Inglourious Basterds

[Pyro Tramp]

Inglourious Basterds

http://reeltoreel.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/inglourious-basterds-movie-poster.jpg


So Tarantino’s appointed masterpiece arrives. Quite a claim, with his back catalogue, Pulp Fiction- even though it’s not my favourite film of his- is hard to top and I personally don’t think he ever will considering the pedestool it’s sitting on. So is Basterds all that?

It’s not a bad film, as always with hi flicks- the soundtrack is the strongest part with some excellent use of Morricone giving it a spaghetti flavour, which is about the extent of his claim to it sitting anywhere in a spaghetti genre go. Aside from the opening ‘once upon a time in… nazi occupied France’ which, while not as catchy would have been a more apt title. The film’s biggest problem are the lack of focus and general uneveness of it. There’s never really any characters amongst the Basterds, half of them get a name drop, one gets a backstory but mostly they’re just faces. And as the misleading title goes, they’re only one half of the film; the other belongs to a cinema owning Jewish refugee with a similar plot to the Basterds. The two strands of characters never interact with each other and flitter between each other through the 5 introduced acts and for two relatively simple narrative arches that eventually kind of intertwine, it’s shouldn’t have been too hard to make both solid.

One manages it but there’s only one to two primary characters, the Basterds on the other hand are far too much for Tarantino to develop. Why? Because he still has his infatuation with drawn out dialogue, he’s dropped the painful referential-ness of Death Proof and introduced some decent tension in these scenes, in both main cases taking almost literally the Hitchcock bomb-under-the-table approach. That being said, the film does redeem itself. Pitt is fantastic, I actually hope he gets an Oscar nod along with the lead Nazi dubbed Jew-Hunter. The cinematography and sets are all well rendered and appealing and the direction is pretty competent, nothing that’s really suggestive of a genius behind the camera, which most know Tarantino isn’t already. The script is where his talent is meant to lie and despite mentioned issues, it all comes together nicely. It does find itself becoming uneven where it can’t be certain if it’s straightfaced or pure farce. Mike Myers cameo-ing as in English Lieutenant? It works but definitely an odd choice. And there were some genuine belly laughs at certain bits.

Tarantino’s masterpiece? Short answer, no. I’m glad Tarantino’s getting a regular output instead of coasting on past work with 5 year gaps between films and he’s got the ideas but he’s not got the modesty to adjust his scripts to operate at a tolerable pace. It’s not a bad film but it’s not a great film, I said before I doubt anything will touch what he did in the 90s so I don’t think it’s a miss-step in his career, more a signal of him levelling off as a filmmaker. Average film, still retains an art-house niche that I can imagine regular cinema-goers will find themselves fidgetting through. Looking forward to seeing reaction from his obsessors. Other than that, it’s a fun retelling of history with some great performances but could do with some editing here and there.

3_5

[honeykid]

Interesting review, Pyro. As I've not seen it, I don't know how much I agree with, but I will say that from Jackie Brown onwards, I've always thought that editing has been Taratino's achilles heel. As a writer/director he can be, and is allowed to be, indulgent when what he really needs, IMO, is the discipline he showed with Reserviour Dogs. If he made Reservoir Dogs now it would almost certainly be a mess, because it's the lean, tight scripting that makes that, IMO, his best work.

[mark f]

Pulp Fiction has to be the best "Tarantino" flick, doesn't it? The rest just don't seem to cut it.

[Pyro Tramp]

Pulp Fiction has to be the best "Tarantino" flick, doesn't it? The rest just don't seem to cut it.

Can never tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

[mark f]

I'm not, but translate the above sentence if I'm being sarcastic then. :cool:

[n3wt]

Im so looking forward to this film!

[Black Rawkus]

just saw an advance screening in the UK, and this film is a flat out epic MASTERPIECE Tarantino has finally topped 'Pulp Fiction'. Inglourious Basterds has to be one of the most refreshing pieces of work in years. Everything from the script, music, acting, cinematography, directing was just AWESOME!.

You have to be patient with most scenes as QT lets the dialogue linger, but that's one of the genius parts of the film.
Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth etc... all give astonishing performances. The guy who plays Omar is good also.

I'm just still buzzed to the max after seeing this, I will go and watch this again 100%.
Even though the script might not be historically correct, it plays out well.

This might well just be QT's Masterpiece

[tramp]

The fact that you say, Pyro, the two main storylines don't connect, I cannot see how anyone can say this is a masterpiece. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it can't be, but that seems to be rather important in relation to discussing whether a film is a masterpiece or not. Further, I get the impression from Pyro's review that characters are not exactly developed.

