Pontypool (2009) Review

Review
The zombie genre is over-stuffed to the point of leaking pus, but writer/director Bruce McDonald has a plot that may prove a breath of fresh air for the flesh eating monsters. It's name is Pontypool, and it is definitely unlike any zombie movie you've ever seen. It'd be a stretch to consider it a full-out undead opus at all. What works about this film is it's strong lead actors, shock jock Grant Mazzy (McHattie), and Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) brilliantly talk us through what seems to be several riots taking place through out the small town of Pontypool, Ontario.


If your looking for zombie action, this movie is not for you. But, unlike your average head exploding, brain devouring walking corpse films, Pontypool doesn't rely on the action or gore effects. Instead, we're isolated in a radio station on cold, stormy morning. All the action takes place here, but never once does it start to feel claustrophobic. The action lies in reports broadcasted in telling grueling accounts of murder and mayhem that's going on in the town. We're not shown such acts of violence, but it's left to our imagination to picture the chaos that's happening here. Ironically, these are the better scenes of the film, and it all starts falling apart towards the end when some action actually does occur. But the biggest turn off for the film is knowing the reasoning behind these 'zombies'. I won't ruin it for you, since this film is worth watching, and this just may make you reconsider viewing it, but the infection has nothing to do with your blood or the rendering of flesh to transfer into another victim. Looking past this, the set up of the beginning of the film is great and following such credible characters through it is entertaining enough, making this a half-decent film to watch if your a zombie fan looking for something a bit different out of your walking corpses. Well, if you want to go as far as dubbing these zombies.

Deadgirl (2009) Review

Flixster - Share Movies

Review: I'll admit, when going into this movie, after reading all the positive reviews proclaiming it's disturbing nature, and negative views about it taking it one step to far, I expected a little more out of it. Although it deals with a gruesome subject, I didn't think they exploited it to it's fullest. Not that I wanted to see more, but I gave into the hype and expected something far more revolting than what I saw. The subject matter here is truly terrible, and the character's actions toward the deadgirl are unquestionably disgusting, but I can't find myself disturbed but somewhat disgusted by what I just watched. Now, I won't get ahead of myself here, if you don't know the plot you may find it fairly simple:

Flixster - Share Movies

The premise of Deadgirl is brilliantly grueling ? two high school buddies come across a naked woman chained to a bed in the basement of an abandoned hospital. Before long, they realize that this mystery woman isn't alive, but some kind of zombie (a word the film never uses). While the more conscientious of the two kids, Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) is squeamish about the whole situation; his friend J.T. (Noah Segan) knows a golden opportunity when he sees it. In short time, J.T. has put the dead girl to his own personal use. I won't go to far into detail, just reading the barest description of the plot will likely put off a good number of viewers. And even those who think that they're game for the movie might have second thoughts once it starts to unfold. Although not handled in an overly graphic fashion, there's no mistaking exactly what's going on. And frankly, a movie about a woman ? whether the woman in question is living, dead or undead ? being repeatedly raped is not an experience to be taken lightly. By design, this is a film meant to provoke, sicken, and upset viewers. Deadgirl raises questions about male sexuality and peer pressure ? making it an ambitious entry in the teen horror sub-genre. Unfortunately, it's only partially successful in handling its difficult material. At first, the movie handles quite well. Only Rikkie and J.T. know about the deadgirl at this point and it seems plausible. They question what to do about her, what would happen if anybody else finds out, and how could they keep it a secret. But, from there on out it seems to spiral downward into absurdity.


Deadgirl does in fact push some boundaries, it's absolutely one of it's kind, putting a very original twist on the zombie movie, but it fail's to be anything other than a twisted exploitation film set to provoke and disturb you. But, that is what horror movies are about, right? To unsettle and make you feel uneasy. But, if you look past it's desire to sicken you, you may not find much, if any entertainment value out of this film. It's a well made indy project, but it needs a bit more to make it worth your while.

