With an opening chapter drenched in classic and spaghetti western homages, notably John Ford’s “The Searchers,” and Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in the West,” a mid-section riddled with tributes to Jean Luc-Godard and German Expressionists like Paul Wegener and Fritz Lang, a third act that invokes George Orwell’s “1984,” Howard Hawks’ “Sargeant York,” and Jacques Tourneur’s and Paul Schrader’s versions of “Cat People” respectively, and an entire premise based on Enzo G. Castellari’s “The Inglorious Bastards,” which itself is based on Robert Aldrich’s “The Dirty Dozen,” Tarantino not only rewrites the Second World War but encapsulates, distills, and reworks virtually the entire history of cinema into an audacious, riveting, revisionist’s fairy-tale in under 160 minutes.

Of course, references to other films or literature alone, sans context, don’t result in great cinema.  But the ingenious, intricately thrilling way that Tarantino subtly — and sometimes not so subtly — weaves hundreds of disparate narratives, eras, sensibilities, genres, and themes into a brilliantly realized, masterfully rendered work of art is an unparalleled feat.  The Basterds aren’t the heroes here, film is.  And that’s no metaphor, actual film stock itself becomes the literal hero of this movie in a thrilling climax that takes place in — you guessed it — a cinema.

But as pervasive as the idea of film’s effects on real events and political, racial, and socio-economic issues is throughout “Inglourious Basterds,” it is but one of this clever onion’s many layers.  Let’s take a look at the idea of identity, for example.  Virtually every character is hiding something.  Nothing is as it seems.  Think of the theater owner, Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) for instance, who’s been living incognito her entire life, or Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), who blows his cover as a German officer with a three-fingered gesture, or Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) whose briefs mentions of a civilian life in Tennessee combined with that telling scar around his neck reveal a dark past. Even the settings themselves have secrets. The very first scene, which may be the best thing Tarantino has ever shot,  sets the stage.  While an unbearably tense Mexican Standoff rages above, the farmhouse reveals its secret below the floorboards.  Later, the cinema itself becomes a deceptive character with secrets in both the projection room and behind the screen. And let’s not forget about the ubiquitous usage of language as an agent of deceit. Deception proves to be a powerful tool in Tarantino’s hands, employed largely to illuminate and contextualize the role of identity in the human experience.

“Inglourious Basterds” has taken a lot of heat for it’s most controversial theme: revenge.  Not only revenge, but how this particular depiction of Jewish revenge alters documented history and, in effect, can be said to deny the Holocaust.  That conclusion may be drawn by some intelligent, discerning viewers, but is ultimately the result of projecting a nefarious glare on the narrative that simply isn’t there.  The film’s deliberate construction and overarching themes suggest quite the opposite.  Tarantino, infamous for his fantastical, ultra-excessive bloodthirst, once again invites us to join the party. We happily oblige, and just at that moment when we begin to feel the primal urges of savagery, and crave vengeance, he turns on us and condemns our gleeful, violent indulgences.  Has the bad boy of cinema suddenly had a change of heart?  Has he gotten bogged down in the circular banality of moral relativism?  I don’t think so.  The difference here is the nature of the violence.  The cartoonish and excessive violence of the “Kill Bill” films isn’t representative of any conceivable reality and is employed purely as an element of aesthetics.  Here, the violence is brutal and horrific. Tarantino is reminding us of the difference between film and reality.  Sure, cheer on the hilariously gratuitous violence in film, but make no mistake, real violence has real consequences.  For if cinema becomes a place where we can no longer indulge in humanity’s greatest aspirations or its most vile of urges, it will have lost its purpose.

When I picked up “Defiance”, I was pretty excited because I’ve enjoyed some of director Ed Zwick’s previous movies (The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond, Courage Under Fire), but I became a little nervous when I realized Liev Schreiber (Zus Bielski) and Daniel Craig (Tuvia Bielski) would be sporting Russian accents in this “true story.”  Despite my reservations I was gladly surprised and pleased with the turnout of the film.  Craig and Schreiber do a good job with the accents and generally excel in their roles. I really enjoyed the fact that all of the main characters spoke Russian at times. It drives me nuts when movies speak English in certain regions and times when English was obviously not spoken. I understand that people don’t enjoy reading movies, but I liked the fact that this one mixed it in.

I did have some small issues with some of the characters.  Daniel Craig begins as a ruthless man seeking revenge, but almost as soon as he satisfies that urge he changes his mind and develops all of these morals and values that were completely absent before.  He mentions that he can still see the faces of the people he’s killed, but it’s so quick you might miss it. If that intense moral conflict were drawn out a little more, it might seem a little more plausable that he would be overcome by such a dramatic change of heart when his brother wants to go on his own mission for revenge.  Also, the two brothers share the screen for about the first half of the film, but when they split up, Liev’s story is basically tossed to the side and almost forgotten entirely.  Zwick paints Craig as the more likable brother and the obvious the hero, but there would have been a more enjoyable dynamic if both brothers got their fair share. Zus’ character would have been more nuanced and less predictable had he had been given more time. Instead, the youngest brother, Asael Bielski (Jamie Bell) took over his place, and I found him the most interesting.  There was a really interesting scene that showed Asael getting married, and blended it with Zus attacking and killing more Nazi’s. It was a great contrast and maybe my favorite scene.

Speaking of contrast, I wish Mr. Zwick would have gone into more depth about the clashes within the Jewish class system.  Zus describes how despite their incredible heroism in saving these fellow Jewish people, some still refuse to give up their prejudices, feeling that they’re better then him because of their superior wealth, class, etc.  It was really only mentioned that once, but it would’ve added a level of depth and created a more compelling story.

The wardrobe department deserves some recognition.  The costumes effectively got across the fact that these people had to literally drop everything and run into the woods to survive.  Men in suits and women in nice dresses are not the typical outdoor survival wear, but they had no choice.

With all that being said, I still enjoyed this movie. It was really entertaining and fun to watch. It had its cliche moments; forced love story for our hero, very predictable moments etc. and can we please stop doing the “video game war scene”? You know the scene.  When our hero is getting attacked, and something explodes right by him, and everything goes into slow motion, and there is a ringing like know he can’t hear anything, and then someone yells at them to snap them back to reality. Hasn’t that been in every war movie? It was even in “Tropic Thunder,” which makes fun of this genre!

Anyway, pick this one up.  It’s probably not my favorite Ed Zwick film, but it doesn’t disappoint.

(3.5/5)

Fun fact:  The producers struggled to find a proper shooting location, and when they finally chose remote Lithuania, they realized they were only a few hundred miles from where the real story took place.

Next week I tackle my favorite movie ever, The Jonas Brothers Concert Experience!!!!!! Oh what’s that? My DVD player rejected it? Oh shucks. Oh well, I have it memorized for you.