INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS/2009

I simultaneously love and hate this film. It's a brilliant concept but not brilliantly executed throughout, as, in the same fashion of Chuck Palahniuk, Quentin Tarantino is too talented for his own good. At his level of fame, fortune, and prestige, you're typically surrounded by 'yes men,' who are far too smitten by your talent to challenge you. Hence, no one with influence has the nerve to criticize him-they just don't.
Those who have an exceptional amount of patience are going to absolutely LOVE this movie. However, I cannot see it being appreciated by many outside of Quentin's core audience of diehard fans (people like me). In fact, I would not be surprised at all if there was solely love/hate reactions to this film. One of my screenwriter friends absolutely hated the movie, and I understand his feelings completely, for he, like I, is a writer and understands the pacing problems with this story. However, I shall be very interested in what, Oliver, my friend and actual screenwriting partner in Hollywood, has to say about this movie.

Awhile back, before I had gained a full understanding of the craft of writing, my editor, Lisa, would rip into me for little things, such as details. She'd say such things as: “Marque, why the crap would you spend time describing this character in such vivid detail, only to kill him the very next paragraph?” After hearing this enough times from her, I came to an understanding, and it was a most invaluable lesson...

WRITERS: BE WARY OF THE PLACEMENT OF YOUR DETAILS, FOR YOU DON'T EVER WANT TO UNNECESSARILY SLOW THE PACE OF YOUR STORY!
This is not a written law, but it should be.

In the case of novelists, let's say that you're writing a story about ghosts. In the beginning of your tale, when you've barely introduced the main character(s) and haven't made it anywhere near the 'inciting incident' (or the event which throws your protagonist's life out of balance)...WHY IN THE BLAZES would you insert a nonsensical description of a newspaper advertisement for sofas, when, not only does it kill your pace, but it also has nothing at all to do with the rest of the story! Chuck Palahniuk does this. However, it's not completely his fault, for, as I mentioned, he's so talented that no one has ever had the courage to tell him NOT to do that.
Quentin Tarantino has the exact same problem. His excessive writing utterly destroyed the pace of his latest film. I want to be clear that I'm not poking fun at the dialogue, which he is so known for, as we all know that it is masterfully written. However, the bottom line is that there is, plain and simply, too much of it. I could deal with gangsters 'shooting-the-shit' at a restaurant in “Reservoir Dogs,” and I had no problem with Vincent and Mia's 'foot massage/uncomfortable silence' conversation in “ Pulp Fiction.” I had a similar reaction to Bill's 'superhero' dialogue in “Kill Bill,” and it was the same for the girls in “Death Proof.” Though there was an excessive amount of talking, at least the dialogue is highly amusing and comes from wonderfully interesting characters. However, in the case of Quentin's latest project, these elements take their toll. As a Tarantino fanatic, this marks the first time ever that I've found myself saying “C'mon, Quentin, pick it up!” while watching one of his films. I promise you all, I have never seen him take so long to get to the point, as he did in 'the bar scene' in this film. That ten or fifteen minutes he spent on that marvelously written dialogue, was precious time that could have been used to further develop 'the Basterds,' as they are called. Let it be known that I am, typically, not a huge fan of films, named after characters that you don't even get to see!

...And this brings me to my next point: WHERE THE HELL WERE 'THE BASTERDS!?' Because of his excessive writing, Quentin spread himself thin, and therefore devoted time to unnecessary areas when he should have been showing us more of the Basterd's exploits. Even if you love the film (as some of you undoubtedly will), mark my words, most of you will be less than pleased that you get so little time with this magnificently interesting group...it's a tease!
This is also the problem with the other actors...there isn't nearly enough of them. I don't mean to suggest that they don't have enough screen time...I'm merely saying that they don't have enough 'interesting' screen time. There are some superb actors in this film, who have absolutely NOTHING to do. This is especially evident with Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark) and the young French beauty, Melanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus). In fact, the only actor with the screen time to match his marvelous performance was Chistoph Waltz (Col. Hans Landa). The remainder of Quentin's wonderfully interesting characters are left to die (some of them literally!). Once again, this goes back to his excessive writing with dialogue. The story is so 'talky' that it lacks a decent number of entertaining scenarios. If Quentin learned to cut his dialogue down by half, it would be a great credit to his work, saving time to add a few more meaningful predicaments for his protagonists.

Although I am less than pleased with many aspects of this film, do not let that deter you all from going. It is merely the fact that I'm an artist and writer (who was lucky enough to wind up with the most brutal editor on earth) that makes me so very critical. When you're an unusual talent, it's very important to have people in your circle, who aren't afraid to rip your heart out if it's going to make your work better. Quentin desperately needs this!

Before I close this review, let me make it clear that I DO actually like this movie. I merely have issues with it. The acting, cinematography, and characters are all magnificent. However, because of Quentin Tarantino's style, these positive attributes come with a huge downside:
As mentioned, the film is HORRIBLY paced because of excessive talking. And, like jam spread over too much bread, the majority of the actors do not get to shine to their full potential, simply because it is so poorly paced. Also, it is inappropriately titled, for it is named after vastly interesting characters that you don't get to see much of...again, because of excessive talking in unnecessary areas! Other than those irritating aspects, the “Inglourious Basterds” is superb.

(And, as I've finished writing this review at about 1 AM, a friend just called, saying that the film was absolutely brilliant and that it's amongst his film favourites. See what I mean...mixed reviews. Aside from someone like me, who's sort of 'middle ground' with his opinion, most people's views will probably be on love/hate extremes.)

EDIT, AS OF SEPT. 03, 2009:
I have now seen the film again, and though I still like it, I haven't changed my mind. With this viewing I actually TIMED scenes, as I wanted to be sure I wasn't crazy...and I wasn't. In fact, the pacing is worse than I thought. The opening scene takes approximately 18 minutes before Quentin gets to the point, nearly 20 by the time guns are blazing. It's the same for the bar scene, except this time there was roughly 23 minutes of dialogue! TWENTY-THREE MINUTES! I mean, c'mon, man...seriously! That's 3/4 of an hour...do you all realize how much more we could have seen of the Basterds with this time?!

© Marque Terrynamahr Strickland/2009