Trick 'r Treat (2009) Review

Cast:
Quinn Lord as Sam
Brian Cox as Mr. Kreeg
Dylan Baker as Steven
Leslie Bibb as Emma
Rochelle Aytes as Maria
Anna Paquin as Laurie
Moneca Delain as Janet
Tahmoh Penikett as Henry
Lauren Lee Smith as Danielle

Directed by Michael Dougherty

Poison, Drowning, Claw, Or Knife. So Many Ways To Take A Life.

Review: What can I say about this film that hasn't already been said in a hundred reviews before? Best genre outing in the longest time? Pure excellence? An instant classic? Most likely if you've read a review on this film on any website you'll probably hear that kind of response. Some even went as far as comparing it to the holy grail of horror pictures, John Carpenter's Halloween (here's to you, Dread Central). There was a lot of hype surrounding this little gem that it almost seemed impossible to live up to it all. Well, I'll join the majority by saying it absolutely does, and then some.


Trick 'r Treat reads like the pages of a good issue of Tales From the Crypt, but all the separate stories flow together so well towards the end, fitting together piece-by-piece like a completed puzzle. Each yarn is Halloween-themed and has a unique story to tell, some exploiting festive urban legends, and some just added to amp up the creep factor for the viewers. Like Creepshow and other horror flicks from back in the day, it doesn't try to torment you or insult you, it simply exists to entertain you. And it succeeds. The central character is Sam, a scary little guy in a orange costume and wearing a burlap mask, dragging around a sack of halloween goodies. Although you shouldn't expect to see him as much in the film, he can be compared to Michael Myers in Halloween. The central story doesn't follow him, but he's enough of a key player in it. Like Michael, he seen briefly in select scenes as a background figure. He's not ment to fit in with the scene, but just to make his presence known through out. Forget Jigsaw, this is the new horror character people should recognize when looking back on the decade, and this is the film. It's just that good.





This is the movie us Halloween lovers (and this time I mean the holiday, not the movie) have been waiting for. It perfectly captures the essence of the holiday, and for years to come this will be out and ready right along side the other holiday masterpiece waiting to be watched. There?s just one problem: Warner Bros could care less. For two years, the studio has refused to release this little gem, while it continues to crank out unwatchable bottom-of-the-barrel dreck. This is one of the biggest injustices to our beloved genre, and in a perfect world, Warner would be put on trial for crimes against cinema. Movie lovers finally have something worth getting excited about and it?s great to see that real talent can still slip through the cracks. This holiday season, forget paying big bucks for movies like the newest Saw sequel and goto your local video store and give this instant classic a chance, you'll be happy you did.

The Hills Run Red (2009) Review

Review:
I've often found that large amounts of hype for a movie usually end up being a bad thing. Your expectations are raised so high that once you finally get the chance to see the movie you've heard raved about for months prior, it can never live up to those expectations. It's happened recently with Hatchet. Such is unfortunately the case with The Hills Run Red. Now don't get me wrong, it's an above average horror flick with an awesome concept and a pretty badass killer, it's just not really anything special. For those who don't know much about the movie, here's a brief synopsis....


A notorious horror movie by the name of The Hills Run Red was released in the early 1980's and only a select few layed eyes on it's final print before it was inexpectedly pulled from theaters for being to violent in it's all too realistic bloodshed. All copies of the film were mysteriously lost, but a young film student and horror fanatic named Tyler sets a goal to find one last print. Alongside a couple friends and the thought to be dead director of the film's stripper daughter, Tyler sets out for the woods to check out the movie's filming locations, in an effort to provide some answers by makeing a documentary surrounding it. What they find is that The Hills Run Red is more than just a movie and it's killer, Babyface, is more than just a character dreamed up from the mind of a sadistic filmmaker.


Although we've seen this concept before in John Carpenter's Masters of Horror episode entitled Cigarette Burns, you can't argue against the fact that it's an awesome concept. The reason I got so intregued in the concept is because I, and pretty much any horror fan, can easily relate to. If I've ever heard of a mysterious film like this you'd expect me to be as curious as Tyler. It's like you and your friends visiting the actual campsite used in the Friday the 13th films only to find out that Jason is actually real. That's a pretty awesome concept for a slasher set up, but unfortunetly that's all this films got going for it, the cool concept. I felt that this was a story that was packed with lame plot and twists and turns that didn't deliver too much of what I wanted or expected from it. Not that it's bad for attempting to have a complex plotline, I just didn't think all of it was necessary.


