Best Picture Nominee: DISTRICT 9

2009
Directed by Neill Blomkemp
Written by Neill Blomkemp and Terri Tatchell
Produced by Peter Jackson
TriStar Pictures

From Producer Peter Jackson and Director Neil Blomkemp comes District 9. The trailers may be a bit misleading. A portion of the footage used in the teasers is never seen in the film itself but despite that fact the rogue footage remains loyal to District 9's integrity.

The scene is set in Johannesburg, South Africa in the not-so-distant future. Over 20 years after an alien spacecraft arrived hovering over the city the area of slums known as Distrcit 9 contains the alien immigrants referred to as Prawns because apparently they look like shrimp if Rick Moranis started a seafood market. They are monitored and controlled by the MNU, a company only interested in making money off of what the aliens can offer at any expense. Filmed first in mockumentary style the film carries us from the past as it reels through what would be archive news footage of events leading up to the present. We are introduced to Wikus van der Merwe who is at first glance very unlikely to be the main character. After watching the first 20 minutes I half expected there not to be a main character but instead a sequence of conflict following conflict featuring a mosaic of different characters. The initial angle from which we observe Wikus, it creates the sense that he is a lamb for an imminent slaughter. The ominous interviews with his co-workers and rising action in the slums build to what would seem to be an early twist. Wikus' introduction doesn't help his case either. He comes off as a cross between Michael Scott from The Office and Leland Orser from ER. Nevertheless the story carries on with him on the front lines. As much as I enjoyed this movie, it's difficult to find the main character amiable. From the beginning you receive enough of an impression that lets you know exactly who Wikis is and you believe him to remain that way until he's killed or the movie ends. He is a man of self-preservation, or in this case species preservation. However it tricks you. Wikus does not start off as the protagonist, he becomes the protagonist after experiencing what is often known as a scapegoat's role. After his mutation and being subjected to experimentation and torture Wikus begins to reform and adapt to the hand that has been dealt to him (no pun intended). Maybe it's because I empathize more with the Prawns at first that it's harder to empathize with him. The way he is portrayed within the first half hour I didn't expect him to last to the end of the movie.

When I walked of the theater I realized that more than anything else this was a character study, one that I found particularly extraordinary. It concentrated on an average, timid, corky man faced with extreme circumstances and how he overcomes them. Eventually you realize that this is not the Prawn's story, this is Wikus' story. Hurray for you. Now watch as he persistently makes an ass of himself and burns nearly every bridge he has left. It's because of this that I find myself empathizing with Chris, the Prawn more than Wikus. Sorry, there's only so many times you can betray the friends that are trying to help you and completely embarrass yourself before you're two stoolies short of Nixon. It's interesting since a majority of the time you're watching a character that is detestable to a point until you draw closer to the climax. I wanted to like this character a lot more but I couldn't, he was still too much like his old self even once he was seeking refuge within District 9. Wikus' reminiscence of his wife helps soften that up for you I'm sure.

The cinematography remains subtle when the movie transitions itself between it's documentary and filmmaking POVs. District 9 is filmed as if it is structurally a mockumentary film however the camera remains on Wikus even after the cameramen have left. In it's delivery you often feel like your still watching a mockumentary film. The cinematography and the editing doesn't sporadically jump suddenly from a documentary look to traditional film angles and cuts. It remains consistent in maintaining its visual style and continuity. Unlike many films these days it actually compliments the digital look that filmmakers have been experimenting with. It's a digital film that is made to look digital in a very flattering manner. Digital is continually being considered a replacement for film and while it may satisfy their standards, much of that technology fails to meet mine. It's not there yet and film still reigns supreme when it comes to it's aesthetic and manipulability.

In the end, District 9 leaves us knowing that Wikus finally made the sacrifice we all wanted him to make, putting something bigger before himself or what he worked for. Even the actual mockumentary leaves us with a bittersweet epilogue. I'm uncertain as to whether they plan a sequel to this yet or whether they will leave it as it lies and I'm uncertain whether I'd prefer it either way

As far as the Oscars go, here is my official two cents: It's an admirable nomination for a film of it's kind and we rarely have the opportunity to experience a story like this especially within the Sci Fi genre. That being said, I still stand by my previous statement; being that I would not reward District 9 with Best Picture. I just find it too difficult to really admire the main character for his rather loathsome actions. I empathize with Wikus the same way I empathize with a rabid dog that has to be put down. Perhaps we were not meant to look at Wikus the same we we perceive every other main character but that still doesn't mean I like him. You can make the main character of your story Hitler and buffer him all you want, in the end he's still fucking Hitler. Not to say that Wikus is anti-semitist he's just anti-prawnist.

