Review: Where the Wild Things Are

I typed a few words trying to begin this review. Then I deleted them because they didn’t feel right. I tried again, and failed. Yet again, the same thing. What I soon realized is that I’ve never, or very rarely, had this much trouble starting a movie review. Well, what does that say about the movie at hand? In this case, I still don’t know how to exactly describe it. Where the Wild Things Are isn’t my favorite movie of all-time. It’s not my automatic bid for picture of the year. But it’s captured my thoughts and emotions thoroughly and completely – both while viewing it, and now the day after.

What I find myself doing is thinking about it over and over, drawing different feelings out of what I saw.

One of the simplest reasons I can give to people on why I rank movies higher than others is this: how appealing is the movie to view again…and again…and again in the future. For Wild Things, I already want to see it in theaters for a second time. But to reiterate, is this the most complex and beautiful movie ever? No. But perhaps it feels like it because every single element worked beyond my wildest expectations. It was beautiful. It was heart-wrenching. It was heartwarming. It was thoughtful. It looked simply phenomenal. I can’t seem to say enough about it, even if I can’t quite grasp every little piece that was put into the running time.

Maurice Sendak's extremely short children's book, a cult classic, is not for the young, but rather the hearts and minds of adults. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

Now that I’ve explained that much, let me tell you a bit about the movie itself; this is a movie review after all. So rarely do movies come close to being as great as the books they’re based off of. The book in the limelight here is a children’s book, a short one at that. Many of the pages are purely illustrations. Maurice Sendak’s book however, has reached cult status, and has been revered as a classic for a number of generations. Somehow, in the few words he chose, he conveyed messages far deeper than anything meant for a small child. Somehow, he got across to the heart of adults. The book is beautiful, but if the movie’s screenplay doesn’t get nominated for an Oscar, that’s an outrage. Taking a 3-minute-to-read book and turning it into a 94-minute motion picture is a feat that few can conquer. But quickly, to let  you understand what kind of book and subject matter the movie deals with, I want to look back on an interview with Sendak that HBO recently did (the interview was actually conducted by Spike Jonze, director of the film).

Maurice Sendak is a sad man – there are no two ways around it. He lives purely for his artwork and his words, nothing more it seemed. His expression was that of hopelessness as he discussed that the only time he feels worthwhile and generally good, is when he’s drawing or writing. But then he said something like this: when he dies, what’s the point? what did it all matter? It’s just over anyway. He is an artist, and like so many of his fellow craftsmen, he is a sad soul. You could see it on his face and hear it on his voice. Then, out of nowhere and out of context it seemed, he said that he could never escape writing about childhood. Because that was living, in its fullest. That’s what he remembered.

The lack of CGI or fancy animation, combined with amazing settings and camerawork, made it a marvel just to look at. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

So, now, finally to the movie. What must first be acknowledged is the way Jonze went about putting the movie together. First, many of the shots were captured via hand held camera, to give it a real sensation. It looked incredible, and the camerawork was fantastic. The creatures though, the wild things, were what gave the movie the human feeling. Weird sentence right? Rather than using CGI or 3-D animation or some other crazy Hollywood trick, it was just large costumes, with performers inside them. The voices were “human”, their feelings were ours. We shared in everything they did and felt, despite the appearance. These days, Hollywood spits out animated features with voice work done by actors that sounds completely awful, or just bland at best. But in Wild Things, I heard Carol (James Gandolfini) yearn for love.

The connections between Max’s (the main character) world and his imagination of the wild things world draw parallels to us, our lives, and the simplest of human emotion. Why do people ignore you? What does it feel like to be rejected? Why don’t the ones who say they love you, truly act like they love you? What, really, is a true family? These are not questions to be addressed in a movie for children. It’s a dark journey we take with Max and his friends. Perhaps this is why so many parents are refusing to go to this film.

Between Max's world and his imagination, lie the emotional questions and offerings we face in our own lives. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

Through Max, and his reflection in each of the wild things, you gradually feel a lot of emotion rushing around. Sitting there, you can’t help but well up. To put it simply, it’s heartbreaking, and beautiful, all in the same scene. It will get to you, because not only do we feel for the characters, but we feel, and think of ourselves. To create such a parallel is amazing, and so much good can be said about the job Spike Jonze and his writers did on this movie.

