I’ll give you a winter prediction: It’s gonna be cold, it’s gonna be grey, and it’s gonna last you for the rest of your life.

Loosely based on the book by Roald Dahl, Wes Anderson’s film tells the story of a family of foxes, particularly Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney) out looking for a big score from the farmers along his property. It’s a little bit Ocean’s Eleven and a lot Wes Anderson. The animation is amazing and quirky and the voice actors impart their personalities onto their animated characters giving them life. But don’t let the animation fool you. This is every bit of a Wes Anderson film as is possible, which makes it oh so enjoyable! Some say the autuer is dead, but I say the idea of the auteur in cinema is alive and well with Wes Anderson leading the pack. His innovativeness, distinct style, quirky odd characters, way if storytelling, and superb penchant for music that fits so perfectly in the film it melds with it, prove his ability to stamp his films with his persona letting it shine through so you know it’s a Wes Anderson film. Even though this is an animated film, it is clearly and overtly a Wes Anderson picture and not every director can put their mark on an animated film. It takes a helluva good director with a helluva sense of style.

You would be a fool not to see Fantastic Mr. Fox, it’s cussing great.

Oh, Quentin Tarantino, how hath thou disappointed me, let me count the ways…

Way Number One: Okay, so this isn’t necessarily Tarantino or the film’s fault but it still relates. All of the hoopla and media attention surrounding the film made me ponder how good it really is, and after seeing it, I’m still trying to figure out why everyone likes Inglorious Basterds. Maybe it’s because it’s branded with the name Tarantino, but that doesn’t automatically make it a good picture, or does it? He’s not the independent, quirky, action packed filmmaker he once was yet everyone still views him that way and for the general mass media, Tarantino is still their darling and nothing he ever does can be bad. I swear they’re all dunces who couldn’t tell a Truffaut from a Godard if they were both in a line up. Don’t trust media hype. Chances are, the producers bought all the tv air time to promote the picture and gloss over how awful it really is (more commercials = a fantastic film). The really good movies are the ones without so much mass marketing and hype. Hype leads to disappointment and resentment, so I’ve learned again.

Way Number Two: Separating the film into chapters. This may have worked for Kill Bill and its story structure and flowed well with the rest of the film, even if it was a rip off of Lady Snowblood and so many others (NB. Tarantino can’t tell us he adores Truffaut yet he never saw The Bride Wore Black who’s plot is eerily similar to Kill Bill. I raise my brow at you Tarantino because I don’t believe you). Inglorious Basterds was bad enough and hard enough to sit through without the chapter titles coming in and throwing me out of the narrative. It isn’t the type of film that suits chapter titles and would have flowed perfectly well, if not better, without them. If this is some sort of new thing Tarantino has going for a trademark of sorts, I’d seriously rethink this technique for future films.

Way Number Three: The script. The worst thing is there is too much dialogue for a Tarantino film that was promoted (hype again) as an action-packed, blood-soaked killing machine. The structure of the story was fine but its promotion was deceiving (by both Tarantino and the studios). Now, I get that dialogue is used to define the characters and bring greater depth to them but there is a way to mix dialogue with non-verbal actions in a way that won’t make me bored – and I can sit through Peter Greenaway’s epic The Falls without a yawn. As for the rest of the dialogue heavy script, it is mostly straightforward, structured, riddled with secondary characters coming in and out of the diegesis. If I wanted to, I could really nitpick the script but that would not make it any better.

Way Number Four: It is offensive. I for one, unlike everyone else, was very offended by the film. Probably because I have seen and read so many things (factual things) on World War II, that a cartoonish farce take on the subject took me aback. I don’t have a problem with films inventing their own histories to suit their needs, but to take a subject like World War II and the Holocaust, and more specifically to turn an atrocious historical figure like Adolf Hitler into a mere diminutive Looney Toon is ghastly. The war is an emotionally heavy subject for many and to turn it into a fun romp disregards the seriousness of the matter. To quote an image from the film when Eli Roth’s character repeatedly shoots an already dead Adolf Hitler, it’s overkill. And to rewrite a history where millions of people, human beings, died is like shutting the history book and depreciating the number of lives forever lost and changed. Because who needs to learn about the past, or how the war unfolded, changing the shape of the world to come, when you can write your own version of history and sell it to the empty-headed masses as entertainment?

All criticisms aside, Inglorious Basterds is not up to par with Tarantino’s oeuvre of film, not that there are too many to get excited about. But it is hards to like Tarantino’s films after you realize how unoriginal they are and perhaps if he admitted his influences, I wouldn’t have a problem with him (ex. Martin Scorsese once said something to the point that everything in cinema has already been done and it’s impossible to make a film without it being heavily influenced by all the films you’ve seen – he admits his influences). That’s why Quentin Tarantino = movie buff director; Martin Scorsese = film scholar director. Don’t believe me, check out the movie connections links from Imdb, to see what really makes up a Tarantino film. I was pleased to see Inglorious Basterds is somewhat original though I would still not recommend this insensitive, depth lacking, tour de farce.

And now that he is remaking King Hu’s classic, Come Drink with Me, I am even more incensed. Why can’t he leave the Chinese films alone and come up with his own ideas? Oh, I forgot, he doesn’t have an original thought in that big head of his.

IMDB Links

Reservoir Dogs (not mentioned: the plot, especially the end, is from City on Fire directed by Ringo Lam. The colourful names are from The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3).
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (not mentioned is how in both Vol 1 and 2 Tarantino directly takes the Shaw Brothers logo and puts it before his opening titles. Even though he isn’t a Saw Brother).
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Death Proof
Inglorious Basterds

The featured filmmakers for the week is Michael and Peter Spierig. If you have seen their previous film, Undead don’t let that deter you from seeing Daybreakers. I saw Undead and was confused as to how these two were even able to make a film. Then I saw Daybreakers. It is a million times better and I couldn’t believe it was the same filmmakers. Daybreakers is awesome and a refreshing take on vampires.

From Michael and Peter Spierig. You must see this one.

30 Days of Night (2007)

Based on a graphic novel, and directed  by David Slade whom I am saddened to say is directing the next Twilight feature How he can go from the scariest of scary vampire in 30 Days of Night to sparkly lameo ones in Twilight I’ll never know. Nevertheless, 30 Days of Night is very entertaining and great all around.