The 2010 Oscar Nominations

One side note before I begin: I will attempt to as many of the films I haven't reviewed yet that are mentioned here in the coming weeks before the Oscars.

For the record I have invested little in the Academy Awards because of their politics and their inherit compromise for the sake of public appeal. While I understand their economical reasoning behind extending the Best Picture category in their desperation for a larger audience, that still doesn't change the fact that they are, in part, sacrificing their integrity as an award show. This is why I've never gone into watching the Oscars with more than curiosity; it's become less about the films really deserving the awards and more about ratings. It makes the Academy look less like a faceless panel of judges and more like a faceless panel of hookers who give trophies to the wingmen who bring them their best customers. Not to mention once you get down to it, it's technically just the directors, actors, producers, writers and so forth giving awards to themselves.

But yes, it's that time of the year again and per usual, I'm not without complaints. Now the Best Picture category has 10 current nominee slots. Out of those 10, I've seen 7 and at first and second glances, there are a few nominations that I would be more than happy to see expunged from this list. The current nominees for Best Picture are as follows:

Avatar. Yes we all know the successful revenue this headache-inducing eye gorge is bringing in and kudos to Mr. Cameron for introducing another profitable, slightly less gimmicky technological innovation to the market. Now I implore him to spend his fortune on actually rebuilding the Titanic, setting sail and find a nice ice barge to use for an anchor. As much of a golden goose this nest egg turned out to be I firmly believe that it should not be anywhere near this list, let alone win. If the Academy believes that a more than reasonable profit and innovative special effects deserve Best Picture, they need to be forced to sit in a room and watch Schindler's List in 3-D for a week, non-stop. Don't get me wrong, Avatar is relatively decent. It has a plot, it's more visually stunning than Angelina Jolie's right nipple and it's a fun adventure. That being said, it does not belong on best picture but since the Academy has to suck the big one this year it seems only fitting to put the highest grossing and widely seen movie of the year up for the pedestal.

District 9. I thoroughly enjoyed this film (to a point) but even after sorting through this year's debris I wouldn't exactly put it up for Best Picture. However that is not to say I curse it's existence like I do Avatar's. I think District 9 is a gem we rarely have the pleasure of seeing these days; A Sci-Fi film with a original story, shot in an unconventional visual style but still creating a strong dynamic. It becomes difficult to keep liking the main character and therefore loses some of it's appeal. District 9 makes for an admirable nomination but I wouldn't put it on the winner's podium.

A special note goes out to Inglourious Basterds. As I have stated before, I liked this film a lot but like most of the others nominees on my list of amendments it does not deserve the Oscar. Putting this as delicately as I can, this film is very enjoyable but it's directed by Quentin Tarantino which means that there are moments where I spontaneously become completely disengaged and follow up with a palm to my forehead. It's like a video game you don't want to stop playing because it's too fun but any arbitrary moment the game may deliver an electroshock to your balls whenever it feels like.

The Hurt Locker. This is one I'm betting on to win. It's the first film to take place in the current scuffle in the middle east and have absolutely nothing to say politically. Just a bomb squad in Afghanistan trying to survive the last days of their rotation. It's such a simplistic premise but with very complicated and immersing characters. Other than a few logistical problems I'd say throw your money down because you've got a winner but then again remember who I am and who we're dealing with...

A Serious Man. If you haven't seen this one yet (I assume few of the masses have, considering it's very selective release and advertising) this is the Coen Bros. newest film. It has a particular feel (and no I don't mean it's only for Jews, you fascist prick), meaning that it embodies a sense of humor with a very bitter aftertaste. The historical references and messages make it a movie you have to want to see. Granted, it still does many of the things a comedy is supposed to do; it makes you laugh, giggle, all that fun stuff but it's laced with very dry and black comedy. It's a film resembling the Coen Bros.' earlier style; less laid back and much more dramatically satirical instead of being satirical in a way more people can relate to. Again, I liked this film for what it was and I enjoyed the moments it had to share but I wouldn't, by any means, make it number 1.

Up. This is the first animated movie ever to be nominated for Best Picture and if it weren't for the nominee extension we most likely wouldn't even see it on the list. This is one of those animated movies that is more for adults then for kids. It's colored with the playful look and feeling of a kids movie but layered with many rather dark, strong adult themes. However as far as choosing an animated movie to put onto this category I don't think they could have chosen a better candidate.