This has to be the end of my review. I feel like I rambled on for far too long and maybe went off on a tangent or two. I think it’s because I still can’t fully understand all of Where the Wild Things Are quite yet. But what I’m starting to realize more and more is this: it’s a truly beautiful movie, from start to finish. I know I provided you with little to go on in terms of the movie itself in this review, but it’s tough to capture in words. It’s not my favorite movie of the year, or of all-time. Maybe if I understand it more, I’ll have to make an editors note and change this review. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 stars out of 4. Four-star movies are instant classics that live on forever for me. For now, this is not in that category. But maybe someday it will be.

(By the way, as I finished, I honestly forgot – Jonze somehow created immense amounts of humor throughout the film. It was laugh out loud stuff, but cleverly done, not forced at all.)

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE: (out of 4)

Review: The Invention of Lying

*Shakes head over and over* What happened, Ricky? Did you actually watch the finished product? Don’t you realize how incredibly clever and funny an individual you are? I feel almost ashamed that The Invention of Lying was so awful. I’ve been talking up this movie for months in advance and much more in the past few weeks, trying to get people to see it. I wanted people who didn’t know who Ricky Gervais was to see his comic genius. Well, perhaps for the first time, Gervais let me down…in a big, big way. This film was close to unwatchable. It was boring, it was a one-tricky pony, it was a broken record, and it surely wasn’t clever. Ricky, you’ve made me laugh so hard on so many occasions. So I’m going to let this slide eventually, but I have to ask again: What happened???

Two great comedians that produced just about zero laughs the entire time. What a waste of talent. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

First let me set the stage for The Invention of Lying. It sounded like a pretty funny premise: nobody can tell lies except Gervais. Solid, I can go with it. Then there’s his past work. Ghost Town, which was as hilarious as it was touching, a truly completely lovable movie. It was one of the hidden gems of 2008. There’s his stand-up material too, which is a reason alone to get HBO, but I’m sure you can rent it by now. There’s also Extras; a hilarious show that was also on HBO about movie extras. Oh yeah, he created The Office too. Credentials good enough? I thought so. And get this cast – Gervais, Jonah Hill, Louis C.K. (!!), Jeffrey Tambor, Tina Fey, and John Hodgman. That’s enough funny people for five movies. Add in great talent like Jennifer Garner and Rob Lowe and well, shouldn’t you have a masterpiece? But, like so, so much junk being pumped out of Hollywood these days, the trend of lumping too many A-list stars in one movie failed miserably.

So, why did it fail? For one, the actors that I just mentioned, Gervais included, could do nothing with this paltry script. The lines seemed so forced, often choppy and awkward, and it flowed terribly. The plot details turned out to be just weird and bizarre, not in a good way. We as an audience were presented with a joke in the first few minutes from one of those A-list actors, I can’t remember who – or I don’t want to. Then they tried the joke again with someone else. And again. And again. And over again until I couldn’t remember what the point was, and it was so dry and pathetic, it was hard to stomach. I honestly couldn’t believe I was watching something so painful that was written, directed, and starred in by a great comic mind.

I know, I was equally as shocked that the movie was THAT bad. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

Another thing about The Invention of Lying that added injury to insult was the romance that was tied in between Garner, Lowe, and Gervais. It wasn’t believable, it added nothing, and quite honestly, it was cheesy. Yikes. The last thing I’ll lash out on this film about is what some people are calling “clever”. Now, yes, it is true that it tries to poke fun at religion. Trust me, I get that. But hasn’t that been done before? In far funnier settings? I understand what was happening in those scenes, but like every other ploy and joke in the far too long 1:40 running time (felt like an eternity), it was dry and like a broken record.

This was a bad movie. There’s just no getting around that. I find it strange that two of the absolute worst movies this year, and in a while, have been from two great comedians in Gervais (Invention of Lying) and Seth Rogen (Observe and Report). I guess you can’t always bat .1000, can’t always slam dunk every venture. I’m not giving up on the brilliance of Gervais, he’s too funny to do so. But I’d like to forget about this movie all together.

THE INVENTION OF LYING: (out of 4)

Review: Paranormal Activity

For a movie that cost an estimated $12,000 – $15,000 to make, Paranormal Activity it certainly is bringing in far more than anyone could have expected, at the box office and in crowd support. You see, this isn’t your typical horror or thriller movie – for two reasons. The first reason is that it’s shot like a documentary, a mockumentary if you will. It’s drawn a lot of comparisons to the Blair Witch Project which caught the country by storm some years back. The second reason is what I just stated: catching the country by storm. This movie started out in less than 15 locations, mostly college towns. To get it playing in your area, you had to “demand” it online. Demand, well, it was high, and still is. Packed houses across the land have been scared silly over this movie, calling it ‘the scariest movie in years’. Well, it was certainly entertaining at times, but after my creepy viewing, I wasn’t completely won over. I slept quite well, thank you.

You have to give it credit for the original feel and it certainly had its moments, but in the end, 'Paranormal Activity' turned out to be just "OK". (DreamWorks Pictures/SlashFilm.com)

What Paranormal Activity did very well was build on itself, scene after scene. After the initial set-up and understanding of who these two characters are and so forth, something kinda weird happens. You smile a bit in your chair, waiting for the loud noise to thunder through the auditorium. But nothing happens, and the story does an admirable job of moving forward and not pulling any cheap tricks. Then something else happens at night, the trend beings to emerge. You know something’s coming but you don’t know what – it was harder to guess, and more creative it turns out, than your average thriller movie. Each and every time it became night, you tensed up, gritted your teeth, and waited with immense anticipation. Most of the time, the movie delivered pretty well. It played off some fears people have of “what goes bump in the night”, but I do disagree with the notion some people are putting out there that this movies captures everything we are afraid of – not so much. Nevertheless, it was pretty eye-opening at times, and kept you waiting. It didn’t let down until…

The end. Oh the hard to wrap your head around ending, the one you wish that they hadn’t used. An ending and conclusion, if you want to call it that, that drops this movie from good to just alright. Now, I understand how hard it is to make movies. Actually, I’ll probably never understand how hard that trade really is, and especially to make one that really catches fire and is successful. But in my heart of hearts, I know that there had to be something better to cap this one off. I can’t say much, as to potentially ruin the ending, but it was certainly disappointing. The anticipation was whisked out of the theater and most of the audience calmed down, and it ultimately became just another thriller, instead of that special kind of movie that comes around once every blue moon. It’s a shame that such a fresh feel to a movie, packaged so nicely with sincere acting and great build-up, dwindled when it ran its’ course.

Paranormal Activity is likely to be “demanded!” by the masses as it gains more and more hype, and good for the director who made this on chump change by Hollywood standards. But as exciting as it was, as fun as the anticipation was for most of it, it turned out to be nothing really special. It had its’ moments, but didn’t quite live up to the hype. I’m not disappointed at all, but it would have been pretty neat if the notion that I’d have nightmares for weeks was true. Thanks to a shaky plot twist, or whatever you want to call the last 25 minutes or so, that remains untrue.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY: (out of 4)

Review: Zombieland

There have been a lot of good movies this year, a number of them that will stay with me in a very positive way for years to come. But as I looked through the list of movies I’d seen this calendar year, no one film stood out the way Zombieland does. No single film I’ve seen has the sheer creativity and originality that this hilariously bloody movie does. It’s not an Oscar winner, nor is it something I’m writing in Sharpie for the DVD release date. However, when much of what Hollywood churns out is predictable junk, a movie like this truly shines. It’s funny, it has damn good action, great acting, it’s fun and it certainly thinks outside the box. What more can you ask for?

'Zombieland' hits it out of the park in terms of humor, but make no mistake, the action is damn good as well. (Columbia Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

The whole new trend of vampires and zombies and those kinds of things is starting to get a little bit old. The new Twilight movie coming out? – no thanks. I passed on the first one, I can pass on this. But in Zombieland, things aren’t the same. For one, there’s a set of rules. We’re introduced by one of the leads – Jesse Eisenberg – to the rules of this Zombie ridden Earth right from the start, and from minute one of this relatively short film, you can tell it’s quite different. The laughs start in those rules, during the opening credits, and don’t let up until all is said and done. But what so many other movies really fail at is tying everything together – acting, story, humor, romance, etc. As I write this, I realize more and more how much it succeeded in every aspect.

