Posts Tagged ‘Jimmy’
76 items.
I think I’m starting to accept this “no punchline” thing. This is The End Game. Now you know that Jimmy and Charlie used to date, that they were engaged and that a random indiscretion (at no fault to Jimmy) appears to have torn them apart. The only scene that’s missing is the final confrontation in the ladies restroom. At this point, I think jokes are only going to slow us down. But hopefully I’ve established a mood going into the last arc of the story line.
So what else happened this weekend? Oh, it looks like the Oscars were on last night! Did you catch it?
Despite not having seen… most of the nominated films, I was really excited for this year’s Oscars. I don’t know why. And even though there weren’t a ton of surprises, I was still satisfied with the big show.
Some gut reactions:
I thought Hugh Jackman was perfectly serviceable for such an outside-the-box choice for host. He was somewhat needy, but certainly didn’t embarrass himself. That opening number brought down the house! He was working his ass off on that one.
How good was that little song and dance routine at the top of the show? I went from visions of Billy Crystal and thinking to myself “Ugh, a musical number.” to “Ha, ha! That was great! More musical numbers!”
Unfortunately, his little team-up with Beyonce at the half-way point played more like a Broadway review. What is this? The Tony’s? When he emphatically exclaimed “The musical is back!” I kind of slumped back in my seat and said “Not likely.”
I mean, the thing just went on and on! Meanwhile, performances of the Best Song nominees only get 90 seconds a piece! ACTUAL NOMINEES get the bum’s rush for this crap. Bad move.
I thought the Pineapple Express parody with Seth Rogen and James Franco was hilarious. Probably the highlight of the night (no pun). If this doesn’t tell James Franco to abandon the James Dean posturing and aggressively pursue comedy full-time, I won’t know what will.
I thought Ben Stiller’s riff on Joaquin Phoenix was stupid, disrespectful and past it’s expatriation date. Wandering around stage while the nominees for Best Cinematography were being read? C’mon, It’s not The MTV Movie Awards.
The biggest surprise of the night? Sean Penn winning Best Actor over Mickey Rourke – who I assumed was a lock. You can’t really be unhappy with the outcome, though. Penn’s a great actor and Rourke brought his career back from the dead. Everyone wins.
As far as my Oscar ballot looked at the end of the night, I was 12 for 12. I could have done a lot better, but I had two strikes against me:
I went out a limb and picked Viola Davis for Best Supporting Actress and Michael Shannon for Best Supporting Actor under the assumption that Hollywood was going to take the opportunity to promote new talent. Also, both performances were very brief in their respective films and I had this nagging feeling that if they were that good in such a limited amount of time (against acting heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet) they deserved to win.
Instead the awards went to Penelope Cruz and Heath Ledger, respectively — both of whom odds makers were already behind.
I don’t know what to say about Ledger’s win except I guess I lost the faith on that one. Is it really a “supporting” performance, though? He pretty much owned The Dark Knight from the minute he stepped on screen. He certainly didn’t “support” Christian Bale. He blew right past him. For the sake of argument, do you think he would have won were he still alive? Would he even have been nominated? Just questioning it, that’s all.
Because here’s the thing: The Dark Knight was the second most nominated film last night with eight. All of them except Ledger were in technical categories and they were shut out in all of them except Sound Editing.
Clearly the Oscars has no love for comic book movies. Not even those that gross $1 billion at the box office world wide. So what made Ledger’s turn as the Joker such a prominent standout? Again, I’m just spit-ballin’ here.
The Dark Knight being shut out of the technical categories was the second deficiency in my Oscar ballot. I figured if they weren’t going to be recognized for anything else, voters would acknowledge the economic achievement by handing the film trophies in the technical categories. So much for that.
For the full list of nominees and winners, you can access them here.
At any rate, we’ll be talking about the Oscar winners and losers tonight on The Triple Feature and we’ll find out how my Oscar ballot stacked up against Gordon and Joe’s. There’s a lot at stake. The two with the lowest number of correct guesses have to produce guest comics for the winner. I could be in for some extra work this week! You’ll have to tune in tonight at 9:00 PM CST to hear if I lost!
In the meantime, what did you think about last night’s show? What moments stood out for you? Were there any shocks? What was your favorite moment? What was your least favorite moment? Leave your comments below!