Nothing Pryo said makes me want to see it any more than before.

[nebbit]

Thanks Pyro :) it is getting good reviews here :yup:

[Pyro Tramp]

The fact that you say, Pyro, the two main storylines don't connect, I cannot see how anyone can say this is a masterpiece. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it can't be, but that seems to be rather important in relation to discussing whether a film is a masterpiece or not. Further, I get the impression from Pyro's review that characters are not exactly developed.

Nothing Pryo said makes me want to see it any more than before.

Yeah, that was the impression i was trying to give, only three characters are given any motivation or characterisation, the basterds are all cut-outs with no definable personas bar Pitt and another one who's given a comic styled back-story.

[downthesun]

I'm frothing at the mouth to see this, reviews seem to say this is the best thing since Pulp Fiction

[n3wt]

Awesome review and im sure this is going to be one of Tarantino's best picture's.

[Caitlyn]

Great review Pyro... thanks....

[Iroquois]

I think the fact that I've seen it twice in its first two days of theatrical release says a lot about how much I like it. It's not the best film I've seen this year, but it's still about as entertaining as I expected (probably even more so a second time around). I do agree with Pyro's assessment that the bulk of the characters lack development, but that doesn't really make them any less fun to watch, though.

As of right now I give it a high 3.5 or a low 4/

[TheUsualSuspect]

Just got back from it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Inglorious Basterds

Once Upon A Time....In Nazi Occupied France opens the film in the first chapter (a signature Tarantino style) of this WWII film in which Jewish American soldiers, who've deemed themselves "The Basterds", ambush and scalp Nazi's. Their story intertwines with another in which a Jewish girl survives an attack on her family and lives among the Germans as a French theatre owner. The theatre in which numerous high ranking German officials will be at, a theatre that "The Basterds" will be at.

Tarantino is a favourite director of mine, not the top, but he's up there. Many people complain he simply rips off older, better films. I say nay. He is inspired by them because he loves cinema so much. Any interview with the guy will prove his vast film knowledge, a knowledge that he has used in his film-making, giving us some of the best films of the 90's. He doesn't have many films under his belt, but the ones their are all highly praised and one even earned him an Oscar. He is able to mix different genres well and is competent in each one. His last 3 films were a throwback to grindhouse features, a two part revenge story that mixes the spaghetti western and the Asian martial arts and finally a novel adaptation. Yet his praise is mostly in his writing, which is why he has an Oscar in the first place.

Inglorious Basterds is yet another film from Tarantino in which he mixes violence with characters who seem too cool for school. Brad Pitt plays Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds and one who can speak almost fluent Italian. He has a scar around his neck, yet it is never answered as to why, and he seems to be having too good a time here, killing Nazi's. He enlists 8 men to be apart of his squad of Basterds, along with his 2nd in command (I'm assuming) Donny Donowitz, played by Eli Roth. Who for once does not annoy me. His best scene involves the most brutal part of the film, reminiscent of Pesci's scene in Casino. Two more men join the Basterds, one is Til Schweiger, who is famous for killing 13 Nazi's in cruel and inhuman ways. The second is Michael Fassbender, a Scottish soldier posing as a German to initiate Operation Kino. A secret mission that will involve explosions and death. Seems like a lot of "Basterds" to keep track of, and it was. Tarantino loses half of them half way through. Missing scenes from trailers would indicate there was more story for each of them, but for the film as it stands now, it's incomplete. These characters are forgettable faces, this film needed more time with it's title characters.

In a Tarantino flick you can guarantee a couple things and getting good performances from his actors is definitely one of them. Brad Pitt is hilarious as Aldo and Roth is menacing as Donowitz. The short scenes with the Basterds are good, good enough to want more and feel disappointed when you don't get it. Krueger, from National Treasure fame, plays a famous actress working for the English, posing as a German. She has a thick accent and pulls off her scenes quite well. I didn't find her annoying at all, and even though Mélanie Laurent does a decent job as the Jewish girl posing as a French woman, her subplot with a German Private is boring and almost forgettable. It's not till the ending of this sub plot does it become remotely interesting, but it seems too late. The stand out is without a doubt is Christoph Waltz, playing a German who is nicknamed "The Jew Hunter". He plays the guy with enough kindness to make him creepy and enough crazy to make him fearful.

