Best Supporting Actor 2012: Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained

Christoph Waltz received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Doctor King Schultz in Django Unchained.

Django Unchained is an entertaining, although overlong film, about a German bounty hunter who teams up to to bounty hunt with a slave Django (Jamie Foxx), and later to rescue Django's wife who is in possession of a wealthy plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

It certainly is questionable if Christoph Waltz really is supporting here. This is not a completely closed case that he is either though in that there is a clear lead of Jamie Foxx as Django, there are many scenes without Schultz, and he clearly ends up not being the main character by the end of the film. That being said though he still has considerable screen time, he is in most scenes for a great deal of the film, as well as he pretty much commands most scenes that he is in though that really has a lot to with the quality of Waltz's performance. I would say that really I would not complain all that much if he were placed in either category.

There is a criticism of Waltz here that could be made, although I have not heard it or read it so far, that he is playing too much of a similar character to that of Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds also directed by Quentin Tarantino. Both are intelligent and very suave Germans, but the key difference between the two is Hans Landa is quite evil and King Schultz is actually the hero of the film. Also Waltz playing a similar character does not diminish this performance in the least as who else could give this performance other than Waltz? The effort of Waltz in each role is equal and the simple truth is Waltz could have played this role first therefore such an argument never would be made.

Waltz is just brilliant from his first scene where he procures Django from two slavers first in attempted negotiation. Waltz's way with words is just fabulous and it perfectly accentuates the superiority of his character's intelligence in such an easy fashion. He also did this as Hans Landa, but where as Hans Landa he portrayed it as just one of his methods of attack on the psyche of his opponent, as Schultz he portrays with a lighter touch showing it to be merely the way Schultz is without any malice attached. Waltz shows that with Schultz his manner and style really is just the way he is, and that it doesn't have anything to do with any greater scheme like it would be with Landa.

Waltz is terrific in his creation of the style of Schultz though which is both very easy going in the way he speaks each and every word in a meticulous fashion, but at the same time Waltz brings across the quick incisive method that Schultz also does use when it comes to killing. In the first scene he brilliantly goes along in his way of speaking way above the slavers head, which Waltz does with style that is both entertaining but effective in creating Schultz as a character. When the slavers finally have had enough of him though he quickly dispatches them. Waltz is excellent because he barely shows Schultz as that violent, despite killing a man, because he still goes back to being so civil right after the fact.

In this performance Waltz absolutely makes the style of Schultz work completely without it seeming bizarre, nor stopping him from being a heroic character within the film. In every scene he is in Waltz makes it work through a great deal of charm he has, that this time does not have a hint of slime this time his smile tends to be genuine. Even when Schultz kills Waltz does this well by making it clear that Schultz has no hesitations really knowing that who is killing are bad men, therefore does not need to second guess himself, and his portrayal of his stance is properly honest so we do not second guess him either.

Unlike with Hans Landa who the audience were really kept at a distance from in any part of his plan fearing them more than anything, Waltz here is outstanding in the way he loses that coldness found in Landa instead creating a warmth within Schultz that allows us to be really in on his plans instead. Waltz makes it so when Schultz wins over on the slavers we can easily enjoy the victory right with through his welcoming performance here. Every one of his scenes where he talks himself out of a problem early on in the film is just terrific, and despite doing it several times Waltz makes each and everyone of these scenes very entertaining without feeling repetitive in the slightest.

Another reason I love this performance is how Waltz works with Jamie Foxx in the film. Jamie Foxx goes for basically a man with no name attempt in the vein of Clint Eastwood or Lee Van Cleef, or maybe that is what Quentin Tarantino wanted from the character, either way though it does not quite work because Foxx is not Eastwood or Van Cleef. The weakness of the leading man does not matter though because Christoph Waltz is there to save the day. Whenever Foxx could allow the film to falter due to his not nearly compelling enough performance, Waltz steps in and instantly energizes the scene with his wonderful presence. Not a single scene while Waltz is around falters because Waltz simply through his extremely entertaining performance stops them from doing so.

Waltz's domination of the scenes between Django and Schultz might sound like it would not work as Django is suppose to be lead. It works though because Waltz creates the relationship between the two as a bit of a mentor apprentice sort of relationship. In their scenes together Waltz is very good in making Schultz a gentle teacher to Django as both a technical advisory in the ways of the Bounty hunter, but also an encouraging factor that works quite well that creates a certain friendship that works well. Foxx's performance style of basically of being a modern action hero in this period is saved, for the most part, because Waltz lightens up as well as energizes everyone one of their scenes together that really saves the film.