You would have to think that despite a miserable screenplay for any movie, if there is great acting, it can be halfway decent. Well, the screenplay and story were fantastic, so that is of no worry. The acting on the other hand is also fantastic. Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg are casted perfectly and play off each other with ease, creating many memorable moments. I honestly couldn’t tell you 10 movies Harrelson has been in, hell, the last one I can remember is his cameo in Anger Management as a cross-dressing prostitute/security guard. But damn, did he knock this role out of the park. He’s wild, he’s funny, and the brief cut-aways of him in the past are so damn golden. Speaking of cameos…

Stone, Harrelson, Eisenberg, and Breslin create four likeable and hilarious characters in this bizarrely entertaining movie. (Columbia Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Zombieland has one of the better placed and executed cameos maybe…ever. The person nails the role, and the brief five minutes or so on screen is really priceless and somehow doesn’t let the movie as a whole skip a beat. Some other things that help the movie carry along seamlessly are Emma Stone, and also the subtle moments of romance and the subtle moments of hilarity. Emma Stone, aka – the chick from Superbad, is really a dynamic young actress. She was funny, sweet, and convincing. Not to mention extremely attractive, but that’s for a different article. She, with Jesse Eisenberg, allows Zombieland to escape being one-dimensional, and let just the right amount of romance in. It lightens the mood that much more, and you’re already “rooting” for these characters, as this aspect allows you to enjoy their presence even more. The subtle humor I mentioned…well, I realized that I can’t talk about it without giving away hilarious moments. I can’t do that, so you’ll have to take my word that they nailed it.

So, as it would seem, I have nothing really bad at all to say about this movie. Perhaps that’s why it cracked my top 10 of 2009 for the time being. I can ask nothing more out a movie than what Zombieland gave me tonight.

ZOMBIELAND: (out of 4)

Review: The Informant!

Wow, what a rush. That was a breath a fresh air. Oh, no, I’m not talking about the movie, I’m talking about walking out of theater when it was finally over. The Informant! isn’t a good comedy at all…and that’s what it was advertised as. The Informant! isn’t an interesting story to watch…and that’s what the book, and true story are. It’s mashed together, it left out critical details and pieces of the storyline which leave you scratching your head, and it’s immensely boring. I wanted so badly to give this movie a chance as I had been looking forward to it, and I stayed with it, through all of its running time…only to be ultimately letdown.

This one had a lot going for it: a crafty director, a great producer on board in Clooney, and a very talented actor in the lead role. Let’s start out with the acting: there was nothing wrong with it. This is the one aspect of The Informant! that wasn’t bad at all. Matt Damon, who put on 30 pounds of fat for the role, did what he could with the script (we’ll get to that later). He was a good liar, a convincing one, and blended into his role. He’s one of those special actors where you really see the character, not the actor. The supporting actors all fell in line too, playing their roles to the best of their extent. Each one did their job. This is where I stop praising the movie because it was a misled, mishandled, and quite boring.

Matt Damon plus 30 lbs. couldn't save this movie from dragging on far too long in a poorly put together script. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

Acting aside, the script left a lot to be desired. The movie should have looked and felt “faster” and “craftier” than it was. I don’t know why Soderbergh didn’t take more elements from Oceans 11 other than the music. It was dull and it certainly needed a jolt every couple of minutes, which it sadly never got. Going back to what the script was…it dragged. Oh did it drag. It was all over the place. It sometimes didn’t even make sense. For instance, if you do see it, try and figure out why Mrs. Whitacre didn’t question one thing her husband did. I’m sure the book goes into great detail, but the movie didn’t spend one second on her character. It’s errors like this that turned a boring movie into a boring movie that didn’t even add up.

I hate to really trash something like I have in this review, but this was a huge letdown. The story seemed like such a lively one, but was tossed around on Hollywood desks a few too many times, and came out dry. The actors did what they could to save it, but couldn’t do a thing. And man…it was boring!

