I, for one, was not a fan in any way of “Death Proof.” To me, it seemed the ultimate wank-job, a film far, FAR too up its own ass. It’s a resounding example of being too pleased with your own work, and in this case, its dialogue. Tarantino was simply obsessively proud of his dialogue in “Death Proof,” to the point that he forgot why his dialogue was so great in the first place. It wasn’t great just because it sounded like a normal conversation, it was great because it sounded like a normal conversation AND established characters and plots (and, most importantly, intrigue). Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega’s conversation about foot massages in “Pulp Fiction” was a pretty normal- and inane-sounding conversation about foot massages, but what it REALLY is is a conversation about Marsellus Wallace’s extreme jealousy and protectiveness of his wife, something which will soon be extremely relevant to Vincent Vega. In “Death Proof,” it’s just characters talking endlessly (seriously, the conversation I’m about to talk about here goes on for, no shit, ten fucking minutes) about finding some pot to buy. I could reproduce such a conversation by hanging out with virtually any random pairing of my friends; I don’t need to pay ten dollars to do so. Especially if they’re going spend those ten dollars on pot.

My concern was that, while “Death Proof” was obnoxiously and unentertainingly self-indulgent, it didn’t seem an exception to the rule, but rather, part of a natural evolution which had begun with “Jackie Brown’s” blaxploitation style (albeit a style that was extremely restrained in its execution in “Jackie Brown”) and had continued through “Kill Bill,” which was obscenely self-indulgent but just as obscenely entertaining, so I didn’t think too much of it. And so, going into “Inglourious Basterds,” I didn’t want or even expect anything special; I just wanted evidence that “Death Proof” was a fluke, that Tarantino wasn’t so off-track he no longer knew where the tracks were at all. What I got was a masterpiece, and I think Tarantino knows it. If you’ll recall the film’s last line, I don’t think that it was meant to actually be that character saying what he says; I believe it’s meant to be Tarantino talking to the audience through his character, telling us what he thinks of his creation.

I should mention that, although the other credit is on-stage, this was also the Hitler actor’s second time playing Hitler, apparently. Also, Samuel L. Jackson being credited as “The Raconteur” is just priceless, and that Hugo Stiglitz sequence (complete with electric guitar and his name displayed in bad ass yellow, seventies-style font) was beyond hilarious.

This is a movie comprised of great moments; to me, a fine moment is Shoshanna’s boyfriend, standing before a mound of unspooled film, the smoke from his cigarette about his head, and further beyond him and the mound, a growing pile of ejected rifle shells on the screen before which they stand.

For the record, “it’s the same plan Zach Galligan and Pheobe Cates used at the end of ‘Gremlins,’ basically” is one of the funnier things I’ve read in a while.

You speak of Inglourious Basterds’ unpredicatability, and I couldn’t agree more. Virtually no scene played out like I expected, particularly the tavern scene, and it was indeed refreshing watching a movie where I didn’t always know what was going to happen next. Also unexpected was just how damn FUNNY the movie was. I should’ve gathered that it would be from his previous films, but given “Basterds’” general tone, it’s incredible that it was as funny as any other film of his (possibly the funniest, in fact) while still operating in the realm of dead-seriousness. This is pure Tarantino, and I’m nothing but grateful for it.

This might finally be Tarantino’s year, I think, for both director and film. I would’ve thought that at least one of the “Kill Bill” movies would’ve garnered him some best director recognition (I’m not deluded enough to think either could ever win best picture, though “Vol. 2″ was great when I first saw it and just gets better with age; it’s approaching a transcendental quality for me at this point), but apparently not. “Pulp Fiction” certainly deserved recogntion, though it got none, and “Reservoir Dogs” as well, though that was too early to expect it to have been on anyone’s radar, I think. “Jackie Brown,” on the other hand, while excellent, was runner-up material through and through. But here, I think, may be Tarantino’s Oscar opportunity (why I or anyone else still cares about these fucking awards, I don’t know; water flouridation, maybe?): the movie’s a surefire best picture nomination, I would think, with ten nominations this year instead of five, and Tarantino’s made enough classics at this point that he could be able to net himself best director on the “lifetime achievement” card like Scorsese did (though, in a world where “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “Children of Men” don’t exist to Academy members, “The Departed” WAS the year’s best film). Is Tarantino, after just seventeen years and six or seven films (depending on how many you count “Kill Bill” and “Death Proof” as; 1.5 and 0.5, respectively, mayhaps?), in league with Scorsese, who has over forty films in fifty years, as a director? I think so.