This film tells two different stories that meet up at the end. Each one has their own fair share of subplots, that seem to distract from more time with the Basterds. There are numerous scenes that are quite shocking and will leave you with a big smile, or a disgusted look of disdain. The violence here is more gritty and real, thus it feels more involving. Kill Bill has limbs flying and gallons of blood, but it was too over the top and comical to be taken seriously. Here it has that gritty feel to it that it just makes you wince when it happens.

Not Tarantino's best work, but then again will he ever top Pulp Fiction? Instead it's a welcome addition to his resume of films that I can say I enjoy. The length of this one is a little long and it may drag in some places, but the overall feel at the end is enjoyment. He takes his characters and lets them takeover the story, which is why the historical facts in this film are more interesting than others. There are countless war films that are plagued with people already knowing the outcome. Valkyrie is an example of a film that the audience knew how it was going to end. This one throws it all out the window.

A tighter running time and more time spent with the people who want to see would have made this film even more fun for me, but I'll take what I can get.

4

[meatwadsprite]

I think I'll have to see this one again today somehow , my theatre messed up the sound for this - which was quite distracting.

Inglourious Basterds (1 view)

http://i27.tinypic.com/ehajbl.jpg

Tarantino's long awaited war epic is finally here and despite a few script cuts , he actually got this very exciting/cinematic script to the screen how it should be.

The fact of the matter is Basterds is in simplicity , only a handful of very large scenes - it's very dialogue driven and exactly what you've come to expect from this now great director/writer. The two main attraction performances "Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz" deserve their attention grabbing important reputation fueled characters , but it's all the other roles ranging from sub-important to minor which continue to feed the fire at the heart of this one. Melanie Laurent puts a lot of life into the surprise star Shoshana , as does her German counterpart Daniel Bruhl.

Is it wrong that it feels like the summary of his filmography mixed and matched together ? Not really , because he takes the best parts of his past movies and melts them into a really satisfying product - interesting dialogue , colorful characters , and a wonderful licensed soundtrack : you may ask what new does it offer than ? Dread and tip toe suspense , you know that at any second the pace could snap and someones going to end up all shot up.

Visually it's the best looking film out of his bunch , beautiful clear cinematography and all of the brutal action scenes raise the bar even higher. It's really more important than you'd think , because Inglourious Basterds is mostly a very gentle movie and it absorbs these tiny visual details with each breath - and occasionally gets blood all over the nice scenery.

It's enormous and impossible to judge on a first viewing , but I have a feeling I'll be watching this one many more times.

4.5

[Pyro Tramp]

I quite fancy catching this one again, even though by filmic standards it had it's flaws, as a Tarantino film was pretty good

[Miss Vicky]

Probably going to see this one today. Looking forward to it.

[MovieMan8877445]

Inglourious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino, 2009

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/arts/photos/2009/08/18/arts-basterds-584.jpg

After waiting almost a year now, even though it’s not as long as some people have been waiting, I’ve finally gotten to see this. I had heard from earlier reviews that Tarantino had finally topped Pulp Fiction. I don’t think so, actually, this didn’t top Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, or either Kill Bill’s. This was by far his most fun movie that he’s made so far. I can see myself watching this more than any of his previous films.

One of the little things I did have a problem with, though, is that the soundtrack seemed like a bad attempt at copying Ennio Morricone. I know that Tarantino wanted to make this seem like a spaghetti western, but trying to copy Morricone’s score for the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly just didn’t work. I wish that Ennio Morricone would’ve came on and did the score, but he didn’t, so don’t try using a score that sounds incredibly similar to it.

One of the things that I have been hearing, and agree with, is the lack of character development. I think for the film’s runtime it had too many characters with a lot of focus. I think it would’ve turned out better if Tarantino had added an extra hour on to the movie, or do something like Kill Bill and break it into two different parts. Last I heard, though, Tarantino was working on a prequel for this, and I’d totally back it up. Brad Pitt was pretty great in it, though he should’ve been in it much longer. Donnie and Hugo were my two favorite characters; they were badass. They didn’t get anywhere near as much screen-time as it was suggested they were going to get, though. I think a better name for the movie should’ve been chosen, like the original title ‘Once Upon a Time…In a Nazi Occupied France’.

It never really got that serious, which is something I was pretty surprised about. I mean even though Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown were kind of ‘black comedies’ in a way, all of his films, other than Inglourious Basterds, from the past decade have been pretty damn serious. It was great to see Tarantino to go back to the kind of films he started with was refreshing to see, though. There were some scenes that were serious, though, because all of Tarantino’s films have at least three-fourth of the film dialogue filled.

