Saturday, April 17, 2010

'Un'-glorious Bastards...

I just don’t understand it. Could be a problem with me or with Tarantino. Since, I am a nobody and Tarantino, a critically acclaimed moviemaker, probably the problem is with me.

Or maybe it is just that I am unable to appreciate goriness. Be it books, movies or life. I just get bored when they get into this gory part intended to shock the viewer or reader or whoever. I feel kindoff resistant to that whole idea.

The trouble, I admit, is entirely mine. The moment they commence violent gory stuff, I detect the purpose. That dull feeling comes in mind that the guy just wants to accentuate his idea and is trying to nudge the end viewer to attention who he fears to have become inattentive or bored.

It happened with inglorious bastards too. I got thoroughly bored.

It was a cliché combination of randomness, goriness and a bit of History. Christopher Waltz was good. Nothing other than that. The first part with SS Men firing on the Jewish family hiding beneath the floor was quite predictable. All the sudden reposition to high angle with wood splinters flying, random clatter of machine gun etc. Felt just like one of his oft repeated action scenes which can be traced from Pulp Fiction to Kill Bill.

Rest followed suit.

Randomness from Pulp Fiction, Goriness from Hostel and Action from Kill Bill. Shake Well with some History. You have Inglorious Bastards.

Tarantino should have never tried his hand on WW-II. We have sufficient interesting movies on it. If at all he was desperate to try, he could have at least approached it in a different manner. Not the way he made kill bill or hostel.
Was it a war movie? Probably. Was it an action movie? Probably. Was it fantasy? Probably. And what do you get in the end? A gory action packed WW-II based fantasy fiction without anything notable in particular.

I really think someone should tell him that repetition after a point makes everything predictable. Even his unpredictability becomes predictable.

No comments: