Dante's Inferno. Abandon all hope of faithful adherence to the original, ye who enter here...

Disambiguation: This is a review of the anime released to accompany the recent video game of the same name.  It’s not a review of the video game itself and it’s definitely not a review of any old Italian poems.

I’m really not sure what it was about Dante’s Inferno – An Animated Epic that inspired me to pick up the DVD and actually watch it.  It’s intended as a companion to the Dante’s Inferno game that was released recently (it with the lulzy / offensive achievements) that I’ve never played and none of us have even bothered reviewing because frankly, the marketing for the launch seemed more interesting than the game itself.  So I guess I’m reviewing this as a work in its own right.

First up, both the game and the anime take some… erm… liberties, I guess you could say with Dante Alighieri’s original work.  It’s still broadly about Dante’s journeys through the nine circles of hell, accompanied for whatever f&*king reason by the Roman poet Virgil*.  So far, so broadly in line with the original.

It’s at this point things start to take a different line.  There’s some backstory, y’see, where Dante falls for a couple of the oldest tricks in The Book.  He makes some crazy promises to a woman, Beatrice, in order to get laid.  He also believes a priest who promises him something that sounds too good to be true.  Then he up and runs away to Jerusalem to join the crusades.  Once there he proceeds to make, all things considered, a bit of a cock of himself.  He returns just in time to find everybody at home has been murdered and Lucifer is dragging his darling Beatrice off into hell.  Turns out she must’ve been a pretty good root because our muscular-hero-of-dubious-intelligence gives chase through all nine circles of hell.  A bit of the old ultra-violence ensues.

I’m not kidding about the violence bit, by the way.  There’s enough gore in this movie to make even a Cannibal Corpse album start to feel insecure – another point where the movie obviously follow’s the game’s cues and not the original poems.  There’s blood, guts, impalings, decapitations and plenty more so if gore is your thing then Dante’s Inferno has something to offer you.

If you need more than just gore to entertain you, however, you’re in for a bit of a rough ride.  You see, the film was made in segments by six different directors from four different studios, which means things jump around a bit from section to section.  I’m not really sure what the idea behind doing this was but I am sure that it hasn’t really worked.  Dante and Virgil change appearances each time the director changes and the animation quality jumps between reasonable and regrettable.

The voice acting cast is pretty good and, thankfully, it remains the same throughout.  Graham McTavish and Steve Blum do reasonable work as Dante and Lucifer respectively.  Mark Hamill is given prominent billing on the cover but I was buggered if I could pick his contribution anywhere.  A bit of poking around afterwards suggests he voiced Dante’s father, who I don’t remember having more than maybe a line or two.

But decent voice actors don’t mean shit if the script isn’t any good and I found this script incredibly painful.  It seemed like every other line was either “rrrrraaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!” or Dante exclaiming “What is this?!?”, as though he expects an answer from Virgil that wasn’t “It’s a fucking demon now hurry up and kill it so we can go drink mai tais and play Yahtzee already”.  Disappointing.

Probably the best way to sum up the whole mess is this: in its entirety, Dante’s Inferno – An Animated Epic is only a shade over 80 minutes long.  But it feels like it drags on for twice that long.  It’s epic, but maybe not in the way its creators intended.

The Verdict:

Pros: There’s quite a lot of gore, if that kind of thing floats your boat, and the voice acting is OK.

Cons: Pretty much everything else.  Having multiple directors hasn’t really worked out, the script is pretty bad and I assume it’s a lot more fun killing the demons in the game than it is having to sit through it in this format.

Overall: You’ve got better things to do with your time and money.  Srsly.

* Seriously, was Alighieri some kind of 14th-century Tarantino that felt the need to show off how much he knows about his own artform by namechecking his famous predecessors unnecessarily in his own works or something?  Virgil’s introduction is about a subtle as Tarantino’s usual efforts too.

The original title of, “Mastering the Swollen Lizard” was shouted down at the Press Club.

Disambiguation: This is a review of the movie, not the game based upon the movie.  There, don’t you feel so much less ambiguated now?

In 1960, Mike Todd Jr released his then unheard of “Smell-o-vision” to the unsuspecting world, in the form of the spectacularly unsuccessful Scent of a Mystery. The system released a series of odours into the cinema at various points throughout the movie in order for the viewer to fully experience the movie.  The result?  Let’s just say that there’s a reason that Scent of a Mystery was the only movie with this to accompany it.