Later on in the film when they go to save Django's wife Schultz takes a little bit of a back seat to the craziness of Calvin Candie and his head slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) as the chief villains of the film. This is not Waltz's fault by any means but in certain scenes like one where Calvin orders a slave to be torn apart by dogs Schultz is regulated to the background. Still Waltz is very good and every chance he does have to to chime in he again infuses life into the picture, and he certainly makes sure that we do not forget him for a moment. Also very important through his short reactions Waltz very much shows a certain disgust brewing over the horrible behavior of the slave holder that is extremely well handled by Waltz that sets up Schultz's later actions.

Also when I say Waltz takes a back seat it is only brief, basically just on their way to Candieland. Waltz has a very good scene with Django's wife Broomhilda that is very amusing thanks to Waltz's expert delivery. Even better though is the scene where they all have dinner. DiCaprio, Jackson, and Waltz are just terrific here as they all play together. They are hilarious the way they trade the barbs with DiCaprio portraying Calvin's attempted sophistication, Jackson portraying Stephen purposeful lack of sophistication, and Waltz portraying honest sophistication. They work together just perfectly and make the scene work extremely well the way they just make entertaining but also the way Waltz sets up the ruse Schultz is playing all the while Stephen is detecting the ruse.

I will say this paragraph covers the severe SPOILERS of the film. After the ruse is detected and Schultz is forced to do things Calvin's way Waltz is terrific in subtle showing the slow moral anger that builds in Schultz. Waltz is outstanding in his last scene as Waltz finally shows Schultz let lose with his disgust against what he was repressing beforehand, and it is a powerful moment for the end of his performance. He though still ends his performance so brilliantly by showing his charm just one more time before he exits the film. I must say how good he is makes the last part of the film much harder to get through than it should have. I have never missed a character more in a film than year that Schultz and the credit needs to go to Schultz for doing so.

Christoph Waltz is amazing because he not only made his character exceedingly entertaining but as well even towed along Jamie Foxx to make his performance tolerable. He honestly is the man who makes the entire film work. Without him the film could easily could have devolved into just an abundance of violence lacking the charm and fun necessary for the film. I would say this is particularly true as I do feel that the ending of the film does devolve into that a bit, and Waltz is absent from the conclusion. All I can say is this is just a brilliant performance as Christoph Waltz pulls such a terrific character that does not feel for a moment like he is just coasting on his previous work. All I can really say that lead or supporting this just a great performance either way, and simply is either one of the best lead or supporting performances of the year.

Best Supporting Actor 2012

And the Nominees Are:

Alan Arkin in Argo

Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Master

Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln

Robert De Niro in Silver Linings Playbook

Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained 

DJANGO UNCHAINED

DJANGO UNCHAINED
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Christoph Waltz, Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kerry Washington

Dr. King Schultz (referring to the bounty hunter profession): Like slavery, it's a flesh for cash trade.

DJANGO UNCHAINED? More like Tarantino unchained, if you ask me. When watching a Quentin Tarantino movie, there is always a danger that his undeniable genius will fall prey to his also undeniable ego. He often walks the fine line between these two elements with surprising grace and subsequently makes insightful works that are distinctly his style. In DJANGO UNCHAINED though, Tarantino's attempt at a Western / Blaxploitation hybrid, he veers too far off course and ends up losing his edge in the sprawling drawl of the Old West.

DJANGO UNCHAINED is a bounty hunter, buddy western for about an hour and then a hyper violent,  romantic quest for about two hours after that. The two parts did not come together for me but either way, I never felt that Tarantino was ever truly able to make himself fit into these genres. There are moments where his unique style feels perfectly suited to the subject, but it often times felt more forced than anything else. Christophe Waltz, who embodied Tarantino's spirit so perfectly in his Oscar-winning turn in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, is completely miscast here. As a German dentist turned bounty hunter in 1858 Texas, he is more device than character, allowing Tarantino to incorporate his particular brand of dialogue to the period, justified by Waltz being foreign. You may delight in some of the things he has to say but I found it just exposed Tarantino's unease with the period.