Up In The Air. Other than The Hurt Locker, I would bet this film to win. There are times when a film comes out that presents a realistic concept in an attempt to connect with the audience on a personal level. I've rarely seen any film do this as well as Up In The Air. The characters are very persuasive and draw you into the story as you ask yourself why this man carries this solo mentality. Or if you're like me and actually understand where he's coming from in his misanthropic, career-domineering lifestyle, you've got a very lovely debt in self-esteem after watching it and start going through liquor bottles like an Irish pub but I digress.

I'd go on, but I'd rather not make many preconceived notions about the rest of the nominees I haven't seen. The remaining three nominees include The Blind Side, An Education and Precious. I mentioned earlier that there are a few nominations that I'd like to see removed from the Best Picture list and they are A Serious Man, Inglourious Basterds, The Blind Side and Avatar. Again, I know I haven't seen The Blind Side yet but given the competition and my impression from the trailer I doubt it's good enough to win or be on the list. However that's to decide after actually watching it.

I was asked by a friend that since I'd consider removing nominations from Best Picture, what would I put in their places. So what would I replace these movies with? Nothing. I don't like that their are 10 spots on the category to begin with. Why would I replace mediocre movies with more mediocre movies? The whole idea is that I think this list should be condensed so you only have the best of the best occupying it. But with 10 we're invaded by films who outright don't deserve Best Picture let alone be in consideration. You're probably rebutting "but sir, this is a lot of complaining on something you said you could give less than two shits about so why complain?" Because on the chance a film I'm rooting for does win it's nice to know it received proper recognition for it's achievement. Just because I barely watch sports anymore doesn't mean I still can't root for my team to win.

The chance one of the three films does change my opinion about the rest of the nominees I'll be sure to mention it in the review for it.

Tally ho.

REVOLVER

2005
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Written by Guy Ritchie and Luc Besson
Produced by Virginie Silla
Europa Corp.

Remember what I said about Quentin Tarantino coating his movies with stylized bullshit way back in yesteryear? Well picture that but the movie has no idea where the fuck it's going; mix some flashy cinematography and Jason Statham with it and you've got Revolver. Guy Ritchie has been slipping down this gravitating downward spiral these past few years. Sherlock Holmes is his newest addition to his filmography and looks like it was made in the same vein as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Going off topic for a moment, I know making preconceived notions about a movie before seeing it isn't exactly very open-minded of me. However until Mr. Ritchie shows me hard evidence he's not desperate then I'm assuming it's shit until proven otherwise... or I actually see it and fulfill my own prophecy.

Before Mr. Ritchie's venture into high concept filmmaking there was Revolver; a story about a... well it's not very clear as to what he is, which is the first problem of many. Jake Greene (Jason Statham) is apparently many things; a card-shark, gambler, con man, chess player and depending on how you interpret this movie, certifiably bonkers. What you do know is that he has just been released from prison and wants to be paid back by Dorothy Macha, a high profile casino owner played by Henry Hill- I mean Ray Liotta. The way he's escorted into the casino, I suspected Jake Greene to be a low profile syndicate boss but apparently he just made friends with some employees at the Goon Factory.

What this movie fails to do is explain neither the plot and characters nor the how and why coherently. It drags you through an hour of heavy handed smooth talk and because next to nothing is explained it comes out as mindless dribble. It wouldn't be so bad except that in order to watch and enjoy the movie it helps to know what it's about. Every time we see a seemingly key plot point, it turns around and points us in a different direction... with it's dick. For example, right after Jake Greene is diagnosed with a rare blood disease it mysteriously disappears three days later. So we're playing that game are we? Forgive me, I wasn't aware we were watching a movie carrying twice the miracle capacity as My Sister's Keeper. This is one of the most angering moments I have with this movie; teasing you about which way the story leads and then later telling you that everything's changed. All the while I'm trying to pay attention to the rest of the story I'm getting an aneurysm just from trying to figure out this web of lies and thinking about the shameless plot twists.

I want to mention this now so that you'll understand the rest of my frustrations later. I don't understand the two characters, Zach and Avi (Vincent Pastore and Andre Benjamin) and what I mean is I don't understand what this movie is trying to do with them. I get that they're products of Jake Greene's insanity... well wait a minute, are they or aren't they? There are times when you see them interacting with other characters like that Doreen person (Anjela Lauren Davis). Then there are times when it seems like only Jake can see them. So if they are really personalities conjured by Jack's subconscious, why the fuck do other characters act like they're real people? And please explain to me how they own a game house and have reputations as loan sharks if that's the case? It's like they're co-existing on two different realities and the movie keeps breaking it's own rules just to cater to them. At least Fight Club made an attempt to cover up their inconsistencies (Dear Christ, I never thought I'd ever make a reference to that movie in a positive light). I just don't know how to interpret them because the movie hasn't made up it's own mind either. It's like if FDA tells you that beer is bad because it gives you cancer, shrinks your balls and keeps you going to the unemployment line. Then they change their minds later and say it only makes your balls shrink and then after the whole fiasco you finding they were rip roaring drunk when they told you.

