Who says Tarantino isn't original?

Stop the Presses!!!

Rotten Tomatoes has just blown my mind! Can you believe that they've dug up some obscure Chinese movie and said that Quentin Tarantino may have recycled ideas from it for his film Reservoir Dogs? This is impressive journalism!

Okay, okay, I'm being completely sarcastic. Believe it or not but it's almost the twentieth anniversary of Who Do You Think You're Fooling! Maybe in 2003 I'll ask George Lucas to remaster it and add a retarded rabbit to it.

Inglourious Basterds: Movie Review

A new Quentin Tarantino movie brings along a flood of questions in my inbox. Typically, "What'd you think of it?" "Where's your review?" "What'd it rip off?" I wrote a review of the script for Inglourious Basterds (sic) back in July, 2008. Like most Tarantino screenplays, little changes between final draft and finished film. Additionally, Tarantino always does a good job of painting a clear picture in the mind of the reader, leaving one feeling as if they've seen the film with their mind's eye. Thus, much of my review of the screenplay goes for my review of the film.

Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

A group of Jewish soldiers goes after Nazis with a vengeance during WWII. Lead by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), his “Basterds” strike fear in the hearts of German soldiers due to their merciless tactics and their love of scalping victims. Sadly, there’s no “getting the team together” sequence (which makes movies like The Dirty Dozen so great) or even a montage of why these guys are “Basterds.” We only see them in action briefly, joining the team already in progress as they tear ass through enemy territory and terrorize soldiers. Like Mickey and Mallory Knox, they always leave someone alive to tell the tale, though they’re scarred with a swastika on their forehead.

The “Basterds” aren’t at the crux of the story (a mistake), rather, they’re unwitting foils of Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), the “one who got away” from Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), The “Jew Hunter”, in the film’s opening scene. Shoshanna runs a Parisian cinema where a Nazi propaganda film makes its premiere. She utilizes the former cinema owner’s extensive nitrate film collection to take out the Third Reich’s high command including Adolf Hitler! Operation Valkyrie? Not quite. It’s Operation Kino!

Tarantino does well to not stuff Inglourious Basterds with his usual group of stars (including some has-been looking for a career transfusion). Sure, Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel make cameo voice appearances but, apart from Brad Pitt (and, to an extent, Eli Roth), lesser-known actors comprise the cast. This feels reminiscent of Paul Verhoeven’s Dutch Resistance film, Black Book, in which story trumps stars. Rumor has Tarantino attempting to attach many other big name actors to his work. This would have proved distracting, if not disastrous. As it was, the stunt casting of Mike Myers as a British General provides the film’s weakest point. Despite (or perhaps due to) the layers of make-up, Myers stands out like a sore thumb. Chomping on a British accent, I kept expecting him to break out an “Oh, behave” or “Shall we shag now, or shag later?” Unfortunately, Myers scene mires the film.

For as bad Myers may be, Christoph Waltz shines as Colonel Landa. The opening scene (which brings to mind the introduction of Lee Van Cleef’s character in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) sets up how suave and ruthless his character can be, going from one to another in moments. It’s important to have this duality set up as he seems to make a rather out-of-character change late in the film.

Overall, the film neither thrilled nor appalled me. My ambivalence stems from what others may find endearing; the use of quirky moments that take the viewer out of the film’s overall narrative arc. These include oddities such as a title card over the introduction of one character, some on-screen titling that point out key Nazi players, and subtitles that leave in foreign words and phrases (rather than translating everything to English). Tarantino continues to use title cards, myriad fonts, and fake titles (the end credits run twice – once as if we were seeing an older film and once in the current contractually-obligated manner). This is perhaps Tarantino’s strongest narrative and he nearly succeeds in balancing three main characters. He falters on pacing (two longer scenes could be tightened up without loss of dramatic tension) and the “Basterds” arc. The audience doesn’t get to know most of the “Basterds” and several of them disappear from one scene to another.

