Inglourious Basterds? Yes.

Well, I saw it. And I laughed. And I really enjoyed myself.

I mean, what could possibly be more pleasing than taking in a film that crosses more genres than Big Trouble in Little China? What makes you laugh more than seeing HUGO STIGLITZ bursting in Blaxplotation brilliance? What is more incredible than hearing the haunting tones of Ennio Morricone in the midst of war-torn, German-occupied France? What could be more wonderful than seeing a man bash in another man’ skull with a bat? What could be more awesome than watching a bunch of Jewish-Americans make sure those disgusting Nazi’s get what they deserve? What could be more incredible…

You see where I’m going.

Okay, Tarantino is an incredible filmmaker. And I think that this movie shows his gifts. The humor is subtle yet hysterical. The mixing of genres stirs my soul - I understand that impulse, I love it. It was perfectly acted. Really. And honestly, who can deny a film that blatantly changes history? Brilliant.

But the problem with the movie is that it stands overagainst everything that I stand for. Perhaps it is just a movie. Perhaps it is just a setting for Tarantino to explore the movies that he loved growing up. Perhaps it is just a good story about how he might want to imagine that WWII should have ended.

But I guess that is, for me, no excuse. Because nothing is just an anything, and this certainly is not just a movie. It represents all of the glorified nationalism that America has felt at least since the turn of the century, and the glorified nationalism that still wants to make its enemies un-human. It glorifies violence (even if it is the outrageous Tarantino type violence) not only as cool, or romantic, but as the appropriate response to the destructive impulses of others. And it happens at just the right season for Americans – to transfer so easily unto the beastly enemies we face now: those who hate us for our freedoms. It gives us a posture to keep having toward our enemies, and just the right kind of heroes to hope for.

Now, we might say that Tarantino is intending this very overdramatized nonsense to actually act as critique. Or we could say that the outrageousness of the violence makes for showing the evil and roughness and awkwardness of it all. But I don’t think so. I think we’re supposed to laugh when Aldo the Apache demands his scalps. I think we supposed to cringe when the Bear beats the living shit out that German’s head, but we’re also supposed to awe at the raw American power, because that’s what happens when you mess with us. I think we’re supposed to sigh satisfaction when we blow the theatre, and when Hitler’s face is made mush by pounding of our bullets. And I think we’re supposed to agree with Tarantino – that’s the way it should’ve all ended. That’s how we should’ve ended it.

I could be wrong in my assessment of Tarantino’s intentions. But if I’m not, then I don’t agree. And what bothers me the most is that, though I sensed this disapproval not ten minutes into the film, I did laugh. I was awed, and I was satisfied. Whatever Tarantino grabbed with his inglourious art was deep inside of me. And that’s what scares me.

District 9 -- The Most Original Sci-Fi in Years?

Okay, so I've taken it upon myself to bring this blog back to the land of the living. Will Alex follow suit? Stay tuned to find out.

I don't normally go see a movie during its opening weekend. The size of the crowds normally makes it a bad theater-going experience for me. I'm more of a late-matinee-Tuesday-afternoon sort of guy, when there's only a handful of people in the theater. But, occasionally, I'll make an exception to the rule.

The buzz on District 9 was that it was the most original science fiction film in years. People were comparing it to Blade Runner. It had, at one point, a Metacritic score over 90 (which is more impressive than a Rotten Tomatoes score that high, since Metacritic factors in how much each critic liked the film). So, I threw caution to the wind, and decided to brave the crowds.

While I was excited to see the film, I didn't know a lot about it. I hadn't seen a trailer, hadn't heard a plot synopsis other than "there's a bunch of aliens living on earth." And that, actually, led more to my excitement. It had been a long time since I had gone to the theater to see a film when I didn't know that much about it. Combined with its very positive reviews, I figured that this would be a great way to spend my Saturday afternoon.

