Santikos Cine-opsis

One of the best parts of reviewing movies five days after they come out is that I get to read all the other critics just like everybody else.  One of the worst parts when you’re the last kid to jump in the pool, it’s hard to find a clean spot.  SO, I decided to run what the other critics have said about Quentin Tarantino’s latest movie, “Inglourious Basterds” through a filter, and strain out some of the warm water…so to speak.

I do this because frankly, I don’t agree with many of my colleagues and I think it’s important to separate whose responses make sense and whose don’t so audiences can better make up their minds on whether or not to go see it, and what they think when they do. Not only that, but since Tarantino has made a living taking other people’s movies and recycling them through his own madcap prism, I figured it would only be fitting that I review his film by using other critics’ words.

Who am I to decide who among my fellow critics is right or wrong?  The guy writing this blog, that’s who!

So, here is my take on what some of the folks on rottentomatoes.com had to say about “Inglourious Basterds.”

I agree with Betty Jo Tucker from ReelTalk Movie Reviews that “Christoph Waltz delivers one of the most brilliant portrayals of a villain I’ve seen since Anthony Hopkins transformed himself into Hannibal Lecter.”  I also almost agree with Daily Express scribe Allan Hunter’s glowing review of Waltz’s character, saying “His performance is a credible candidate for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He is the best thing in this patchy, overlong but ridiculously enjoyable return to form for the bad boy of American cinema.”  I agree with everything in that except the “overlong” bit.  Although “Basterds” is 2 and a half hours plus, the time flies by, and you’re out of the theater before you know it (with the exception of a few scenes where, admittedly, Tarantino indulges).

But then, we weren’t exactly the first to point out the Austrian-born Waltz’s triumphant performance as the menacingly brilliant SS captain known as “The Jew Hunter”.  Waltz doesn’t miss a beat, and has already danced off with the best actor prize from this year’s Cannes Film Festival (and that’s the last dance pun from me, I promise).   So it’s no stretch to say that Oscar gold could be in his future.  Every time Waltz enters the screen, the audience tenses up, and the drama heightens.  I don’t know if I can remember a villain who could reduce heroins to tears by feeding them strudel and creme (trust me, it works in the movie).

So we’ve all agreed that Waltz is fantastic.  But I don’t agree with Arizona Daily Star movie guy Phil Villarreal that “Basterds” is “By far the best World War II film I’ve ever seen”.  It’s not the best WWII film I’ve ever seen, Phil, and I’m sure you’ve seen way more than me.  Cut down on the hyperbole, man.  You’re better than that.  Look, this may be Tarantino’s “Schindler’s List”, but it’s not Spielberg’s “Schidler’s List”.  “Schindler’s List” makes you angry at the Nazis’ cruelty.  “Basterds” makes you laugh at cruelty done to Nazis.  The moral lesson in that should be obvious.  What “Basterds” is,  is “Damn Gud Fun”, which is what Apollo Guide’s Dan Jardin called it.  But where’s your umlaut, Dan??  Slacker!!

I agree with all the other critics who say that its an amazing and fun end to the 2009 summer movie season, and I take to task all the buttkissing critics who say things like “it’s his best movie since ‘Pulp Fiction!’”, or “Finally!  A Tarantino movie that has a deeper meaning!”

NO!  It is not and it does not.  Hell, it’s half the movie that “District 9″ was in twice the running time!! (Seriously, go see “District 9″!) “Inglourious Basterds” is giving gorefans what they want while laughing at them for wanting it.   It’s an audience laughing like hyenas at Brad Pitt and Eli Roth as they perfect the cocky swagger of G.I.s who don’t have to play by any rules but their own.  It’s grinding your teeth in suspense as the daring U.S. spies engage a hardboiled member of the SS in a bizarre German idiot poker drinking game version of 20 questions.  It’s loving the visual spectacle of a theater in flames while machine guns blaze from the opera seats.  It’s marvelling at and hating Christoph Waltz’s Nazi equivolent of Sherlock Holmes.

But it’s not a masterpiece, and neither the critics nor Brad Pitt’s final lines of the film will convince me otherwise.   And as long as they don’t convince you, you’ll have a great time watching “Inglourious Basterds”.

Oh.  AND don’t bring your 10-year old with you, either.  Seriously, lady…what the hell were you thinking?  This is Tarantino, not Transformers.