[ 27 Comments ]
Oh, noes! What’s Charlie gonna do?
I’ve been setting up more than a few of this Friday cliffhangers during this storyline, haven’t I?
Well, once you see what Charlie does on Friday, we’ll catch up with everyone in the present next week. Hopefully, we’ll learn more about why Jimmy is still hanging around. Stay tuned, people! We’re in the home stretch!
Not much for me to talk about today. Well, except that maybe my Netflix experience. Still goin’ strong!
I realize that I didn’t talk about Man on Wire when I said I would last week. Man on Wire was the first film I rented from Netflix and also happened to be the winner of the Best Documentary award at the Oscars on Sunday.
I liked the movie a lot. It was arranged with a very tight narrative with a great blend of reenactments, interviews and original footage.
In case you’re not familiar, the subject of the film is Philippe Petit, a French tightrope walker who walked the span between the twin towers of the World Trade Center shortly after they were completed in 1974.
The movie is more about the planning stages of the walk more than the walk itself. So the filmmakers are able to milk a lot of tension our of the reenactments as the original parties explain their actions as if it were happening in real time. The walk itself feels like some kind of hazy dream, but certainly a one-of-a-kind moment that seemed to impress and capture the imagination of everyone involved – even the authorities, who could do no better than to charge Petit with trespassing
Petit comes off like an eccentric in his interviews or perhaps a hyperactive child. But I admire anyone who feels compelled to create art to serve a higher purpose. He performs his walk not for profit or fame (although those things come later), but to inspire others to dream. Ah, existentialism as only the French can make it!
I kind of wonder if hanging around Petit in real life would be exhausting. But I have to admit I was charmed with his magic trick and balancing act at the Oscar’s when he delivered his acceptance speech.
In the words of Best Week Ever, “please be in our lives every day.”
As for the next movie in our queue, Cami reserved Henry Poole Is Here. I’m not sure why. I thought we were being diplomatic with our choices. I rent one, then she rents one — back and forth and so on. She says she rented it for me! I don’t anything about the film, but I’m happy to watch it all the same. It has Luke Wilson in it, so how bad can it be?
Don’t answer that.
I’ll be back later in the day to pose a question to everyone about contributing transcripts of the comics to the site. Until then, talk amongst yourselves. Who here has seen Man on Wire? What were your thoughts?
[ 17 Comments ]
At this point I’m trying to build Jimmy back up into the selfless person we all know him to be, so I figured his reasons for working at the theater where he was so brutally dumped needed a dash of sympathetic irony.
I really wanted to go more in depth with Jimmy’s realization of what he lost and his expression of how much Charlie meant to him. But at the same time, emotional hand-wringing is like standing still from a pacing standpoint.
So the idea is that Jimmy is paying for his sins at the scene of his greatest failure. It’s also the scene of his “rebirth” into the nice guy we’ve come to know him as.
I don’t know if there’s much more I can say about it than that.
Be sure to listen to The Triple Feature this evening. We record live at 9:00 PM CST over at Talkshoe.com. With any luck, our good friend Joe Dunn will be back in the saddle this week after missing out on our Oscar recap last week.
Odds are good we’ll be talking about Watchmen, since that’s about the only thing going on in movies this week. So if you’re looking forward to seeing it, spend an hour with us as we pontificate its importance.
One other thing – and I know it doesn’t have much to do with movies – but does anyone plan on watching Late Night with Jimmy Fallon when he takes over for Conan O’Brien tonight?
I’m not a big fan of Fallon’s, but I’m interested to see if he can emerge from this as his own man. So much of his shtick to me seemed stolen from Adam Sandler — what with his bits on Weekend Update with his guitar during his early days at Saturday Night Live. He seemed to mature a little when he was promoted to reading “the fake news” on Weekend Update a few years later, but he was pretty much Tina Fey’s puppet.
He did the movie thing. No one bought into it and he’s become almost a curious footnote in comedy known more for cracking up during sketches on SNL than actually being funny himself.
But I’ve been reading a lot of the press surrounding the show and it seems like he’s very enthusiastic about the show. Some of the stuff they say they plan on doing sounds a little unconventional in the late night format, but they really seem to have their sights set on the next generation of fans.