THE INFORMANT!: (out of 4)

Trailer Update

On the calendar/anticipating page there are a hell of a lot of new trailers posted, including the following:

The Informant!, Capitalism: A Love Story, Whip It, Zombieland, Where the Wild Things Are, Saw VI, A Christmas Carol, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and much…much more.

The movies I’m most excited to see between now and December 4th are: The Boys are Back, The Invention of Lying, Law Abiding Citizen, The Road, and Brothers.

Enjoy!

Review: Extract

I want to write this review as fast as I can, before anything is forgotten about this movie. I want to tell you as much as I can about Extract, because as soon as I do, hopefully I’ll forget I ever watched it. There are very few movies that make me feel as if money was completely and utterly wasted; like I should get a refund. This is one of those movies. The jokes were dull and repeated over and over and over again. There was little creativity, and a supreme waste of talent.

The storyline was simple enough, but floundered in executing anything worthy of a good laugh. (Miramax/aceshowbiz.com)

The main complaint people might present who defend this movie is the whole “they’re just comparing it to Office Space” argument. That the bar was too high and my expectations weren’t met because of that – this was not the case. Now let’s get something straight…Office Space is one of the best comedies in the past number of years. It’s a classic. Before it was a cult classic, I actually saw it in theaters – I was one of the very few. But I didn’t compare this movie to Mike Judge’s masterpiece, no, I viewed it as a clean slate. Comparing this effort however, to Office Space or any good comedy…you can see the vast differences in quality.

Before I touch on the actually quality of the movie, the humor and storyline itself, the waste of extreme talent has to be touched on. The cast for Extract is pretty extraordinary: Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, J.K. Simmons, Ben Affleck, David Koechner are all hilarious in their own rights. They have all been hysterical in past movies and shows and the thought of rolling all that up into one movie seems impossible to harness the humor. Well, it was impossible, and it’s a shame. None of the actors were really given any “breathing room” outside of this dull script to show their acting and comedic chops. None of them could improvise it seemed, and none could save it. The characters themselves were unique and original, but what came out of their mouths didn’t match their appearances at all.

J.K. Simmons and Jason Bateman: two great comedic talents that were wasted in this movie. (Miramax/aceshowbiz.com)

What makes a good comedy? Is it the ability to quote it, line for line, months after? Think The Hangover for a recent example on that. Is it the chance to view the outlandish or absurd? Or is it unique joke after unique joke, never repeating something, and staying true to the story? Perhaps it’s one of those. Perhaps it’s all of the above. What Extract failed to do is create a cohesive storyline, one that grabbed my attention and baited me to crave more. It failed in leading me on with anything special or out of the ordinary. The jokes were, in a word, awful. I hate to lay into it this much, but I remember laughing twice…the entire time. It was a broken record, and the original spin wasn’t that good to begin with anyway.

I give it one star, instead of 1/2 of a star because I’m holding out hope that one day, maybe, I’ll look back and rediscover humor I didn’t see. But for now, this ranks as one of the worst movies of the year.

EXTRACT: (out of 4)

Review: District 9

When does a human obtain the right to degrade and belittle another being – capable of thought, feeling, and soul? Where is the line drawn for who is on the right and who on the wrong? Is there a definition we use in society for someone who is human and who isn’t? All these social and moral quandaries are addressed in District 9, the fast-paced but highly intelligent Peter Jackson-produced film. My initial thought upon seeing the trailer, even with Jackson’s name attached, was mild amusement – “I’ll catch it on DVD.” But as the reviews poured in, overwhelmingly positive, and friends and family alike gave it 9’s and 10’s out of 10, I knew I had to go. I’m certainly glad I did, because while it wasn’t a revelation or a classic, it was a smart film with a sci-fi background. It used violence to further the plot, it needed it; it didn’t just use violence for the sake of blood and guts, slasher type action. This was a sophisticated alien movie – think of how many times you’ve heard that before.

Johannesburg: an ideal setting for an abstract yet firmly accurate portrayal of apartheid. (Sony Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

One of the best results to come of District 9 was who you ended up “rooting” for: the aliens and now outcast MNU worker. Why not root for the MNU – the government, the good guys? Tying in social parallels so eerily similar to today’s world, you watched, and began to hate the guardians. Not only had they imprisoned those different from them without thought outside the political realm – apartheid in its fullest – but they treated them like subhuman scum. They were inferior and treated like, as a quote in the movie stated, a concentration camp. But look farther, because it was deeper. The “good guys” were also the second largest gun manufacturer in the world. Everything is for cash gain and raw human emotion and common sense are stored aside. Look no further than the boss of the contaminated MNU worker, and father of the wife, who lied to her while her husband was being torn apart.

The movie was science fiction and chock full of action, there is no doubt about that, and it looks utterly fantastic. I’m still confused how they made this movie with a budget of roughly $30 million. In fact, I have to talk roughly about the look and feel of the film very briefly because it lent itself brilliantly. It wasn’t a fake documentary, but it did cut in and out with “interviews from experts” looking back on what had happened. It was another original step in this already completely original story, and with sincere emotion from the professors and analysts, it gave it a real world feel – not to mention the similarities to CNN throughout the movie. Back to the look – it felt and seemed real, like it could happen and was happening. I loved the fact that it was over Johannesburg instead of the typical D.C. or NYC. Of course, this was absolutely perfect setting for a movie incorporating the idea of apartheid.

The moral questions raised in District 9 will get you thinking - when does something become less than human? (Sony Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Although drenched in robots, aliens, and explosions, the heart of the movie was in the tug of war of emotion in the main character. Unknown actor (they all are to us) Sharlto Copley gave a riveting performance, and he needed to, because everything was literally coming after him, down on him, and happening around him or because of him. There he was, a perfect government agent just given a promotion. Then, well, the bad things happen to him: he starts to become like the ones who are looked down upon. Cue the confusion, boundaries of what is human and what isn’t, and desperation, and the movie kicked off into high gear and never let up. Copley starts to show us what it’s like to be the outsider who was once firmly inside the system. The anxiety, the fear, and finally, the sheer and utter loss of dignity turned to desperation. His affection that grows for the father alien is humbling, revealing, and truly emotional.

District 9 may be followed by a sequel in the near future due to box office success and Jackson’s name appeal, but the originality of this film will be hard to conquer. It raises moral and ethical issues that parallel our society and human nature so closely that it’s humbling and scary at the same time. After a mildly slow start, the look and feel of this movie begin to creep into your mind as reality. Or something that could be. Sure, there are aliens and spaceships, and the action is great. But it’s there for a reason, to make you think…about something deeper. Not a lot of movies have that power, sci-fi or not.

DISTRICT 9: (out of 4)

Review: Inglourious Basterds

I’m really not a Tarantino fan at all. Sure, I saw Kill Bill 1 & 2, and I saw Planet Terror/Deathproof. The latter two were pretty lackluster films, and that sentiment seemed to trickle down even to the most committed die-hard fans of the bizarre director. I feel as if that whenever you talk Tarantino movies, there’s always going to be that one person in the room who loves him, loves the movies, and will defend him until you’re tired of the argument. That’s part of the reason I tend to stay away from talking about his stuff too often, but as noted, I’m just not a huge fan of his work. Well, I’m not entirely sure what the reaction from the die-hard fans is, but after watching Inglourious Basterds, I fell in love with this movie on a number of levels. Consider me a Tarantino fan, for at least this one.

Brad Pitt and 'the basterds' were wildly entertaining thanks to great writing and acting. (Weinstein Co/aceshowbiz.com)

The previews and widely known premise gave just a glimpse of what this movie was going to be like. Six American, Jewish soldiers, during WWII in France known as the “Basterds” go around killing Nazi’s. Putting their war crimes right back on them. Disfiguring them as they disfigured so many others. But it’s made so cleverly, and it’s so very well written and acted, that the 2 1/2 hour run-time seems to really fly by. If someone else had directed this movie, it would never have turned out so right, and I’m even lumping my favorite directors up there too. A Spielberg take on this? Wouldn’t work. It needed Tarantino as much as he needed this.

A good beginning to any movie is as important as anything. It sets the tone for the entire film and immediately removes you from your cushy movie theater chair and plops you right into whatever world that movie takes place in. Basterds beginnings with a true bang, but it’s not just mindless or gruesome violence. There is a small cabin scene where a dairy farmer is hiding a Jewish family. The anticipation, drama, acting, and tension rise…rise…rise as the conversation between this farmer and an SS guard carry on. It’s completely silent, yet it grows louder and louder to the audience. Brilliant use of cut away camerawork and the finest writing and acting make this long piece of dialogue exciting and leave you breathless. The culmination of the scene is no letdown either.

