The film stars Oscar winners Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, and Jodie Foster and co-stars Oscar nominee John C. Reilly. Aside from a brief scene at its beginning and end, a cameo from the director and a few voices heard over the phone, those four constitute the film’s entire cast.

Its story focuses on two sets of parents who come together to discuss a fight between their sons. Reilly and Foster play Michael and Penelope Longstreet, the parents of the victim in the fight, while Waltz and Winslet play Alan and Nancy Cowan, the assailant’s parents. The concept is simple: these four parents spend the film discussing the incident that left the Longstreet’s son with two teeth knocked out of his mouth and several facial abrasions.

What’s interesting about “Carnage” is how that confrontation becomes so meaningless during the course of this film’s short running time -  eighty-nine minutes. The fight between the boys was simply that: a fight between two boys. It was simple and easy to analyze.

The battle between the four adults about the incident and its aftermath is not so easily understood.

While children fight with sticks, these parents use more impressive weapons. Penelope engages in battle with her rhetorically-elitist mindset. She uses loaded language like “deliberately,” “armed” and “disfigured” to stupefy the opposing parents. Nothing is simple with her. A short remark from her can carry the rhetorical ammunition of a dozen men.

On the other hand, Michael is a laid-back fellow who sells hardware for a living. He’s easy to get along with and very accommodating to the two guests. But he does have an angry side to him, a deviousness in him. When he became annoyed with the family hamster, he left it on the street to die without telling his wife or children.

The Cowans are more agreeable than the Longstreet’s but no less restrained as the story proceeds. Nancy is refined and kind, except when pushed. Alan, on the other hand, is a previously-divorced businessman who has no qualms about calling his own son a “maniac.”

If watching a character study of four people arguing doesn’t appeal to it, I would suggest you avoid this movie. It is, however, an intriguingly verbose film about the battles that we engage in as adults that aren’t so different from the playground fights that children participate in.

“Carnage,” as an experiment in filmmaking, might not have worked in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. Polanski, though, does a fine job with it taking a simple story about the relationship between these four adults and adding complex levels to it. There are times when the plot meanders and several silly occasions when the Cowans almost leave but never actually do. Overall, though, “Carnage” is a thoughtful and intelligent film abut the battles we engage in.

Battles that can do more damage than a simple jab from an “armed” teenage assailant.

The actor’s post-Oscar career remains a head scratcher. Yes, it’s too soon to label his career a letdown, but often the best scripts actors ever see come after they’ve grabbed that gleaming statuette.

—–

Waltz’s first gig after “Basterds” came via “The Green Hornet,” an awkward superhero comedy from director Michel Gondry. Waltz played the film’s arch villain, an unremarkable baddie with an inferiority complex. Mediocre movie, less than flattering role for someone of Waltz’s abilities.

But “The Green Hornet” was practically “Citizen  Kane” compared to “The Three Musketeers,” the recent mega-bomb casting Waltz as the evil Cardinal with designs on the kingdom. It’s the kind of work an actor grabs when there’s little else around, or they’ve got a serious case of swashbuckle envy.

What possessed Waltz to team up with B-movie director Paul W.S. Anderson (“Death Race,” “Alien vs. Predator”) and a gaggle of foppish actors attempting to revive a dormant franchise?

Waltz’s best post-Oscar future remains “Water for Elephants,” an engaging circus drama which cast the actor as the complicated third wheel in a tortured love triangle. The film, just released on Blu-ray and DVD, also marks co-star Robert Pattinson’s best work outside the “Twilight” franchise. Or inside, to be precise.

Waltz brings a dash of ambivalence to an otherwise mustache-twirling role, precisely the elements that helped make his turn in “Basterds” so memorable. “Elephant’s” lethargic love story, alas, devalued his performance.

This fall, Waltz looks to re-set his career with “Carnage,” a dark comedy co-starring Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly. It’s got that heady whiff of Oscar potential, especially since Roman Polanski is behind the camera.

If that fails, Waltz could simple wait until his new project with “Basterds” director Quentin Tarantino hits theaters. The actor will reteam with Tarantino for the upcoming western “Django Unchained.”

But by then, the glow of his Oscar victor could have long since faded.

The new ‘Musketeers’ opens with a prologue where the famous Three – Athos (Matthew Macfayden), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) – are working on mission for the King along with Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich). After a successful plot to steal an ancient Da Vinci plan for a flying battleship – yes, really – Milady drugs the Three and steals the plans for the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom).