Conan O’Brien will always be *my* late night guy. I remember staying up to watch his first show and even though I was only 15 years-old, I could tell how awkward and nervous he was. A bunch of his jokes bombed in that first week. But the shows got funnier and he honed his own self-deprecating brand of wackiness and now he’s moving on to The Tonight Show. He graduated.
I guess the point I’m making is that if someone like Conan O’Brien can make it – a performer NO ONE thought would be around after a year – is it possible Jimmy Fallon can do something positive for himself in late night?
So what do you think? Will you be watching tonight? Do you have any bias against Fallon? Do you feel like you should watch – like it’s a tiny historic moment? Leave your thoughts below!
[ 15 Comments ]
What the?!… Did I manage to sneak in a punchline into today’s emotional reunion between Charlie and Jimmy? I think I must have!
For me, the pleasure of drawing today’s strip was drawing Tom’s reaction panel-to-panel. I pictured him reacting to Jimmy and Charlie’s relationship drama as if it were happening on a movie screen in front of him. “This is so much better than a movie,” would be the subtext running through his brain.
Not to pat myself on the back too hard, but I kind of like the turn of the phrase “Kiss each other on the mouth.” It’s kind of like when Liz Lemon says “I want to go to there” on 30 Rock. Eh, maybe not.
All things the same, if I could come up with a design for that slogan, would you be interested in that as a t-shirt? I’m asking because pre-orders for Theater Hopper – Year Three have pretty much stalled and I’m lacking the money I need to send the finished book to the printer.
I could wait for advertising revenue to make up the difference, but the economy has severely limited advertising budgets, so I’m not seeing much return there. I figured I could whip up a few new t-shirts and try to make money that way. Y’know, spend money to make money.
Truthfully, I’m overdue on trying to produce a new shirt. I don’t know if it was complacency, fear or maybe a little bit of both. But it seems that I can’t come up with an idea that sells as well as the Spoiler shirts. Other shirts sell okay, but not so great that I can reorder them and keep selling them. Usually, I do one run of a new design, sell out and then you never see it again.
I had someone write me earlier in the month asking about the Johnny Number 5 t-shirt I was selling on the site a few years ago. Y’know “Don’t trust robots?” It was never a big seller, but the people who bought it seemed to love it.
I’ll admit that I’m probably not setting the world on fire with some of my designs. I mean, the Spoiler shirts are just a block of text. But for some strange reason, they work. Design is always something I’ve felt I could improve on.
The other problem is coming up with a good concept. You can’t do something too “inside” or specific to the comic (although that appeals to the the hard core supporters) and you also can’t do something so general that you could buy it from some other site.
I think I have a concept that might work: You know those movie quotes randomly rotating at the bottom of the page? I had the idea of graphically representing them on t-shirts so that they look cool to people who aren’t in on the joke, but make the person wearing it feel a little more special because they know the reference.
The first one I was going to attempt was from Reservoir Dogs when Mr. Blonde asks Mr. White “Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you going to bite?”
It would probably take too much to explain the different elements I want to incorporate into the shirt, but there would be some photo-realism to it so you’re not walking around with a huge cartoon across your chest.
I mean look at the shirts from comics like Octopus Pie or White Ninja (really any of the TopatoCo line of shirts). They’re not firmly aligned with the “branding” of the comic they’re associated with. I want to try and do something similar here.
What do you think? Do you think this is a good idea? What famous movie lines would you like to see represented in a graphic format? What about Jimmy and Charlie? Do you think they’re going to get back together? Do you think they’ll take Tom’s advice to “kiss each other on the mouth?” Leave your thoughts below!
[ 27 Comments ]
Well, that’s the end of it. Now you know the story of Jimmy’s and Charlie’s past. Will they get together in the future? Time will tell. But for now, consider this chapter closed.
Sincere thanks to everyone for indulging me these last few weeks. It was important for me to do this. I know longer story lines aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but they help me from going stir crazy. It helps me shake the cobwebs off, creatively-speaking. It’s easy for me to fall into a “talking heads” kind of situation and these longer story line with their specific demands help me break free of that.
I suppose if I wasn’t completely afraid of alienating people this storyline could have gone on a little longer. There were a few contrivances that I used to get the characters where I needed them to be. But, compared to when I first introduced Charlie and wandered, lost in the desert for two months, I think this was a nice piece of economical story telling.