These two anomalies string Jack along their excursions, loaning out his money to their clients and in their downtime, ripping off Macha and poising him against an Asian crime syndicate in a mob war. Translating this from Guy Ritchie's third dimension, this means that Jack Greene is doing all of this by himself with some help from that Doreen person. Another side tangent: who the fuck is she anyway and how is she so desperate for money that she works for a man who refers to himself as three people? You'd think she would have called the men in white coats to give him a jacket that makes him hug himself by now. I apologize to cycle back around this topic again but you can't avoid talking about any other faults without mentioning it. If Zach and Avi aren't real, why do other people see them and recognize them as two separate individuals? I hate to use this reference again but, Fight Club has a better cover-up. Whenever Tyler Durdan speaks it's really Edward Norton so it can be argued that when he talks to himself no one else really acknowledges whether they are two separate people or just one person. In Revolver it's implicated that both Zach and Avi are personalities created by Jake but there many occasions where they are seen and acknowledged as three separate entities. It's so dumbfounding and disjointing, it's like if Rod Serling ate mushrooms and then wrote an episode of the Twlight Zone that lasted 2 nauseating hours.

Another jarring inconsistency is how atrocious the sequencing is. I had to watch it a second time through just to understand what happened and when. Apparently after Jake was released from prison, it doesn't mention until an hour later that at least three months had passed until we see him con Macha out of his money. Thanks again for that bone, Mr. Ritchie. The way the opening flows you're given the impression that he goes directly to Macha's casino right when he's released from prison. The way the characters talk, their dialogue implicates he just got out a short while ago, except from one line from Macha, which at this point could be interpreted either way. Mr. Ritchie put a lot of effort into making you work to figure out the timeline to this trailing clusterfuck. I don't know whether his goal was to make the film equivalent of a Chinese Tavern puzzle but it sure succeeded in making me less than apathetic then I was from the start.

One positive note I will give Revolver is the look. Here's where even more stylization comes in and all in all, it doesn't do anything too drastic (except for that misplaced animation interlude but I digress). It exercises a variety of different colors, lighting and shots with many intimate close ups, especially on the chess pieces and other props. It creates the one dynamic Revolver has going for it; Emphasizing the nonchalant atmosphere using very dramatic lighting when appropriate and it mixes very well with the sound and foley effects. For the most part, the cinematography compliments the movie and since it's a shameful epileptic seizure of a story it fits right in.

One final gripe I will proceed to bitch about (because I can so either fuck off or keep reading) is one specific plot hole that skewers the whole movie. After Jake discovers he has his placebo blood disease, Avi and Zach give him the "only choice he has" apparently, which is to give them all his money and do whatever they say. My question here is why does Jake agree to comply? Even if there is a death warrant on him, he thinks he's dead in three days. Why give it to them when he waste it all on blow and a tittie bar? What makes their option the only option? It's either have fun and die in three days or less or give all my money away to help out two loan sharks and die in three days or less. It's like being trapped in a room with a bomb that will imminently go off and choosing between one last fuck with your girlfriend or watching her get Eiffel Towered by two pornstars before it detonates.

Nothing stays simple because of this movie's desperate attempts to be one of the cool kids. It tries too hard to impress and in the end it just trails off into it's own ego. Half the time you'll be translating or decrypting the story like you're playing Sudoku but in binary. Every plot point that is established becomes irrelevant later because a new twist is revealed every 20 minutes. I don't know how Mr. Ritchie thought this was a good idea. I feel like this started as something promising and then he just stopped trying. So instead of writing on his own he loaded a bunch of scenarios into a blender and that was his idea of finalizing. I keep hearing from people that this is typical Guy Ritchie. You watch Snatch or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and tell me that the stories are as convoluted and jumbled as this movie, you obtuse dolt.

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

2009
Directed by Michael Bay
Written by Ehren Kruger
Produced by Ian Bryce
Paramount Pictures

Ok people...

