Enough about my favorite movie; obvisously, I'm not going to reveal it today. I'm going to talk about war and the movies that sprout from them. Not that I'm that big of a war film fan. This past weekend, I did manage to see 3 great movies that happen to be war pictures, 2 of them I had not previously seen and 1 of them I am now kicking myself over not seeing it sooner.
I won't keep you in suspense about the best movie I've seen in a while. That would be Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds". In a nutshell, this is "Pulp Fiction" played out during World War II in it's correct order and minus one suitcase. Yeah, that about sums it up. All I can say is WOW! From the opening scene, where a French father of 3 young ladies greets German soldiers at his front door for a talk that is basically very one sided, to the end scene, which almost serves as the perfect coda to this symphony of comedic mayhem and melodrama. Going back to the opening scene where Tarantino's mastery of characters communication shines brightest, where the main antagonist of this film (if there is a main antagonist in this film, considering who this man works for), SS Colonel Hans Landa played with weird glee by Christoph Waltz (who has to be a shoe-in for a best supporting Oscar nod), simple questions the French father on trivial matters such as nicknames & rumors & the differences between rats & squirrels. While these questions are being asked & other statements are being made, there is a key scene that doesn't stray to far from where the conversation is taking place but shines a light on the conversation to the point that we now know what Colonel Landa really wants to know,as well as shine a light on the emotions and thoughts of the Frenchman to the point where, even though he hasn't said too many words, you know what he WILL be saying, sooner than one would have thought having watched him since the beginning of the scene. Aside from the introduction of the Colonel, the opening scene serves one other purpose, that I won't reveal out of love for this movie. In fact, I won't reveal any more of the plot accept that Brad Pitt is in charge of a rag tag group of soldiers (that have been labeled Jewish Americans by some reviewers; although some of the soldiers are I didn't find any info within the movie to back that up regarding all of them) named the Inglourious Basterds who are to kill as many Nazis as possible. Of course, the main Nazi they wouldn't mind getting a crack at would be Adolph Hitler and when a chance presents it's head to get this one major kill, the Basterds pounce on it but they're not the only ones. I don't think it would be a spoiler to say Adolph Hitler does make an appearance.
Don't you hate as moviegoers the fact that you go into a movie review not wanting to know exactly what happened but end up finding out anyway? I don't do that. I feel that for a person to enjoy a movie there has to be an air of the unknown involved. That's how I went into this movie. Even though Tarantino is one of my favorite directors, probably favorite director that I watched since his first movie, I don't see him as one of the great ones yet. Maybe because he doesn't have a total of 10 movies attributed to his directional resume yet. Maybe because in order to compare him to others, I am still waiting on his first misstep as a director (no, "Grindhouse"'s Death Proof segment was no misstep; IMO it was highly ingenius, entertaining and a prime reason that I believe Tarantino can make a movie about a man taking a crap and make it a great movie.)
With that said, the only other information I can give you regarding this movie is it is told in 5 scenes, all in order unlike "Pulp" which works. I guess it could have been told in a non linear manner as well & probably still worked, but I never was a fan of this gimmick. It worked for "Pulp" because nobody knew it was telling the same story upon first viewing; after viewing it sorta became the main reason to watch the movie again. "Basterds" and it's 5 chapters are all in correct order but none of that really matters. this movie is told in a disinterested,deattached voice that gives it a life of it's own. A life filled with the same eccentric brand of characters from the beloved "Pulp" film. I really don't want to stop talking about this movie but I must before I tell you everything that happens in it.
I also saw the latest indie movie darling, Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker". Also a great war movie, this movie did something that "Inglourious" didn't. Instead of romancing the soldiers and their mission, "Hurt" manages to make a soldiers job look just as mundane as any desk job, with the drama actually coming from the interaction between the members of a bomb squad, Sergeant JT Sanborn (a pitch perfect as always Anthony Mackie)& Specialist Owen Eldridge (a mousy but equally inspired performance by Brian Geraghty, whose acting I don't know much about) and the replacement soldier to the unit, bomb specialist Staff Sergeant William James. James is played by Jeremy Renner, who I remember as one of the few standout performances in the that god awful remake "S.W.A.T."that featured a tuned down maybe a little too much Samuel L Jackson. Sergeant James is attuned to the consequences of a misstep in his line of work brings and decidedly embraces it. He thrives off of.... he gets a rush from... actually, that's all I've heard in other reviews but I never saw exactly what he gets a rush from to pinpoint it with one sentence. I did see that he has a dangerous job compared to mine but I saw similarities to how he goes about his duties versus how I go about my duties. To me, this movie was more of a workplace drama than a war film. The fact that these guys work during a war in a war zone does nothing to change this into a war movie. Regardless of how one views this movie, be it as a war movie or workplace drama, this movie works. I felt the characters. I felt the drama, the tension, caused by the situation that the soldiers found them selves in or the drama caused by a soldier not following commands of communication; if I'm a temp, how can another temp tell me what to do? Then explain how does work if we are refering to Sargeants. I would love to know that. Well, whatever. However you choose to view this movie, it will work on that level. This movie is that good. It's tension doesn't just come from the war itself or the bombs that are disarmed, but from the
most common kind of tension; the tension between people of different mindsets stuck in a circumstance that forces them together. Everybody has had that kind of tension in real life.
After viewing those two movies and realizing the war connection, I tried to figure out what other war movie I could watch because obvisously I was in a war kinda mind. To me, there's not a whole lot of great war movies. There's a trunk load of good movies, a boat load of ok movies, and a cruiseship worth of war movies that aren't worth enough to even call bad. The standout war movie greats incude "Deer Hunter", "Platoon",& "Full Metal Jacket", each movie, oddly enough, puts more emphasis on the bonds of the soldiers than the actually war itself. The whole first half of "Full Metal Jacket" is about the training of the soldiers and the alienation of one soldier with horrific results. The second half, the war half, works only because we become invested in the lives of these marines (if I remember correctly they were marines) during the first half. I digress but it serves purpose.
I decided, after the comedic style war of Tarantino and the domesticated war style of Bigelowe, I needed to see war at it's worst. For that craving I chose "Saving Private Ryan", directed by a Steven Spielberg, who just might go on to be a great director someday. LOL! We all know who Mr. Spielberg is so forgive me for trying to be funny. Anyway, this is probably one of the most sincere war movies I've seen, portraying the anguish amongst the soldiers who are handed the seemingly impossible and highly irregular task of trying to find one soldier in a war torn country were the war is still occuring to bring him home because of the deaths of his three brothers, who died in the same war that the currently still living Ryan brother is currently fighting. Imagine trying to find the needle in the haystack if the hay stack was on fire and you'll get the point. It's not impossible, but it sure is harder than just finding the needle, which was hard enough already. The team of soldiers setting out to find Ryan is led by Tom Hanks, who had just won two best actor Oscars before this movie. He may have gotten one for this movie too, but the ensemble cast really took the movie out of one actors hands. The cast includes Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Casey Affleck, Vin Diesel, Edward Burns, & Matt Damon as the eponymous private. There's also cameos by the always delight full Paul Giomatti, Ted Danson, and others, but the real star of this movie is the war itself. Shot with a kind of lighting that would make even sunny days seem gloomy, you get the feel of the war from the opening scene. I am trying to think if I have ever seen so many people dying in the beginning of a movie as in "Saving". I probably have but I cannot for the life of me think of any right now. Whatever. This movie works. All three movies work so if you haven't seen them, do yourself a favor.
Inglourious Basterds (2-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]
-4.5The Hurt Locker [Blu-ray]
-4.5Saving Private Ryan [Blu-ray]
-5
No comments:
Post a Comment