Agghh. You know what? I feel like I’ve been defending this story line since day one. I need to stop that. The majority of you – and I’m talking, like 95% of you – have been great. So encouraging and helpful. I really appreciate it. I need to stop apologizing for doing a longer story line.
I have a bad habit of defending myself before I’m even attacked and I can see that being very annoying to people who are already on my side. So you know what? This story line was AWESOME and I had a blast doing it.
What else is there to say? Well, I’m working on a t-shirt design for “KISS EACH OTHER WITH YOUR MOUTHS” and I’m going to see Watchmen this weekend. Other than that, Cami is having a girls night out and I’m going to do more comic stuff this evening.
It’s been a stressful week for me. I had my first performance review at my new job, my first physical in 15 years, a midterm and worked hard to try and end this storyline in a way I could be proud of. I had a lot on my plate. So I think now I’m just looking forward to relaxing a little bit.
We’re back to regular comics on Monday. It’s a safe bet I’ll be talking about Watchmen.
THANKS AGAIN AND HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!
[ 12 Comments ]
If nothing else, Jimmy is very responsive to matters concerning customer service. To figure out exactly what I’m talking about vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics.
I didn’t realize it until I had finished inking and scanned today’s comic into the computer, but I think I may have inadvertently stole the set up for this joke from a recent Joe Loves Crappy Movies. Sorry about that, Joe. Totally unintentional, I swear. I guess there are just a lot of movies leaving people stunned walking out of the theater!
I suppose one could accuse me of plagiarizing myself in this comic as well. Anyone who is following my Twitter account already read the punchline Friday night after I posted my 140 character or less review of Crank: High Voltage on Twitter as soon as the credits started to roll. But what can I say? I thought it was a good off-the-cuff zinger that could be used in the comic.
I saw Crank: High Voltage at a late showing on Friday night and there’s really no other reaction but slack-jawed silence.
The movie is 1 hour and 25 minutes of pure kinetic “eff you.” I didn’t have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder before watching this movie, but now I fear I might. Now I know how an 8 year-old on a Ritalin fit must see the world.
Crank: High Voltage is an unusual film in the respect that the filmmakers are basically daring you to hate it. And if you do hate, they make it perfectly clear they don’t care what you think.
You know how critics complain that action movies are like giant video games? Crank: High Voltage takes that literally, and there are several references to the digital pastime littered throughout the film. Everywhere from the 8-bit opening credit sequence to Dwight Yokum’s girlfriend Chocolate playing Atari on the couch to the topographical map of Los Angeles tracing the hero’s journey from location to location. There’s even a giant boss battle at an electrical sub-station!
The film is none to subtle about letting you know that Jason Statham’s Chev Chelios is basically a character inside a giant video game running around Los Angels, creating all kinds of mayhem with barely any interference from the authorities. Watching Crank: High Voltage, you realize how pointless a film adaptation of Grand Theft Auto would be. This movie beat them to the punch.
There’s not a lot to celebrate in the film. It’s a highly cynical, hateful affair. But at the same time, it’s cathartic fun. Much like a video game, I can easily see someone watching this film, working out their aggression and then going about their day a little less wound up.
Regarding the performances, Statham does a good job kicking ass and chewing bubble gum. Oh, but look! He’s all out of bubble gum! I like Statham’s willingness to go along with something that is completely ridiculous. Outtakes during the credits reveal his good nature. Whereas other action stars might look at the role of Chev Chelios and roll their eyes, Statham seems to be licking his chops to get at the character. His sincerity is communicated clearly and it makes the intensity of the character easier to stomach.
Beyond that, I kept trying to figure out what Amy Smart was doing in this picture (beyond the fact that she appeared in the original) and Bai Ling basically played to type as a hysterical, gibbering psycho bitch who wears too much eyeliner.
I’m trying to think of more critical angles to examine the film from. But, in truth, the whole episode feels like a fever dream. It’s very difficult to remember details because the film zips from location to location, scene to scene so fast, nothing really sticks with you except the feeling of momentum.
In that respect, I suppose the film is successful in communicating the sensation of a man running out of time. Chelios and his artificial heart placed under strenuous use keeps things moving at a brisk pace. But beyond that? Um… a stripper chest shot in the chest and her implants ooze out all over her body as she screams? Yeah, that sticks out to me.
I think most of you already know whether or not Crank: High Voltage is the movie for you. There’s very little about this film that aims for acceptance from the popular majority. It is what it is and either your along for the ride or not. Hang on, if you dare.
