"Inglorious Basterds" movie review

Quentin Tarantino’s newest feature film is the World War II tale, Inglorious Basterds (R). Brad Pitt stars in the movie as the leader of a rag-tag group of soldiers whose sole mission is to kill Nazis in occupied France. Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger and Eli Roth co-star in the movie.

Ryan: In this past decade most war movies, but especially WWII, movies have followed the gritty realistic style of Saving Private Ryan. That was fine for awhile but cinematic staleness began to creep into the sub-genre and most WWII films became almost interchangeable (and not in a good way). So it’s very refreshing to see Tarantino breath some new life into the stale genre. Make no mistake about it this is a WWII story filtered through the unique mind of Tarantino. And in my estimation it’s a worthwhile endeavor.

Andy: It’s true that there really haven’t been many movies like this made about WWII. It is a fictional fantasy based around the second world war, and that fictional element allows Tarantino much more freedom. Tarantino has always had a knack for creating unique movies, and doing that with a genre as tired as WWII is truly impressive.

Ryan: If one’s enjoyed Tarantino’s other films then one will relish Inglorious Basterds as well. The movie is vintage Tarantino with its genre meshing style highlighted by dialogue driven scenes. In fact this movie perfectly showcases Tarantino’s skill in crafting scenes. His films do not always have the best flow and that would be my main criticism with this film. But Tarantino is arguably the best director in constructing a dialogue heavy dramatic scene and Inglorious Basterds is littered with memorable scenes.

Andy: Most of his movies take some time to play with language, and this one is no exception. He is very careful to highlight the language differences among the countries involved. The brilliant opening scene includes a German and a Frenchman mutually agreeing to speak in English as a common language. The exchange is amusing because the audience knows that this is being done for our benefit, but we must hear the characters arrive at the conclusion that they should be speaking English on their own. It is this attention to reality in an entirely fiction-based movie that gives Inglorious Basterds much of its charm.

Ryan: Another skill of Tarantino as a director is his ability to illicit strong performances from his cast. I was throughly entertained by Brad Pitt's charming performance as the level-headed southern born Lt. Aldo Raine. It is somewhat difficult to pinpoint exactly why the performance stands out but be rest assured it does. The other noteworthy performance in the film is that of Christoph Waltz and his portrayal of Nazi officer, Col Hans Landa. In a film with many antagonists—both real and fictitious, Waltz's performances stands out as a delicious piece of slimly villanary.

Andy: Brad Pitt was outstanding, as always. His character is certainly the glue that holds the film together. When he is not on screen the movie drags at times. Indeed, the movie’s biggest weakness is that it is a little too long and sometimes feels like it. Ultimately the wait is worth it, as the end is very satisfying.

Inglorious Basterds is entertaining and interesting, but not without flaws. Final grade: B+.

Steppin' it up on Stewart

I guess I should wax philosophical about the Vine Street Exodus. It's truly been a whirlwind week. The excitement of the house was tampered a bit by some drama/vandalism at the barn but overall it's definitely been a memorable week.

At this point on late Sunday afternoon the house is pretty much in order. The boxes are unpacked. . . the pictures are hung. . .the batcave is in order. . .it's feeling like home. And Jenny and I are very humbled and happy by the whole experience. It's been a four month odyssey (with thankfully not much drama) and we're glad to have finally made the last transition into our new house.

But taking that final load from 129 S. Vine to our new house was somewhat bittersweet. Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed to be in our new homestead but leaving Vine Street was a little emotional. I've lived on Vine Street for almost eight years. During that time I had a lot of good times--The Feelin' Fine on Vine mystique was born there. I was roommates with life long friends who are still life long friends--even after living with me and putting up with my shenanigans (like yelling at the TV or breaking patio furniture). Good Times.

But let's call a spade a spade. . .the most important development in my Vine Street history was falling in love with my beautiful wife. So obviously that ranks number in my book.

So with that chapter closed, we're excited to start making new memories on Stewart Street. So if people are in Greensburg feel free to stop by. Jenny and I are ready to entertain visitors.

"District 9" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the sci-fi movie District 9 (R). This Peter Jackson produced film imagines a world where an alien ship parks itself over Johannesburg, South Africa filled with lethargic, malnourished aliens. Over the course of a couple of decades, the aliens are put into ghettos and routinely descriinated against. Neill Blomkamp directs and Sharlto Copley stars.

Ryan: District 9 is a really good sci-fi flick but it isn't the instant sci-fi classic that it's being made out to be in some circles. The (viral) marketing campaign for the film was brilliant and created a buzz that seemed legit. I don't think the film quite lives up to the buzz but it's certainly a positive alternative to most of the mindless fodder (Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe) being cranked out of Hollywood.