Another cinema novelty from a similar time period that seems to have found a revival lately is 3D.  With the overwhelming success of Avatar, most new movies have attached 3D to their release.  Now, I may be committing a massive sin by saying this, but I feel that the 3D in Avatar was completely unnecessary.  It didn’t add much to the experience for me.  The only time it added anything was when the ships were travelling through the floating islands.  That was boss.

Unlike that experience, when I saw Dreamworks’ How To Train Your Dragon in 3D, I was happy to discover that it actually added a great deal to the experience. So, I would like to apologise in advance for what I’m sure will be overuse of the word “adorable”.

The movie starts by following the physically weak Hiccup during the middle of a dragon attack upon his village. Whilst all other Vikings are running to fight, he is working with the physically damaged Gobber in the blacksmith to keep the weapons coming. At one point, Hiccup sneaks out with a weapon he invented that launches weapons at the dragons flying around. Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) actually catches one. It’s around this time that we find that Hiccup is the son of the great warrior leader of the village, Stoick (voiced brilliantly by Gerard Butler). What follows is the usual fare of “son not following in father’s footsteps”.

Now, the movie really takes off (get it?) once Hiccup goes to find the dragon that he caught. He decides that rather than killing it, he can study it, and stuck with a damaged tail the dragon (named Toothless) isn’t going anywhere.  Presumably it was one of those “got-to-order-the-part-in-from-Korea” moments at the dragon garage.  After some study Hiccup learns new and better ways to defeat dragons and quickly becomes a local celebrity to boot.  His secret is eventually revealed, and then begins the morality play we all knew was coming.

Now, I must say that the strength of this movie is it’s message that a lot of conflict is based around a lack of information. Hiccup starts out fearing Toothless, but as he learns more about the dragon they become inseparable. Although the message is a good one, they never actually hit you over the head to tell you. It’s the way a movie with a message should be … not like “No-Drugs McGee and the After School Specials”.

The New Improved! Sherlock Holmes

In a world which is constantly raping surprise sexing the past to populate the present, knowing the source material for an upcoming film can be hazardous. Do you get excited about it, or do you hold true to the theory that it’s ‘Not Your Father’s Insert Character Here’? Do you openly deride the movie while still secretly crushing on the idea of Robert Downey “Sexpants” Jnr is playing one of the least physically attractive yet cerebrally sexy characters of all time? And isn’t the notion of finding Holmes hot kind of like wanting to hump Data from Star Trek: TNG in order to jumpstart your failing heart?

It’s questions like these that were going through my mind when I sat down to watch Sherlock Holmes.

I tend to view updated versions of older material with excitement, mainly because I have infinite forgiveness for people who want to tackle other people’s ideas. I am a big fan of cover songs, for example.

But when it’s something like Sherlock Holmes, so ingrained into international culture as the older man, hawk nosed, with pipe and deerstalker hat made famous by Basil Rathbone in the old movies, it’s terribly difficult to divorce a feeling of ‘why?’ from your brain. Why bother updating it? Why fuss and meddle with a standard? A folklore hero that so many people believe was a real man?

Here’s my version of why, and why it’s a good thing.

First of all, this is not an origin story. Thank the gods. We begin our story with Holmes having saved the girl, defeated the Big Bad Blackwood and languishing in the Bohemian filth to which he is accustomed. Or rather, the filth which happens when his considerable intellect is not kept busy. But just as soon as Blackwood is pronounced dead he is ressurrected, which automatically reopens the case, dragging Watson back from his new fiancee into the waiting arms of Holmes and a new adventure.

It's not a Bromance!

In this incarnation Sherlock Holmes is, of course, a brilliant, gifted man but he’s so far above the norm in terms of observation, experimentation and thought that he cannot seem to connect with anyone on a level that behooves him. While he loves his messy world of apophenia, his seemingly magical power to connect the dots that almost don’t exist to create a much larger picture, he suffers continually from it. His relationships are tenuous, with the exception of Dr Watson, due to his need to work out what makes people tick, good or bad. He terrorises his landlady, accuses Watson’s fiancee of being a gold digger. He collapses into a drug addled slump when he runs out of cases and it is up to Watson to pull him back out. Guy Ritchie plays on this dynamic, giving them ample chances to finish each other’s sentences and banter about clothes and money.

It is this relationship that drives the film. I suppose you’d call it a Bromance, but I’d hate to imply something that isn’t quite there. They’re brothers from another mother, yo, with Holmes relying on Watson to get him around the everyday world and Watson relying on Holmes to keep him out of debt and trouble. It’s this dynamic that kept me interested when the action didn’t.