I began to get a bit concerned when they started the previews. A teaser-trailer for Saw XXXVII was first up, followed by a series of random slasher films (there were about six of them, but the only two I remember were the Megan Fox-is-a-demon movie and rip-off-of-Shaun of the Dead-with-Woody Harrelson). Since movie studios generally show trailers to films that are sort-of, kind-of like the feature, figuring that if you like the feature film, you'll also want to plop down $9 for these other 7 movies, I got a little worried. If these are the films they're marketing at District 9, what does that say about the movie? My fears lightened the moment I remembered that film execs are generally money-grubbing, shoot-for-the-lowest-denominator morons. Maybe they were so perplexed by the originality of District 9 that they didn't know what to show for previews. Maybe they were like, "Well, this is sort of an action movie, let's show a bunch of trailers with action," and didn't think any more about it. That's certainly possible, I said to myself, as the movie began.

If you haven't heard the set-up for then film, here it is in a nut shell: over 1 million aliens (given the slur "prawns") have landed over Johannesburg, South Africa. It's not clear why they have landed here. They are malnourished and in danger of starvation, so the humans have taken them into the city and set up a refugee camp for them, where they live for 20 years. Because of the inevitable tension that evolves between the alien refugees and the locals, the multi-national corporation which oversees the whole project wants to move them to "District 10," a concentration camp further away from the city.

That's all explained in the first 15 minutes of the movie in the style of a documentary, using "interviews" with scientists and other key players, together with news reel-type footage of the "mother ship" and the refugee camp. And as the action begins, that documentary flavor is kept up through the use of hand-held cameras, as you follow the main character through the camp, informing the "prawns" that they are being moved to a new site

But then a subtle switch happens -- the documentary style is abandoned for more conventional action-movie style camera work. While we're following the main character Wikus around the slum, we cut to a scene inside one of the shacks (how did the camera get here, we should wonder) -- and we've left the faux-documentary behind, only to pick it up again from time to time.

From the end of the 1st act on out it's pretty paint-by-the-numbers alien action movie, we get all the greatest hits:

• A MacGuffin "device" -- the one thing everybody's looking for and will kill to get it.


• The evil corporate overlord with his legions of mercenaries (complete with the leader who just won't die).


• A "third party" (a group of Nigerians) who always show up at just the right time to make things even more complicated.


• An "idiot plot point" -- where the audience must assume that one of the main characters is a complete idiot in order for the plot to work. For those that have seen the movie, it's right after the "device" is completed, and where they decide to hide it. I'm thinking maybe "underneath" would have been the option any sane intelligent life form would have chosen.


• An odd pairing of 2 characters, with completely different motivations, coming together in the final 3rd act (with a downright awful final exchange -- which you see coming from a light year away).


• A devolving of the dialogue in the final shoot-em-up scene to mere profanities (seriously, we're on a Tarantino-type level of use of profanity here).


• And, finally, a not-too-subtle set-up for the inevitable sequel (I'm starting to make plans to avoid District 10 in August 2011).

The set-up was original. As one reviewer put it, the movie is less about what the aliens will do to us, and more about what we do to the aliens. And that's relatively fresh territory for science fiction -- as well as a place for real cultural analysis. And that's why I'm ultimately disappointed in District 9. The set-up and the style had real potential to make a substantial observation about race relations and the treatment of refugees/undocumented "aliens" (even though setting the film in South Africa was a bit too on-the-nose for me). But, in the end, it wasted that opportunity -- choosing instead to be just your average run-of-the-mill Die Hard + Alien. And that's why I'm ultimately disappointed in the film -- it didn't in any way live up to the hype.

For those who you who only read reviews for the final "tally" (i.e. stars), I can't do that for you. But here's what I can do: tell you how much money I'd spend to see the film without feeling disappointed. For me, the action and CGI (which is quite impressive), merit spending $7 on a matinee theater showing, as long as you know what you're going to get (standard action film). I wouldn't rent or buy it, as it wouldn't play nearly as well on a small screen.