Flash forward a year later, and we meet young D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman), sent off by his parents to join the king’s Musketeers. Initially at odds with the Musketeers, he quickly is accepted by them as they team up against the Cardinal’s Guards, led by Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen). Meanwhile, Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) is conspiring to seize power from King Louie (Freddie Fox) using Milady to provoke a war with England.

The best thing ‘The Three Musketeers’ has going for it is its cast. D’Artagnan is a plum of a part for a young actor – swagger, swordplay and seduction – and Lerman carries it well. Jovovich seamlessly vacillates between the conniving Milady and the endearing Milady well, even though Milady was never meant to be endearing. Waltz plays a wonderfully understated Richelieu, and Fox’s King Louie is a perfect fop, but not annoyingly so.

However, while the ensemble of Musketeers works best as a trio, McFayden’s Athos seems bored when handed the spotlight. Several times Bloom apparently forgets he’s playing the Duke of Buckingham, not Captain Jack Sparrow’s sidekick, complete with flappy arms, not to mention a pretty fantastic faux hawk. I really hope this isn’t the new British period character trend. And Queen Anne (Juno Temple) and Constance (Gabriella Wilde) prove there is no shortage of cookie-cutter blonde skinnies in Hollywood. Neither brings anything memorable to their roles, especially Wilde who has the same expression on her face whether she’s looking at D’Artagnan or the ground … or tied to the bow of a flying battleship.

‘Musketeers” other positive is the cinematography. It was obviously filmed for 3D (I saw the 2D version) so there is a lot of depth and vivid color, even in 2D. What I loved most were the sword fighting scenes. Are you ready for this? There wasn’t one shaky-cam on set. Really. These are the fight scenes we’ve been waiting for: wide-angle steady shots so you could really take in the impressive choreography.

The final duel between D’Artagnan and Rochefort was my favorite part – no gags, shaky-cam or cheesy banter. Even the final exchange between the two, which easily could have been played for laughs, respects the gravity of the moment.

Get past all that, however, and you’re left with some very cringe-worthy sequences aimed at the lowest common denominator. Athos’ shtick is that he can move silently underwater, black face mask in place and guns or swords crossed on his back to launch a surprise attack on his enemies. And, unlike the novel, Constance and Milady both live to have happy endings, or semi-happy in Milady’s case. Or semi-endings, since the epilogue leaves us well prepared for a sequel, as Buckingham’s fleet of ships – both maritime and airborne – are headed to do battle with France.

The dialogue begs for MST3K commentary. When Athos is unable to bring himself to kill Milady, she throws herself off of the Musketeers’ flying battleship into the English Channel. As she disappears, Porthos puts his arm around Athos and says, “At least she died the way she lived: on her terms.” And Athos says, “She did it for me. She knew I couldn’t live with myself if I killed her.” Gag and wretch. Sadly, this is par for the course here, and a painful distraction from the action-packed story.

Also – have I mentioned the flying airships? And that those flying airships are armed with flame throwing cannons and rudimentary machine guns? And that Athos is a quasi-ninja? Oh, and Milady channels Jennifer Garner in ‘Alias,’ slinking through hallways blocked by cross-crossing metal wires (not actual lasers, thank goodness) in her corset and garters. It’s all punctuated by ‘Matrix’-style slow-mo action shots. That’s what we call “trying too hard.” I was ready to leave before the last half-hour.

‘The Three Musketeers’ might be worth a rental if you’re already paying for Netflix. Otherwise, it’s not worth the price of a theater ticket.

—–

And so, sure enough, in Water for Elephants, a circus picture of which Pattinson is nominally the star, every time Waltz enters a scene, deploying his skittery intelligence and unsettling leer, Pattinson is reduced to the role of unhappy observer at an acting master class.

It’s not a good movie, but it’s not an especially awful one, either. It’s just long and dull. (When was the last time a story about running away with a circus gunned anybody’s engine?) The picture was adapted from a book by Sara Gruen—one of those worldwide bestsellers that nobody you know seems to have read. The filmmakers—director Francis Lawrence, screenwriter Richard LaGravenese, and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (who shot Brokeback Mountain and Biutiful)—have done what they can with the material, but the movie feels like a forced march.

Read the full review at Reason.

Basically, Britt Reid (Seth Rogan) is the son of a media mogul (Tom Wilkinson) who inherits a fortune and the power of the press when his dad dies suddenly. While reflecting on the legacy of a distant father, and on his own wasted life, he enlists the help of his dad’s mechanic extraordinaire Kato (Jay Chou) to make something of himself and fight crime in Los Angeles. 

