The Room

The Room (2004) is a story about hardworking Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) who is engaged to be married to Lisa (Juliette Danielle). While Johnny thinks that his fiancé is very loyal to him, little does he know that she is actually cheating on him with his ‘best friend’ (which he is referred to as repeatedly) played by Greg Sestero.

If The Room is not the worst film of all time, it has to at least be a contender for worst film of the decade. The acting is on a totally different level to what would normally be considered 'bad', there are numerous times when the story makes no sense and the overall look of the film makes you think they were working with a budget that is similar to what a high school student would be spending on a final film assignment (despite having an actual budget of about $7 million).

So, why does this movie deserve a recommendation? Well, it sure is pretty darn entertaining. Tommy Wiseau (Writer, Director, Actor) has got to be the most bizarre filmmaker and the greatest accidental genius since Edward D Wood Jr.

 First of all, take a look at his appearance in the promotional poster. This guy right here, with his long frizzy hair and half vacant look on his face (not to mention those freaky eyes) is supposed to be the leading man.  He doesn't quite look like your typical movie star. Furthermore, when you watch one of the films many overlong gratuitous sex scenes, you will see a lot more of him then what you will want to.  To be fair, the guy clearly works out and is in pretty good shape, but his skin seems to remind me of the inside leather of a worn out baseball glove. Of course, there are a few successful performers that have gotten by without traditional good looks. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton, Mickey Rourke, these are all actors who have shown that they can still star in successful movies without being the perfect looking leading man.

No such luck with Wiseau. In fact, if he had not written and directed this film, not only would he not be starring in a feature film, but it would be difficult to believe that anyone would even let Tommy Wiseau onto a film set as a pizza delivery boy. He speaks with a very unusual unidentifiable European accent that makes all of his already horrendous dialogue even more hilarious in a Schwarzenegger kind of way. One of his many comically unusual habits is his insistence on greeting absolutely every character that crosses his path by acknowledging their name (oh hi Mark, oh hi Denny, oh hi Doggie). He also has dialogue that makes you think twice about what you just heard. This includes randomly changing the topic of conversation into asking his friend how his sex life is going, talking to himself about how he didn't hit his fiancé and using an imitation of a chicken as an insult in an argument.

While Tommy Wiseau stands out as the biggest weirdo to watch on screen, he is surrounded by other people that you also won't be seeing performing Hamlet anytime soon. Greg Sestero, who plays Mark, speaks his lines very subdued as if they're coming straight off the page. Julliette Danielle as Lisa is constantly being referred to as "soooo beautiful!", but the audience I sat with didn't seem to think so from the way that they reacted to her sex scenes. The actress who plays Lisa's mother has one of the best lines in the film when she tells her daughter "The doctor called this morning, it's definitely breast cancer" only to never speak of this cancer again for the rest of the movie. That's ok though, because based on her line delivery, she didn't seem too bothered by a little thing like breast cancer when she mentioned it anyway.

Seeing this film with a crowd in the theatre is totally essential. While it has become a hit midnight movie in a few different countries, it seems that one of the things that has helped the film to take off in the US is that Tommy Wiseau often attends these screenings himself and will even have a Q & A with the audience. While seeing that would be too cool for me to comprehend, at the Nova Cinema in Melbourne Australia I had to settle for just a short film clip introduction by Greg Sestero (Mark) before the movie began.

The audience at my screening was also given a short pamphlet that was called "A Viewers Guide to The Room". This guide was intended to instruct the audience what they are supposed to yell at the screen and when. This guide can be seen below. Some of my favorite things to do were throwing spoons at the screen(also supplied by the theatre), shouting "Alcatraz!" at the artistic bar shots and screaming "go!" at the unnecessary panning over the Golden Gate Bridge.