For more discussion around Crank: High Voltage, be sure to tune in to The Triple Feature tonight at 9PM CST at Talkshoe.com. I know for a fact that all three of us saw the film and certainly with a movie as provocative as this one, we should have a lot to say about it.
If you have any questions you would like us to answer during the show, please feel free to send them to us at group@thetriplefeature.com. We’ll be happy to answer them on-air!
See you then!
[ 6 Comments ]
For the record, this isn’t the first time Jimmy has changed the name of a movie on the marquee. Being a reformed troublemaker, Jimmy’s moral pendulum has swung a little too far to the other side. In these scenarios, I feel like I am having him channel Ken the NBC page from 30 Rock. Too wholesome for his own good.
If you were to ask me where I came up with the idea whose head is literally composed of feces… I couldn’t tell you. A Pringle fever dream? The by-product of accidentally huffing cleaning fluids while scrubbing the toilet? Hard to say.
Why does he have a eye patch and a scar? Why, because he’s “not-so-nice.” Therefore, layering the impact of the joke by strengthening his offense to Jimmy’s name change.
This joke works on many levels, you see.
Did I mention it’s very late? SUBJECT CHANGE!
Inglourious Basterds comes out this weekend and I find most every Quentin Tarantino – bad or good – a reason to celebrate. I realize that Death Proof was only a few years ago, but at the pace this guy works, it’s amazing we see any product from him at all.
My passion for film really began around the time that Pulp Fiction was making waves, so despite his idiosyncrasies, I still admire him as a filmmaker. Kevin Smith falls into this category as well.
I’m starting to become worried, however, that Tarantino is become a slave to genre and it wasn’t until Grindhouse that this racked into focus for me.
He has his caper movie, his blaxploitation movie, his kung-fu movie, his car chase movie and now his “trapped behind enemy lines” World War II movie. I’m concerned that his interests are focused less on creating memorable characters and whip-smart dialogue. But rather watching obscure genre films and regurgitating them in front of unsuspecting audiences.
I have no doubt that the man loves movies. He’s practically a walking encyclopedia of movie knowledge. But I wonder how long before all of that knowledge starts to bleed together and creativity has been choked from his creations?
I guess we’ll find out this weekend when I catch a matinee of Inglourious Basterds on my own. Cami has no interest in this one. She claims the violence is a turn off and I see where she’s coming from.
But, like I said, I feel like I’ve grown up with Tarantino. So it’s nice to check in with him once in a while to see what he’s up to…
[ 12 Comments ]
Seeing how the the visual gag that served as the punch line to Friday’s comic was so far out of left field, I didn’t there would be a reason or an opportunity to use “Mr. Poo Poo Head” a second time in the comic.
I was inspired to bring him back, however, after my friend Adam posted to Twitter that he and I were seeing the movie together and spelled it “Basturds.” For the record, I want to stress that I am not some kind of fecalfeliac.
Of course, who can fault my friend for the misspelling when Tarantino himself refuses to spell either “inglorious” or “bastard” correctly? The director claims the misspelling is an intentional artistic flourish that he will never explain, lest it ruin the motivation behind it.
As I have been forced to write the two words incorrectly over the last few days, I slowly feel like I am unlearning how to spell them correctly. I fear this might ruin ME for ever using these words correctly again. I’m not a strong speller to begin with.
Fundamentally, we’re all taking one step closer to the English language deteriorating into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts just like they described in Idiocracy.
I’m still kind of amazed a film titled Inglourious Basterds is the number one movie in the country right now. I tried talking about the movie with Cami this weekend and had to refer to is as “That Tarantino Movie” when Henry was around.
There’s a quote for your one-sheet! “Inglourious Basterds – The movie with the title you CAN’T say around children!”
Enough bliblity-blather. What did I think of the movie? Well, I liked it! I must confess that it wasn’t the genre wank-off that I thought it would be. Truthfully, I spent most of the weekend thinking about the film in one way or another.
BE FOREWARNED – If you haven’t seen the movie, mild spoilers ahead!
Before I saw the movie, I read Jeffery Wells’s review over at Hollywood Elsewhere and he pointed something out that changed how I approached the film.