Andy: District 9 is a film that thrives because of the quality of the concept. There have been hundreds of movies turned out about aliens over the years, but few have taken the approach of the aliens as a “humanitarian burden” on Earth. The concept, plus the obvious, yet interesting allegories that accompany it, make District 9 interesting enough to recommend.

Ryan: District 9 stands out because of it's style. The premise for the film is (arguably) quite ridiculous and the movie could have completely fallen apart if it was in the hands of an atypical sci-fi/ action movie director. But under the steady hand of Neill Blomkamp, the director, and Peter Jackson, the producer, the movie distances itself from its contemporaries in a lot of ways by being such a “modern” movie. Whether it's the hyper cutting, the use of hand-held cameras or the non-traditional storytelling techniques, District 9 sucks in the viewer with it's hyper-real style and creates a tense and immediate environment that is thrilling to watch.

Andy: I would argue that ultimately, District 9 comes dangerously close to falling apart at the end. The solid concept of the movie’s plot gives way to a shoot ‘em up, buddy action flick. This is as inexplicable as it is unwanted, as the movie had really set itself up to be something special. Bear in mind that the action sequence is pretty solid as action sequences go, but it is way too long, and seems outside the spirit of the rest of the film.

Ryan: While I believe that District 9 is a movie that should be respected it is not without its shortcomings. The movie runs a little too long and sometimes gets bogged down in its own semantics. While Sharlto Copley was outstanding as the lead, the other performances in the film never rise up to the tension being generated in the movie. But the biggest misstep is the lack of a good villain. A truly transcendent genre picture needs a memorable villain and District 9 fails to produce that.

Andy: The lack of a compelling villain might not have been a problem had they played up the concept of the private security contractor as a corporate villain. Or the film could have focused more on interspecies diplomacy instead of action, and that would have lessened the need for one main bad guy. As it is, the movie’s shortfalls are a little disappointing, but it is still a high quality film.

District 9 is not without flaws, but is still a sci-fi film worthy of a B.

"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" Movie Review

The latest action-figure inspired movie is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (PG-13). When an arms dealer/manufacturer (Christopher Eccleston) decides to go rogue, an elite special forces unit is called upon to protect the planet. Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Rachel Nichols, Sienna Miller and Dennis Quaid co-star in the movie. Stephen Sommers directs.

Andy: As a child I was a huge fan of both the G.I. Joe action figures and the animated series, so I was initially very excited about the live action blockbuster. Upon seeing the previews for the movie my excitement waned drastically. The good news is that G.I. Joe is not completely bad, as the trailer suggested it might be. Instead its only not good – the standard summer movie fare that is entertaining, but not substantive.

Ryan: Much like Transformers 2 one can check their brain at the door upon watching G.I. Joe. But generally speaking that's really where the similarities stop. Don't get me wrong, G.I. Joe is cinematically ridiculous but it's not ridiculously bad, boring and offensive as Transformers 2. Granted G.I. Joe is the kind of movie where a headache will develop if one stops and thinks about it. The movie makes no sense but for a mindless summer popcorn flick I give it passing marks.

Andy: It is true that the plot of G.I. Joe is basically irrelevant. But in many ways, that suggests that the movie is keeping true to its roots. G.I. Joe was always just a vehicle for ridiculous characters to get into equally ridiculous action sequences. The cartoon also served as propaganda for the U.S. military, which the movie surprisingly (and refreshingly) avoids for the most part. So the fact that G.I. Joe aims low may not be reason enough for many people to watch it, but it does seem to achieve most of its objectives.

Ryan: Barring the needless flashbacks and absurd opening scene I found about two-thirds of the movie to be generally entertaining. The G.I. Joe cartoon was never that serious and I think the filmmakers did a decent enough job in capturing that nuanced tone. There are nuggets thrown into the film that will satisfy fans of the cartoon and action figures and the movie does try to explain (or at least put into a believable context) the possibility of an evil army like Cobra existing. Whether or not one buys that premise will go a long way in determining whether or not one likes or dislikes the flick.

Andy: The flashback sequences definitely are the movies weakest points. We don’t really need fifteen minutes worth of screen time devoted to the origins of peripheral characters, and the fact that we get so many of them, often awkwardly inserted into the movie, significantly detracts from the good things the movie does within the action sequences. Coupled with Channing Tatum’s total lack of gravitas, this is a movie that has major problems in spite of adequate action.