The movie has a lot of nice touches in it, perhaps included to appease the purists. Holmes shooting ‘VR’ into his wall or keeping his cigars in his coal scuttle. It also takes into account Arthur Conan Doyle’s own love for the occult, though cheekily renders it obsolete in the face of Victorian Era science. Mark Strong’s Lord Blackwood has all the power of a dark magician at his beck and call, complete with a fearful and shady birth, a dead family and a tie to a powerful secret society – all text book plot points to ‘mystical bad guy’. I think Conan-Doyle would have loved it, the occultist vs the scientist. It makes you wonder where Holmes picked this stuff up. What was he doing in his youth?

Which brings us back to ‘It’s not an origin story’. This is my main point of contention: we see in this film a younger Holmes, able to bare knuckle fist fight, run like a horse and escape explosions and falls with the barest of injuries. Yet, we are lead to believe he is middle aged? Or at least a hard living 30-something. Watson is ex-Army, so that explains some of his fighting ability and clear-headed reactions to some situations…but Holmes? Apart from his martial art expertise (mentioned in the books, I’m lead to believe) he seems an asthete. I’m just a little miffed by the idea that he is almost magical himself in his ability to get out of situations. And don’t get me started on Irene Adler. Updating the boys to be punch-drunk heroes is one thing, making Irene into an action figure was just silly. The original Irene got by on her wits and her ex-husbands’ money.

Gratuitous RDJ shot.

But apart from this weird timeslip on Holmes’ age, it all works rather well. We have the nods to the original material, a dirty, unsanitised London and a hero who’s just on this side of normal.

Sherlock Holmes is a fun movie. It’s got good dialogue, excellent visuals, a rollicking plot and a nice sense of humour. And a bonus for the Christmas crowd, you won’t have to think too much to enjoy it. Robert Downey Jnr is equal parts clever and pedantic, with a dusting of masochist. Jude Law is the embodiment of the British Stiff Upper Lip. Amy Adams has a nice spark, but doesn’t get enough of a character to work with. Mark Strong oozes confidence and menace like a shyster. The production team manages to modernise the subject matter without completely ruining the setting. All in all, a fun movie to watch. Go see it with your favourite boy-who’s-your-friend.

The Verdict:

Pro: Great humour, fast paced and fun. RDJ and Law make for an entertaining pair, who carry the plot expertly.

Cons: If you’re a devout fan of the original stories, this version of Holmes will irritate you.

Overall: 4 out of 5!

The rides are fun in Zombieland...

Zombieland is part comedy, part gory horror and part instructional video. The plot revolves around college student Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) making his way home to Columbus, Ohio during the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse in the US, a place he now refers to as the titular Zombieland. He has stayed alive because of thirty-one rules that he strictly adheres to. These include: 1. Cardio (“The fatties were the first to go”), 2. Double Tap (“Don’t get stingy on bullets. Check they’re dead, shoot them twice”) and 18. Limber Up (you never know when you’ll have to run). He’s basically a socially inept, OCD nerd, but this hasn’t stopped him outwitting and outrunning plenty of zombies since the outbreak of mutated Mad Cow disease.

On his journey, he joins up with Tallahassee (a kick ass performance by Woody Harrelson) and is taken for a ride by sisters Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin), who are on their way to Pacific Playland funpark. See a pattern here? No one has a real name (well, with one notable exception), everyone goes by a place that means something to them. It is a surprisingly nice touch. Even Columbus’ dormroom neighbour is only ever refered to as 406.

The plot is a very basic ‘Get from A to B with maximum gore’ but it works, as do the special effects which are nicely stylistic without ruining the tone of the movie. Columbus narrates his journey with these mismatched survivors with world weary wit and self-depreciation. There’s even time for whimsical hopes of love and family amongst the smart ass reactions.

Throughout the film, whether they’re actually mentioned or not, Columbus’ rules are seen emblazoned across the scenery where relevant to the situation. There are also fun little in-movie ‘achievements’ too – “Zombie Kill Of the Day” being the main one. An animated graphic pops up on the screen during one very amusing kill, only to have Tallahassee’s kill negated by one performed elsewhere in the country (cue cut scene featuring a nun). And that’s all you ever see of other humans. There’s no screen time for any other people (well, except one rather awesome cameo we won’t spoil) and in any other movie, that would be weird, but it works here. You don’t want to get bogged down in schmaltz when you can watch someone kill a zombie with banjo.

