A 3 hour shaggy dog story

Rating: 3/10 (25 May 2008)

I don't know how this got 8.5 on IMDb. I guess from this point on I will only be trusting IMDb for low-grossing foreign films or movies prior to 2006 or so, because no longer is a recent high rating on IMDb trustworthy. First In Bruges, and now this.
In a way, the director is like Tarantino. Tarantino steals a bunch of stuff from other movies and puts it together in an entertaining way. Ultimately, his movies have no point other than perhaps to revive the failing careers of washed-up actors.
TWBB is like a Tarantino flick without the entertainment value. PTA is like someone who has watched the same number of movies as Tarantino but not really understood what he was watching and how the movies worked. So you have a great actor, some pretty scenes, some violence. You have dynamics, light and shade. You have some scary violin(?) sound effects to give foreboding. Sounds good, right? Wrong.
All those things must be put together in a logical manner for them to make a great movie. You can't just throw the elements of a great movie into a metaphorical blender and expect to produce genius, even if your great actor delivers a great performance.
In the end, it's like a 3 hours shaggy dog story; the story is dragged out as long as possible, the punchline is delivered with enthusiasm even though it makes no sense whatsoever. A Kubrick or Leone would be looking at this movie like a general in charge of an air-force base looks at a cargo cult "air field", with a kind of speechless amusement and wonder that it was implemented let alone conceived.
Next time I will be reading reviews, taking note of the director and/or letting the movie sit and gather votes for several years before taking a punt. There is 100 years of better cinema to be had in the weekly rental section.