basterds.” The girl’s going places, I tell you.

  • OFF THE CARPET: Handicapping 2009 a year in advance!?

    Ewan McGregor and Hilary Swank in AmeliaAhh.  The dust is settling.  And on the horizon, just visible through the mist and waiting to drive us all up the wall once again: the 2009 Oscar season.

    I’ve been writing this year-in-advance column for probably six years now, and I always look forward to gazing ahead.  No one dives in so pathetically deep this far out as yours truly, but in exchange for not having a life for the past few months, I get to unload this burden the day after our annual season’s peak and forget about little gold men entirely for a few months.

    It’s quite liberating.

    The most interesting thing about the season to come, from my vantage point, is the lack of a dreaded “frontrunner status” for any of the contenders.  Some might say Clint Eastwood’s Nelson Mandela project (which is not called “The Human Factor,” mind you — the director says the film is currently untitled and is based on John Carlin’s book “Playing the Enemy”).

    Others might say Rob Marshall’s “Nine” (coming from a money-tight company hoping to avoid echoes of “Memoirs of a Geisha”).  But I don’t see a “Geisha” from here, or a “Charlie Wilson’s War,” expected heavies waiting to miss the mark.  The field is curiously flat, and as a result, excitingly broad.

    Let’s get to it, shall we?

    (more…)

  • ‘Basterds’ trailer

    The official trailer has been unleashed — still not looking forward to it.  And really, enough of the ego: “You haven’t seen war until you’ve seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.”  Ugh: