PREVIEWS LIE.
Usually spliced together by a team of publicists, the most effective
previews show the audience exactly what they want to see—with the
promise there’s more where that came from. The best previews do that,
too, but they don’t have to lie in order to do it.
Take the trailer for Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious
Basterds, which promises a Dirty Dozen-style action flick
about a crew of Nazi-killin’ Jews in WWII. It’s a sharp trailer, witty
and dark and visceral, and it makes you want to get to the theater
ASAP.
It’s not that Inglourious Basterds‘ trailer is an all-out
lie—there is a group of Jews called the Basterds, and they
do kill some Nazis. Brad Pitt plays their leader, and whenever
the Basterds are onscreen, Tarantino’s latest feels exactly as one
would hope: as if Tarantino lifted samples from every kickass WWII
flick, from The Guns of Navarone to The Big Red One, then
remixed ’em into something wholly new and exhilarating.
But here’s the thing the trailer doesn’t tell you, and which I feel
obligated to point out: the Basterds? They aren’t in Inglourious
Basterds nearly as much as you’ll want them to be.
Which isn’t to say that the rest of Basterds is lousy, ’cause
it’s not—overall, this is a hell of a picture, and parts of it
are as great, if not better, than anything else Tarantino’s done.
Basterds‘ opening sequence is a nerve-wracking exercise in
tension: throughout, there’s a dark humor that’ll make you snicker and
clench your teeth; there are killer performances from Pitt and
Christoph Waltz, who plays a particularly vicious Nazi named Colonel
Hans Landa, AKA “The Jew Hunter.” (Pitt’s character, a charming,
totally fucked-up Tennessean lieutenant named Aldo “The Apache” Raine,
demands his soldiers scalp the Nazis they kill and gleefully carves
swastikas into the foreheads of those he lets live; Landa, meanwhile,
is so terrifyingly fascinating that he’ll go down as one of the best
movie villains in recent memory.)
And then there’s the rest of Basterds, which is a sizeable
chunk, and which never works as well as the stuff above: Shosanna
Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) is a Jew hiding out in Paris; Fredrick
Zoller (Daniel Brühl) is an eager-to-please Nazi war hero; Bridget
von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) is a German movie star who’s secretly
working with the Allies. All of these characters’ plots are woven into
a grandiose opera, but if there’s a consistent tone to be found in this
film as a whole, Tarantino doesn’t seem interested in finding it. While
the best parts of Basterds channel the splattery pulp of old
comic books, the worst sequences can feel indulgent and
melodramatic.
Don’t misunderstand: Tarantino’s still really fucking good at what
he does. It’s just that judging by Inglourious Basterds‘
trailer—which might not be fair or smart, but which, regardless,
is something most people will do—one sees a version of this film
that’s Tarantino at the top of his game, with Pitt slyly drawling out
razor-sharp dialogue and WWII looking and sounding like it never has
before. Inglourious Bastards is totally like that sometimes, but
not all the time—which is kinda disappointing, but is mostly just
a good reminder that previews lie.
Shouldn’t we be thankful? The IB trailers were the single worst cut for a Tarantino film.
Then again, I knew all along how ill-represented the movie was by them, and considering some of the other plot points sound more interesting (and a hell of a lot smarter and clever) than the WWII torture porn being promised, I probably won’t feel hoodwinked like the people who are into and expecting that sort of stuff will be.
“Inglourious Bastards is totally like that sometimes, but not all the time.”
So…. why aren’t you telling us what it’s like during the other times? Wait, I could try to add that to your review for you!
“Parts of it are as great, if not better, than anything else Tarantino’s done. But then other parts are, like, not as great, you know?”
AKA this review is basically just telling us that this movie would be better if it was totally rad throughout the entire thing.
Um, yeah I kinda feel like this review was going nowhere….
I, too, enjoy hearing how great this is some of the time, but not all of the time, just in the parts when, often, its good, but not in the parts when, at times, its bad. This is a wonderfully written film review thats a fantastic overview describing a movie. Its not at all redundant, or repetitive, or at all indicative of the IQ of someone who may enjoy a QT film.
Also, “overall, this is a hell of a picture, and parts of it are as great, if not better, than anything else Tarantino’s done” may set a new standard for the term “backhanded compliment.”
you know what? it’s a hard movie to get your head around. There are a few scenes that are SO well done it’s ridiculous. The opening scene, a stand-off in a bar, and the aspects of the climax actually had my heart racing. At times I was viscerally uncomfortable for the characters, and not because of typical “Tarantino” boundary pushing, but rather purely because of great movie making. However, despite the really, really good parts, it sort of felt like the whole wasn’t that cohesive.
AND, what I think the reviewer is getting at is that it is disappointing that the basterds themselves are never really filled out as characters. The way they are initially introduced, you want to have SOMETHING to hold on to, to make you care about them, but the movie only gives you a little bit about these guys, and what it does give you ultimately seems slapdash and arbitrary. I’m sure there is some Tarantino jack-off who would tell me that I just don’t get it because the movie is SUPPOSED to subtly play-to-but-then-subvert my trope conditioned expectations, but well… whatever… I think the movie would be more satisfying if it gave you more character than it does.
I will totally see the movie again though. Maybe it will grow on me. It’s strange enough that it will stick in your mind for a while, and, like everybody is saying, the Jew-Hunter guy is amazing… he’s worth the price of admission, even if it basically costs like $20 bucks now if you want any candy along with your ticket.
Long time Mercury read, first time commenter. Just finally took the effort to sign up to let you know what a completely terrible review this is.
The movie didn’t look like the trailer, but trailers suck, so this movie was pretty because some parts were like the trailer, but some other parts weren’t like the trailer, so maybe it would be better if they were. But remember that trailers suck so maybe I shouldn’t have written this review based on that but I did anyway.
Well done.
Soooooo…you liked it then?In his defense At least he is actually attempting to review the film, not impress us with his prose and widespread knowledge of liberal arts, which reviewers occasionally like to do.