Waltz acquires a slave by the name of Django (Jamie Foxx) at the onset of the film. He is sympathetic to the plight of the American slave but that doesn't stop him from purchasing Django for his own gain. When he sees how cruelly Django is treated by the people they encounter, he sets him "free" and the twosome become the biggest, badass bounty hunters around. There is a sense of shock in just how appalling people are towards their black slaves and Tarantino is here to rescue them. In this sense, DJANGO is no more than an extension of what he was going for in BASTERDS. Only instead of the Jews rising up against the Nazis, now Tarantino rewrites the history of the black slaves, giving them a hero to rise up against their oppressors.

Along the way, Waltz and Foxx come across Leonardo DiCaprio, a plantation owner reputed for fighting his slaves to their deaths. This man owns Django's wife (Kerry Washington). And when it comes time for Django to take back what is his (which is a whole other form of slavery, but no matter), everything ends in a seemingly never-ending blood bath, that plays out more like a video game, where the goal is to kill as many white supremacists as possible. It isn't triumphant though, just incessant and relentless. You can almost feel Tarantino's smug sense of satisfaction in the end but it's misguided. You cannot rewrite the wrongs of history by just shooting the crap out of them and thinking yourself a hero for having done so.

312. Django Unchained

312. (19 Dec) Django Unchained (2012, Quentin Tarantino) 75



Coming off the lean, perfectly structured Inglourious Basterds, it's not really a surprise or much a disappointment that Django Unchained isn't on par. Mostly, it's the absence of Sally Menke as film editor that's deeply felt, since this doesn't have the sharpness her collaborations with Tarantino had. But this is nevertheless engaging and exhilarating. To his credit, the substantial runtime isn't felt for a second due to clever scripting that crafts believable relationships and allows on-screen time to pass fluidly.

Christoph Waltz is certainly the standout here, though Leonardo DiCaprio sinks his teeth into a menacing role. Samuel L. Jackson, offering a variation on his same old schtick, is impossibly fun to watch chew scenery. Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington could have been recast midway through the film without anyone noting their absence.

Robert Richardson's cinematography is outstanding, as are the sets and costumes. Oscar nominations for most technical aspects are in order.

It took two viewings of Inglourious Basterds to fully appreciate this, so I have every intention of revisiting Django. It's so dense and thoughtful, full of nuanced arcs, all the while being quite reverential to its genre. There's a great deal to take in on a single go-around, and surely much reward in a second or third attempt.

CARNAGE

CARNAGE 
Written by Yasmina Reza and Roman Polanski
Directed by Roman Polanski
Starring Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly

Penelope Longstreet: Why can’t things be easier? Why does everything have to be so exhausting?

There are some plays that seem as though they could never be adapted for the screen and Yasmina Reza’s “God of Carnage” is certainly one of them. Although I have not myself seen it on stage, I can imagine its physical scope is quite limited as all the action takes place in one apartment over the course of a few hours. On stage, this can be riveting, as long as the conversation itself is sharp and insightful and as long as those partaking in said conversation give brilliant performances. On film, one location with the same four characters can be a static stand still. Fortunately for Reza, all involved in the film adaptation of her play, now called CARNAGE, are precisely the right people to keep things moving.

At the CARNAGE helm is infamous director, Roman Polanski, a man who has seen his own fair share of carnage in his life. Reza herself collaborated with Polanski on the screenplay so the fundamentals are firmly intact. Essentially, two couples meet to discuss an altercation that took place between their boys in a playground that resulted in one of the boys losing teeth. Things naturally don’t go as well as anyone had hoped. And who does Polanski amass to captivate us with their wit and humour? Four brilliant actors of course as the entire acting community seem to clamor to work with him. Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly play parents to the boy who lost his teeth while Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz play parents to the boy who was armed with the stick - sorry, who was carrying the stick - that knocked out the teeth. I don’t know about you but I can think of way worse people to be stuck in a room with for ninety minutes.

These two couples, as portrayed by this amazingly talented and dynamic cast, start out as sensible, civilized adults who are doing what they all think is right according to societal standards given the situation at hand. After all, what matters most is the well being of their children and ensuring that they come out of this as positively as possible. It’s the fact that the children are involved though that makes their exercise so futile to begin with. Their children were in a fight and hurt each other. The natural impulse for these parents would be to protect their children no matter what. And so it is not at all surprising to watch as their facades slowly but surely fade away to reveal not only their anger over the current situation but also the deep seeded disgust that has been festering in all of them for as long as they’ve had to hold it in. And given how polite our Western society can be at times, I’d say they’ve been holding back for a very long time.

