Inglourious Basterds Review - from the UK Premiere.

Quentin Tarantino came bouncing onto the Leicester Square Odeon stage with his usual, crazy amount of energy. His first comments were instructing the audience to turn off their cellphones, which he waited for everyone to do. And then after introducing Christoph Waltz and Diane Kruger (Brad Pitt was absent) he asked, "Are we ready to see some some basterds?' repeatedly until he got the required enthusiasm from the audience. It didn't take long. As he slammed the microphone to the floor - it was time for us, finally, to see Inglourious Basterds.


I offer my opinions honestly, I don't claim to be a film critic or have any kind of authority on film reviewing. I just know that I really didn't love the film. 'Basterds', as you might expect-- gets the full Tarantino treatment of retro titling, obscure music (featuring many post-war artists and styles) and over the top violence. Now don't get me wrong, the violence was fun to watch; but it's starting to feel a bit too Tarantino; like he's impersonating himself.

The things that made 'Kill Bill' inspired made 'Inglourious Basterds' seem old, and self-indulgent. As a Director, Tarantino has always liked the long, drawn out scenes. But I remember watching that painfully lengthy restaurant scene in 'Death Proof' and wishing it was about ten minutes shorter. Well, that happened in nearly every scene in this film-- everything was screaming out to be shorter. For vast sums of the film I felt one thing; pure boredom. The scenes were unnecessarily long without good reason; they weren't integral to the story and they didn't build tension. I hated feeling this way, who wants to be bored during a Tarantino film?

I think, for me, the main thing that was missing was any kind of characters we could care for, or believe in. Whilst Brad Pitt's smug look throughout was kind of amusing, it was hard to take seriously. The only character who really had depth to her was Shosanna (Melanie Laurent); who's tale of revenge was something the audience could really get behind.

Anyways, I don't mean to slam the film -- there were some great moments; I laughed quite a lot throughout. It's the little things that stick out in my mind, like Hitler turning to a soldier, looking serious, and just saying, "gum?," or Pitt sticking his finger in an open leg-wound as a way of torture, along with some typically brilliant violence (eeek, not a good phrase!) such as Eli Roth battering a soldier to death with a baseball bat, which will no doubt go down as one of the all-time great Tarantino scenes.

The film, as many of you will already know, does rewrite history in some small ways. This will cause a lot of division between viewers, I would imagine. Personally, as ridiculous as it is, I kind of enjoyed it. I kind of got to see what I would have loved to have happened in real life. But to say any more would give away the ending.

If you're a war veteran looking for a respectful account of your heroic work in the war, this isn't the film for you. If you have any interest in history or World War 2, again, this film isn't really for you. But if you like Tarantino and you like seeing shit blow up and all the cool stuff that comes with his movies, then you'll probably enjoy this.

I have always been a big Tarantino fan, and whilst this does show his usual skills and bountiful ideas; it seems a bit forced at times, and about 40 minutes too long. There were moments of boredom, interspersed with moments of being truly gripped, and other moments of laughing out loud. Worth a watch, but 'Pulp Fiction' this is not.

Care to share?

Tweet

Quentin Tarantino at the London Premiere of Inglourious Basterds.

So this was Quentin's introduction tonight for the Premiere of 'Inglourious Basterds' - as recorded sneakily by my friend.

My review shall follow tomorrow morning!

Care to share?

Tweet

My Self-Imposed Detachment From The Film Industry.

"The creative is the place where no one else has ever been. You have to leave the city of your comfort and go into the wilderness of your intuition. What you'll discover will be wonderful. What you'll discover is yourself."

-Alan Alda, Actor.

I started out as a dreamer. My heart and mind were full of big ideas, dreams of inspiring people and saying something. And making people laugh. My early short films were full of ideas, full of energy. And they were sometimes awful, sometimes funny, always fun. They were just a front row kid running around with a camera, learning how to get his dreams on the screen.

And then people in the industry said "but the lighting is really bad" and "some of the acting is poor. Amateur." And I was like "okay okay, but did you smile?" and they'd say "the scene looks flat." And I'd say "okay, cool-- but did you like the way the characters met at the end?" and they'd say "Professional films would use a dolly, they wouldn't zoom like that."