The movie inside the movie - here only hinted at through a 'crude' trailer and some pupblisity stills - looks like alot better of a movie than what I watched. That's the movie that I wanted to watch in the first place. Seeing Babyface brutally kill poeple is all I really wanted from this, and don't get me wrong, we are treated to this, but I just can't get past the fact of what this could have been but sadly wasn't. I could talk the world of how cool Babyface is (possible custom Halloween costume idea?), and there are some cool kills, just not good enough to stick up there with some of the more memorable kills in slasher history. There is however enough nude Sophie Monk to satiate anyone's desires, so that's a plus.

The Haunted World of El Superbeasto (2009) Review

Review: This movie is not for everybody. It packs enough cartoon blood, violence, and nudity here to make Rob Zombie's other movies look subtle in comparison. El Superbeasto is not a children's cartoon, it's a exploitive and twisted attempt at making an animated feature. It's filled with some great homages to classic films (practically every big screen monster is used here, everything from Michael Myers to Jack Torrence from The Shining), and of course Zombie's usual bunch is back to provide voices for the gang of misfit characters here. Although it's humor is ludicrous and at most times striving to be funny, I did in fact find myself laughing along with some of the characters. Suberbeasto is in no way a good old fashioned cartoon movie, and I wouldn't recommend it to most, all I can say is this: if you've tolerated Zombie's past work you may find some enjoyment out of this mess.


Blood, boobs, and curses. How els can you sum up a film such as this? From the start of the film, that's all your catered to, all the way up to the very end - and it gets worse and worse as it progresses. Violence and nudity in animation may fail to offend some, but there's just so much of it here that even I, one of the few people out there to which this film is made, found it to be in extreme excess. You see cartoon nipples and privates on display every two minuets. Normally I wouldn't complain about such actions, but even I found myself saying 'enough is enough'. And if you thought Zombie's characters cursed a lot before, brace yourself. To say the language in this film is extremely juvenile would be an understatement of monumental proportions. Every curse in the book is used. Said curses are strung together with the hippest street slang known to man. To add further pain, we get little melodies throughout the film as theme songs for characters or just to add curses where no one is talking at any given moment.


Not to completely bash this movie, I'll admit I like the animation here. Think along the lines of Ren & Stimpy meets Spongebob. The voice over works well too. I found the voices of Beasto and Dr. Satan (and his ape slave) preformed quite well. The opening scenes of the film were vintage and fantastic, but from there on out be warned: this is not intended for the Scooby Doo crowd.

ZombieLand (2009) Review

Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus
Woody Harrelson as Tallahassee
Emma Stone as Wichita
Abigail Breslin as Little Rock

Directed by Ruben Fleischer

Review: Right from the start of the movie, where we're graced with an entourage of grisly yet comical zombie gore moments (in slow-mo no doubt!) played to the tune "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica. We're introduced to what kind of film this is aiming to be: nothing but a bloody good time. Zombieland is no doubt the most fun I've had at the movie theaters all year, and it's without question the best horror/comedy this side of Shaun of the Dead.


Zombieland is the story of a broken down group of survivors trying to survive the apocalypse. The setting's all the same, the world has ended, and most of everybody are reanimated corpses craving human flesh. Oh, and these flesh eaters are the fast ones here, not the slow bumbling meat bags (although, unfortunately I'd prefer the old fashion Romero style dead, it's all in the sake of a few comedic frights). Ohio (Jesse Eisenberg) is the prerequisite teen, so named for his desired destination. It?s Ohio who introduces us to the remnants of this decimated civilization, kicking things off with valuable tips to surviving any zombie encounter. Yes, those survival guide tips you are seeing in the commercials are in fact in the movie. Ohio is en route to his parents home when he bumps into the mighty Tallahasse (Woody Harrelson), who excels in zombie decimation while he scours the earth for his favorite snack cake. Hilarity ensues. Not long after, the two bump into two others survivors, who happen to be sisters, in the back of a convenient store. After this, once the story really kicks into gear we're treated to several comical moments involving squishy zombie brains being sprayed all over the place, which is more on the humorous side than disturbing, but it's all in good fun.