Pieces of dialogue, sometimes lasting 20 minutes or more, never ran dry and were as exciting as the actual action. (Weinstein Co/aceshowbiz.com)

That, the long pieces of dialogue, is perhaps the best part of this movie. Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of bloodshed, and some of it is pretty gruesome. Hell, the whole end sequence is shooting Nazis until there’s no bullet left unused. But you might be surprised that Brad Pitt, Lt. Aldo Raine, and his soldiers, aren’t killing the Nazis for the majority of the film. Nobody is killing anybody for the majority of it, the dialogue is carrying you from scene to scene. There are stretches of dialogue that last up to 20, maybe 30 minutes, but it never seems dry. The writing is in top form in Basterds and is as creative as it is captivating.

You obviously can have the best writing in the world, the most magnificent script ever, and have it fail miserably due to the wrong actors. Basterds had the perfect actors. The Jewish soldiers themselves were terrific, some seen on screen more often than the others. Funny and brutal, furious and calming. Brad Pitt was awesome, for lack of a better word. Some people won’t ever love this guy, thinking he’s a pretty boy actor, not to be taken seriously. Did his job in Benjamin Button last year deserve an Oscar nomination? I didn’t think so, even though he was damn good. But his body of work speaks very loudly and positively. My notion on Pitt changed back when I first saw Fight Club, which is probably his best role to this day. Following that: Snatch, Oceans 11, Troy, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Assassination of Jesse James, Burn After Reading….those are some damn good movies. I mean, some of those are really good. What’s most impressive is the variance between them. He nailed them all and not one is like another listed there – his range speaks loudly. Add Aldo Raine to that list. The Tennessee talkin’, Nazi killin’, cocky, funny leader of the whole damn group. He sizzles and grabs attention whenever he’s on screen.

Putting Pitt aside, as I said before, his group of men weren’t on screen for a ton of time. That left room for other actors to shine as well. Melanie Laurent was terrific as the child and then theater owner. Diane Kruger was very good as their German actress spy. But the show stealer without doubt was Christoph Waltz, as Col. Hans Landa of the SS. His little quirks, both mesmerizing and funny, were fantastic. He had charm but cold blooded determination. He was probably the most unique character out of a bunch of very bizarre people.

The acting was top-notch, and while Pitt was great in his own right, Christoph Waltz was terrific. (Weinstein Co/aceshowbiz.com)

When I write reviews, it’s obviously personal – it’s what I think of each film. But this movie was more personal than that. It was written in a Jewish newspaper review that this was Jewish fantasy, or Jewish porn. I won’t lie, as someone of the Jewish faith myself, I felt a rush seeing Eli Roth as one of the basterds shoot the living hell out of Hitler. The Nazi flags burning, the swing of the bat to their heads, the destruction of them…one by one…and then picking them off in a crowd at the end, seemed like sweet justice. It’s just a movie, and history unfortunately can’t be re-written. But for 2 1/2 hours, it was the ultimate pleasure to watch Aldo Raine and his boys change history, if only for a few hundred Nazis.

The movie as a whole though, was as satisfying as a film lover too. The acting…extraordinary. The writing…excellent. The tension through camerawork, beautiful dialogue, and other aspects…superb. Everything fell into place so well. And of course there was the Tarantino touch. The carving on the forehead, the gruesome deaths, the bizarre characters, the chapters, and finally, the blazing and loud introduction of Hugo Stiglitz, a basterd. Well done Tarantino, well done.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS: (out of 4)

Christopher Nolan gives you…

It’s all a mystery right now, and that’s how Nolan works. Nobody knew much of anything about either of the Batman films or The Prestige well before they were released. So sit, scratch your head, and watch that mind-bending, amazing looking trailer a few times. His track record shows he won’t disappoint, especially with Leo as the lead here.

Also: the reviews have been slow as the summer winds down, but I’ll be seeing District 9 and Inglorious Basterds this week. Look for those.