—–

That’s pretty much it. But unlike most masked heroes, Reid’s ridiculous tactics against an essentially un-scary villain (Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) whiningly obsesses over whether he is in fact feared or not) make his blunders more interesting to watch than his victories. 

Not to say the film is without merit. It’s hilarious. Rogan is at his finest when he’s self-absorbed and drunkenly expounding on his vision for the Green Hornet and the Hornet’s driver, Kato. I laughed often.  Chou is the film’s shining star. He’s funny, a great fighter, and has plenty of sidekick spunk to challenge his boss’s ego. 

Director Michel Gondry brings a flair of frivolity to the film. From a speed make-out session early on between Reid and a random partier to his comic-style freeze-frame action scenes, he turns the film into a comic book. 

But without the comedy there’s no film. Unlike many super-heroes, there are no layers to peel back on Reid. He’s funny, and he likes to blow stuff up in the name of justice. But beyond that he’s not really an inspiring character. 

“The Green Hornet” is a “hero” for a broken generation. From the beginning of the film, when Reid’s dad rips the head off his Super-Man action figure, Reid lacks the strong, values-pushing male influence, or memories of it, that enabled super-heroes like Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne. Reid’s father is the father figure of today’s film culture. He’s mean, detached; he passes without causing Reid undue pain. And yeah, he’s good in the end, but he wasn’t there for his son during the early years. So is it any wonder that, lacking a role model, Reid never grows up?

Throughout the entire movie, Reid remains the self-involved funny boy.  He doesn’t reach beyond it to become something else. A “journalist” maybe, for a second, and a better fighter, but his sense of “responsibility” comes from sexual desire for secretary, Cameron Diaz – a character that’s barely fleshed out – and from boredom. At best his drive comes from early childhood memories of the Man of Steel. At worst, he just wants a thrill ride. But if that’s all you’re looking for out of this film, you won’t be disappointed.

“Basterds,” misspelled the way Brad Pitt’s moonshining Lt. Aldo Raine character carved it into his rifle, takes place in German-occupied France from 1941 to 1944.  Tarantino makes a point of specifying “Nazi-occupied France,” justifying to the film watcher the extreme measures needed to deal with this particular type of human evil.  That National Socialist German Workers’ Party membership never numbered more than about 20 percent of the adult German population is beside the point; the Nazi Party in the guise of Hitler (played by Martin Wuttke) controlled the Wehrmacht from the top.  

“Basterds” follows three characters.  ”Chapter 1″ introduces Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) a young Frenchwoman whose dairy farmer family is wiped out in 1941 by the Germans and Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who directs the killing.  Landa is a member of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the intelligence service of the SS and the Nazi Party, who considers himself a detective asked by his government to find every last Jewish person in France.  In “Chapter 2″ we meet U.S. Army Lt. Aldo Raine. Raine’s crossed arrows insignia on his collar identifies him as a member of the First Special Service Force, a U.S.-Canadian commando force called the Devil’s Brigade.  Lt. Raine leads a small band of soldiers, all of whom happen to be Jewish, on a mission of retribution, mayhem and terror behind enemy lines, the goal: take 100 “Nazi scalps” each. 

While “Basterds” is pure fiction, it does trace historical actions depicted in “Bodyguard of Lies” by Anthony Cave Brown.  “Bodyguard” details the deadly cloak-and-dagger action surrounding the effort to return Allied forces to the Continent on D-Day.  The scene with Mike Myers’ as British spymaster General Ed Fenech and Rod Taylor as Churchill suggests Major General Sir Stewart Menzies, Britain’s WWII head of the Secret Intelligence Service, as the basis for Myers’ character.  “Bodyguard’s” riveting accounts, such as the German capture and interrogation of British agent Princess Noor Inayat Khan (she was killed in Dachau, her last words being “liberty”), echo parts of “Basterds” – reminding one that “Basterds” may not be real, but it’s true – which brings up an inconvenient truth for some enthusiasts of Mr. Tarantino’s latest work. 

The theme of “Basterds” is revenge.  But revenge in this case takes place in occupied France in 1944.  In this context, Lt. Raine and his encouragement of scalping and other torture methods, violate the Hague Conventions (the forerunner to the Geneva Conventions) to which both the U.S. and Germany agreed.  The Hague’s Article 23 specifically prohibited the “treacherous” killing of an enemy, or harming enemies who had surrendered, or “declar(ing) that no quarter will be given.”  Of course, Raine’s men, usually operating sans uniform, were in violation of The Hague’s Chapter I, The Qualifications of Belligerents, Article 1, reading in part, that proper belligerents must, “have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance” and “conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”  Executing prisoners is, unfortunately, an unspoken reality of swift-moving commando forces operating behind enemy lines.  Beating enemy prisoners of war to death with a baseball bat while not wearing a uniform is an even more obvious violation of the law of war.  Under rules then in effect, if Raines’ men were captured while operating outside of these rules, they could be treated very harshly – even summarily executed. 