It should be noted that this is the first time that Tarantino’s gotten close to creating a “remake” rather than just ripping off another film (or films) and calling it his own. Oddly, the similarities between this work and Enzo Castellari’s original Inglorious Bastards stop at the (English) title and WWII setting. The film seems more indebted to other Italians like Sergio Leone and Sergio Sollima. Like Kill Bill, the soundtrack brims with themes culled from other films, especially those scored by Ennio Morricone. The use of music from The Big Gundown ("La Condanna") in the opening scene may be clever but soon it feels like someone forgot to re-score Inglourious Basterds and left in a temp track by mistake.

Copyright, Shmopyright

After fifteen years someone is finally questioning the copyright of Who Do You Think You're Fooling? There's a dispute filed on YouTube over my rights over the use of footage in this work. Seems a few days late and quite a number of dollars short.

Embedding has been disabled to make folks go to YouTube to see advertisements from Lion's Gate -- they're the shitbird company saying they own rights to Who Do You Think You're Fooling? at the moment. So, I threw this up on Facebook and we can hope it lives there successfully for a good, long time.

Fooling Films Back On YouTube

I re-posted these on YouTube a few months back and haven't posted them on the blog in a while. I think I'm required by law to cross-promote these every once in a while.

Inglorious Bastards: I Hope It's Fake

Last week the internet was flooded with copies of Quentin Tarantino's script for his remake of Inglorious Bastards or, as the title page has it, "Inglourious Basterds." All I can say is, I hope that this is a bogus script.

It's happened before. The Charley and the Chocolate Factory script reviewed in Cashiers du Cinemart #15 and two of the Indiana Jones 4 scripts in CdC #9 were phony. We should be so lucky if "Inglourious Basterds" is too. Otherwise, it's time to buckle up because this film is one bumpy ride.

The script has a group of Jewish soldiers going after Nazis with a vengeance during WWII. Lead by Aldo (a nod to Aldo Ray?) "The Apache"--named such for scalping his victims--the "Basterds" (it's never spelled correctly) are feared by German soldiers. There's no "getting the team together" sequence (which makes movies like The Dirty Dozen so great) or even a montage of why these guys are "Basterds" apart from one flashback to a member who likes to pummel his victims with a baseball bat. Instead, we join the team in progress as they tear ass through enemy territory and terrorize soldiers. Like Mickey and Mallory Knox, they always leave someone alive to tell the tale, though they're scarred with a swastika on their forehead as a mark of running awry of the "Basterds."

The screenplay meanders, dipping into Sergio Leone territory quite often with scenes amalgamating The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West which introduces our villain, Colonel Landa, "The Jew Hunter." It isn't until the third of five chapters that this story really gets underway.

The "Basterds" aren't the main crux of the story (another mistake), rather, they're unwitting foils in the plan of Shoshanna Dreyfus, the "one who got away" from Colonel Landa in the opening scene. She runs a Parisian cinema where a Nazi propaganda film makes its premiere. She utilizes the former cinema owner's extensive nitrate film collection to take out the Third Reich's high command, including none other than Adolf Hitler!

What leads me to believe that this truly is Tarantino's work includes the following: Female protagonist, a foot being placed in a guy's crotch, long-winded (165 pages!), pop culture references galore (two British officers are described as being different incarnations of George Sanders), rampant misspellings, and a scrawl across the cover page that looks identical to that found on the early drafts of Kill Bill. What leads me to not believe that this is legitimate include the cover date of July 2, 2008 -- meaning that it was leaked approximately eight days after completion -- and that it's not derivative enough.

This is the first time that Tarantino's actually gone so far as to call a project a "remake" rather than just ripping off another film, or films, and calling it his own. Moreover, the similarities between this work and Enzo Castellari's original stop at the title and WWII setting, at least from what I've seen. I've only recently gotten my hands on GI Bro (as it was released on VHS) and will be watching this soon. I won't be spending the cash for the three (or single) disc DVD release when it comes out on July 29, 2008. The other thing that I find suspect is the plot to kill Hitler. That means that 2009 may see two films about roughly the same thing if the trouble Tom Cruise production of Valkyrie ever makes it to theaters. But, hey, Hollywood's given us two movies about the same subject in the same season before, right?