In his review, Wells says Basterds “reeks of arrogance and sadism and indifference to the value of human life. It’s a movie in which brutal death happens every which way, and by this I mean stupidly, callously, carelessly, plentifully. I began to hate it early on for the way it takes almost every character down (including ones Tarantino appears to favor) with utter indifference.”
Specifically, Wells cites the scene where Eli Roth (as Sgt. Donny Donowitz) caves in the head of Richard Sammel (as Sgt. Werner Rachtman) with a baseball bat after refusing to give up the position of another group of Germans that the Basterds are trying to flush out of an apple orchard.
“Isn’t this is what men of honor and bravery do in wartime — i.e., refuse to help the enemy kill their fellow soldiers, even if it means their own death,” asks Wells. “Compare this anti-Semitic but nonetheless noble fellow with the smug and vile Pitt, who does everything but twirl this moustache as he contemplates the delicious prospect of seeing blood and brain matter emerge from Rachtman’s head.”
When met with Ractman’s refusal, Pitt (as Lt. Aldo Raine) “We’re all tickled to hear you say that. Quite frankly, watching Donny beat Nazi’s to death is the closest we ever get to going to the movies.” The rest of the Basterds hoot and holler, tease and torment the remaining soldiers as Sgt. Donowitz’s brutality unfolds in front of them.
Reading Wells’s review, I took it with a grain of salt. He’s a contrarian by nature and likes to stir up these kind of debates that have less to do with the story being told on screen and more to do with his personal sensitivities.
However, listening to the audience I was with hoot and holler along with the Basters during this scene, I think Wells was onto something with his criticism. Tarantino takes it for granted that by virtue of simply wearing a uniform, every individual who serves the Third Reich is inherently evil. But he also goes to some length to humanize the Nazi’s in a way that doesn’t seem to warrant the extreme level of punishment and humiliation doled out by the bastards.
After interrogating a German officer for information, they ask him what he plans to do with his uniform when the war is over. He says he’ll burn it, acknowledging the wrong-doing he’s caught up in. That’s not good enough for the Basterds, so they carve a swastika into his forehead to serve as a warning to others.
Later in the film, a young German solider and some of his compatriots are celebrating in a basement bar. The soldier’s wife gave birth to a baby boy 5 hours prior. How he meets his end seems particularly protracted and cruel.
Another Nazi negotiates the condition of his surrender and the Basterds go back on their word before bringing him to justice.
As Lt. Aldo Raine, Pitt sermonizes that “Nazis ain’t got no humanity!” But neither do the Basterds. Their cruelty is justified as righteous by the fact that the entire squad is Jewish and that Nazis are the international shorthand for evil.
I don’t want to give the impression that I am defending the Nazi regime. Certainly Inglourious Basterds takes a stand against the defense of “only following orders” that many German soldiers used to justify their involvement in the war.
I mean, clearly Hitler was a bad guy that needed to be stopped. But more than the “good times Nazi killin'” that I think Tarantino was trying to push over, I felt like I was left with a profound commentary on “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
On the one end of the spectrum, you have Hitler TOTALLY abusing his power and doing unspeakable evil. To counteract that, you have the Basterds who are also WAY over the top in their delivery of justice.
Most likely I wouldn’t have had a problem with the violence Tarantino is promoting against the Nazis, but I think he did too good of a job humanizing them and not enough time developing the Basterds. Truthfully, the Basterds themselves are barely in the movie. Only a couple of them have any speaking lines.
The crux of the film’s conflict is between Christoph Waltz (as the “Jew Hunter” Col. Hans Landa) and Mélanie Laurent (the French-Jewish Shosanna Dreyfus who escapes from Col. Landa in the film’s first chapter). The Basterds are almost incidental in this showdown, drawn into the conflict by a movie premiere being held at Shosanna’s movie theater where Col. Landa has been put in charge of security.
Waltz as Col. Landa completely steals the film. Not only does he perform linguistic gymnastics – delivering his dialogue in German, English, French and Italian – but his acting is enthusiastic and knowing. Col. Landa is written as the smartest character in the film. He is usually three to four moves ahead of everyone else. The conflict between his intelligence and the Basterds’ brutality is brilliant and very satisfying.
Much the same can be said about Tarantino’s script. It’s very sharp, but also very ugly in parts. Tarantino is famous for his dialogue and here he uses it to glorious effect.