Once again Michael Bay attempts to awww and wow us with his infamous action sequences and detailed special effects. However, Revenge of the Fallen falls farther away from the entertainment spectrum than the first one did. Granted this is a film with Mr. Bay's name on and should be judged accordingly. That being said, even with his timeless quota of being "awesome" there has to be a certain level of coherency and consistency in order for the entertainment value to remain as the dominating trait in his films. Revenge of the Fallen demonstrates this quality very poorly. Again we are dealing with a movie that dwells within a reality involving large transforming extraterrestrial robots but I continue to protest a sense of coherency within it's own world. To begin with there are a lot of new twists, elements and plot devices that appear in this movie very conveniently. Although like slender women in slutty clothing this is not uncommonly apparent in Bay's filmography. My concern peaks when I repeatedly ask questions such as "Why didn't they just do this?" or "Was that really necessary?” and “Did I actually pay to see this?"

One example that I questioned frequently through out the movie was the All-Spark shard that Sam (Shia LeBoeuff) discovers in his old sweater. It still contains the power to transform ordinary machines into little transformers that want to snip your balls off and turn them into a small beanbag chair. So when Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) gets killed, why couldn't they just use the all spark shard to revive him if it still has its power? Also there's the scene where Sam, Mikela (Megan Fox), Simmons (John Tuturro) and... that agitating youth who reminds me of Chris Carter if he did cocaine, (Rammond Rodriguez) go speak to Jetfire. If he's still alive why DID they need the shard to revive him? Why couldn't he transform on his own? They don't explain anything as simple as that. It's both too convenient and inconvenient to make sense even by Michael Bay's standards.

By the way, I'm still wondering why the chose to have Mr. Spitz (annoying Chris Carter Neanderthal) ride along in this adventure. I don't think there was another character in another Bay film that made me want to heave a refrigerator at my own Dad because he wanted me to see this movie with him. He does nothing but bitch and moan the entire time and they didn't even work him in as competition with Mikela. Spitz is just another useless, frustrating character. He’s he type of person that warrants putting a warning screen before the intro credits saying that this movie causes high blood pressure and anger management. He actually made Shia bearable to watch, though whether that was his true purpose is unknown.

To comment on the transformers themselves... well aside from Optimus Prime, Bumblebtard and those two fuckball twin robots I don't really have much to say on the others because they barely have any screen time. Ironhide, Ratchet, they're only on screen for a matter of about 20 minutes before they go off doing heroic roboty things offscreen. There is only a single sentence introducing the new autobots and aside from Wheelie and Skids you barely see any of them either. Aside from that what was the deal with those two fuckhead twin robots anyway? They did the same thing they did with Jazz in the first Transformers; they reduced them to a cultural stereotype only this time to be more of two very perturbing cretins.

Going back to my frequently asked questions, there's the Matrix. This has to be the cheesiest stunt Bay has ever pulled in any movie and this is a man who referenced the American Revolution in The Rock. Sam gets shot by Megatron and dies. In... some kind of dream sequence, the other Primes confront him telling him he's "earned" the Matrix whereby Sam wakes up with it fully restored, ready to revive Optimus. Holy Fuckball. Once more we are visited by extreme convenience in order for our heroes to finish their quest in ways that seem unrealistic even in the world of Transformers. I don't understand it. There's never been this type of mysticism or fantastical magic involved in Transformers. Now it decides to throw us this curveball from Hogwarts, expects us to accept it and move on. Yes, I understand; it's Michael Bay, it's alien robots but it still manages to goes too far. It goes beyond it's own sense of reality. I just can't stomach the fact that they went to one of the lowest common denominators of copouts and expect me not to call bullshit.

On the technical side this movie was... ugh. Dear God. There's actually a scene where Sam says "Megan" instead of Mikela and they kept it in the final cut. More legitimately, there's so much wrong with continuity it's worse than the first one. Again we find ourselves sifting through fast-cutting action sequences that keep us guessing who's fighting who. Also there is a scene where Simmons seems to travel from Cairo to Jordon and it takes him mere minutes to get there... Oh come on, this movie isn't even trying anymore! Jordon is near 500 MILES away from Cairo with Isreal in between them no less. That's just absurd!

You know, I do enjoy a Bay movie when it deserves praise; Bad Boys II, The Rock and so on. I just can't find the entertainment when there's so much wrong with the Revenge of the Fallen that it confuses and annoys me rather than keeps me excited. On top of everything, the scene I couldn't wait for that debuted in the trailer (When Demolisher completely skull-fucks that highway in Shanghai) was seen a minute into the movie and then it turned out the rest of the movie was all of the above. Don't know what lies ahead for future installments of this series (and there will be) and I couldn't be more apathetic. If my dad has any more interest in seeing that one he's going to be surprised when he sees the newest version of Maytag flying at him through a window.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

2008
Directed by Marc Forster
Written by Paul Haggis
Produced by Barbara Broccoli
MGM

Those who are esteemed fans of the new and improved Casino Royale are probably disappointed with the new, agonizing installment of Quantum of Solace. It has all the charm of Hannibal Lector working at Arby's with a plot so nauseating you might as well get some old CIA reports and drink ipecac while you read them. From what I've noticed most people have complained that this movie didn't live up to certain expectations, which are the wrong reasons for compliant in this case. I'll explain…

The majority of arguments that I've heard state that the filmmakers didn't reintroduce any of the old, classic aspects of the traditional Bond film such as Q or the gadgets, which is an overtly weak argument for debating the quality of the new Bond films.

Here's what was really wrong with Quantum of Solace: Everything else.

The story was probably one of the worst, if not the worst plot, in the history of Bond films and this is coming from a franchise that hid an evil organization with plans of world domination in a volcano. Bond is stuffed in action sequences (some of which are unmotivated) but when the action halts you find yourself stumbling through plot building reconnaissance scenes that lead you in three different directions. The road not traveled leads to General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), the road preferred not traveled goes to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and the one the audience becomes stranded in leads with James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Camille (Olga Kurlenko) trading awkward glances with fragments of conversation in the desert and an underground river. The story becomes so convoluted with stakes that nobody gives a fuck about. You have to realize the movie in a nutshell is about Bond trying to save the water supply of Bolivia... It raises questions.

People are still bitching "Why wasn't Q in it?" and I keep answering this question with another question: "What does it fucking matter?" The first one did quite well without him and the only reason people are annoyed is that it diverted from the normal quota of the traditional Bond film. If the series were a reboot to the character why would you keep the same repetitive formula? Aside from M and Bond, the Bond-girl was weakly developed into the story. She wasn't a key character, she didn't do anything important to the plot, she was just there as carry-on baggage... Much like all the other old-school Bond films minus actually fucking James Bond (which everyone was pissed about also). I was hoping they'd develop Felix into a more concrete character for the series, fat chance. Rene was picked up and suddenly killed off as though he served a better purpose to do so. None of the co-casting characters seems to matter much since we either see so little of them or they die off like side scrolling ducks at a carnival game.

Before I dwell into the agonizing backstory of this ingenious individual I'd like state for the record that this guy single-handedly has the worst name for any Bond-villain that has ever existed. Now as for his place in the movie… Dominic Green is the head of an environmental corporation, which is really a front for funding terrorist activities. Subtle. He is using his resources and power to steal the public water supply... of Bolivia... Are you. Fucking. Serious? By default he is one of the worst villains of any movie ever. That fatass General Medrano barely does anything and his criminal activities have little effect on the story and are mostly implied offscreen.

How did they go from Casino Royale to this? Not even the homage to Goldfinger was impressive. The only thing that is barely worth mentioning are the action sequences though they don't do much to save it from it's treachery. Unless you think useless action sequences mixed with a boring, implausible plot make Quantum of Solace a good movie then be my guest.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

2009
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Produced by Lawrence Bender
The Weinstein Company

For the record I never really liked Tarantino or the majority of his filmography, mainly because he's more pretentious than me. The one film I do like that he's done in the past is Reservoir Dogs and even that comes with a bit of an acquired taste. His films that are actually decent demonstrate a fair amount of entertainment mixed with stylized ego that seem to have been ejaculated into various segments of the movie. Inglourious Basterds is no different from this characteristic with the exception that it's actually good and good enough where I could stand to watch it and not write a longwinded, raging... ignore the second half of that last sentence.

There are a few reasons that Inglourious Basterds fairs better than not and two of those reasons are Brad Pitt and Christophe Waltz. I'm serious; I've so rarely seen such a spectacular dynamic and contrast between two characters, especially when the first time they meet is the climax. For those of you who believe that Tyler Durden is still Pitt's best role: please go teabag a blender. Aldo Raine is the one of the most badass characters to be seen in a movie ever since Bruce Campbell's chin... Sorry got lost there for a moment there but really, Pitt does an utterly fantastic job as Aldo the Apache and if there is one credible trait I give to Mr. Tarantino it is the ability to direct characters... almost as much as how shitty he writes the dialogue.