Quentin Tarantino Doesn't Swallow

I love this clip. It just shows so well how nucking futs Quentin Tarantino is.

Take my "Tarantino Inspiration" Quiz

So far no one's been able to score 100%: Tarantino Inspiration Quiz

I have to admit, I'm really enjoying FaceBook. There's so much more to do and much more interaction than MySpace. The advertising is less "in your face" (and doesn't slow my processor down). It's ironic because the developers that I've dealt with at FaceBook are as easy-going and helpful as their site while the folks at MySpace are as obtuse as their site.

I am having a bit of a crisis of faith, though. There's an application on FaceBook that I'm using that allows one to keep track of what books they've read. I've been going through, starting at my Junior High days, and trying to recall everything I've read. So far, I've only been able to come up with approximately 500 books. That number feels really low. I thought I was much more well-read than that.

Tarantino Backlash

There's a concurrent resurgence and backlash going on right now surrounding Quentin Tarantino, it seems. I've been getting hits like crazy on WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE FOOLING and YOU'RE STILL NOT FOOLING ANYBODY over on YouTube. And I've been seeing links to my site and mentions of my blog on a few other blogs. Seems that not everyone's entirely impressed with GRINDHOUSE.

I'm very surprised I haven't seen a big listing out of the films that influenced DEATH PROOF. I have to say that I didn't recognize as many influences in this as I saw in other Tarantino films. I can't really think of any overly talky, boring exploitation movies with two action sequences and little else. If they do exist -- and I'm sure they do -- they're definitely not top of mind when it comes to thinking of classic films.

Knew I Had Seen That Before...

When I saw the double feature-style poster for GRINDHOUSE I knew that I had seen the image used for PLANET TERROR somewhere before. Nice homage!

Grindhouse: A Review

Okay, this is going to be a little messy. I may go back later and clean this up but I want to give some of my raw impressions of the GRINDHOUSE experience. This is the Rodriguez/Tarantino GRINDHOUSE I'm talking about, not the Tramontana movie (see earlier post).

We all remember the first time Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made a movie together. The results weren't pretty. Even then everyone was comparing the two filmmakers. In FOUR ROOMS the Tarantino and Rodriguez chapters were the high points in this botched affair. Tarantino's entry was a simple rip-off, er, remake of the "Man from the South" episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." Rodriguez's was simple, solid storytelling. Luckily, their ventures since then--FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, SIN CITY, etc -- have been a marked improvement.

Two feature films plus a handful of trailers for a three-hour extravaganza of entertainment sounds like a great idea, and it is. I loved the overall experience; the bad splices, the damaged prints, the old school ratings animations. That all worked. So did Robert Rodriguez's film, PLANET TERROR. This gore-infested zombie film is a real hoot. It stars "Six Feet Under" undertaker Freddy Rodríguez as "El Wray," a man with a wrecker and a past. He encounters a luscious figure from his past at the local BBQ joint when he meets up with Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), a Go-Go Dancer who once had a dream of being a doctor.

PLANET TERROR is brimming with interesting characters who are certainly archetypes but fun archetypes. Two of my favorites include a craggy Michael Biehn as the crusty small town sheriff who's been on the outs with this brother, Jeff Fahey, for years over his secret bar-b-que recipe. Along with this familial conflict, there's political intrigue, medical drama, crazy babysitters, and blazing gunfights. The whole thing is set to an all-too-familiar score reminiscent of John Carpenter. In fact, quite a bit of the film plays like a Carpenter/Romero lovechild. Think ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 meets DAY OF THE DEAD.