Ryan: Obviously with a movie like this one isn't looking for award winning performances. But with the critical success of genre pictures in the past few years there's no question that the bar's been raised. Disappointingly there are no breakout performances in the movie. If anything the performances in the film that were borderline noteworthy (Wayans and Miller) were counteracted by lackluster performances (Tatum and Eccleston). Again I'm not expecting Oscar caliber work but in movies of this sort a cool noteworthy performance can significantly enhance a film.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is able to live up to ridiculously low expectations to receive a C.

Smoltzy still got it

Or maybe not.

John Smoltz signed with the Boston Red Sox in the off season and since emerging into the rotation he has been...and this is putting it mildly...not very good. He's been designated for assignment by the Red Sox.

Consequently his career might be over. (and on a separate note...I'm thinking that maybe I'm glad Maddux retired when he did because maybe he just knew that it was time and he wanted to go out on his own terms).

So of course the question is...is Smoltz a hall of famer?

I didn't think there was much debate on this subject but the discussion on Baseball Tonight was far from definite.

I'm on record stating that Smoltz is a first ballot hall of famer.

His career line is W-L 212-152/ ERA 3.32/ WHIP 1.18/ SO 3,044/ Saves 154

His career is unusual because the ladder part was spent with Smoltz being a closer. Consequently he's the only pitcher in MLB history with 200+ wins and 150+ saves.

As a starter Smoltz's seasons were not as consistently good as say Maddux's and Glavine's but he did win a Cy Young in 1996 and had several solid seasons. Now as a closer Smoltz was simply lights out. He basically accumulated the 150+ saves in three seasons, which is simply amazing. In my estimation that puts him in. But if one needs more convincing than just look at his postseason totals. He was money...a W-L of 15-4 with a 2.65 ERA.

He's in.

"Funny People" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the latest comedy from Judd Apatow, Funny People (R). Adam Sandler stars as a famous comedian who learns he is chronically ill. He then hires a young, ambitious comedian (Seth Rogen) to be his assistant during the final months of his life. Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Eric Bana, and Leslie Mann costar.

Ryan: In the ad campaign for this movie, Funny People was built up as the “third film” from Judd Apatow. That is definitely a fact but I thought that had a little hint of self-importance attached to it. Regrettably that ever so slight pretentious attitude prevents Funny People from being on par with Apatow's other directed features, The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Don't get me wrong, Funny People is worth watching and it's a better movie than most of its competition right now. But, it is also a flawed movie that really should have been better.

Andy: Funny People could be a bit of a misleading title for this movie. It is a movie primarily about dying. The fact that it is seen through the eyes of comedians makes it so that there is a lot that is funny in the film, but the basic subject matter is much dourer than the title suggests. Viewed simply as a comedy, the movie is way too uneven and disappointing. Apatow has always been at his best walking the line between comedy and serious human suffering, but thematically he has gone more for the pain than the humor here.

Ryan: I've heaped a lot of praise on Apatow in the past few years so it's only fair to call him out when it goes the other way. The biggest issue with Funny People is that it aspires to be more than a strong crowd-pleasing comedy. The film seeks to be an epic comedy/drama but it collapses under it's own weight. And while I appreciate the ambition it is the execution that falls short. Not only is the movie too long but it feels like one is watching arguably two different films. This might have been acceptable if not for the fact that the first part of the movie is far superior to the second part of the picture. The unevenness makes for a disappointing movie.

Andy: There is no question that the movie is too long. The final third of the movie is weaker than the rest and it carries on longer than we really need. The subplot with Leslie Mann and Eric Bana receives too much attention when the audience really just wants to see the conclusion of Sandler and Rogen’s relationship. It should be noted, however, that this portion of the film is still quite strong, it just doesn’t fit in with the narrative as well as it could.

Ryan: I give Adam Sandler a lot of credit for taking this part. While the movie is not an autobiographic sketch of Sandler, it also doesn't put successful comedic actors, like him, in the best of light. The film also makes it a point to parody the low-brow movies that Sandler is famous for. But the bottom line is that Sandler put forth a solid performance in a movie that had to hit home more often than not. Furthermore the film's shortcomings are through no fault of his own. In a lot of ways Sandler, along with Rogen, hold the film together as best they can. Final grade: C+.

Andy: Adam Sandler is an underrated actor who has yet to have much success in one of his more serious roles. Here he again is outstanding, playing the funny man with such pain and self-loathing that it is at times as uncomfortable as it is revealing. Essentially every performance in the movie follows suite. These are legitimately funny characters dealing with difficult real life situations. While it may not be as good as Apatow’s other two movies, Funny People’s biggest flaw is that it is too long. And I’m okay with having a bit too much of a good thing. Final grade: B+.