Columbus, Witchita, Little Rock and Tallahassee, sharing a moment

The zombies themselves – swift, drooling, vomiting and screaming – are over the top enough to be both comical but thankfully violent and bloody enough to give a little thrill when they’re chasing people down. The undead make-up was actually designed by the guy who did Michael Jackson’s Thriller film clip and he was given free reign to really gross it up.  The swarms aren’t scary; they’re bloody, messy and you really get the idea that they’re infected. Vomiting seems to be their favourite activity.

Zombieland is built for laughs, and it delivers. Gore special effects are almost hyper-real – I only cringed at an injury once. The entire movie stays within it’s world, even with the ‘rules’ popping up occassionally. Columbus’ narration is funny and unobstrusive. The movie is short (about an 1hour, 20 mins) but you wouldn’t want to stretch an idea like this too far. There are only so many Woody Harrelson action scenes I can take before I start wanting the main characters to die.

The Verdict:

Pros: Fun and clever, gross and engaging. It’s pretty close to being the ‘perfect’ zombie movie in my eyes. The characters are loveable and not once to you want to scream ‘DIE ALREADY’ at the female leads.

Cons: While I enjoyed the fast pace, I wanted more! Really, it’s hard to find faults in a schlocky genre movie. You’re there for the blood, guts and quips, not the sweeping story arcs or the amazing cinematography.

Overall: See it if you love zombies, comedies or Woody Harrelson. I think Bill Murray fans will enjoy it too. People who hate clowns? Not so much. 4.5 out of 5!

‘Zombieland’ is due for release in Australia on December 3rd.

Don't see it alone ...

A couple of nights ago, I went to see the new horror movie Paranormal Activity with, amongst others, my fellow staffers Matt and Jess. One of the perks of joining the team here at Armchair Diplomat.

The movie is based around a couple living together, Katie and Micah, who have been experiencing some “paranormal activities” (see what they did there?). Thusly Micah invests in a video camera to film the occurrances in the hopes of solving the problem. With this as the set-up, the entire film is done documentary style. The couple set the camera up in their bedroom whilst they sleep, with a camera angle showing them sleeping, as well as the hallway. “Why tell us the camera angle, newbie?” Fair question, if worded harshly. I tell you this as this is a scary movie that subscribes to the theory that less is more. The basis of this movie is that what you can’t see CAN hurt you. If you are afraid of what goes bump in the night, then this movie is not for you as you will most likely crap your pants.  For serious.

The movie starts somewhat slowly, establishing the couples relationship and the occasional item falling off a counter to show the “paranormal activity” (still loving it?) at work. Incidentally, the writer/director Oren Peli came up with the concept for this movie after some laundry detergent fell off a shelf in his house. He claims that it was too far back on the shelf for it to have tipped of it’s own accord, and thus cinema was made. In related news, I could have sworn that I had another two donuts left, but there’s only one. I’m currently in talks with Paramount.

Get used to this camera angle, audience!

At this point it is important to make a point of the two actors, Katie Featherstone (my future wife) and Micah Sloat. This movie, due to it’s intimate nature, requires these two actors to be extremely engaging. Both actors do fantastically. Micah can be easily summed up with one of his quotes: “Nobody messes with my woman!”. Well meaning, Micah is filled with the understandable frustration of wanting to help against a non-corporeal being (is there even an arse to kick?  As the movie begins, he constantly makes light of the whole situation, not taking it seriously. After the “paranormal activities” (they’re so smart like that) begin to kick it up a notch, he starts to take it seriously and turns his “talents” towards attempting to solve the entire problem himself. He is a character that frustrates the audience without alienating them. That’s as good as I can give him.

The future Mrs. Moose plays her character perfectly. She has had this entity haunting her since childhood. It has followed her from house to house, even after one of the houses was burnt down.  And while one might think that with a scary movie largely based in the bedroom, a little bit of boob was inevitable? Well the creators threw the curve ball of all curve balls and had the attractive and reasonably well endowed female lead keep her top on. I’m outraged! A petition has been started. However, it is a perfect example of how this movie never goes where you’re expecting it to. There were several instances (none of which I will spoil) where the audience expects something which never comes to pass. This makes a lot of their other choices much more potent.

The demon craze sweeping the nation: Punching portraits!