In 1949, the Geneva Conventions updated the Hague Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, Part I, Article 4, parallels The Hague’s Article 23 in specifying the attributes of a legitimate prisoner of war who is deserving of protection by his captor.  It is this part of the law of war that the Bush Administration cited when justifying their treatment of men captured as part of the Global War on Terror (now called “overseas contingency operations”), i.e. al-Qaeda didn’t fight with “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” or carry “arms openly” or conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” therefore they were “unlawful combatants.” 

It is interesting indeed to see those who applaud Tarantino’s latest, admittedly excellent work, revel in the unbridled revenge against Nazis who get what’s coming to them.  Many of whom, without batting an eye, view al-Qaeda killers as deserving of respect, protection, and the benefit of civilian law.  Since all that separates al-Qaeda from the Nazis is the means – industrial power, modern education, and an organized national base – one wonders why a certain amount of cognitive dissonance wouldn’t kick in after a liberal enjoyed screening “Basterds.” 

To the point, what would a liberal think of the scene where Lt. Raine interrogates a captured German sergeant, demanding the location of a German outpost and its supporting artillery?  As the German NCO refuses to talk, Raine orders one of his men to kill the prisoner with a baseball bat.  When the two remaining German prisoners see this, one runs in horror and is shot down, while the other is brought over and threatened with the same deadly treatment.  He talks, saving the lives of the American commandos.  For the prisoner’s troubles, Raines carves a swastika into his forehead.  By comparison, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during interrogation seems rather pedestrian. 

Were Lt. Aldo Raine unleashed in Waziristan today, he and his men (all from New York City to provide the needed element of justifiable revenge) would no doubt relish taking al-Qaeda and Taliban scalps.  Alas, were Tarantino to make this flick, it would end prematurely just as Osama bin Laden was about to be relieved of his wavy locks by Raine’s massive knife.  The unsatisfying closing sequence would have a shocked Raine arrested by FBI agents after the Basterds’ cover was blown by the New York Times.  The credits would roll on Raine’s trial by Attorney General Holder’s Department of Justice with bin Laden in protective custody as a witness to Raine’s heinous war crimes. 

I don’t see Tarantino making that film – it might not be real, but it’s too true for Hollywood.

It’s 1944 in Nazi-occupied France. Joseph Goebbels’ (Sylvester Groth) latest film triumph starring Germany’s latest hero, Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), is set to premiere for the top brass of the Third Reich – including the big cheese himself, Adolf Hitler – and their guests. Funnily enough, the premiere is to be held in a cinema owned by Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a Jewish refugee with her own obvious reasons for hating the Nazis. Naturally, she plans her revenge for the fateful night.

Meanwhile the Basterds, a crack group of Jewish-American soldiers under the leadership of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), is undercover in France and “in the business of killing Nazis, and business is booming.” Those Nazis who manage to escape death are given meaningful souvenirs of their time with the Basterds. The paths of these two groups cross in a way that only Tarantino, master of gory coincidence, could imagine.

A good ol’ boy and Jews brutally mowing down Nazis. What’s not to like? It’s probably one of the few times you’ll see a redneck positively portrayed in Hollywood.

Don’t be fooled by the trailers that feature Pitt prominently. The film is an ensemble effort, with all of the key players turning in fine performances. Probably one of the best performances is by Christoph Waltz as the cold, evil, calculating Col. Hans Landa, whose unofficial nickname is the “Jew Hunter.” A true chameleon, he’s the master of charm one moment and a murderous bastard the next. No one – and I mean no one – can trust him. (I’ll never view an innocent glass of milk in the same way again.)

This is not your average World War II film. The heroes aren’t conventional “good guys,” but flawed human beings who don’t always come out on top. There are a number of “knots in the stomach” moments as you wait to see if someone will be exposed, and long conversations and monologues serve to heighten the tension. The sometimes choppy cinematography, ridiculously long close-ups, cheesy music and vigilante-style justice all contribute to the theme of a spaghetti Western set during World War II. It’s not all serious, however – there are a few laughs. There are also a few helpful voice-overs that give crucial background information, even though they are somewhat odd.