So I met this Producer, and I was like, "here's my crazy, funny idea" and he was like "I love your crazy funny idea- let's make a feature!" So I started writing the feature, and then he said "What are you doing? That's not the story, let's make the character less sympathetic and let's make him insane," and I was all "If he's insane then he couldn't logically do the things he does in the later scenes," and the producer said "yeah but I want him to be a bit insane." It became clear that if I didn't make the changes he'd never produce my film and I'd still be sat at home not having "made it" in the industry. I made the changes and he still didn't make the movie.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
-Albert Einstein

But still I'd be bursting with energy and creativity. And I'd start to look at the bulletins on ShootingPeople.org, but people would be arguing over whether actors are getting paid enough, and they'd be insulting some young writer for wanting to use a different font in his screenplay. And I would jump on mandy.com and apply for a writing job with a big company.

They'd say "We like your writing, we want to hire you,"
So I'd say "That's great!"
"But we can't pay you,"
"That's not great,"
"No it's not but we are 'big company' so you'll look good"
"Yeah but my bank account won't,"
"But we don't have the budget to pay you."
"Are you getting paid?"
"Excuse me?"

Everyone in the industry would be bound by these rules and these principles; namely how you have to do this, you will only be paid that, you can't have an idea with an elephant in it because elephants don't interest audiences.

I'd had enough. It got me down down down. I know we all know that "film is an industry, it's business." And I'd even begun to learn that and be a part of it. I produced a feature film last year; and it was fun for a while. But I realised that it's not me. It's really not me. I worked on a feature film earlier in the year, and as I plugged things in and got shouted at by the 1st AD, I decided that, no-- I really don't enjoy this. I don't enjoy the Assistant Director yelling at me just because he's the AD and thinks he's entitled. I don't believe that, just because I'm working on a film set that everyone should be assholes to each other. I'm not happy with peoples creativity being reduced to "Sorry, you can't have fruit in that scene. Fruit isn't funny," -- I'd had enough.

After a brief spell of industry-induced misery, I found myself again. I found the kid in me. It was like the beginning of Jerry Maguire. Breakdown? Breakthrough.... I set up this very blog; and rediscovered what I love about the movies;

"I DON'T REALLY CARE HOW MUCH THE LATEST SUPERHERO FILM TOOK AT THE BOX OFFICE, ALTHOUGH I'D PROBABLY KNOW IF YOU ASKED ME. WHEN I WATCH A FILM THE MAIN THING I AM LOOKING FOR IS A GOOD STORY. I LIKE IT WHEN I LOOK UP AT THE BIG SCREEN AND CAN SEE A PART OF ME STARING BACK AT ME. MORE THAN ANYTHING, I AM STILL LOOKING FOR JIMMY STEWART AND JACK LEMMON AND BILLY WILDER IN EVERY FILM I SEE."

When I put together a cast and crew for my new film-- I did it outside the confines of the industry. I only worked with people who I had a LOT of time for. I found people I was truly in-line with, creatively and personally. It was a set full of fun and enjoyment, and it felt like nothing to do with the film industry. Because what you begin to realise is that when you make a film, like when you do anything in life, you can choose to have anyone you want around you. At no point on the set did anyone moan about losing a cable, or bitch about a crew member. We just did the work, drank lots of tea, and shot a great film. Films can be wonderful. Life can be wonderful.

"The key to this business is personal relationships."
-Dicky Fox, in 'Jerry Maguire'

My point is-- I am now more of a Writer and Director than ever. And it has nothing to do with the film industry. I want to write what's in my heart-- of course, I'd love for millions to see what I do, and that's the plan--- but I want to do it without being talked down to, without being told no. Without being told I know best because I'm a proven producer. Because that means nothing to me.

Care to share?

Tweet

I'm going to be a part of it.

"Used to take the subway up to Houston and 3rd

I would wait for you and I'd try to hide"

-Ryan Adams, 'New York, New York'

Like the impulsive fool I am, or at least sometimes am -- except for the times when I'm not impulsive at all and the sum total of my randoness for the week is signing out of Facebook; I booked a flight to NY.

I'd love to hear your ideas on where to go, what to do. Also, if you know of where I might be able to stay/sleep cheaply, please let me know. I'll be there from Mid-October till Mid-November. Last year I rented a little tiny space in Brooklyn; which was quite hilarious, although this time I'd prefer a place that has access to a shower!

New York, I am coming back to see you. Can't wait.

PS: Sorry for my pretentious, blurry shot of NY. I had just found a photo editing program when I took it and went wild.

Care to share?

Tweet

Sleepless In Seattle/You've Got Mail

JOE: Hey…he could be the zipper man.
KATHLEEN: Who's that?
JOE: The zipper man! The, uh…
KATHLEEN: Who is that?
JOE: …he’s the guy out, he… repairs zippers on Amsterdam Avenue.
KATHLEEN: Will you cut it out!
JOE: You'd never have to buy new luggage.