Some films would be content to strike the perfect mix of comedy and above average zombie effects, but Zombieland adds another dimension with just the right amount of back story for each character. These scenes, shown in flash backs, remind us the tragedy these characters went through when the dead began to rise, and how they pulled through. Accompanied by this are several bonding moments tying the group closer together. These scenes will range from laugh out loud funny to heart warming to a downright yank on your heart strings. These parts are not overly milked out nor dramatized, but just thrown in to add some interesting character development. And it surly does, because you really do start to feel for this misfit cast of survivors.


Although not in any way horrific, Zombieland doesn't skimp out on the red stuff. Blood is spewed as heads explode and ligaments are torn from helpless victim's throats. But, again, it's all in good fun here. It's a joy to see such an entertaining film come out like this. A film so enjoyable, you'll wish it wouldn't end, where you'll still be smiling after you walked past the concession stand and out of the theater. Oh, and did I mention Bill Murray of Ghostbuster's fame makes an appearance? If fun horror films such as Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness, and of course Shaun of the Dead are right up your alley, by all means see this film right away.

The Final Destination (2009) Review

Review:
My thoughts on the Final Destination series. Liked the first one, it was something a bit different and had it's moments. Some of the second was interesting but overall I didn't care for it . Didn't like the third at all. So, where does this one fit in? I didn't have the fortune to experience it in 3D, and in some ways that could heighten the experience (it worked well for My Bloody Valentine), so I sat through it like most people in your regular every day movie theater. From start to finish, I couldn't wait for this movie to end. I didn't like it one bit.


Right from its opening credits, it's clear that The Final Destination is yet another by-the-numbers sequel that never strays from formula and offers no new surprises. But who cares? We go to these movies for one reason and one reason only: to see stupid teens die in excellent new ways. Unfortunately, all we're given here are a bunch of cheesy deaths. Sure, there's alot of them, people get crushed, burned, diced, dismembered, blown up, eviscerated, smashed, stabbed and pureed across a series of endless set-pieces. No matter how bad the movie is in the end, usually this would make up for that and then some. It could have been a fun film to watch, but what I hated were the cheesy cg death scenes. This completely killed the movie for me. The deaths, which were mediocre at best, would have been a little cooler if they were at least practical. Instead, were shown cgi blood and cgi body parts. This seems like a Scifi (excuse me, "Syfy") original movie. Besides the horrendous special effects, the writing was really terrible, the scenarios this time around were beyond unbelievable (how many times can you use spilled gasoline?), the story was paper thin, the characters were totally cardboard, but the acting was more hit than miss. I'll expect this to be on the "most terrifying night on television', or whatever the new SyFy calls it now, in a few years.


I wouldn't even consider this a popcorn movie, it was a cotton candy movie. Enjoyable in the moment but all the depth and staying power of spun sugar.

Halloween 2 (2009) Review

"I know he's not gonna come back just because of some stupid holiday."



Cast:
Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie Strode
Tyler Mane as Michael Myers
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett
Danielle Harris as Annie Brackett

Directed by Rob Zombie

Review:
Ok, I've spent the last few years trying to defend Rob Zombie's filmmaking style. Many critics, casual or horror critics, constantly bash him for his 'unique' vision. I for one thought House of 1,000 Corpses, although far from perfect, was a watchable movie. Whereas I highly enjoyed it's far superior sequel, The Devil's Rejects, I was highly excited when I first heard Mr. Zombie would be remaking one of my favorite horror movies. After seeing his version, I accepted the fact that it was his own version and was very different from John Carpenter's original. I found myself liking it more and more I saw it. I thought it was an adequate remake. But, for it's sequel it's a whole other story.