What really makes this a great-bad-film is its ability to be consistently hilarious from start to finish. Often a bad film can become funny when its run time is edited down into a youtube video that runs for only a couple of minutes. The Wicker Man remake being a recent example of this. When watched in these short versions, they are great, however, what rests between these standout scenes is often tedious filler. It's still bad, but not bad enough to be watchable. The Room, on the other hand, remains so terrible in every scene, every performance and every story twist that it really is a glorious mess to watch and is an extremely fun time out at the movies.

(A Viewers Guide to The Room, Supplied by Nova Cinema in Melbourne.

Click the above image for a closer look).

Die Hard in a Building: How Die Hard Inspired the 90s Action Film

There are movies before Die Hard (1988), and there are movies after Die Hard. The film became a classic of the action genre and transformed Bruce Willis from being a tv star to full blown movie star. The film was a huge hit, earning $138.7 million off of its $7.1 million budget, gaining enthusiastic reviews and being nominated for four Academy Awards.

The story was simple enough. Detective John McClane attends a Christmas Party in a high-rise building for his wife's company. Soon enough, the party is gate crashed by a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (played by the always fantastically overblown Alan Rickman). Everyone is taken as hostages except for John, who begins picking off each of the terrorists, one by one.

There are a couple of reasons why Die Hard was as good as it was. The casting was perfect. Bruce Willis is somewhat of an anti-Schwarzenegger. While still having a physical presence, he embodies the everyman. Someone that the audience can identify with and somewhat that has to use his intelligence and cunning to outwit the bad guys as much as has to use his brute force. Alan Rickman matches him brilliantly by being so cocky and arrogant, that you hate him just enough to love him for it.

The second reason why I think this movie was such a success is the major one; the claustrophobic setting. McClane has to spend the whole movie crawling through air ducts, hiding on top of elevators and walking on broken glass. There is no escape for him. While this means that the film is always tense and exciting it also makes the film very playful. McClane and the terrorists are involved in a game of hide and seek, taking each other by surprise at any opportunity that presents itself.

Due to the success of the film, Hollywood saw the potential of making Die Hard clones that copy the films simple premise, but apply it to a different setting.

The most obvious film to mention would be the films immediate sequel, Die Hard 2. Die Hard 2 could be called Die Hard in an Airport. The story has McClane going to the airport to pick up his wife, only to find that terrorists have switched off the runway lights and are demanding the release of a drug lord be released who is flying into the airport for an upcoming trial.

The movie does everything that the first one does, but being an action sequel to one of the greatest action films of all time, it know that it has to deliver even more then what the first film did. That means bigger explosions, twice as many bullets and even nastier terrorists (although nobody is this is as good as Alan Rickman ). Furthermore, there are a couple of clever plot twists that I thought were quite nice. I mean, you hardly watch these films for an intellectually stimulating story, but at least this isn't insulting your intelligence. Well, perhaps it is with the sheer ridiculousness of the whole situation, but I feel they at least reference this to a certain degree (John McClane even stating "How can the same s#it happen to the same guy twice?).

Of course, outside of the official sequels to Die Hard there were many unofficial clones. One of the more successful of these was the Under Siege series starring Steven Seagal. The first Under Siege (1992) could be called Die Hard on a Boat. The story has Seagal playing a chef on an American Battleship that gets taken over by a group of bad guys that include Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey. Essentially, the bad guys locks up everyone on board and intend on stealing the boats missiles and selling them off to terrorists on the black market. Of course, Seagal ends up on the loose, and it turns out he's not just a chef after all but is in fact a former Navy SEAL with weapons and anti-terrorism training. Its up to him and a Playboy Playmate to take on the bad guys and regain control of the ship.

If that short synopsis sounds kind of dumb, well that's because it is kind of dumb. However, that doesn't mean that the film is not enjoyable. In fact this is generally considered to be Seagal's best film, as it made $156 million worldwide and got mostly positive reviews. It still holds up pretty well today and it's a better then average Die Hard clone.

