Dominatio Per Malum

Inglourious Basterds (2009) 8/10

Inglourious Basterds marks a return to form for Quentin Tarantino after the lacklustre Death Proof. It is one of the more accessible Tarantino films and Basterds contains many of Tarantino’s favourite themes and stylistic influences. It should come as no surprise that Basterds is a loquacious film. Those who watched Basterds because of its marketing might well be under the impression that it was a WW2 action film, seeing how Brad Pitt is used prominently in its promotion. In truth, Brad Pitt doesn’t really have that much screen time, and there are few action sequences. Instead, in true Tarantino fashion, the film is one long talkfest chock full of black humor, obscure references and non sequiturs. In other words, its bloody brilliant.

The film is full of Tarantino’s little stylistic flourishes, from its excellent soundtrack, the use of chapters to bookend each segment and its generous use of gore. It is almost amazing how, at the end of the film, you realise that you have spent the better part of two hours watching characters just chatting. Granted, the dialogue sometimes feels meandering and lacking in focus, but when it is good, it is golden. At its best, the dialogue zings and sizzles and Tarantino expertly manages to craft tension from the most mundane of conversations.

The ensemble cast is excellent, none more so than Christoph Waltz, one of the most menacing SS officers ever put on screen. He completely steals the scene in two major sequences, the first being the excellent opening scene of the film and the second being a chance meeting with Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent).

At every turn, Tarantino surprises and even thrills the audience. Even the boldly ahistorical ending will likely polarize audiences. This is a film in which i honestly could not have predicted how the scene would have played out. It is a testament to Tarantino’s craft that Basterds, which is closest in form to Pulp Fiction, is an enjoyable, sometimes over the top film that appeals the film lover rather than to studio expectations of more skin and more explosions. One final praise needs to be given to the cinematographer who cloaks the film in beautiful vibrant colors with the color red taking especial prominence. I loved the way the film turned out and i can unreservedly proclaim Basterds to be one of the best films of 2009. Watch it.

In The Loop (2009) 8/10

In the Loop is what The Office wants to be. Sharp, sardonic and an absolute blast to watch, the film skewers the political process and shows politicians for what they truly are: screwups who are trying desperately not to blow the whole world up. Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) puts in a mesmerizing and commanding performance in an expletive filled performance. It is a virtuoso display of foul-mouthed eloquence the likes of which has been rarely seen. A sharp, witty and engaging dialogue which has one of the highest laughs per minute of any film i have watched and a brilliantly absurdist plot makes this one of the best films of the year and an excellent showcase of Brit humor.

Due to Life, i won’t have the time nor energy to watch movies, much less review them. So, this blog won’t be updated very much. From time to time, if i am very free and it strikes my fancy, i might write something down. Otherwise, this blog is for all intents and purposes semi-dead.

Still, here are some of the films which i recently watched. I may not even bother to write anything about it so just look at the numerical rating.

Australia (2008) 6/10

Way too long and overindulgent. But entertaining nonetheless.

The Girlfriend Experience (2009) 6/10

Stephen Soderberg follows up his epic, 2 part film Che with a small, arthouse flick that uses Sasha Grey as stunt casting. But Ms Grey is surprisingly good in the lead role and the film’s disjointed time-line whilst mildly annoying at first actually enhances the film. While the film looks great, and Sasha Grey provides the requisite eye candy, the film feels distant and the main character remains a cipher, whose motivations and personality never rise to the surface.

Speedy Scandal (2008) 8/10

Despite a totally hackneyed and predictable plot, the film was one of the top grossing Korean films of 2008. And understandably so because it is a great crowd-pleaser and is highly entertaining. Cha Tae-hyun may be repeating the same performance he did in My Sassy Girl but he is so pitch perfect as the comical battered male that you just don’t care that he is recycling his persona. It may not be art, but it sure is entertaining.

Push (2009) 5/10

It has a nice soundtrack. That’s the most positive thing i can say about this film.

Coraline (2009) 8/10

Easily one of the best films of the year and definitely in the running for best animated film (currently only Pixar’s Up seems to be its only challenger) Coraline is a dark, intelligently crafted tale that will win the hearts of adults. Its not really kid friendly and i can best describe it as Pan’s Labyrinth turned into an animated film. Visually, top marks. Its a smart and beautifully rendered film that deserves to be seen.

Yes Man(2008) 3/10

Just Say No to this.

Stage Beauty (2004) 7/10

Claire Danes is good but it is Billy Crudup who gives a phenomenal performance.

JCVD (2008) 8/10

Jean Claude Van Damme in his best film ever. Surprisingly, JCVD is an affectionate, entertaining movie that actually gives Van Damme the opportunity to show off his acting chops. Just as the Wrestler gave Mickey Rourke a new start, JCVD equally gives Van Damme the best film he has ever made. Unfortunately, noone seems to have noticed, but JCVD is well worth taking a look, if only for an amazing extended soliloquy given by Van Damme which is as honest as it is heartbreaking.

Franklyn (2008) 4/10

Bold concept, interesting visuals. But I can’t fucking understand the damn film!

Romeo + Juliet (1996) 3/10

Never ever ever ever let your cast speak in iambic pentameters. The characters speak in Shakespearean dialogue, which unless you are studying R&J as part of Lit class means that the average viewer can’t catch the dialogue. Not even a winsome pairing of Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio could save this overwrought mess.