This movie has quite the reputation. It has broken the US record for highest grossing opening weekend, for a film opening in less than 200 theatres (quite the mouthful … that’s what she said!). “Wow, less than 200 theatres. Clearly, AD went all out getting you tickets for nothing but the best films.” First off, seriously, what’s with the attitude? I’m just trying to do a review here. Secondly, did you not hear me? Record breaking! It was filmed for US$15,000 … in one week … in the directors house!

Now usually I don’t like scary movies, but this one was done so well that I was slowly drawn in. The ending however, seems to be hit and miss with most. I found it slightly off, and that is taking into account the fact that Steven Spielberg (that’s right, THE Steven Spielberg) recommended it be changed, so Lord knows what it was originally.

The Verdict:

Pros: This movie is extremely innovative and shows what can be done when a smart director clearly thinks things out. Using the baring essentials and a stick to make things go bump in the night, Peli has created pee escapingly good movie.

Cons: Despite this and the great performances, the rhythm was off in parts and some of the continuity was off slightly. Nothing too major to prevent the movie from scaring you, but enough to cost it some stars (the ultimate shame).

Overall: Well, reader, here we part ways after my first article. The first of many. Now many of you may be asking: “Are you always going to do this talking to the audience schtick?”.  And what if it is?  What are you, the gentle reader, going to do about it?  Oh, I give the movie 3.5 out of 5, by the way.  Katie and my wedding can’t be far off now, FYI.

The number of confusing conversations we've had substituting 'District 9' with 'Section 8'

You needn’t read this whole review if you don’t want to, because you can sum up my feeling about the movie in just two words: Fucking. Brilliant. Now the term “fucking brilliant” is one that’s thrown around a little lightly these days, but never have I been so convinced of a two word impression of a piece of cinema.

District 9 is a dirty, dark and sharp piece of sci-fi cinema written and directed by Neill Blomkamp. The film takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa, where a gigantic alien mothership has come to a stop above the city. After nothing happens for around five months, humanity sends a team to cut their way into the ship, and inside finds it crammed full of sick and malnourished aliens on the brink of death. The ship appears completely inoperable, so the aliens are transported down to the city and set up in a government camp called District 9. Eventually the aliens, referred to by most of humanity as “prawns” due to their appearance and scavenging nature, become too much of a burden for the government to look after, and so District 9 becomes a private military controlled containment camp. Overcrowding and the growing distaste for the alien presence turns District 9 into a slum, the aliens living in squalor conditions amongst corporate and black market oppression.

The storyline begins by introducing Wikas van der Merwe (played by the little known Sharlto Copley), who is one of the project leaders working for Multi-national United, or MNU (the corporation controlling District 9). After overwhelming protest from the local populace, MNU is evicting all the aliens from District 9 and forcibly moving them to District 10, a new containment camp set up some 200km away from the city. During the eviction, while searching for contraband weaponry (the real interest MNU has in the aliens) Wikas accidentally activates a canister which sprays him with a black liquid. This starts his transformation into one of the aliens.

The eviction scene will make you laugh, if only to avoid cringing

Upon discovering his gradual transformation, MNU abducts Wikas for weapons tests. The weaponry the aliens brought with them is very powerful, but is genetically locked and cannot be operated by humans. When MNU finds out that Wikas’ merged DNA can use the alien weaponry, they decide he’s worth more to them disected and in a lab than alive. He manages to escape, and eventually ends up hiding in the one place he won’t be reported, inside District 9. It’s here that Wikus teams up with an alien designated “Christopher Johnson”, who built the device that infected Wikus in the first place, and has a plan to not only cure him, but to reactivate the mothership and return home.

The film is shot in a semi-documentary style. Scenes from the film are consistently interspersed with documentary film footage, interviews, footage from security cameras and television. Much of the filming is done on hand-held cameras, although there thankfully isn’t too much “sea-sick ness” inducing camera shake. The overall result is that the audience feels as if they’re watching a re-enactment of real life events, a documentary without the need to tie everything in to the “pre-recorded” footage.

This is where the strength of the film lies. The movie is presented in such a way that you feel like what is taking place could very easily be a real life situation. The “ooh-aah” reaction is taken quite deftly away from the bizarre species, and the audience instead ends up identifying with the completely alien race. The “prawns” are lost, dejected and oppressed, and would appear to have lost all hope of ever seeing their home world again. They’ve also lost their will to defend their rights, knowing that humanity will kill any one of them that steps out of line. To that effect, they have become easy targets for exploitation. Both the MNU and a Nigerian black market gang control the populace with tins of cat food, something to which the aliens have become hopelessly addicted and will sell anything they own for.