Polanski does everything he must in order to keep a picture that almost never leaves the living room feel like it is in constant motion. Much of that comes from the rapid unravelling of the characters themselves. Their descent is delicious making CARNAGE a truly stimulating experience. Still, I imagine that if these four people exhibited just as much passion on stage, the immediacy of it would make their madness that much more meaningful.

Best Supporting Actor 2009: Results

5. Christopher Plummer in The Last Station- Plummer although certainly competent never manages to make anything special out of Tolstoy.

4. Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones- Tucci mostly just tries to be creepy which he does do well enough. His performance though lacks the visceral power a performance like this should have.

3. Matt Damon in Invictus- This might seem like a surprise position but out of the bottom three Damon does succeed the most in his particular role. He brings the passion and spirit that the story needs.

2. Woody Harrelson in The Messenger- Harrlson gives an intense and powerful emotional performance when he is in uniform, but when out of it he relies  a little bit too much on his usual style.

1. Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds- Waltz simply gives a great memorable villainous performance that manages to be both humorous and chilling, and succeeds with every single challenge found in the role.

Deserving Performances:
Michael Fassbender in Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actor 2009: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds

Christoph Waltz won his Oscar from his first nomination for portraying Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds.

Inglorious Basterds details various going ons in occupied Nazi France.

Christoph Waltz portrays the Nazi S.S. officer Hans Landa who has the nickname the "Jew Hunter" due to his ability to find Jewish people hiding from the Nazis. This is most certainly a juicy villain role that Waltz instantly sinks his teeth into his role from his first scene where he interrogates a French farmer about the whereabouts of a Jewish family who is believed to be in hiding. It is a long drawn out scene but Waltz is brilliant as he displays Hans Landa's unique character, as well as Hans' methods as a detective.

Christoph Waltz in this first scene shows an odd sort of charisma in his performance that is simply perfect for the role of Hans Landa. It is not that he makes Landa likable really but there is an undeniable magnetic quality to his performance. He dominates the screen in every scene showing Hans Landa to be a man who is always in charge no matter what the situation might be. Waltz amplifies Landa's power by always having the utmost assurance in his performance.

What I really like about his performance though is shown best in his first scene as he so well realizes the sophistication and intelligence in Landa. He is brilliant in simply the way he works through the scene as he kindly approaches the farmer with certainly with a sense of superiority, but with a certain gentleness and calmness. Underneath the calm exterior Waltz always shows Landa almost breaks down the farmer with his almost slight and only somewhat related questions.

It would have been exceedingly easy to handle this part of his performance incorrectly. The whole style of Landa frankly with just slight fault could have made his opening interrogation seem implausible. Waltz absolutely nails it an makes the interrogation appropriately intense. He is especially effective in his final scene where he shows the true business side of Landa which is chilling especially in contrast to his earlier approach. Waltz is brilliant leaving absolute no doubt about Landa's abilities.

Waltz actually is not in the film for a great deal of time after the first scene but his impact from his first scene is not forgotten for a moment making his time of return have the impact it should. He stands as a powerful presence through the whole second half of the film. Waltz not only manages to keep Landa an imposing figure in each of scenes. What really makes him threatening though is Waltz manages to keep Landa somewhat ambiguous in his exact motives.

The final scenes of his film there is a rather large decision made by Landa that really could have come across as rather far-fetched. Waltz though throughout managed to establish Landa as more than just an evil Nazi but rather a pompous superior opportunist making his final decisions completely logical in the end. Waltz manages to bring this depth to Landa with a great ease, despite the fact the film gives him only a little time to develop this facet of the character.

If I were to complain about this performance at all it would be he can be somewhat self indulgent at time particularly in his delivery of the line "Bingo" but I would say that even that actually works within his characterization of Landa who is self indulgent in his belief in his own superiority. Waltz simply gives a great memorable villainous performance that manages to be both humorous and chilling, and succeeds with every single challenge found in the role.