It was a good time indeed, and I’m glad for it, and hope to repeat it again with both this film and his future films (which may possibly include a prequel to this, from what I’m hearing). I’m always weary of films that have been percolating for a long time, but they often seem to turn out excellent. Here is a fine example of such a case, as was “A. I.” and, going further back, “Apocalypse Now.”

“Avatar,” however, which had a trailer in front of “Basterds,” looks to be an example of what justifies that weariness.

First off, this is definitely a Quentin Tarantino production. That much was completely obvious the moment you saw Hugo Stiglitz’s name pop up in bigass letters and the sequence that follows (good ol’ brutal violence!). And it has his style of dialog as well. But what I’ve noticed about Tarantino’s style is that it’s like a cologne. Smells nice, but he frequently puts on way too much of it. Death Proof was some greasy douchebag with a popped collar who wanted to get laid. Basterds, on the other hand, was a guy who sprayed a little on his chest and both wrists like you’re supposed to. He didn’t stink of boring dialog, he merely had a nice scent of it.

One thing that sort of confused me was the fact that, due to the advertisements, I saw a different movie than I expected. And I actually enjoyed that movie much more because of it. Granted, it was odd when we weren’t seeing nearly as much of the Basterds as I had expected we would, but the entire Shosanna storyline turned out to be far more emotionally fulfilling from start to finish. She had revenge to take, and seeing her complete her plan was awesome, right down to the haunting projection of her face on the smoke billowing out of the screen.

As for the Basterds themselves, they turned out to be a different component of the story, a component I actually like them in. Aldo wasn’t meant to be a deep, compelling character. He was static and rightly so. He had one goal: killing Nat-zees, a goal which he completely fulfilled by the end of the film. While Landa was scheming against everyone and everything that moved, Aldo completely ignored it and decided to give him the karmic retribution he had so artfully avoided. And that was possibly the best way to end the movie. It was just beautiful to see him get that final kick in the balls he had been dodging for so long.

But god, you know what else was awesome? The complete and total subversion of the one thing that these historical movies always have. I know how Valkyrie is gonna end. I know how Call of Duty can’t end. I know that any fiction involving Hitler is going to have the Furher kick the bucket. And that is why I thank Inglorious Basterds for saying “Fuck it, we’ll kill ‘im anyway”. I mean seriously, seeing everyone bite it like that was just beautiful violence. I loved every minute of it.

I guess I typed way more than I expected to this time. Until next time!

Given Ecksem’s comment about Avatar, I felt the need to jump in and throw my two cents on the table.

The Avatar trailer looked okay until the blue-skinned cat people showed up. Once they were on the screen I thought it looked like something akin to garbage. Seriously, the 3-D is going to have to be pretty damn amazing to somehow obscure the lameness of what I saw.

The effects didn’t look very good at all. It looked, for lack of a better word, “cheesey”. If this is what $300 million dollars looks like on the screen then I am not impressed.

If this movie had say… George Lucas’ name on it people would be running around with pitchforks. But apparently since it is James Cameron he gets a free pass? Lame.

I’ve never had a problem with Cameron’s films. They’re all solid, but he isn’t what I would consider a top shelf director. Titanic is definitely his best film and the one thing he has done that I think is truly a great one.

After seeing the Avatar (or Avatard as I like to call it) trailer, I could only think that maybe he’s been underwater for a bit too long. It’s too bad. Think of all the awesome movies that could have been made with all that money. *sigh*