A sequel was made in 1995 called Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Under Siege 2 could be called Die Hard on a Train. An interesting note about this movie is that Katherine Heigl plays Seagal's character's nephew in one of her very early roles, even predating her appearance in Bride of Chucky (1998) which came out 3 years later. The story has Seagal and Heigl boarding a train that is to take them to the gravesite of Heigl's father, who is also Seagal's brother. Of course, it isn't long before terrorists come on board and Segal begins to pick them off one by one. Eventually the terrorists take Heigl as bait for Seagal, and that's when Seagal gets really mad.

The sequel probably isn't as good as the first one, but it still has enough decent action scenes to justify its existence. Nonetheless, the sequel was less successful then the first film, this time only making $104 million off of its $65 million budget. As a result, the studio decided not to risk making any more films in the series. Unfortunately for Seagal, his career has been downhill ever since. While most cynical moviegoers would see this as a good thing, the man was a pretty good action hero when he had a decent script. And before he got fat.

Around the time that these films were being made Sylvester Stallone was one of the biggest action stars in the world. Therefore, it is no surprise that in 1993 he appeared in the Die Hard-style film Cliffhanger (1993). Cliffhanger could be called Die Hard in the Rocky Mountains. The story has Stallone as a mountain climber that is trying to move on with his life after letting his partners girlfriend die in a climbing accident (this is hilariously sent up in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls). When a plane crashes out in the mountains, he and his partner (played by Michael Rooker) come to the survivor's rescue, only to discover that the survivors are thieves looking for their stolen money.

There are many things that are enjoyable about Cliffhanger, but I think the best aspect is that there is finally a Die-Hard clone that has a villain that rivals Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber with John Lithgow's Eric Qualen, who heads the thieves. For me, the only time that John Lithgow has been better in his career was in the fourth season of Dexter, and in that he needed 12 episodes to show his stuff. And the fact that this film has the guy that played Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (Michael Rooker) playing a good guy, you've got to expect a great villain.

Despite the fact that this film received good reviews and made more then $250 million worldwide, it was nominated for four Golden Raspberry Awards including Worst Picture and Worst Supporting Actor (John Lithgow). To me, this is not so much a reflection of the quality of the film as much as it shows that a backlash was occurring against films that were repeatedly using the Die Hard formula. However, not all these films were met with backlash, as the next film was one of the most critically acclaimed action films of the 1990s.

Speed (1994) could be called Die Hard on a Bus. The concept for Speed is that a bus has been rigged with explosives by a bomb squad sergeant (played by the ever-crazy Dennis Hopper) and will explode unless it stays above 50 miles an hour. A policeman (Keanu Reeves) boards the bus and it's up to him and a fellow passenger (Sandra Bullock) to make sure the bus retains its speed. It's a simple premise but it's also highly effective at being an adrenalin rush to the audience. The film made a star out of its lead heroes, as this was his biggest film that both Reeves and Bullock had been a part of at this stage in their careers.

Not only is Speed similar to Die Hard in formula, but the poster is also remarkably similar to Die Hard 2 (see right). Furthermore, there is a great prologue that has some employees trapped in an elevator that a bomb squad sergeant (played by the ever-crazy Dennis Hopper) is threatening to blow up unless he receives $3 million, and the film concludes with a bomb being placed on a runaway train. Therefore, you could almost call this film Die Hard on an Elevator, Bus and Train. The good thing is that Speed is just as jam packed with action as it sounds and is a great ride to sit through. Unfortunately, it also lead to one of the worst sequels of all time.

Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) could be called Die Hard on a Cruise Liner. Keanue Reeves and Dennis Hopper were lucky enough not to return, which means that Sandra Bullock's character has a new boyfriend played by Jason Patric and we have a new villain played by Willem Dafoe. Dafoe's character is a disgruntled software employee that developed a sickness while working on programs for certain cruise ships. As an act of revenge, he plans on using his computer hacking skills to send a cruise ship (holding Patric and Bullock as passengers) into an oil tanker.

