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

I’m not surprised this film did poorly at the box office, but I was surprised at how bad (and boy, do I mean bad) it actually is. I expected a whole lot more from Will Ferrell. He’s usually funny and capable of being the lead in a film (see, Anchorman) but for Land of the Lost he fell short. I cannot recommend this film for the following reasons:

- The story was weak and basic. A disgraced professor creates a time portal to prove himself to the world. And the story does not develop any deeper than that. It’s almost as if someone took the tagline for the film and added some dialogue and boom, you have a film.

- It is not funny. Nothing about it is. The script is so poor, not even Will Ferrell can make it remotely chuckleable. The film relies on simplistic and overly sexualized humour that kids might laugh at but will not understand, whereas adults will understand but will sit stonefaced.

- Related to it not being funny is the terrible acting. No one has genuine comedic timing, and they are all very irritating in the film, so much so I wanted to turn the damn thing off, but I never walk out on a film so I grudgingly stuck it out. It goes to show you how much talent an actor must possess to have genuine and natural comedic timing and for that to translate on screen.

Not every single tv show needs to be made into a film. Leave tv shows alone because they don’t all work as films and even if they can work it ruins the nostalgia of the show when it’s butchered into a 90 minute film that it henceforth will become associated with. Goes to show you how untalented and how unoriginal Hollywood truly is. So, Land of the Lost the tv show I would recommend for viewing (yes, I used to watch it and no, I’m not that old) but Land of the Lost the film I cannot and will not recommend for the very horribleness it is.

Example: my sister wanted to see it, thinking it might be funny because Will Ferrell is in it. I had already seen the film, and usually I would say, “sure go ahead and see it, just to see it”. But for Land of the Lost I said “no way. There’s nothing good about this movie. It’s not funny, it’s weak, and generally unpleasant. Don’t waste your time”. Land of the Lost, get lost! Heed my advice.

So it took me a while to see this one and I probably should have waited longer (as in not see it at all). Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy action films as much as the next person but when it comes to superhero films some are better off in comic book form. I tried to like this film but it failed to hold my interest and is just another overhyped and overbudgeted film using action in place of development if any kind, be it character or story. Most of the time I was thinking ‘this is lame’ and ‘Robert Downey Jr. is a good actor, why’s he in this?’ So yes, I did not like the film and there isn’t much to the story to explain so I shall not do so here (it hardly deserves explanation anyway). But what I will tell you is the only super thing about Iron Man is, it is super weak.

Wow. And I use that word in the worst context possible for a film. Because of all the hype for the film, because this is one of the the greatest graphic novels, and because of Zack Snyder I was excited to see this film. If you’re like me, you should stop being excited right now. I’m saving you some grief. Some graphic novels do not transfer well into films and this is definitely one of them – I would say it’s the poster child for such things. Watchmen is nothing to get excited about, it is weaker than weak and I shall tell you why. From the opening titles and the superb way Snyder intercuts the history of the watchmen to Bob Dylan’s great song “The Times they are a Changing” until maybe an hour into the film I really liked it. Then something happened. There was a shift that caused the story to take a wrong turn and even the music declined in quality. From this point until the end you will have to deal with superheroes who are rendered really lame mostly because of the actors, and for a film that relies heavily on characters that is a terrible thing.

First, there’s the whole Silk Spectre thing, yeah she does know how to fight but the innate coolness, strength and toughness just wasn’t there. And for the most part she is portrayed as a misguided woman torn between two lovers. One of them, Nite Owl, has potential to be cool but is nerded up by Patrick Wilson’s performance. It’s not entirely his fault though, since it takes more than the actor to give a bad performance or to make a character really weak – it’s the writer, director and anyone else who had anything to do with the characters who are also at fault. I know he is supposed to be a bit nerdy but come on, this is just awful. Then of course, the most annoying of all is Dr. Manhattan. Seriously, he is the most annoying character ever (right alongside Jar Jar Binks).

What Watchmen needed was more Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian – that’s why the first hour is great. His character is awesomely ironic, and with a name like the Comedian he is anything but – he is more like a sociopath, and a very entertaining one at that. I would have rather seen more of his character than Silk Spectre getting it on with Nite Owl. Rorschach is pretty cool too but the film doesn’t do as much with him as it could have and don’t even get me started on the end of the film and his final scene! Ugh. It is one of those perplexing, disappointing moments where you think “gee, that was so lame”. For the most part, Rorschach is used as the narrator and when the film allows him to do something it is entirely awesome and stunning, so more screen time and character development for him and the Comedian would have made this film better, not a lot better given the rest of it, but probably more watchable with less eye rolling.

So, for a character heavy film there needs to be actors who can bring something special to their characters, not just be empty shells dressed up as costumed heroes. And because the acting is weak, the entire film falters. Not all the blame rests with these actors, it is also the fault of the director to whom I would ask “what happened?” The film started out so promising then quickly turned around into a film showcase of bad acting and a boring story. By the end of it, I was like “who cares?” I am very disappointed in this film and I would never watch it again even if it was on tv, for free. If I wanted to see awesome Zack Snyderesque action sequences, vivid cinematography and cool editing techniques I would have watched 300 and I suggest you do the same. Don’t waste your time watching Watchmen.