The first scene is, by and far, the best scene in the entire film. I would say more specifically that it's the best dialogue driven scene but every fucking scene IS dialogue driven save for the BBQ scene at the theater of course. It starts off and Colonel Hans Landa (Christophe Waltz) of the German S.S. pays a visit to Perrier LaPadite for suspicion of harboring people who are better at making money than he is. People (and by people I mean ignorant yuppies) have told me that what makes this scene really great is how you don't expect what's coming or it's unpredictable or it pulls a 180 or whatever. First of all, how could you not expect (to an extent at least) what's coming? If you're watching a movie taking place in Nazi occupied territory and a high ranking officer suspects a civilian of safe-housing Jews, 9 times out of 8 you'll find a couple of families in their attic hoping their not breathing too loudly. That was my first guess even before Landa inquired as to the nature of his visit. What really makes this scene gripping to watch is Christophe Waltz. Colonel Landa is a man who doesn't need to try to intimidate anyone; he just naturally is. So when he explains that trying to conceal any secrets from him are utterly futile and he knows exactly where the poor bastards are hiding it becomes so crushing to see LaPadite breakdown and essentially bend over. This goes without saying that Waltz delivers a brilliant performance as a Nazi SS Colonel and I'm sure that's a phrase that isn't said very often and rarely a compliment. My one gripe about this scene is a petty complaint in the cinematographic department. Mind you it is wonderfully lit with the source of light being an apparent skylight that bounces off the wooden table and key lighting (Face-lighting) the two gentlemen. It it also cuts together very smoothly and subtly, emphasizing the slowly escalating conversation. My one nitpick however is one shot where it begins on LaPadite and trucks down under the floor boards to reveal the anticipated refugees. Personally I think it would have worked better if it never visually revealed their presence at all until Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) escapes through the window duct. I know I said that I anticipated them being there but it builds that much more tension just not seeing them and makes it much more painful to watch when LaPadite gives them up.

Sorry to rant on like that on only the first scene but it's quite well done and it oddly enough gave me a lot to talk about. Very well, on with the show.

You already know I thoroughly enjoyed the roles of Pitt and Waltz and the rest of the acting suits the mood of Inglourious Basterds quite well, save for Eli Roth who has the acting skills of a gerbil and quite frankly makes me ashamed to be a Massachusetts native. Otherwise no real major complaints in that area.

Something else I will credit to Tarantino is the way he uses language in this film. It cycles through English, German and French between the bastards, the Nazis and Shosanna (oh and if you wish to count it, a small amount of Greaseball). At times when their paths cross it becomes necessary to translate for one another. The language barriers between make for an amusing laugh and builds tension as there are times that you know something another character doesn't and whether it's comical or important you may be inclined to let out a chuckle or two. The downside is that with all the subtitles I often find myself with my eyes glued to the bottom of the screen as if I might as well have been watching 1970s porn. The second time I watched it I noticed details I hadn't seen the first time because I was too busy reading the fucking translations and missed something as simple as a facial expression. Granted something like this comes expected with any foreign film but this isn't a foreign film this is Tarantino. I didn't expect half the movie to be like reading cue cards. Yes I know this sounds petty and culturally ignorant, I mean it's only fucking subtitles but because this movie is so dialogue and character heavy it relies on you to keep up without missing a beat. I keep trying to read what's being said and then look back up and see the reaction of who it's being said to and then there's more to read and it cut to someone else and GAH! I didn't finish reading the sentence before it switched! Oh sure I think I know what it said and there's someone else laughing at a joke and- wait what was the joke? Godammit I missed it again! For the record, I implore you to take this argument with an enormous grain of salt as it is me complaining about how I can't read faster than a race horse pisses.

As I said this movie does not go without Tarantino's obnoxious influence. In this case they are deterring cutscenes explaining Hugo Stiglitz's (Til Schweiger) existence and Shosanna's plan to burn down the cinema. They come out of nowhere and if it wasn't for their specific relevance to the previous scene, they're that close to being complete non-sequitirs. Aside from being unnecessary they could have been explained with more dialogue but maybe Quentin realized there was too much of that already and decided to switch it up a bit. As if that wasn't enough we get a monologue from Samuel L. Jackson explaining each one and as much as I do like my fair share of Sammy J movies, his surprise appearance just takes me out of it. It's yet another example of Tarantino showing off his pride of being a filmmaker; doing something just because he can or he thinks it's artsy and cool. Then again Uwe Boll does the same thing with the same mentality with the only difference being his notion of "quality" so I suppose I should be grateful. At least Tarantino knows how to make his films entertain... to a point anyway.

Tarantino has been going around calling this his masterpiece. As far as that statement goes, I consider this movie "masterpiece" material like I consider Myspace a networking site. Although if someone's masterpiece is relative to the quality of their previous work than I suppose this could come close especially when compared to something like Deathproof. Despite my gripes and petty complaints Inglourious Basterds is good, in fact really good. It's one of the first Tarantino films I've enjoyed in a long time. Now I have just another 5 or 10 years of blubbering obnoxiousness before I enjoy another one of his films again.

DOMINO

2005
Directed by Tony Scott
Written by Richard Kelley and Steve Barancik
Produced by Tony Scott
New Line Cinema

Whether or not the real Domino Harvey was truly happy or not with her theatrical portrayal we may never know for sure. She never got the chance to see the final cut of it and maybe that’s for the best. Seeing yourself portrayed as a transparent, childishly guised little girl isn’t exactly something that would boost my spirits. Though only loosely based off of her true-life crusades as a bounty hunter I can’t imagine the real Domino Harvey watching this movie and remembering the good times. That is not to say Miss Harvey was better off dead but I can't help but feel that this movie would give her another reason to eat a brass sandwich (and yes I know she died of an overdose. I was being a jackass). As a disclaimer I will say that whether more or less truth is etched into the story is irrelevant. I am simply reviewing the movie, as it stands alone as a movie.

Domino (Keira Knightley) is one of those characters you can figure out almost instantly after 10 minutes into the film. Even prior to her inane life flashbacks you already understand what makes her dysfunction. It's like watching a teenager who wants to get into trouble with you but you want to shoo away because they're an immature twit. Also I'm sorry I don't find Kiera Knightley attractive but the day I fantasize about an anorexic barbie doll is the day I get a Brazilian wax, twice.

As Domino narrates her story to the audience and to Agent Taryn Mills (Lucy Liu) we jump to through hoops of time retracing events from a heist to Domino’s early childhood. Buzzing through her preteen adolescent years we see what is supposed to be an explanation of why she embodies her present-day persona. A back-track that seems to only buffer the ego, but then again Domino is highly self-indulgent. I don’t find that it contributes anything that wasn’t already implied. I implore the use of backstory but when it’s mundane and insignificant it becomes filler.

The visual conception wears your eyes down like a 400lbs man wears down seat cushion. The saturated yellow and green cross-reference washes over the whole movie. The editing is often meshed with hip hip music and channeling a music video style sequence and I’ve always felt that as a rather lazy attempt in filmmaking. Instead of creating your own pace and dynamic with your narrative you let a song do it for you and when a movie like DOMINO relies on it so consistently that it becomes a theme I question how much independent thought was put into it. There is often little eye light in many of Domino’s medium and close ups creating this segmented human skull effect as if her eyes have retreated back into her head. Appropriate considering it mimics her exterior psyche; simply a shell to hide what she believes to be a weaker person underneath.

The movie goes out of its way to tie philosophy and destiny into the plot. As Domino previously states: “In the end it all came down to fate”. So when Tom Waits (surprise) pops up being more “holier than thou” than a homeless Christian protesting “The End Is Nye” you can’t help but feel how forced it all is. It’s as if the original story was too raw so it was changed to give Domino an opaque quest in order for her to resemble a Hollywood hero just for the sake of appeal. The attempt is cheap and comes too little too late. Besides, Lateesha (Mo’ Nique) was the one that fucked her over in the first place, very stupidly I might add. I didn’t exactly peg Domino as the easily forgiving type even if it was out of desperation but then again I guess that’s what Tom Waits was for.

Another annoying splinter that comes to mind is how needlessly complicated the subplot about the heist becomes. They rope up four patsies to be the suspected robbers but one of them is the son of the mobster from whom they are stealing the money. So when the bounty hunters hand them back over to the same mobsters wouldn’t they recognize that he’s Don’s son? Or even if they didn’t and they were simply hired guns, they’d still kill the poor bastards either way. I keep asking myself too many confusing questions because the story keeps over-complicating everything.

While DOMINO may border around some truth it doesn’t hold up as a movie. The story dilutes itself with overcomplicated crime scenarios out of fear of being too uninteresting. I suppose the writers thought this movie needed some more stipulation since the story is about as enveloping as watching an anorexic not eating. Though if you share a weakness for flashy, colorful music videos than there’s at least something in it for you, you easily amused dolt. Personally I think Domino was better off not seeing the premiere. Better to die for reasons other than that you watched a biopic about yourself which made you hate yourself more than getting ditched at the junior prom for the gay guy.