The movie is essentially a retelling of apartheid, using aliens and humans in the place of the white and black segregation. What really kicks home to the viewer, however, is that where apartheid ended in the 90′s in reality, the film seems to portray a world where it is simply transferred over to the aliens (if the film is set present day, then the first arrival of their mothership is placed in the early 90′s). Even more amazing is that society in Johannesburg has seemingly united again in their distaste for the new non-human presence.

Despite having arrived around twenty years ago, the aliens have obtained little to no rights, and the earlier scenes where they are rounded up and forced to “make their scrawl” on eviction notices only hammer home the tissue-thin entitlements that MNU has given them. While apparently humans have learned to understand the alien language, each alien is referred to only by a designated human name, like that of the main alien character “Christopher Johnson”.

How could you hate a face like this?

District 9 is one of those films that does it’s very best to convince us that we are, at heart, our own worst enemies. From the brutal nature of the MNU’s response teams (they “shoot first and answer the questions later”) to the rather clinical butchery of the science teams who off-handedly discuss disecting Wikas for research while he lies concious and restrained on a table, it’s obvious that humanity is the real evil at work.

Perhaps to counter-act this rather depressing setting, the film uses a very dark humour to keep the audience moving along. There are quite a few good laughs in this film, a majority of which you’ll feel a bit guilty for having. Humans exploding, prawns making their way in the human world and a sort of base level of xenophobic rascism (or specism, maybe) that seems to run through the entirety of the Johannesburg population. This leads to a lot of “laugh or you’ll cry” kind of situations, and I take it from the hysterical laughing in the screening I attended that there were more than enough people who were obviously getting the film’s underlying message all too well.

Visually the film is quite good. It doesn’t have the overblown visual budget of a blockbuster film, but the special effects work in harmony with the handy-cam cinematography. The aliens look fantastic, as do the various examples of alien technology we’re presented with, but they are set in such a human environment that the two seem to blend quite easily, make it all seem quite real.

The Verdict:

Pros: Fantastic science-fiction, great originality, the storyline and cinematography blend delightfully to give you a real-life human rights situation that just happens to be about interstellar space aliens. Humour hits just the right edge to make it’s point while lifting the mood.

Cons: The end of the movie is perhaps the teensiest bit contrived. Other than that, I can’t think of any.

Overall: I’ve no hesitation with giving this movie a 4.5 out of 5. It’s brilliantly written science-fiction, which has been given just the right amount of all the elements that are required to make the film work on it’s many levels. Definitely head out to see this one at the movies, because not only do you deserve to see this up on the big screen, but you should also experience the sociology experiment that seems to go to work on the whole audience.

Yup, it's a subtle film

I had the pleasure of watching Inglourious Basterds as part of the recent Melbourne International Film Festival.  We bought our tickets early (before they sold out), and even then there had to be a second screening opened to deal with the high demand.  Sure, we were stuck down in the cinema’s second row from the front by the time we cleared the line, but the movie proved itself well worth the potential trips to the chiropractor.

Inglourious Basterd‘s is the latest film from making-cult-mainstream director Quentin Tarantino.  And when it gets right down to it, could you think of any other director that could get away with making a movie about a Jewish company in World War 2, behind enemy lines, scalping Nazi troops?

The list would certainly be short, that’s for sure.

However, despite the rather controversial concept, the actual exploits of the Basterd company don’t make up the majority of the film.  The plot, while making sure we know the squad’s intentions and methods, focuses more on the events that happen around them.  The movie is presented in a series of chapters, much like those in Kill Bill, only this time they’re in sequential order.  The first chapter is an introduction to the brilliantly acted Colonel Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz) who roots out and kills the family of another of the films main characters, Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent).  Landa has the opportunity to kill Shosanna while she flees, but chooses not to.

Shosanna story is essentially what drives the film, as many years after the murder of her family she has changed her identity and now lives as a cinema owner in Paris.  After having a young Nazi movie star become enamoured with her, she’s thrust into the middle of an enormous Nazi operation as her cinema becomes the host of Joseph Goebbels’ latest propoganda film.  The premiere is to be attended by all the Nazi top brass, including Hitler himself.  This presents too good an opportunity to the British, who begin “Operation Kino”, a covert attempt to blow up the cinema with all the leaders inside.  Unbeknown to them, Shosanna has exactly the same idea in mind, as it turns out Hans Landa is put in charge of security for the event.

Hans Landa, using the "mine's bigger than yours" method of intimidation

If anything, Tarantino has made a revenge film that seems to over-shadow his “revenge film”, Kill Bill.  Maybe with the exception of the Nazi command, everyone in this film has a justified feeling of revenge to carry with them, and you can see it bubbling away under the surface during each character’s dialogue.  After Kill Bill (which I loved, certainly), I felt that in many ways Inglourious Basterds was a far more original work, and a step back toward the more character driven pieces of Tarantino’s earlier films .  The film didn’t seem to rely as much on previous cinema to make it’s point.  While I enjoy Tarantino’s many homages to film classics (don’t worry, there are still plenty of these moments in Basterds), it’s certainly a formula that becomes a little tired if overused.

Basterds is presented to the audience as a Spaghetti Western that just happens to be set in World War 2.  The majority of the film’s music is created by Ennio Morricone, the conductor behind the classic A Fistful Of Dollars and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (to name a few).  You get fantastic snatches of it through the cinematography too.  The film begins on a small dairy ranch, with a farmer chopping wood and his daughter hanging out sheets to dry, who soon spots the Nazi’s travelling down the road towards them, kicking up dust.  All it would need is a blood red sunset behind it, and the scene could tumble straight into a Leone film.

"How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice"

Staying with the Spaghetti Western style, there is also no shortage of violence in Basterds.  Tarantino plays it fast and hard, as the violence is over-the-top, graphic and will have even the most hardened fans squealing with astonishment.  However, for the most part, the film doesn’t linger on these moments.  There might be a few moments where you think a particularly graphic shot is held for maybe a few seconds longer than it needed to be, but overall the film makes the impact then moves right along.

That said, the film is set in an alternate history of the war (let’s just say some HIGHLY historically inaccurate things happen), which gives the audience the freedom to laugh out loud at the more extreme moments of mutilation.  It also neatly suspends any disbelief the audience might be clinging on to at the start of the movie.

When the movie is at it’s most entertaining, however, is typically the lead up to the violence, rather than the violence itself.  To this effect, there are many series of “set up” conversations that eventually lead to conflict, and it’s in these scenes that the actors prove their brilliance.  By far the most outstanding performance of the film comes from Christopher Waltz.  Mostly unknown outside of his native Germany (I think I saw him on an episode of Inpector Rex once), Waltz is mesmerising as the “Jew Hunter” Landa, who switches seemingly at random between charming multi-linguist, shrewd detective and cold, malevolent killer.  The scene where he is re-introduced to the now identity-disguised Shosanna is fantastic, and Waltz as Landa seems to have the ability to make even the ordering of strudel with cream play out like a life-threatening interrogation.

Quentin demonstrates the way he wants Aldo's jaw to look

Given all his previous brilliant performances, audiences might be a little surprised at the somewhat understated role Brad Pitt plays as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, leader of the Basterds.  Raine certainly comes across as a driven, canny and ruthless leader, but for the most part the character is rather stoic, seemingly along just to observe the out-and-out bloodlust of his squad.  He even takes a rather clinical view of his work while carving swastikas into the foreheads of his captured enemies.  The section of the movie shown in trailers, where Raine demands one hundred Nazi scalps from each of the men inside his squad seems at the beginning to be genuine blood-lust on Aldo’s part.  By mid-way through the movie, however, even this seemed to me more like a tactical desicion made on the Lieutenant’s part to motivate his soldiers.

The movie clocks in at around two and a half hours, so seeing it at 11pm (like I did) might not be the best approach.  Either that, or take a Red Bull if you’re off to the last screening.  For it’s length, however, the movie is paced extremely well, so you probably won’t notice the hours waltz by.

The Verdict:

Pros: The film is everything you’ve come to expect from a Tarantino film, and more.  The performances are spot-on, and as this is mostly a dialogue film, this is what makes the movie shine.  Christopher Waltz won the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival for his role in this movie, and all I can say is that it is well deserved.

Cons: People who go into the movie expecting to see the more controversial exploits of a Jewish covert squad will probably be disappointed, because we see only a little bit of what we understand is a rich back story of the Basterds themselves.

Overall: 4 out of 5.  Sure, it’s not Resevoir Dogs amazing, but it’s still a great movie, shot with Tarantino’s trademark panache.  A strong core cast, bolstered by a brilliant support cast, definitely makes this movie worth a look.  Thumbs up!