On the other end of the spectrum from this rip-roaring blast of action is the second feature of GRINDHOUSE, Quentin Tarantino's DEATH PROOF. Essentially, this film is comprised of dialog. It's one scene after another of two groups of girlfriends talking about a whole lot of nothing. It's basically a movie version "The View" with more pot, drinking, and swearing. Kurt Russell is also there as Stuntman Mike. He hangs out in the background for most of the film, only really having two scenes that count in this tedious and talky exercise that would make MY DINNER WITH ANDRE look like an actionfest.

The overlong set-up to the first action scene (buried somewhere after the half hour mark) of DEATH PROOF also proves out that watching people text-messaging--even if it's set to Pino Donaggio's score from BLOW OUT--is deathly dull. I like women's revenge flicks as much as the next FASTER PUSSYCAT, KILL! KILL! fan but these girls are so talky and trite that I wanted to get up on screen and kill them myself. All of them, especially Jungle Julie (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) and Kim (Tracie Thoms). Stuntman Mike was doing the audience a favor. He was the personification of classic cinema and should have triumphed over the boring, chatty triumvirate of film geek chicks.

The script to DEATH PROOF explains far more than ended up on screen but neither version gives a whole lot of motivation for why Stuntman Mike terrorizes women with his tricked-out car. The movie of DEATH PROOF holds confusion here and even in its timeline. Knowing that director Tarantino likes to muck about with time (DEATH PROOF is set before PLANET TERROR even though it's shown first), some have proposed that the second half of DEATH PROOF comes before the first half chronologically. This is done in an attempt to explain Stuntman Mike's scar, cool attitude, plastic car cage, and bloodlust. Otherwise, audiences are denied any of these and can't identify with anyone in the film, even its psychotic killer main character. (Despite what some say, Stuntman Mike does have a scar in the second half of DEATH PROOF. See screengrab).

Every film fan knows what they can expect from a Quentin Tarantino film: pop culture-laden dialog, backgrounds festooned with movie posters, other films' soundtracks pilfered for his film's soundtrack, a horrible director cameo, and bare female feet. DEATH PROOF has these in spades. However, this time Tarantino just doesn't seem to have either the formula right or perhaps the spark that typically brings it all to life. One would think that having this ample opportunity to pilfer and emulate classic exploitation films would have provided Tarantino with inspiration to make his grindhouse tale an unstoppable homage. Instead, he seems to have been shackled to ceaseless scenes of girls chatting.

Sure, the girls chat about movies, too. They refer to VANISHING POINT, CANNONBALL RUN, DIRTY MARY CRAZY LARRY, GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, and others (for more on these films see "The Chase Is On from Cashiers du Cinemart #11) but DEATH PROOF comes nowhere near the excitement of any of these films. With no offense meant to David Lynch's film but THE STRAIGHT STORY moves faster than DEATH PROOF. There may also be a reference to TWO LANE BLACKTOP in that Stuntman Mike seems to be cut of the same blowhard cloth as G.T.O. (Warren Oates) in the Hellman film.

Another odd thing about DEATH PROOF is the lack of "print damage" when compared to PLANET TERROR and the four fake previews. There's some minor mangling of the print near the beginning of the film (and a clever re-titling) but it quickly disappears, not to appear even around reel changes. There's one moment where the film utilizes a conceit that there's a reel missing from DEATH PROOF. This is done, apparently, only to avoid the awkward scene of Butterfly (Vanessa Ferlito) giving Stuntman Mike a lap dance. This same "Reels Missing" trick was used in PLANET TERROR as well, but used entirely differently. In Rodriguez's film the missing reel contains a wealth of action sequences that other characters elude to, effectively winking at the audience and counting on them to be smart enough to get the joke.

In short, if you haven't seen GRINDHOUSE yet do yourself a favor and leave after the preview for Eli Roth's THANKSGIVING. By that point you've gotten all of the entertainment you're going to get out of GRINDHOUSE.