Irrelevant But Awesome

Alexa:  “War Machine” is a movie that should work. You’ve got Brad Pitt, a topical story, a promising director. But this thinly-veiled portrait of Stanley McChrystal’s tenure in Afghanistan and the Rolling Stone article that led to his resignation just does not know what it wants to be. It veers back and forth between satire and serious war drama and it’s not particularly adept at either. The strong parts of the movie are very strong, but much of it misses the mark. I understand the choice to use the Rolling Stone journalist’s commentary as a framing device for the narrative, because he does play a pivotal role, but he’s ultimately a relatively minor character, so his input is jarring at times. The movie’s saving grace is its cast. Pitt does an admirable job crafting a sympathetic character despite some questionable choices, and he navigates the story’s humor and drama with ease despite the film’s overall inconsistencies. I would also be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to si...

Joel:   Honestly, what we have here is a really amazing cast doing what they can with a pretty subpar script. Christoph Waltz is amazing. He did deserve the Oscar he won for this movie. But the acting in this movie elevates the script higher than it has any right to be. The script is long and awkwardly paced. Things that should happen quickly are long and get sidetracked because Tarantino had to insert a conversation about milk. It’s a great example of a script where telling, not showing, runs rampant throughout, where the movie has to grind to a halt so that information can be given. But the acting is just so good. It’s almost worth it to watch just to see what the actors are able to do with the material given to them. The only downside of that is you’ll have to also sit through the material they’ve been given. Chris: I’m going to be completely honest, here. I went through a Tarantino phase after being introduced to Kill Bill Vol. 1 when I was in high school. I wen...