Inglourious Basterds

(image source)

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Inglourious Basterds (2009), is a rather confusing film when compared to the director's earlier output. Rewriting world history completely is not the peculiar thing, it's Tarantino's restrained and occassionally unfunny approach that is rather distracting. Apart from the juvenile gags and offbeat soundtrack you wouldn't necessarily realise this to be a film from the director who brought us Pulp Fiction.

The idea of a bunch of Americans slaying Hitler might sound like a great premise for a Tarantino film, but it surprisingly falls flat. Apart from Hans Landa, the characters are quite one-dimensional. Now this wouldn't really be a problem since Tarantino usually handles them well, but none of them really get to shine in this film since they aren't really funny. Luckily Landa has a lot of screentime to make the film enjoyable - and the cast is good enough to make the film solid.

The form is distracting because, well, it isn't heavy-handedly present like in the director's earlier films. The more "restrained" and conventional approach would be fine if Tarantino was serious - he's not. This clinical approach makes the film awkward on many occasions because the jokes fall flat without Tarantino's tongue-in-cheek camerawork and editing. Using Morricone's compositions is a weird idea for a film set in the 40's and the result is a bit puzzling. While it works once in a while, the soundtrack as a whole is not convincing. Now add a few totally random/sloppy cuts and you have a form that doesn't exactly serve the film's purpose.

Inglourious Basterds could have been yet another success for Tarantino, but the execution stumbles a little. However, Christoph Waltz' towering performance almost single-handedly redeems the film.

Score: 6 out of 10

Come and See

In March 2009, I watched Elem Klimov's Come and See (1985) for the first time. I was stunned by its unflinching and intense depiction of war. Almost a year afterwards, I decided to watch the film again to see if it really was as great as I thought back then. Klimov's film tells about an innocent Russian boy who has to deal with terrible atrocities as Nazis wreak havoc near his hometown.

The screenplay is more or less a mess, no matter how I look at it. Its anti-war message is presented in an over-the-top, heavy-handed way - and never goes below the superficial level. The film alienates the viewer on many occasions (the film is all about being ridiculously dark - there is even no comparison to a better time to make the characters closer to the audience), which is only terrible because it relies heavily on the viewer's reaction. That way the film resorts to using only shock value as a means of exploring the themes. That's a sign of weak writing. However, the movie does portray war in extremely gruesome detail - something it does somewhat well. Sadly, that hardly makes the content satisfying.

The film's form is even more alienating: complex long takes, ridiculously melodramatic musical score, baffling sound mixing and the calm pace keep the viewer at bay. As a distant, cold observation on war the film utterly fails. Despite that, I can still applaud its ways to alienate the viewer - especially the noisy sound mixing is good at that. However, your ears will hurt by the end of the film because all the sound effects are used in really peculiar ways. You'll have to hear it for yourself.

Shamefully, the film is too enraged about its subject so that the movie is not capable of providing a sensible and complex take on anything.

Score: 5 out of 10