The film was a disaster on all levels. The fact that it's a film about speed and its set on a cruise liner is not a good start. I mean, they certainly aren't known for their high speeds now, are they. Also, it sounds strange to say this, but Jason Patric is no Keanue Reeves. The movie got horrible reviews, but it did get a positive recommendation from Roger Ebert. I guess all critics differ from the general consensus occasionally.

Eventually, there were more official Die Hard Sequels with Die Hard with a Vengeance being released in 1995. Basically, the plot involves a terrorist named Simon calling the police to have McClane be sent around New York where he needs to find and diffuse a variety of bombs before the timers go off. McClane teams up with a hesitant partner played by Samuel L Jackson who he bickers with him along the way to getting the job done.

While on the surface, Die Hard with a Vengeance appears to have much in common with the original Die Hard. It has original director (John McTiernan) and Jeremy Irons playing Simon Gruber, brother of original villain Hans Gruber. However, the claustrophobic setting is opened up with the action occurring across the entire city of New York. Also, the one good guy versus a group of terrorists is mixed up by giving McClane a hesitant partner in Jackson. Therefore, rather then following the Die Hard formula, I feel that this film has more in common with 48 Hours, Rush Hour and Lethal Weapon (at one point, the script was going to be turned into a Lethal Weapon film rather then a Die Hard film).

When Live Free or Die Hard was released in 2007, it continued to follow more of this buddy-cop formula then the outline of the original Die Hard. This time he is fighting a group of cyber-terrorists that are planning to shut down the power grid of the city. McClane teams up with a smart allecky hacker played by Justin Long who helps him fight the bad guys. The daughter of McClane (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is also featured significantly in this film as she is taken hostage at the end by the bad guys and John has to come rescue her, much like in Under Siege 2.

What's interesting about watching this film is seeing how far the character of John McClane has changed from the first movie. Where in the first film he is just a regular cop in the wrong place at the wrong time, he has now become a larger then life supercop. A perfect example being in Live Free or Die Hard when he drives a car up a ramp and into a helicopter to take it out. His reasoning behind his actions, he was out of bullets.

Despite all these differences from the original movie, these sequels are still pretty good and deliver all the expected over the top action. I don't think that they are as good as the original, but having something different at least makes it fun seeing Bruce Willis play McClane in a variety of different styles of action films rather then repeatedly in the same environment.

Of course, there are a bunch of other Die Hard clones that I haven't mentioned. Passenger 57, Sudden Death and Con Air being some examples. However, I don't think that any of the films that came after Die Hard are as good as the original. It's a classic to action films and a movie that deserves its reputation as being one of the best films of all time. I can't wait for Die Hard 5.Yippee ki yay!

Antichrist (2009) Review

Lars von Trier, the director of films such as Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark and Dogville, has never been shy of controversy. His films often have a dark, grim outlook on human nature, with stark cinematography and editing that create a look that is distinctly his own. This often results in people having opposing view as to whether his work finds the beauty in ugliness, or are just plain ugly. Despite this reputation, Antichrist may very well be his most controversial movie to date.

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Defoe play a couple that are grieving for their son who dies at the beginning of the film under tragic circumstances. Willem Defoe's character, being a therapist, believes that he can treat his wife for her depression and panic that follow from this event, and so they move to a secluded cabin in a forest so that she can confront her fears. Things don't go as planned and the film leads towards some of the most horrific violence that you could imagine seeing on screen.



No matter how you feel about this film, there's no denying that you will react to it on some level. Lars von Trier is a master of provocation. Disgust, outrage, beauty, anger, sadness, revulsion, these are some of the things that come to mind when I was watching this movie. From the sheer confrontational and upfront way that he shows certain scenes of graphic mutilation, it would be easy for many people to walk away feeling nothing but sickened by what they have seen.