Suspect X (2008) 5/10

Retarded plot.

Still Walking (2008) 6/10

Very Arthouse and incredibly slow but if you have the patience, Hirokazu Kore-eda weaves an intriguing tale that explores family dynamics. I was a tad disappointed with this because his earlier film Nobody Knows was one of my all time favourite films.

Last Chance Harvey (2008) 6/10

Annie Hall (1977) 6/10

Overrated.

Two Lovers (2008) 5/10

It’s a good thing that Joaquin Phoenix wants to quit acting, because he is not a particularly good actor.

Star Trek (2009) 8/10

This was really (and perhaps unexpectedly) good. I liked it more than Watchmen because the film is tight and moves along with quick, snappy pacing whereas Watchmen tended to get bogged down by weak and superfluous scenes. Despite a fairly predictable plot, Star Trek thrives because its characters are compelling, especially the juxtaposition between Spock’s logic and Kirk’s emotions. All in all its great summer entertainment and my #1 fav film of the year so far.

Watchmen (2009) 8/10

Watchmen is visually striking, and looks fantastic. The source material, one of the most famous graphic novels ever written gives the film its intellectual heft with its dark portrayal of deeply flawed heroes. It starts with a brilliant, near flawless opening sequence that evokes the feel of the comic and with the soundtrack of “The Times are A-Changin” neatly summarize so much of the history of an alternate reality world. It is the 1980s, Nixon is still President, America won Vietnam and is locked in a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union.

But there is also so much that is wrong with the Watchmen that makes it such a great pity. It had the potential to be a great film, but settled to be only a good film. The labyrinthe plot was manageable even for a non-Watchmen fan like me. The voice over by Rorshach is jarring and could have been better done. Words that feel lyrical when read lose much of their power when spoken aloud.

The single biggest weakness of the film is its casting. Most of the leading characters are plain boring one dimensional cutouts. Therein lies the irony of Watchmen, whilst trying to break away from the typical mould of superheroes as paradigms of virtue, the film makes the mistake of creating simplistic one dimensional versions of these flawed heroes. Only Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley) and the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) bring their characters to life and make these believable characters. The rest of the cast fare much worse. Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is actually a very interesting character whose detachment to life could make for a compelling and nuanced character. Unfortunately, for a demi-god, Dr Manhattan seems like a puerile, insecure entity that makes several mistakes in the film. For someone of such supposedly great powers, he seems really dumb. And yes, i know that the scene of Dr Manhattan leading US troops to Vietnam is most probably taken from the comic but he looks really dumb as a blue Sentinel like figure blasting random Vietcongs.

The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is such a plain vanilla character that if we deleted him from the movie, noone will probably care. Same for Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), who at least works as eye candy. Unfortunately she has zero chemistry with the rest of her love interests and simply plays a flower vase role. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) has so little screen time that he doesn’t even get a flashback to tell his life story unlike the rest of the cast.

The difference between a good film and a great film lies in the cast. The Dark Knight was a great film and starred top notch actors who could emote and convey anger, sorrow, pain and doubt. Between Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman and Christian Bale, The Dark Knight had an A-list cast of talents. The Watchmen seems to have spent all its budget on fancy effects because the cast with the exception of the Comedian and Rorshach put in bland performances and none of the characters feel particularly compelling.

The storyline is also affected by the need to cram everything into a movie and the film can be divided into 3 acts: Act 1 : Comedian is killed, cue flash backs; Act 2: Each of the major characters get a flashback to tell their past stories and histories; Act 3 OMIGOSH we actually have a plot to resolve so we conveniently put in a bad guy and the heroes through simple coincidences solve the mystery and go confront evil bad guy. Oh and by the way we also insert groovy Mars sequence since we still have money left over for CGI and the comic has it.

To be fair, the ending actually packs a punch and puts forth a moral question which actually makes it far better than a standard superhero movie. Plus as a bonus Dr Manhattan actually starts acting like a demigod in the last act instead of a bumbling doofus he has been for much of the film’s running time. Unfortunately, the “intellectual ending” has already been done in The Dark Knight, so it feels like a bit of deja vu.

There is also a lack of a good villian to balance the film. Every great superhero film has an equally great adversary to deal with. This is also why Heath Ledger’s joker is so damn fantastic. The villain in this film feels like an afterthought and the film suffers considerably because of this.

So to recap the GOOD POINTS: great visuals, nice CGI, strong source material, excellent 80s soundtrack, actually understandable even if you are not a watchman fan, Rorshach, the Comedian. The BAD: lousy acting by the rest of the cast, crammed plotline, unnecessarily long scenes (Mars sequence and any scene involving Silk Spectre 2 trying to be romantic), hardly any plot development for villain.

But even the uninspired casting cannot rob the strength of the original source material. The story that Alan Moore tells is a powerful tale and even when unnaturally compressed into its less than three hour running time the film still has its moments of brilliance.

Despite writing alot of negative stuff about the Watchmen, it is actually a very good film that is enjoyable and worth your time. However, this is precisely its problem: it is only a good film, when it could have been a great film. If i hadn’t watched The Dark Knight and seen what Nolan did with a superhero movie, i might have been more charitable. As it stands, while Watchmen is an entertaining flick and one of the better 2009 movies, it fails to realise its potential.