The film starts where the first left off. Laurie (Scout Compton) is in a form of shock, still clutching the gun she shot Michael with, she slowly strolls through Haddonfield untill Sherif Brackett finds her and rushes her to a hospital. From here we're shown an excellent sequence where Michael stalks Laurie around said hospital, killing every nurse and orderly in sight. The scenes that follow are remarkable, Laurie limps down stairs and through a downpour to escape her psychotic brother. To me, these were the best moments of the film, but unfortunately it all turns out to be an elaborate dream sequence. It surely sets the tone of the film, but unfortunately it all goes downhill from here on out.


Back to reality. Laurie is a complete mess, now living with Annie (Danniel Harris) and her father. As Michael Myers' body vanished from custody, speculation is high that the big guy is preparing to stage a comeback. But Loomis is having none of that talk. As opposed to Donald Pleasence's version of Loomis, who never tired of the hunt, McDowell's Loomis has no thoughts of staying vigilant against a possible return of Michael Myers. He insists that Michael is dead ("D-E-A-D!") at any given opportunity. While McDowell's Loomis had been allowed a modicum of compassion and professional acumen in the first film, in this second appearance he's become a full-fledged asshole ? a vain jerk with no higher aspirations other than turning a quick buck. While it's certainly Zombie's right to take this character in this direction, I question the value of making Loomis so unlikable.


"Nightmares are chewing at my head again... they just seem to be getting worse."

What viewers may find most distracting are the hallucinations that both Laurie and Michael share throughout the film. Disturbing images of rotted pumpkin creatures and the re-appearing ghostly visions of Mrs. Myers (Sheri Moon), her white horse, and young Michael, who's now played by an annoying little skater looking kid because apparently Daeg Fearch had a growth spurt and seemed to tall to reprise his role. These hallucinations are pretty much pointless and just complicate the seemingly simple plot. At first, you understand Michael is psychotic, and Laurie is turning right down the same road, but constantly having them appear after every kill, and showing them in a Mrs. Voorhees fashion urging Michael to "Have some fun" gets tiring.

The only good thing H2 had going for it were Michael's brutal kills. They were of the most intense and goriest in Michael's long carer. He smashes faces in, stomps in heads, slashes limbs apart and decapitates everybody that gets in his way, who 90% of the movie where just randomly placed people who have nothing to do with the central characters, or the entire story for the matter. These brutal slayings are one of the only things you'd need to see this film for. Some would regard it as your average exploitation flick, but I find it to be just another violent slasher. And honestly, what else would you expect from it?

Grace (2009) Review - The Beast Within Retro-Review

Review:
"Fear of the Archaic Mother turns out to be essentially fear of her generative power," wrote Julia Kristeva in her seminal 1982 book Powers of Horror. Horror movies have featured monstrous mothers (and their demonic spawn) virtually since the genre's inception. Movies such as The Brood, Polanski's Rosemary's Baby and Larry Cohen's It's Alive! turned notions of maternity on it's collective head, depicting mothers whose bodies spat out grotesque fetuses, those who cared for their demonic offspring no matter what the consequences - blind to the evil which they had given life.


The most recent reimagening of the monsterous mother theme comes in the form of writer/director Paul Solet's first feature, Grace. It tells the tail of a mother who's eight months pregnant. Her and her husband fall victim to a terrible car crash, instantly killing him and fatally wounding herself. Everyone , including the doctors and Madeline's mother in law, believe the baby is dead. But after delivering a presumably dead child, Madeline finds the the baby is still alive. Only problem, Grace is hungry... and the only thing that seems fit to nourish her is human blood.