All the action in this really surprised me, because as I said before, usually Tarantino’s films are dialogue filled. The closest that Tarantino has even gotten to an action film was Kill Bill, Vol. 1, and even that was only the last 20 minutes when the Bride fought the crazy eighty-eights. Even though this technically wasn’t an action film, it had quite a bit of action throughout. The one scene that I’m particularly talking about is the final chapter in the movie which is an incredibly well-done action scene.

I’m definitely going to try and see it at least one more time before it leaves theaters, but the R rating is going to make that difficult. I wish I would’ve saw this in a better theater, though, because the sound in the theater I went to seemed to be messed up.

http://www.popmatters.com/images/film_art/i/inglourious-basterds-sp.jpg

4

[Pyro Tramp]

Inglourious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino, 2009


One of the little things I did have a problem with, though, is that the soundtrack seemed like a bad attempt at copying Ennio Morricone. I know that Tarantino wanted to make this seem like a spaghetti western, but trying to copy Morricone’s score for the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly just didn’t work. I wish that Ennio Morricone would’ve came on and did the score, but he didn’t, so don’t try using a score that sounds incredibly similar to it.



4

It sounded similar because it was Morricone (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/15/inglourious-basterds-soundtrack-listing/). Tarantino, i think, almost always uses source music in his films- this was no different

[MovieMan8877445]

It sounded similar because it was Morricone (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/15/inglourious-basterds-soundtrack-listing/). Tarantino, i think, almost always uses source music in his films- this was no different

Oh, I read somewhere that Morricone decided to do another film instead of this.

[Blue Lou]

Ive been holding out on this one to see some opinions. It disappoints me to hear that the characters are not developed. A trademark I look for in any film, especially a Tarantino film, is great characters. Ive always seen Tarantino's writing as his forte. His ability to create unforgettable scenes, almost entirely with dialogue, is incredible. Scenes you cant forget. Like the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken execution scene in True Romance or the diner scene in Pulp Fiction.

Can you say there is a unforgettable scene in this movie? Ive been wanting him to do something that could rival his work of the early '90's but Ive continued to be a little disappointed. Dont get me wrong, his films are always entertaining. But Im like some of you, asking the question: Can he bring us another masterpiece? And another question I would like to hear some answers to is: Do you think he lacks structure when it comes to bringing some of his ideas to life? Most out there, as do I, believe he has streaks of genuis. And I wonder if fame has caused him to get a little too loose and undisciplined in some of his projects. IMO, I would like to see him do the writing and pair with a Tony Scott or Ridley Scott or Steven Soderbergh or P.T. Anderson or Sam Mendes, etc. etc.

[meatwadsprite]

Oh, I read somewhere that Morricone decided to do another film instead of this.

It's old Morricone songs from other movies , as well as many other movies - I'm sure the old film veterans could play spot the song throughout : I thought Tarantino picked the most badass Morricone songs ever though.

[Movie-Review]

The film is a fantastical, violent spin-off of World War II and not your typical war film. Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds plows into a long-bubbling revenge plot with adaptations of countless genre traditions, but only completely hits upon its tonal balance about midway through then just speeds off.



In fact, the film is surprising, screwy, bracing, daring and too clever for its own good. The motion picture is an entirely unique piece. There are many violent scenes and Brad Pitt as an Inglourious Basterd assures strong marketable prospects, especially to the global audience.
Movie viewers might get confused with the film as it is divided into five parts or chapters, if you want to call it. While World War II has maybe inspired as much invention as any other sole theme in film history, the movie is just one of those to have that distorted history to a certain degree.



The film revolves around an alternate history of the Second World War in which the complete set of Nazi German leadership features Hitler, Bormann, Goering, and Goebbels all attend a big screen premiere in Paris reveling in the accomplishments of a German sniper who had managed to kill 250 American soldiers in Italy. The film’s time frame is set in early June 1944.



Tarantino carefully illustrates the story from the very beginning. And then he fine-tunes it until the very end resulting in scenes that are in the grand tradition of World War II storyline. Believe it or not, the scenes are actually mostly shot at Babelsberg Studio outside Berlin.

[Yoda]

Saw Inglourious Basterds on Saturday. I adored Kill Bill, but I think Tarantino actually might have managed to match it with this effort. Great film; I'm going to try very hard to see it again this week.