I was out with a friend the other night, and she asked me "which do you prefer, Sleepless In Seattle or You've Got Mail?"

Of course, my answer should have been "Um? whaaa? I prefer DIE HARD! As if I watch chick-flicks!" But that's the problem, I've always had a lot of time for a good rom-com. Don't get me wrong, I don't sit around watching 'The Women' and 'Mamma Mia' - what I mean is, if there's a film about New Yorkers falling in and out of love with each other with some amusing dialogue thrown in, I'm more than happy to watch it. This is my only defence for owning 'One Fine Day.'

But the main question is, of course - Sleepless In Seattle or You've Got Mail? I decided the only way to know for sure would be to watch them back-to-back and then write my opinions. So I did that, and now let me say that for my money, 'You've Got Mail' is by far the superior film; both film-wise, romantically-wise and other-wise, Ephron-wise.

Watching 'Sleepless In Seattle' again I couldn't help but hate Meg Ryan. There really isn't a lot to her character; just that she is pretty desperate to meet Sam Baldwin. As she desperately runs around trying to hunt down the guy she heard on the radio, it just seems desperate and NOT romantic.

Now, Sam Baldwin's (Hanks) story I can really get behind. Tom Hanks is absolutely amazing in this film-- playing a character who truly loves his deceased wife; a man who's trying to keep it together for his son, himself and his sanity. There are many moments where his performance reaches a level of real emotion, real truth. You can believe what he's going through and you feel a lot of empathy for him, you can palpably feel his suffering. But Annie Reed (Ryan) is just an annoying woman taking up screen-time, running around trying to recreate 'An Affair To Remember.'

For me, 'You've Got Mail' takes the elements of 'Sleepless In Seattle' and makes a much stronger film. For one, it's all set in New York; and it's one of the most New Yorkian rom-coms you could hope for. It becomes a character, much like in Woody Allen's 'Manhattan' or in 'Serendipity' -- which I'll talk about a bit later.

'You've Got Mail' manages to be light, funny and entertaining-- yet also, it has real moments of conflict and emotion. The battle in the business lives of Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly really make for great rom-com storytelling; and Kathleen feeling the loss of her Mother and then going through it again as her shop closes gives Meg the kind of interesting backstory that was majorly missing in 'Sleepless...'

I think many people prefer 'Sleepless...' because it's more about fate. It's more about going to all the lengths needed to find your soulmate. I get that, I appreciate that-- but I think it makes for a boring film. It works in 'Serendipity,' I think, because John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale's characters know each other, and have got that link, y'know, the buzz. In 'Sleepless...' they don't have that. Even at the end when Hanks jumps on a plane to New York.. he doesn't do that to meet the girl, he does it to hunt down his son.

In 'You've Got Mail' though, two people do fall in love with each other. Through their words in their emails, and through the relationship that grows in the latter part of the movie over coffees, walks, and banter. I guess I just prefer that, I prefer that it's about the two characters rather than this airy feeling of fate. And as mentioned before; I think that is handled better in 'Serendipity' -- where their fate is driven by their need to find and be with each other. In 'Sleepless' it's just a desperate loon looking for a guy who's more interested in getting over his wife and looking after his son.

You've Got Mail will go down in film history as a completely average film; but it's one of my favourites. I think Nora Ephron completely nails what a rom-com should be; with two actors in their prime with some playful scenes and great dialogue to help them on their way. Ephron creates a version of New York full of meaning, romance and hope. I also think it's one of Tom Hanks' best performances to date. His natural subtlety and ease is masterful; with echoes of Jimmy Stewart (who was, of course, in 'The Shop Around The Corner,' which YGM was based on) -- he's at his most enjoyable. And unfortunately, we haven't really seen Hanks do fun since -- unless you count the dire 'The Terminal.'

Meg Ryan is far more enjoyable in 'You've Got Mail' -- in fact, she seems to get better as the years go by. I think her performances in 'Hanging Up' and 'In The Land Of The Women' are heartbreakingly truthful-- and I'd recommend you all to check them out (not if you're looking for a rom-com)

"and I knew it. I knew it the very first time I touched her. It was like coming home... only to no home I'd ever known... I was just taking her hand to help her out of a car and I knew. It was like... magic."
-Sam Baldwin, Sleepless In Seattle.
In summary; they're both classics in their own way. On a personal level; I'll go for 'You've Got Mail' every time. I've heard criticism of both films that they're 'not very realistic' -- my feeling of that is that, actually, people are too realistic. We create the world we want. If you want to be more romantic, be so-- the world will deliver.

Care to share?

Tweet