Grace's premise is as cheesy as it sounds. It may disappoint some of the hardcore genre beings that it doesn't exactly fall under the horror category. It doesn't rely on over the top gore effects to achieve it's goals and further it's message, but an unrelenting pace that some may find too boring. The whole psychology of pregnancy, post-partem depression, and menopausal distress are excellent ingredients for a horror/thriller, but I felt like here it was only touched on, handled clumsily, and that the easy route out was taken at the end. The mother (Jordan Ladd) wasn't believable in the least, and the mother-in-law (Gabrielle Rose) just seemed to irk me till no end. It's not intended for genre fans, nor for your average critic - it pretty much falls in between. Some may find it pushes the envelope just a tad, and some may consider it downright disturbing. I myself did not, although I did find myself enjoying it, just waiting to find out what happens next but just to be unset by it's terrible premise.




Retro-Review:

The Beast Within isn't exactly among the greatest monster movies ever. It's a very strange movie, to say the least. It's obviously aiming to be some kind of creature feature, yet it plays out more or less like a slasher flick. But, in the end it's still just another corny early 80's B-movie, and while it does have it's moments, that's about all it should be know for - the cheesy monster movie that it is.


Tell me if you've ever heard this one before: The movie starts off with a young couple breaking down off the side of an abandoned highway in the middle of the night. For some stupid reason, the woman (played by Bibi Besch) wonders off into the wilderness and gets brutally raped by some sort of monster (we never really find out what the hell it is exactly). Forward 17 years, and the couple are in a doctor's office. Somethings wrong with their (17 year old) teenage son, but their not sure what (could it be?). He seems to be acting out a bit, going through some changes. The father (Ronny Cox) is coming to the conclusions that it's not his son after all. So the teen beast gets away with some half decent kills, but the movie doesn't seem to progress from there. What just seem as random victims turns out to be linked together in some way and have something to do with the young boy's transformations.


As it turns out, the Beast Within is actually some sort of giant cicada mutation the boy turns into. His skeletal frame bubbles into some sort of exoskeleton that's impervious to point blank shotgun blasts and makes him strong enough to burst through brick walls. This isn't the first 80's B-movie I'd recommend to someone, because to be honest it's not really worth watching besides a cool yet slightly drug out transformation sequence towards the end of the film (oh, and a hilarious decapitation through a wall).

Surveillance (2009) Review

Review:
A pair of masked killers are on a cross-country killing spree. A couple are riding cross-country with a newly acquired stash of drugs and beer. A family is headed for a weekend vacation. And finally, two drunk cops are tracking down people who are 'exceeding the speed limit', so to speak. The only thing they have in common from the get go is there all involved in a murder mystery. As the film starts, the only survivors of this ordeal is a little girl, whom just witnessed her family fall victim to a brutal murder, a doped up girl whose boyfriend died in said murder, and a cop whose partner also fell victim to this hit and run murder. Two FBI agents (Bill Pullman & Julia Omond) have these three under constant surveillance while questioning them about what knowledge they hold of the incident.


Surveillance is a mixed bag: in some ways it succeeds as a decent thriller, and in some as a exploitive horror/suspense-esque film. Expressed in the opening scenes, and several following towards the end, it relies on brutal violence to put it's point across. Sure, people are killed for no apparent reason. In some parts random people are killed, bodies are shown. And there's even some ariel blood sprayed in a gooey scene where a car smashes a guy up pretty badly, but I wouldn't go as far as calling this a flat out horror movie. It's more of a 'CSI' type movie, and even has a little twist toward the end. I'll admit, it succeeds at that. At being a fun little thriller, it hits the mark well. Bill Pullman plays a FBI agent pretty well, his job to sit behind a row of screens examining all the conversations of the three survivors, getting all the information about the case at hand. Like the murderer's plan, things flow smoothly for a good portion of the film (with an exceptional screenplay by Jennifer Lynch, daughter of David) until the end, where without spoiling too much, I think things start falling apart. It comes at you out of nowhere, if you (like I) weren't paying attention much you'd probably never see it coming. I'm not saying you will or won't be completely satisfied, I'm just saying I thought it could have been played out better than it did.


But, aside from the ending I found Surveillance to be a pretty enjoyable little film. A bit corny at times, but all together a well-written, well-shot corny movie. And, well can all find ourselves watching and enjoying something of tis nature every once in a while.

Inglorious Basterds (2009) Review

Cast:
Brad Pitt
Christoph Waltz
Eli Roth
Diane Kruger

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino

"They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies their brothers we leave behind us and the Germans will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, at our boot heels, and the edge of our knives. And the Germans will be sicken by us, the Germans will talk about us and the Germans will fear us."

Review:
Finally, a movie that exceed my expectations, which were generally high to begin with. And I'll count out the fact that Quentin Tarantino is one of my all-time favorite directors. Ok, so the plot revolves in the year 1944, in Nazi-Occupied France. Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) and his notorious squadron of ruthless Jewish soldiers (most interesting of the bunch are Til Schweiger as the Rambo-esque Nazi killer, Omar Doom as Pftc. Omar Ulmer, and my favorite, "The Jear Jew", played by Hostel writer/director Eli Roth) are dedicated to killing Nazi in the most brutal and violent of ways. Known otherwise as the Basterds, they must help the Allies try to wipe out the German High Command at a film premiere. The cinema, however, is owned by a vengeful Jewish survivor (Laurent) with plans of her own. The plot may seem a bit simple, but there's plenty of solid story telling packed in this 2 & 1/2 hr thrill ride. It may seem like a long run time, but goes by like a breeze due to Tarantino's expert screenplay and direction.

"The German will be sickened by us, the German will talk about us, and the German will fear us."

Like in all his films, Tarantino masterfully transfers control from character to character, using only his dialogue, filled with unspoken implications and threatening subtext. The results are almost unbearably tense and as suspenseful as anything he's done in his career. The cast, from Pitt on, are down right amazing, whether they're handling the one-liners or speeches in English, French, German or even Italian. There are performances that stand out above the rest, of course. Pitt, in a role that again defies expectations, is often hilarious, attacking some wonderful dialogue in a redneck Kentucky accent that is quite hilarious at times, yet well executed. Fassbender, stepping into the role of Hicox after Simon Pegg dropped out, seizes the opportunity gladly, injecting Hicox with the perfect blend of old-style movie-star charm (the character was based in part on George Sanders) and a tougher, rugged edge that deserves to make him the bigger star he deserves. But the film belongs to Christopher Waltz, who won the Best Actor award in Cannes, and who should be a shoo-in for a Best Supporting Actor nod at next year's Oscars.

The movie begins with opening title card, which simply states, 'Once Upon A Time, in Nazi-Occupied France." From the start off, with that one phrase, Tarantino makes it clear that Inglourious Basterds will not be taking the realistic, reverent approach of a film such as Schindler's List. It somewhat sets the tone of the film, stating that it's more of a "what if" story that takes place in a typically Tarantino 'movie-movie' universe. After all, let's not forget that Tarantino had Uma Thurman draw a box on the screen in Pulp Fiction, and Basterds is replete with those touches, from on-screen graphics to a wonderfully eclectic soundtrack that revels in anachronisms like Bowie?s Cat People (Putting Out Fire). Of course that song, along with practically every other song used in the film, can be heard in numerous other films. This is not unusual, since Tarantino is a movie expertise himself, and his movies have always been based in part by the tropes and styles of other movies - be it trashy exploitive films to kung-fu style cinema. Basterds, for example, is full of references to Italian cinema, particularly Spaghetti Westerns. This is a trait that constantly draws me to filmmakers such as Tarantino and the likes of fellow director Robert Rodrigez, implying that sometimes the best films are not always the most polished and well made (although the films in particular are well shot, being homages to lesser films' cinematography and direction).


Ultimately, Basterds inner meaning is the appeal and power of cinema to do good, perhaps even to shape history, to change things for the better as Tarantino pits the forces of good - in this case a film critic, a cinema owner, and movie star - against the vile Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, and his new protégé, Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl). And as events play themselves out, amidst scenes of fire, chaos, carnage and a haunting image of a laughing face projected onto roiling clouds of smoke, it's hard not to imagine Tarantino sighing contentedly as he introduces his final, most romantic notion, a director playing God...

"You probably heard we ain't in the prisoner-takin' business; we in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, Business is a-boomin'."