The review, by the way, was especially fun to write. I really enjoyed putting this one together. Here's an excerpt, with a link to the rest:

Inglourious Basterds (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/inglourious_basterds.html)

http://www.movieforums.com/images/main/inglourious_basterds_main.jpg

Inglourious Basterds is like a Christmas tree, with each scene existing only to be decorated. Tarantino hangs visual ornaments everywhere, and each bauble is shinier than the last ...READ MORE

4.5

[rufnek]

Inglourious Basterds
So Tarantino’s appointed masterpiece arrives. Quite a claim, with his back catalogue, Pulp Fiction- even though it’s not my favourite film of his- is hard to top and I personally don’t think he ever will considering the pedestool it’s sitting on. So is Basterds all that?

It’s not a bad film, as always with hi flicks- the soundtrack is the strongest part with some excellent use of Morricone giving it a spaghetti flavour, which is about the extent of his claim to it sitting anywhere in a spaghetti genre go. Aside from the opening ‘once upon a time in… nazi occupied France’ which, while not as catchy would have been a more apt title. The film’s biggest problem are the lack of focus and general uneveness of it. There’s never really any characters amongst the Basterds, half of them get a name drop, one gets a backstory but mostly they’re just faces. And as the misleading title goes, they’re only one half of the film; the other belongs to a cinema owning Jewish refugee with a similar plot to the Basterds. The two strands of characters never interact with each other and flitter between each other through the 5 introduced acts and for two relatively simple narrative arches that eventually kind of intertwine, it’s shouldn’t have been too hard to make both solid.

One manages it but there’s only one to two primary characters, the Basterds on the other hand are far too much for Tarantino to develop. Why? Because he still has his infatuation with drawn out dialogue, he’s dropped the painful referential-ness of Death Proof and introduced some decent tension in these scenes, in both main cases taking almost literally the Hitchcock bomb-under-the-table approach. That being said, the film does redeem itself. Pitt is fantastic, I actually hope he gets an Oscar nod along with the lead Nazi dubbed Jew-Hunter. The cinematography and sets are all well rendered and appealing and the direction is pretty competent, nothing that’s really suggestive of a genius behind the camera, which most know Tarantino isn’t already. The script is where his talent is meant to lie and despite mentioned issues, it all comes together nicely. It does find itself becoming uneven where it can’t be certain if it’s straightfaced or pure farce. Mike Myers cameo-ing as in English Lieutenant? It works but definitely an odd choice. And there were some genuine belly laughs at certain bits.

Tarantino’s masterpiece? Short answer, no. I’m glad Tarantino’s getting a regular output instead of coasting on past work with 5 year gaps between films and he’s got the ideas but he’s not got the modesty to adjust his scripts to operate at a tolerable pace. It’s not a bad film but it’s not a great film, I said before I doubt anything will touch what he did in the 90s so I don’t think it’s a miss-step in his career, more a signal of him levelling off as a filmmaker. Average film, still retains an art-house niche that I can imagine regular cinema-goers will find themselves fidgetting through. Looking forward to seeing reaction from his obsessors. Other than that, it’s a fun retelling of history with some great performances but could do with some editing here and there.

An interesting, balanced, and apparently well thought-out review. I enjoyed reading it.

[rufnek]

Inglorious Basterds
Once Upon A Time....In Nazi Occupied France opens the film in the first chapter (a signature Tarantino style) of this WWII film in which Jewish American soldiers, who've deemed themselves "The Basterds", ambush and scalp Nazi's. . . .

A well-written thoughtful review. But I got a question I wish someone would answer--does the movie ever explain why this elite group misspells "bastard"? I understand the title Inglorious Bastards was already taken by another earlier film, but do they ever acknowledge the misspelling in the plot?

Jews scalping Nazis??? Hmm, maybe the American Indians really are the Lost Tribe of Israel as some people have claimed down through the ages. I've heard of Marines in the Pacific who had strings of ears and pockets-ful of gold teeth taken from Japanese bodies, but scalping is something new. Sounds cumbersome compared with other atrocities. Do they ever say why they do it in the film? Just curious.

As for "the Jewish girl posing as a French woman," the state of "Jewishness" is a culture centered around a certain religion, while "French" is a nationality. There were then and are now Jews of French nationality. A person can be a member of both groups. On the other hand, maybe the reference is to a girl posing as a woman, a generational difference. :) Just teasing a little--not trying to flame you. :)

There are countless war films that are plagued with people already knowing the outcome. Valkyrie is an example of a film that the audience knew how it was going to end. This one throws it all out the window.

What? Tarantino let's the Nazis win the war? Now that would be different. :)

[rufnek]

The film revolves around an alternate history of the Second World War in which the complete set of Nazi German leadership features Hitler, Bormann, Goering, and Goebbels all attend a big screen premiere in Paris reveling in the accomplishments of a German sniper who had managed to kill 250 American soldiers in Italy. The film’s time frame is set in early June 1944.

Well, that's an alternative history for sure. In real life, the Fuhrer only came to Paris once, for the official surrender of France to the Nazis. He then viewed from afar the Eiffel Tower, watched part of a German victory parade, and flew back to Berlin. As I recall, he was in the city less than 24 hours, and that was very early in the war, before the US became involved I think.

I gotta ask, however: Even in an alternative history movie, why would the Nazis premiere a propaganda film in Paris? All of the big grand Nazi films like Triumph of the Will were premiered in Berlin among all the Nazi party chiefs. I can't see even the Vichy French lining up in Paris to watch a film about a Nazi sniper--not when some underground Free French soldier might roll a bomb down the aisle.

Good review, by the way. Got a little more insight into the film from it.

[honeykid]

... But I got a question I wish someone would answer--does the movie ever explain why this elite group misspells "bastard"? I understand the title Inglorious Bastards was already taken by another earlier film, but do they ever acknowledge the misspelling in the plot?

I've not seen the film, but I don't think they do. I have heard Taratino say that it's just a in-joke, a private joke if you will. Not sure if it's just for him, some friends or something that happened on-set, but that's the reason I've heard him give. It did start out with the original spelling though, the change came at the end/after filming, I think. I'm sure someone will pick me up on that if it's wrong.

Of course, I'm sure that it's a lot easier to advertise "Inglorious Basterds" than it is "Inglorious Bastards" in the english speaking (most profitable) world, especially for its dvd release(s) which is probably where most Hollywood films make huge profits. How difficult would it be to get the film stocked in rental/retail outlets? Especially in the States? Before Kill Bill, I don't think I'd have thought this way about a Tarantino film, but no one can tell me that wasn't about making maximum profits.


Jews scalping Nazis??? Hmm, maybe the American Indians really are the Lost Tribe of Israel as some people have claimed down through the ages. I've heard of Marines in the Pacific who had strings of ears and pockets-ful of gold teeth taken from Japanese bodies, but scalping is something new. Sounds cumbersome compared with other atrocities. Do they ever say why they do it in the film? Just curious.

I'd guess they do it because it's more graphic and, therefore, creates more fear. I think most people would rather lose an ear or finger rather than be scalped. Also, don't forget that this isn't a historic film. Tarantino has said that he's made no allowances for history at all in this film. It's set during WWII, there's Allies and Nazis, other than that, the gloves are off when it comes to history.

[Pyro Tramp]

Apparently....

When asked about the misspelled title, director Quentin Tarantino gave the following answer: "Here's the thing. I'm never going to explain that. You do an artistic flourish like that, and to explain it would just take the piss out of it and invalidate the whole stroke in the first place."

[honeykid]

Ah, I see you've posted again and have gotten the idea that history isn't Tarantino's main concern here. And yes, Hitler visited Paris only once, in 1940 after the French surrender and the evacuation at Dunkirk, where the British/Canadian/French forces were driven out.

[rufnek]

Saw Inglourious Basterds on Saturday. I adored Kill Bill, but I think Tarantino actually might have managed to match it with this effort. Great film; I'm going to try very hard to see it again this week.

The review, by the way, was especially fun to write. I really enjoyed putting this one together. Here's an excerpt, with a link to the rest:

As always, a very informative and fun-to-read review, Yoda, especially since you're the first in this forum to refer to Pitt's accent, which Joanne Kaufman in the WSJ review called an "artificially heavy corn-pone accent [that] suggests a road-company production of 'Li'l Abner.'"

I haven't seen the film, but from what I've seen of Pitt in the TV ads, he reminds me a lot of Larry Hagman as Col. Clarence E. Pitts in The Eagle Has Landed (another piece of alternative WWII fiction) with the 1940s-look of a Clark Gable wannabe.

Whatever it's worth, just to bounce it off the reviewers in this forum, Kaufman said the film is "irredeemably silly, if never, never dull." She also said of the film, "Whether it's parody, farce, or a fever dream is anyone's guess." She describes it as "self-indulgent" and "emotionally unmoored."