Best Supporting Actor 2009

And the Nominees Were:

Woody Harrelson in The Messenger 

Matt Damon in Invictus

Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds

Christopher Plummer in The Last Station

Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones

WATER FOR ELEPHANTS

Written by Richard LaGravenese

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz

 Based on the popular and much loved novel by Sara Gruen, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS, as adapted by Richard LaGravenese, the writer responsible for romantic weepers like P.S. I LOVE YOU and THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, tells the tale of a young man (Robert Pattinson) who is lost to the world and found by the circus. The action under the big top is bustling with trapeze acts, wild animals and, much to my dismay, plenty of exaggerated, over the top performances that make this show a far cry from the greatest on Earth.

Francis Lawrence, the director of I AM LEGEND, works hard to dazzle the crowds but this is not an easy task when you have all the wrong acts on your roster. The unfortunate thing about Pattinson starring vehicles is that they draw far too much attention to how hollow a performer he is. It doesn’t help matters that his very talented co-stars, Academy Award winners, Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz are entirely miscast as the husband and wife team behind the circus. The looks on their faces suggest they would rather be anywhere else and it wasn’t long before I was feeling the same way.

430. Carnage

430. (10 Oct) Carnage (2011, Roman Polanski)* 62



Having seen the deliciously fun Broadway production, it's immediately clear that Carnage would have worked better as a television movie than as a motion picture directed by somebody like Polanski. He's so stage-bound by the script he helped adapt. While he tries ever so slightly to open it up, it's very challenging to make something so confined work on this scale.

Polanski gets a particular lot of help from Christoph Waltz, who is positively delightful here. Kate Winslet also gives a fairly impressive turn once she starts getting sloshed late in the picture. Jodie Foster is predictably annoying and John C. Reilly is miscast.

The joy of the script remains. It's hard not to be amused by the scenario that plays out, but this is hardly great filmmaking. They could have done just as well to film the stage production and play it on PBS.

Roman Polanski's a god of "Carnage"

Below, we have the trailer for the highly-anticipated and Venice Film Festival opener Carnage.  Based of a ridiculously successful stage play, Roman Polanski's adaptation stars a trio of Oscar-winners and one lone nominee.  Waltz and Winslet in particular look marvelous, with Waltz perfectly capturing the attitude I always imaged when reading the play.  It's still a mystery how this will play in this year's forthcoming Oscar race, but it sure is looking strong.  (Please mind it's enormity, overrunning the posting space).



And the poster, for good measure.

[trailer and poster via Twitch] 

THE GREEN HORNET

Written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg

Directed by Michel Gondry

Starring Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson and Christoph Waltz

Britt Reid: That is the balls.

I’ve got to give it up for Seth Rogen. The man has gone from full on geek to perpetual stoner to slimmed down, unexpected superhero in Michel Gondry’s most indisputable attempt to penetrate the mainstream, THE GREEN HORNET, a big budget 3D adaptation of the popular 1930’s radio series. Rogen’s transformation is admirable but ultimately not as successful as it needed to be to irradicate the image of the affable teddy bear character we’ve all come to know, love and get slightly tired of in recent years. Subsequently, THE GREEN HORNET plays like a laid back stoner flick without the actual weed, and Rogen, without the haze of smoke surrounding him, is just not as funny as he is when he’s high. That said, he could have been high throughout the entire production for all I know. It just isn’t written in this time.

Rogen co-wrote the script to THE GREEN HORNET with SUPERBAD co-writer, Evan Goldberg. Under Gondry’s somewhat scattered direction, their screenplay becomes a surprisingly well-woven send-up of many superhero clichés, while remaining reasonably grounded in a realistic place, with the exception of random misplaced bursts of Gondry’s hyperactive imagination. Rogen plays Britt Reid, the only heir to his father’s (Tom Wilkinson) newspaper fortune. Britt lost his mother when he was just a boy and his relationship with his father has always been strained, living in that vastly cast shadow. His life is one party after another until his father dies suddenly. Unable to resolve the public admiration for a man who never seemed to care about him, Britt decides he is going to save the world his way – in a green mask and hat, one bad guy at a time.

Of course, Britt can’t do this alone so he enlists the help of his super genius buddy, Kato (Jay Chou), to be his alter ego, The Green Hornet’s sidekick. He also takes Cameron Diaz into his fold but she just looks confused as to when her career became about playing such superfluous secondary characters the whole time. Together Britt and Kato form something much stronger than your everyday bromance; each of them now orphaned, they actually become brothers. It is their relationship, uneven and influenced by class and status yet still devoted, that makes THE GREEN HORNET so relatable and real, which is a lot to say about a movie where guys can stop time in their mind. This is the age of the every man superhero after all. The trouble with regular guys though is that they are often nowhere near as funny as they think they are.