However, if you can stomach these scenes and look past the bloodshed, you will definately get more out of this viewing experience. There are multiple moments that are made up of breathtaking slow motion, the prologue in particular is amazingly hypnotic. The performances by the two leads are also commendable, as it is astounding the level of commitment that these two actors will go to in order to achieve von Trier’s vision.



Antichrist is not an easy going experience, but in many ways, it is also an unforgettable experience. The never-ending debate as to whether Lars is an individual genius or maddening sadist will continue to go on as it has in the past but both opinions seem somewhat irrelevant to me. With most filmgoers being so hardened by what they have seen in other movies, perhaps it takes a filmmaker like Von Trier to come along and kick us all in the guts every once in awhile. Whether or not we like it is besides the point, so long as we feel it.

The Wolfman Review

There were rumors of production problems with The Wolfman on the internet towards the end of last year. If there needed to be any evidence to substantiate these rumors, it can be seen in the films release date, with February and the other early months of the year being a general dumping ground for films that have gone wrong. When critics finally got a look at the finished product, it is probably unsurprising that they generally wrote it off as a failure of a film. Due to all these reasons, I was a definate skeptic going into The Wolfman. However, I was nicely surprised that I ended up having a pretty good time with the movie.

The story concerns a man named Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returning to his hometown of London after he finds out that his brother has just died. Lawrnce begins investigating into what exactly happened to his brother and it isn't long before he comes into contact with a werewolf. Of course, much madness and mayhem follows.

The casting for this film was great. Del Toro looks like a wolf before you even apply any makeup and is totally believable in the title role. Hopkins plays the father of Lawrence, and although some critics have accused him of taking this role as a cash in, I disagree. Hopkins most famous role is Hannibal Lecter, a horror villain, and a film like The Wolfman is always going to be able to use his creepiness effectively. Hugo Weaving is also good as a Scotland Yard inspector that tries to stop the beast from doing more damage.

Being a period piece set in the 1890s, the film has a nice, appropriately dark, vintage look to it. In contrast to this, the man to werewolf effects are very much 21st century. This essentially means that they are very cgi in there appearance, but that't not necessarily a bad thing. I was certaintly entertained and impressed when the full moon came out and the hair and fingernails began to grow.

Was the transformation effect as good as An American Werewolf in London? I wouldn't say so. To be honest, The Wolfman is nowhere near as good as that film or The Howling, the two titles that I would say are the real werewolf classics (I haven't seen the original Wolf Man but I am curious to check it out).

However, this does not mean that The Wolfman is a terrible movie. Once the action started it delivered the goods. In a time when we have a series like Twilight turning vampires into pathetic little wussies, its good to still have a werewolf movie that features multiple decapitations in a murderous rampage. After all, these mythical creatures are meant to be dangerous, aren't they?

Children of the Corn Review

When it comes to Stephen King’s horror adaptations, the results have been incredibly varied. On the one hand, we have Carrie, Misery and The Shining; all great horror films that have become classics of the genre. Even recent adaptations of the Mist and 1408 have gained positive responses from critics and fans alike by obtaining the right mood and feel that the author intended.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the terrible film that is The Lawnmower Man. In King’s defense, the story bears pretty much no recognition to the original tale and is essentially an adaptation in name only. Nonetheless, when watching a movie with King’s name on it, one should expect it to be better then that garbage.

Somewhere in the middle we have films that have gained mixed responses. Pet Sematary, for example, has a 50% fresh rate on Rottentomatoes.com from 18 reviews, with reviews ranging from Fred Topel calling it a “Great Stephen King movie”, to Gerry Shamray calling it “Another awful Stephen King adaptation”.

Children of the Corn is another film that could fit into this middle ground, as it has even less critical acceptance at 36% on Rottentomatoes from 22 reviews. Despite this, it was a financial success, earning $14 million off a $300,000 budget and spawning 6 sequels and a telemovie remake. Granted, the majority of these sequels were direct to DVD, but it still shows that there is a loyal audience that existed for this series and enjoyed the films, regardless of the overall critical opinion. And let’s face it, the critic’s consensus never meant that much to most horror fans anyway.

The story concerns a village that has been overtaken by children. The leader of these kids is a young boy named Isaac who acts as a religious leader towards the other children in the town. The boy claims to be able to communicate with an unknown force referred to as “He Who Walks Behind The Rows”. When a young married couple enters into the town (played by Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton) Isaac begins to dictate to the others how “The Man Behind The Rows” wants the couple to be dealt with.

The acting isn’t too bad, Linda Hamilton, being the most famous person here does her job relatively well, but Peter Horn I thought could do with being a bit less of a doofus. Then again, maybe that was how the character was written. John Franklin as Isaac does a pretty good job, with a creepy way of delivering his lines. Courtney Gains as Malachai, his second in command, was a bit more annoying. The way he spoke reminded me of Al Gore in South Park through his irritating whining.

But acting isn’t what this movie is about. The movie is meant to be creepy mindless entertainment, and it does a pretty good job. Then again, perhaps I’m just a man of simple pleasures. Dressing children up in adults clothing and getting them to speak all spooky-like is already going to do a somewhat decent job of entertaining me. Getting them to act violently towards each other and I’m totally there. The Children of the Corn is not the greatest Stephen King adaptation, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s a movie that you can put on late at night and just enjoy it for what it is.

Shutter Island Review

I love Scorsese. In fact, who doesn’t love Scorsese? The man has got to be one of the most reliable directors working in Hollywood today and is a true movie legend. The most recent work he has done with Leonardo Dicaprio, including Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed, have all been standout films in the individual years that they were released. If you look further back to Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas; well, these are just some of the greatest films of all time. My personal Scorsese favorite is The King of Comedy. This film has such twisted, dark, black humor, and Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro are so good as comedians with polar opposite levels of success (and sanity) that the film is a masterpiece.

Therefore, a new Scorsese film is a big deal to many people. Being a huge fan myself, a new Scorsese film is a big deal to me. Hearing that he had a new film coming out with the story concerning Dicaprio playing a Federal Marshal investigating a spooky asylum, my first response was excitement. However, after then hearing about the delays of Shutter Island without a decent reason (doe the GFC cop it for everything?), I became a little concerned. Then came the reviews. While they certainly weren’t panning the film, there was definitely not the same enthusiasm given to Shutter Island in comparison to the majority of the director’s work. I was now definitely worried. Has the master finally lost the magic after all these years?

Luckily, it only took the first few minutes of Shutter Island to make me feel reassured. With ominous, creepy music playing on the soundtrack, Leo is introduced as detective Teddy Daniels by splashing water on his seasick face, being determined to “keep it together”. Meanwhile, the ship he rides on sails through muggy, atmospheric fog, headed for the films titled destination. Already I had a huge smile on my face. Scorsese is having a blast playing with the film noir conventions. You can feel it right from the get go that he knows what he’s doing and I knew just from this scene that this movie was going to be really fun to watch.

I think, in some ways, that’s why this film was greeted with some of the lukewarm reviews that it received. When your filmography is as impressive as Scorsese’s, people expect that everything you do will surpass the limits of film, comment on the human condition and discuss topical issues. I’m not saying that Shutter Island isn’t deep and complex, far from it, but it is also a genre film. If you think that a director of this caliber should only be making high brow art, then this film isn’t for you. However, if you want one of the masters of cinema to blow your mind with scene after scene of spookiness and suspense then strap yourself for the rollercoaster and have a nice ride.

That being said, despite my enjoyment for the majority of the film, I couldn’t help but feel let down by the ending. Well, at least at first. Without giving anything away, a twist occurs in the plot that felt so cliché that I felt like they were ruining all the good work they had done prior to this moment. Despite this, the final scene in the film still blew me away. I may not have liked the twist but I liked the way that they followed through with it, all the way to the bitter end.

