![]() ![]() Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph. So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. ![]() It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. ![]() Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia. I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). It just goes to show how wrong you can be. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |