...this flick *sucks*. And I suppose some may think it weird to judge it on the basis of a comparison against another film in which Pitt shines forth like the diamond he most certainly can be... but it can't be helped: That's just the way it is.
When the writing and direction is masterful, as it was in Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time ...in Hollywood", Pitt delivers, in spades.
And the ugly reverse corollary is that when Pitt fails to deliver--as he fails in "War Machine"--it only diminishes him by dint of his willingness to have taken on a project that he must have known wasn't really worthy of his talent. The larger point is that the abasement/abuse of Pitt most certainly reflects the fact that the project as conceived and developed was utterly lacking in the kind of artfulness that Tarantino exemplifies.
I can flesh that in a bit: The piece is horrifically larded with artless VO narration; It only barely tells a tangible, relatable story. Everyone else poses and grunts and spits out a few terse lines. That's a movie?
This analysis, of course, rests on the core principle that film, because of the visual aspect, affords an opportunity to *show* a story, not just *tell* a story.
I don't mean to say that words don't matter: I *did*, after all, refer to Tarantino's impeccable writing. It's just that, if the writing sucks, you have no excuse for using a feature film as a soundtrack of third-rate VO "writing" with the visuals serving largely as a kind of merely-not-incongruent slideshow.
If you want to maintain a positive image of Brad Pitt as a theatrical artist in your personal film pantheon, DO NOT watch this film.
When the writing and direction is masterful, as it was in Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time ...in Hollywood", Pitt delivers, in spades.
And the ugly reverse corollary is that when Pitt fails to deliver--as he fails in "War Machine"--it only diminishes him by dint of his willingness to have taken on a project that he must have known wasn't really worthy of his talent. The larger point is that the abasement/abuse of Pitt most certainly reflects the fact that the project as conceived and developed was utterly lacking in the kind of artfulness that Tarantino exemplifies.
I can flesh that in a bit: The piece is horrifically larded with artless VO narration; It only barely tells a tangible, relatable story. Everyone else poses and grunts and spits out a few terse lines. That's a movie?
This analysis, of course, rests on the core principle that film, because of the visual aspect, affords an opportunity to *show* a story, not just *tell* a story.
I don't mean to say that words don't matter: I *did*, after all, refer to Tarantino's impeccable writing. It's just that, if the writing sucks, you have no excuse for using a feature film as a soundtrack of third-rate VO "writing" with the visuals serving largely as a kind of merely-not-incongruent slideshow.
If you want to maintain a positive image of Brad Pitt as a theatrical artist in your personal film pantheon, DO NOT watch this film.