It wasn’t until afterwards that I began to think a little bit more about the film. While watching the movie I thought I understood the plot and the twist, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe there are clues that could lead you to a different conclusion and a different interpretation of what really happened. Could it be that I was fooled?

It was then that I realized that the twist was not cliché, it was just expecting me to question what I was seeing in every scene from beginning to end. I must have been too wrapped up in the enjoyment of each scene to realize it at the time. In fact, I retract what I said before, this film is high art, I was just enjoying myself too much to realize this while it was playing.

****

Inglourious Basterds Review

Last night I caught a screening of Inglourious Basterds as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival. Before the movie even begun, I’ll say that there was a great atmosphere by being surrounded by two cinemas filled exclusively with excited Tarantino fans. A film like this is always going to be much more enjoyable if you’re watching it together with like-minded individuals.

So as the trailers show, the film is basically a spaghetti western set in Nazi-occupied France from 1941-1944. The trailers would also have you believe that this is Brad Pitt’s movie and that he and his Basterds are the stars of the show. However, the Basterds themselves are only one of many parts that make up the story, as there is a very large ensemble cast that all have different narratives, only linking up towards the end of the film.

One of the highlights of this film for me was Christoph Waltz as the sadistic Nazi Jew Hunter Hans Landa. You can really see why he was rewarded with a Best Actor Award at Cannes for his effort here, as he truly dominates the film. The first scene of the movie in particular, where he slowly interrogates a Jewish family to find if they are hiding anybody or anything, is truly thrilling, suspenseful and possibly my favorite part of the movie.

Violence is used sparingly, but effectively. Some of it is jarringly realistic (yes, there is some scalping) but most of it is done in a darkly humorous way. There is also a great shootout scene that is so fast and choreographed so well that it is a real blast to watch. It’s not Tarantino’s most violent film, in fact it would probably be one of his tamer movies, but you’ve got to remember who we’re talking about here. When things do get bloody, it makes for a bloody great time at the movies.

Unfortunately, some things don’t work out quite as well. The main thing that bothered me is that the cast is so large, that it feels like we don’t get to know the characters as well as what we would like. The film is split up into five different chapters, and these chapters are generally made up a scene of lengthy dialogue that eventually leads towards a vicious conclusion. While this is enjoyable to sit through and it feels as though the dialogue is always taking us towards a relevant ending, it also makes us feel as though we have only really sat through 5 scenes and then the movie is over. In fact, despite the two and a half hour running time, I could have been happy if this movie went for an extra hour or more. Even if he split it into two films or made it into a miniseries it might have been more satisfying.

The ending was good, but a little underwhelming. This didn’t leave me with the same emotional high as the ending of something like Reservoir Dogs. In fact, when the credits came up I just felt a little disappointed that it had finished so soon. However, if two and half hours go by that fast, with your eyes glued to the screen the whole time, I guess you can’t complain too much. I suppose I was just hoping for a little more of an exclamation mark in the movies final moments.

The music is always a very important part of a Tarantino movie, and in Inglourious Basterds I felt it was a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it was sublimely awesome, such as David Bowie’s Cat People, while some of it felt a little autopilot. For example, some of the music that Tarantino uses he has also used in his Kill Bill films. I know that the music is not original to those films to begin with, but hearing it again so recently from another film from the same director, I found it a little distracting. Then again, that might just be because I have seen the Kill Bill films so many times that I now find the music attached to those scenes. If I watch Inglourious Basterds a few more times then perhaps my opinion might change.

All in all, it was a great movie, but it wasn’t up there with Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. Still, if you are looking forward to seeing this I don’t think that you will be disappointed. This is truly an event film and something that will work at its best on a big screen with a big audience. I’m already excited about seeing it for a second time.

****