If you hate Quentin Tarantino’s films, you’ll probably hate this one. By the same token, if you love his films, this one’s for you. I remember being horrified by “Pulp Fiction,” but either I’ve become more jaded over time or the “violent with a purpose” theme works for me – or both. Think about it: Nazis getting a taste of their own vile medicine. It’s quite a satisfying scenario. And the unabashed pro-American stance is refreshing as well.

Just this week, the New York Times ran an article about the fact that A-list stars are failing to deliver big returns on their movies. But these days, Americans expect a lot for their entertainment dollar. It doesn’t matter how big the star is; if the movie’s crap, it’s going to bomb. No matter how big the name, it can’t save a rotten film. And with regard to “Basterds,” I found the premise intriguing enough to overcome my dislike of Brad Pitt and plunk down my $10.50. Oh, and keep an eye out for an almost-unrecognizable Mike Myers.

As to be expected in a Tarantino film, there is plenty of violence and gore, but not the slick kind that you’re used to seeing in the usual blockbuster. It’s raw and it’s very realistic – the woman next to me gasped out loud a number of times. If you have a weak stomach, think twice before going. And really, kids should not see this one. In fact, they were actually checking ID at the theater – which, by the way, was packed full.

Bringing together his usual strengths as a director of intense performances from sterling casts, an amazing score pasted together from classic scores of past films, incredibly sharp and catchy dialogue and a warped time frame that that will throw viewers through a satisfying series of loops, Tarantino has easily made his best film since “Pulp Fiction.” Coming off a humiliating misfire with 2007’s “Death Proof,” which was half of the box-office disaster known as “Grindhouse,” Tarantino has admitted that he felt the need to double down on his strengths and prove that he was just as relevant and inventive as ever. 

With “Basterds,” a dream project of Tarantino’s for the past decade, he has accomplished all that and more.  The result is a (mostly) fast-paced, multi-layered and entertainingly violent film that has the audacity to completely reinvent the way WWII went down in flames for the Germans and get away with it. 

The film’s innovative structure tells the story in five distinct chapters, using the first three to establish the main characters in their own storylines. This serves all the better to make the fast action and double-crosses that make up the final two sections more emotionally involving and edge-of-your-seat exciting since by the time things really kick in, you’re fully invested in all the characters. 

“Basterds” opens with ace Nazi Col. Landa (in a star-making and likely Oscar-nominated performance by Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, in his American film debut) squaring off against a French farmer he suspects is harboring a Jewish family beneath his floorboards. The conversation between the two surpasses the classic discussion of hamburgers and foot rubs that Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta shared en route to a hit job in “Pulp Fiction,” for while its dialogue is perfectly etched and delivered, it also reveals layer after layer of the depravity in Landa’s soul and creates the tension of a ever-worsening life-and-death situation almost exclusively through the words expressed rather than overblown violence. 

The second chapter opens with the now-ubiquitous scene of Pitt’s Aldo Raine challenging a team of Jewish American soldiers to take down all the Nazis they can, and collect 100 Nazi scalps each, and brings the heroes to vibrant, darkly humorous life. The third chapter guides us into the subtly building tension of a young, secretly Jewish woman named Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) who escaped Col. Landa three years earlier and now operates a Parisian cinema. 

As she tries to fend off the attentions of a slimy yet handsome young Nazi war hero named Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), Shosanna comes to realize that his request to show the premiere of a propagandistic war film about his exploits that he stars in will offer her the chance to have hundreds of Nazi leaders including Hitler himself seated together in the dark of her theater. And so it is that in the fourth and fifth chapters, Shosanna teams with Aldo Raine’s men to set up the perfect revenge and perhaps end the war itself.

“Inglourious Basterds” wildly re-imagines the way in which the Nazis were defeated in WWII, but its unhinged take on historic events still proves to be immensely entertaining and there are no blatant anti-American messages stuck into the film’s script as in many other modern war movies. Pitt and his men are unabashed heroes you want to root for. Every performer appears to be having a blast, both in their often over-the-top action scenes and in the extensive dialogue and planning scenes that put all the pieces of the plot puzzle into place. And one more good aspect to note is that Tarantino has learned to curb his worst impulses of graphic violence and excessive profanity to make a film that has some of both but in a more restrained level than his usual. 

The only fault to be found is that some of the dialogue scenes stretch the talking almost to the limit of attention spans, especially among viewers who were led to believe by the simplified, Pitt-centered commercials that the movie is composed of wall-to-wall Nazi-killing. Having to follow many of these scenes in subtitles might turn off some prospective viewers, especially those who might otherwise seek out repeated viewings of an ass-kicking flick, but for those who appreciate quality filmmaking to go with a rousing good time, “Inglourious Basterds” easily fills the bill.