The movie is broken into five chapters and the way each chapter is set up, you know things are going to go completely FUBAR by the end. Tarantino uses his dialogue to stretch things out and ratchet up the tension. By the time the hammer is about to fall, you can barely stand it. When violence does occur, it’s made even more effective. A bold punctuation to each chapter.
It might surprise you that Inglourious Basterds really isn’t as violent as you might think it is. Compared to most World War II movies, which can be a flurry of bullets, explosions and images of young men being torn to pieces, Basterds is somewhat light on the gore. The gore you do see is so cartoonishly over the top, it’s hard to take seriously if you looked at it objectively.
But as I said before, the violence feels more impactful by way of Tarantino’s structure and his restrictive rationing of the action.
I’ve had a couple of people tell me that they thing Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s best movie since Pulp Fiction. It’s a good film, but I wouldn’t go that far. To me, Jackie Brown takes the number two spot because it features characters that act like real people. Basterds is limited somewhat by the fact that it is very arch, takes extreme liberties with history and really doesn’t give you someone to root for.
Not that every movie needs to toe the line between obvious heroes and villains. All I’m saying is that I think I would have enjoyed – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – if the Nazis were a greater caricature of evil than what Tarantino puts on screen. The Basterds could be as brutal as they like and I would have been along for the ride if the Nazis were a little more one-dimensional.
I’m sure we’ll have a lot more to say about Inglourious Basterds tonight on The Triple Feature. In fact, I believe we’re dedicating the whole show to Tarantino and dusting off some of his older films to talk about. I’m on the fence between watching Reservoir Dogs and True Romance this afternoon so I’ll have something more to discuss tonight.
Yes, I know True Romance was directed by Tony Scott. But the script was Tarantino’s and in some respects I consider it to be the most Tarantino-esque film that exists.
I encourage you to tune in live at 9:00 PM as Gordon, Joe and myself hash things out. It should be a great show and I’m looking forward to it.
What were your impressions of Inglourious Basterds? Leave your comments below!
[ 26 Comments ]
Credit where credit is due, it was my friend Lauren from Honey Bee Manor that made the observation about Jesse Eisenberg’s proclivity to star in movies that end with “land” in a Twitter post a couple of months ago. I kept that in my Rolodex of ideas and I hope she doesn’t mind me borrowing it. Maybe if all of you visit her blog, she won’t be mad.
Of course, one look at Eisenberg’s IMDB page and we can see he’s starred in many movies besides Adventureland and Zombieland, it’s kind of interesting that his most high-profile outings are so similarly titled.
I like Eisenberg. He seems like a sharp guy who has a little bit more going on under the surface than he lets on in a face-to-face conversation. So I think it’s kind of interesting that he’s adapted his East coast know-it-all persona to something like Zombieland – which, from the trailers, seems to be more about gallows humor than anything else.
For the record, I’m not a fan of zombie movies. Specifically, because I don’t do well with gore. Probably the last zombie movie I watched (if you can call it that) was Planet Terror. And even though the violence and the raspberry glop they used as blood in that movie were so cartoonishly over the top, it still made me squeamish.
That said, I’m interested in seeing Zombieland primarily because the trailers make it look like a lot of fun. The zombies don’t look particularly scary. Just kind of unfortunate. So instead of being scared out of my wits by a bunch of jump cuts and slow pans across zombies feasting on intestines, I can enjoy the vicarious thrill of putting a shotgun to the temple of the undead and get some video game jollies out of it.
More than anything, I’m impressed with the cast. Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin and Woody Harrelson are all smart actors. Harrelson is especially disarming when he plays up the Midwestern bumpkin he perfected on Cheers. And am I seeing this right? Is Bill Murray in the movie playing himself?
Oh, yeah. This is a must-see.
I hope I have time to get around to it this weekend. It looks like Cami and I are going to make time on Saturday to see Toy Story and Toy Story 2 in 3D as part of it’s two week limited engagement starting this Friday. We’re huge Pixar fans and I read some particularly positive reviews from a screening that took place last week. Apparently the 3D really does the films justice and there is some fun trivia and original content during the intermission.