• It’s hard to imagine a more brilliant cast cast of dazzling actors to really make this story shine out brightly in the Star Trek universe.
• At a time where some movies can be a little hard on the eyes, the new Star Trek really provides a very polished production for the viewer.
• It has our nostalgia glands ablaze.
• That said, newcomers to the franchise will find this movie illuminating without overwhelming them with glaring references to the previous shows.
• It’s obvious that J.J. Abrams and crew have gone all out to provide a very glossy movie experience.
• The dialogue left me with a big beaming smile on my face.
• Abrams really showed off his creative flare (spelling deliberate) in this film.

If you noticed the constant element amongst the previous statements, you’ve also managed to notice the element which impeded my enjoyment of this film.

The Space Wiggles consider waking Jeff

Let me start by saying that I’m not the biggest Star Trek fan alive, but I do have a decent understanding and love for the show. I was a fan of Voyager on TV and an original crew fan for the films. So I was excited when I heard they’d be adding another movie to the collection, although dubious with the whole concept. William Shatner is simply one of those actors who owns the characters he’s played, so the idea of seeing someone else as a young Kirk was … interesting. And when you get right down to it, most Trek fans are similarly attached to the whole original cast.

The movie deals with the whole situation cleverly, and also in a fashion which all knowledgeable Trek fans will appreciate. Star Trek 11 isn’t a typical reboot, simply using the same characters in the same universe. Without spoiling too much of the plot (which is decent enough), it’s more of an alternate universe movie than simply copy/paste. There’s time travel involved. No space whales though. Pity…

"Anyone for a fan dance?"

Anyway given the changes to the timeline, it gives the actors the freedom to interpret the characters with their own style. It also gives the Trek fan in the audience the ability to enjoy themselves without making constant comparisons of old and new, which is probably a welcome environment for both actors and viewers alike.

That said, Abrams does his best to incorporate the old Trek into his updated model. Key catchphrases are relived and an appropriate level of homaging take place. There’s humourously thick Russian accents, not having enough power to do things and scantily clad green women. You know, things fans have come to expect from the franchise.

So no generation clashes: check. Decent number of hallmarks to amuse fans: check.

And the plot is decent too. It’s not Wrath of Khan brilliant or anything, but it’s certainly up to standard with the more recent Trek films.

So why, you may ask, did I mention at the beginning of this article that I couldn’t enjoy it? Well I’ll make a big SPOILER ALERT at this point, and not because what I’m about to say reveals any key plot points, simply that for me this element of the movie truly just spoilt my investment in the movie.

I warned you!

*deep breath*

What was J.J. up to with the fucking LENS FLARE in this movie? I mean really, did he and ILM just manage to find that button on Photoshop?

Whoa, that’s awesome! It makes it look like a bright light source is bouncing off the lens of the camera! Here’s $1,000,000, put it in every scene!

- J.J. Abrams … I assume

And now that you’ve heard me mention it, trust me, you’re going to notice it. I was similarly afflicted by a friend of mine before I got to see the movie and sure enough, not two minutes in it’s already ruined my experience for the film.

They later changed the title and added some Star Trek stuff

You can see a sun behind a space ship: lens flare. Kirk watches the Enterprise in the distance, illuminated by spotlights: lens flare. We see a bright computer console: lens flare. Spock’s hair goes near a hall light: lens flare. We enter a darkened room: somehow lens flare. Seriously, he may as well have gone the whole fucking hog and made a lens flare bounce from Kirk’s pearly white smile, then lens flared the various black holes that crop up through the film.

What, the, fuck? Not only is lens flaring one of the cheesiest effects known in modern cinema, almost on par with the whole “we shot it during the day and then filtered it to make it look like night”, but has the man ever heard of the 4th wall? In a space-opera, it’s one of those elements he should be trying to cling to with all his might. Suspension of disbelief is what he should be trying to protect for every sci-fi viewer! And yet every scene is permeated with this effect that, if it were to be really showing up that bad, PRESUMES THE EXISTENCE OF A CAMERA WITH A LENS TO FLARE OFF. This isn’t a documentary! We’re not seeing this film through the eyes of a film crew on the Enterprise constantly saying: “Just pretend we’re not here!”.

And that was really it for me. I quite enjoyed the film’s plot, dialogue was fine, little surprise twists were well executed, new actors did stand up jobs portraying their own versions of these classic characters. But none of that mattered because I couldn’t sit and enjoy the film without being barraged by these stupid and totally unrequired explosions of visual wank.

The Verdict:

See it anyway, it’s quite a good film around it’s questionable visual effects. Thumbs up!