Inglourious Basterds

I deliberately did not read anything about “Inglourious Basterds” and initial impressions were based solely on the trailer. So imagine my surprise when director Quentin Tarantino’s latest is nothing like I expected it to be. While a tad disappointing in some ways, it’s also far better than what I was expecting. I really liked it and think I will like it even more when I see it a second time. High praise from me, as this is one of the very few movies I’ve seen in the theaters this year that I would consider seeing a second time.

I won’t go into specifics so as to not spoil the surprises in store. All I’ll say is I was expecting a movie detailing the experts of a group of men on a dangerous mission, ala “The Guns of Navarone” (1961), “Where Eagles Dare” (1967) or “The Dirty Dozen” (1967). We get that, but it’s not the central part of the film, and for a film titled “Inglourious Basterds”, the title characters do not dominate the film.

Who does dominate the film is Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, who plays Col. Hans Landa, an SS colonel who can be charming, sly, witty, clever, brutal and treacherous in the blink of an eye. It’s a standout performance, and Waltz is sure to be remembered at Oscar time.

Waltz shines in all his scenes, especially in the film’s tense opening sequence when, early in the war, Landa and his men come to a farmhouse in the French countryside looking for Jewish refugees. It’s all dialogue, but written and acted so well that, in its own satisfying way, it’s the best action scene in the film. The way Landa relishes his glass of milk in this scene is unforgettable.

Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), one of the refugees, escapes from Landa and makes her way to Paris. Several years later, she’s operating a cinema in Paris, where she will again unexpectedly cross paths with Landa.

Waltz is so good (deservedly so) and is garnering so much attention, that I hope Brad Pitt isn’t overlooked.

Pitt plays the Basterds’ leader, Lt. Aldo Raine (one of the films many homages) and I can’t remember the last time I enjoyed a performance so much. Pitt gives us what has sorely been lacking from movie screens of late, and that’s a real joy of performance. I’m so tired of contemporary actors being so serious all the time, muttering their lines in a sorry attempt to convey importance, and striving ever so hard to get to the “truth” of a character. Yawn.

Of course that’s important, but it also means we’ve missed the joy of actors giving us larger than life performances. Pitt does so here, and thank you very much. I missed the Lt. Aldo Raine character every second he was off screen, and if there should be a sequel, I hope Tarantino gives us more of this character.

The Basterds are on a mission and that mission is simple – to kill Nazis. Raine goes better and asks each men in his squad to deliver 100 Nazi scalps.

A big disappointment in the film is the lack of characterization given to the Basterds. We only get to know a couple of them, with prominence given to “Hostel” director Eli Roth as Sgt. Donowitz. Roth is a simply terrible actor and sinks every scene he’s in.

I also intensely disliked a cameo appearance by Mike Myers as a British general. He wears this stupid grin throughout, as if he’s Austin Powers impersonating a British officer. If Myers wants to be taken seriously, he has to learn to play his roles straight. Fortunately, in that scene we get a cameo from the great Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill. He’s only in the film a few minutes, but if I had known Rod Taylor was in it, I may have gone opening night. I truly appreciate that Tarantino has such a healthy apprecaition of cinema's past.

But such appreciation can be carried too far. I wish that Tarantino would stop raiding his LP and CD collections in compiling scores for his movies. In interviews, Tarantino has said he’s very protective of his films and doesn’t want to turn them over to a composer who may put a completely different spin on his movie. So instead of an original score, we get lots of cues here from the likes of Ennio Morricone and Charles Bernstein, not to mention the head-scratching inclusion of Dimitri Tiomkin’s great “The Green Leaves of Summer” from “The Alamo” (1960).

While I appreciate Tarantino the Film Nut in rescuing great neglected film music, these cues came from films where the directors were likely very appreciative of the extra dimension the composers provided for their films. Would Tarantino’s beloved Sergio Leone be the revered figure he is today without the original scores from Ennio Morricone? Not likely.

There’s not as much action as I thought, and it’s much more dialogue-driven than I expected, but “Inglourious Basterds” is still an absolute winner, despite my small reservations. There was a lot of applause at the Saturday afternoon matinee screening I saw, and it’s been a long time since I heard that. I can’t wait to see it again.