Originally we had it in our head that this would be Henry’s first movie. He was a little too young to watch Up when it was in theaters earlier this year. But since then, we’ve indoctrinated him into the world of Pixar by watching Finding Nemo, Cars and Toy Story at home. He has no problem sitting through any of the movies. They keep his attention throughout. Whether or not he would have the patience to sit through TWO movies back to back, with the 3D glasses on, in a new environment he’s never been in before… well, that’s something else entirely. We’ll probably end up taking him to The Princess and The Frog later in the year and that will be his first movie.
I should mention that I had a chance to see a sneak preview of Whip It! over the weekend – the roller derby movie directed by Drew Barrymore. It comes out this weekend as well.
I liked the movie. Certainly Barrymore’s trademark enthusiasm translates through her role as a director. I have a review rolling around in the back of my head that I might try to publish here on the site either tomorrow or Thursday. But if I don’t I’m sure I will be talking about it tonight on The Triple Feature. So be sure to tune in live at 9PM CST over at TalkShoe for some meaty movie discussion!
Until then, tell me what you guys think about Zombieland. Do you think it looks more funny than scary? What do you think about the cast? Is it weird for Woody Harrelson to be running around with a couple of twenty-somethings and a tween? Are you planning on seeing Zombieland this weekend, or something else? Lots of good stuff coming out on Friday. Leave your comments below!
[ 5 Comments ]
So you guys can probably guess what’s going to happen in Wednesday’s comic, right? Let’s say it all together…
SUITCASE ARMOR!
Stay tuned for that…
So, like most of the free world, I saw Iron Man 2 over the weekend and felt pretty good about it. I know a few of you are dying to get my official review, but I don’t think today is going to be the day. To be frank, I’m working on a paper for one of my Master’s classes that’s due Tuesday. So pretty much 90% of my brain is dedicated to that right now.
I might have something for you Tuesday or Thursday. I’m thinking about publishing it on an “off” day for the site because I know there’s going to be a lot of spoiler territory I want to cover. I’ll assume the majority of you who are interested in my review are comfortable with that. But with the odd chance that someone who hasn’t seen the movie and isn’t aware of my relationship with the character were to stumble upon it… Well, I don’t want problems.
I can give you an overview – although, take my comments with a grain of salt. I’m heavily biased in favor of the franchise.
I thought Iron Man 2 was much more polished than it’s predecessor, but it glosses over some important story elements that I wished it would have spent more time on.
Most prominently, I wish the movie did more than give lip service to the Iron Man technology and how it changed the world. We see news clippings about Iron Man helping to bring peace in the Middle East and how he’s Time’s Person of the Year. But the movie never really SHOWS us the ways in which Tony Stark’s involvement in geo-politics has transformed the global landscape.
I’m not asking for a 15-minute montage, or anything. But seeing the suit in action in a few different locations would have added some texture and made the plot point revolving around Garry Shandling’s Senator who wants the Iron Man technology turned over to the government a little more meaningful.
That’s probably the biggest thing the movie gets wrong. The biggest thing the movie gets RIGHT is it’s depiction of Tony’s ego and how it gets in the way of his genius.
Iron Man has always had a very weak rogue’s gallery. Whiplash’s inclusion in the sequel is evidence of this. That’s because Iron Man’s greatest opponent has never been some advanced tech-wielding mercenary. Iron Man’s greatest villain has always been Tony Stark.
There are more than a few scenes that sell this point magnificently, although they don’t always leave the best taste in your mouth. I think in the context of a super hero movie (and it’s limited running time), people aren’t interested in the hero being a jerk for 60% of the movie. So I think they took a gamble by amplifying those aspects of Tony’s personality. But, for me, they worked brilliantly.
I could very easily keep going and going about Iron Man 2, but I think I’ll stop there for now. Keep checking back on the site for a full review in the near future.
Now that I’m thinking about it, it’ll probably be Thursday before you see it. I’m contemplating a second viewing of the movie on Wednesday night. Not for review purposes exclusively, mind you. But because I genuinely enjoyed the film and am very eager to see it again.
That probably doesn’t carry a lot of weight with you, but I don’t often see movies in the theaters twice. I didn’t even see the original Iron Man in the theaters twice. So that I’m willing to see the sequel more than once should serve to reflect my overall enjoyment of the film.
There are nitpicky criticisms to be sure. But ultimately, I think most people are going to enjoy the film and leave it having been entertained.
Care to dispute me? Leave your comments below. Let’s talk shop!
I’ll talk to you soon!…
[ 20 Comments ]