[rufnek]

I have heard Taratino say that it's just a in-joke, a private joke if you will. Not sure if it's just for him, some friends or something that happened on-set, but that's the reason I've heard him give. It did start out with the original spelling though, the change came at the end/after filming, I think. I'm sure someone will pick me up on that if it's wrong.

Of course, I'm sure that it's a lot easier to advertise "Inglorious Basterds" than it is "Inglorious Bastards" in the english speaking (most profitable) world, especially for its dvd release(s) which is probably where most Hollywood films make huge profits. How difficult would it be to get the film stocked in rental/retail outlets? Especially in the States? Before Kill Bill, I don't think I'd have thought this way about a Tarantino film, but no one can tell me that wasn't about making maximum profits.

Good reasoning. Yet Angelica Huston directed Bastard Out of Carolina in 1996 and that has been in the rental/retail outlets. There also was a lesser-known film, One Tough Bastard, released that same year.

The real reason Taratino didn't use "Bastard" was because there already was an Italian WWII film called The Inglorious Bastards made in 1978. I read reports of that before Taratino's film came out but never heard his explanation--or lack of explanation--of his spelling. But if one is already ignoring history, why not ignore spelling, too. Oh well, I'm just glad he mispelled it with an "e" instead of a "u". :)

[honeykid]

But Tarantino already knew about the original film, it's an exploitation classic. It's the reason his film has the title and is set in WWII, has a group called The Bastards, etc.

[Pyro Tramp]

Yeah, i'm pretty sure at one point he was quite happy to describe the film as a remake

[rufnek]

But Tarantino already knew about the original film, it's an exploitation classic. It's the reason his film has the title and is set in WWII, has a group called The Bastards, etc.

Judging from the fact that early references by Tarantino and others to the film when it was in the planning and perhaps early filming stages had it entitled The Inglorious Bastards makes me suspect that he may not have been aware at that time of the 1978 film. I know I had never heard of it (but then there's probably lots of films I've never heard of, especially those shot in countries where English is not a native language). I suspect he changed the spelling simply to keep from running afoul of copyright laws and simply mispelled Basterds rather than come up with another title.

[rufnek]

Yeah, i'm pretty sure at one point he was quite happy to describe the film as a remake

Has anyone actually seen both films? Are they anything alike?

[will.15]

Tarantino has recently declared the very obscure Paratroop Command as a great war film and its director, William Whitney, as one of his favorite directors. Is he putting us on?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Jews scalping Nazis??? Hmm, maybe the American Indians really are the Lost Tribe of Israel as some people have claimed down through the ages. I've heard of Marines in the Pacific who had strings of ears and pockets-ful of gold teeth taken from Japanese bodies, but scalping is something new. Sounds cumbersome compared with other atrocities. Do they ever say why they do it in the film? Just curious.

This is my best explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DNsDcAoTfo


As for "the Jewish girl posing as a French woman," the state of "Jewishness" is a culture centered around a certain religion, while "French" is a nationality. There were then and are now Jews of French nationality. A person can be a member of both groups. On the other hand, maybe the reference is to a girl posing as a woman, a generational difference. :) Just teasing a little--not trying to flame you. :)

Yes, I'm aware one pertains to a religion while the other a nationality and the wording probably came out wrong. But from what I got from the film, one viewing, is that she is in hiding in France pretending to be a theatre owner. Hiding the fact that she is Jewish, that's what I got from it.

She could have been French the whole time, I do not know. I'll need to re-watch the first scene again to know for sure.

Check it out, would love to hear your thoughts on it.

[Used Future]

Has anyone actually seen both films? Are they anything alike?

I recently saw Enzo G. Castellari's original and although I've not seen Tarantino's film yet; I have read the plot synopsis and can say quite confidently that they're nothing alike.

I have the original film on dvd which includes a wonderful interview with Tarantino and Castellari (both sat together). Tarantino explains that whilst his film was initially intended as a remake, that changed during the writing process.

After he saw the original film back in the 70's, it was so obscure that the title Inglorious Bastards became a code between him and his friends for ''men on a mission'' movies. It also signified a kind of secret film that (at the time) only he and his friends knew about. Tarantino's new film uses the title out of love for Castellari's original for sure, but mainly it just means it's a ''men on a mission'' flick.

[Pyro Tramp]

There's nothing in common with two whatsoever, the original has some abandoners behind enemy lines hiding from both sides, opposed to an officially sanctioned group of killers on a mission to kill.

[Sir Toose]

My son and I saw this film last night.

He loved it, as I was certain that he would. To me it rang sort of hollow. I really enjoyed the performances of Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz in particular but the rest of it was just meh for me.

Not much of a review which is why I'm posting in Pyro Tramp's excellent thread instead of starting my own. I can't bring myself to care much about this film for some reason.

[zedlen]

Inglourious Basterds Quentin Tarantino 2009

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0821/1224252968211_1.jpg

I give credit where credit is due and there is something good here. But this is far from Tarantino’s masterpiece and I believe who ever coined that phrase was only creating misleading hype. In fact this movie was marketed on the back of a lot of misleading hype but that doesn't take away from some great scenes, unique and memorable characters and a killer soundtrack.

Ill begin with my first gripe. Inglourious Basterds is probably one of the worst marketed films I've ever seen. Not to sound shallow I appreciate what the film is about but this isn't a film about the Inglorious Basterds, the American soldiers behind enemy lines killing Nazis, that take up every bit of add space I've seen for the last few months. I haven't seen any bit of media that indicated Mélanie Laurent is a central character. I've been reminded constantly that this is an action film, every trailer is fast paced and energetic, blood, gunshots and insanity. No brains all actions, which this film definitely is not. Like I said not too sound shallow but I feel I was truthfully mislead. I'm not stupid I know that a lot of trailers are misleading but I felt they completely ignored what the film is actually about. Had I ignored all the media hype and trailers or if they had accurately advertised the film I would have enjoyed Inglourious Basterds much more.

I got bored. Even after my second viewing, to insure I wasn't biased the first time round, I still wasn't that impressed. I noticed there were moments the actors even seemed to be looking awkward, intended or not I shared that awkward silence. Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise is more or less only dialogue, Glen Garry Glen Ross the same. Even Pulp Fiction has many scenes that rely solely on conversations. But I don't usually lose interest and I did during both viewings. Don't get me wrong there are fair few cleaver scenes, some great scenes but they are separated by so much unnecessary speech. Especially the indulgent 'movie history' conversation, I didn't understand much of it and I doubt many people did.

Apart from being bored I just don't think Inglourious Basterds is half as good as people have either told me or I've read about it. The long, sometimes pointless dialogue but mainly the story itself wasn't very satisfying, I'm not saying there aren't some great scenes but again they were just spread out and oddly placed. So out of place that I didn't feel like I was along for the ride. Not comfortable enough for you to get to know any of the characters or get connected to the story. I couldn't help but compare Inglourious Basterds to Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's most recognized work. In my eyes they just don't compare, how I felt after walking out of Pulp Fiction compared to this time around just doesn't come close. Pulp had both substance and style while Basterds tends to be more of the latter.

Finally what I did enjoy. There are some truly clever scenes and characters. Lets start with the Basterds themselves. Brad Pitt, Lieutenant Aldo Raine, aka "Aldo the Apache", this isn't one of his best performances but it is one of his funnist, just about every accented word got a laugh. Towards the end when he speaks Italian, classic. Eli Roth, Til Schweiger and the rest of the Basterds do well enough but they get so little time on screen that you don't really know. I only wish the Basterds had more time on screen. Obviously the best performance is Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa "The Jew Hunter" who is so disturbing with his charming demeanor and big grin you can't help but enjoy just about every minute hes on screen. I was surprised to see Mélanie Laurent among the cast list, let alone that shes actually one the central characters. I'd just seen her in Paris last year. She was unsurprisingly enjoyable. The cameos were a bit of fun but just felt like last minute additions.

Where Tarantino shines is his scene delivery, building tension and making simple situations complicated. Every scene in which "The Jew Hunter" is interrogating creates this tension. You can't help but appreciate it. Just about every scene of Waltz's is magic. I enjoyed most scenes but they didn't feel complete, they lacked the punch of Pulp. Stillfunny and very clever but just not enough to astonish me. Most of them felt like he was trying too hard. Its like when you know someone is cable of better, it is still great material, better then a lot that is out there but you just can't help but feel it could have been better.

What I enjoyed most was the sound track. At every significant or action scene the music was a highlight, always coming in at the right moment and adding to the scene. Especially Cat People (Putting Out Fire) by David Bowie, really a great scene.

Inglourious Basterds could have been a great movie, could have been his masterpiece, it had all the right ingredients but it just wasn't put together right.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/../images/popcorn/3box.gif

[Piddzilla]

My son and I saw this film last night.

He loved it, as I was certain that he would. To me it rang sort of hollow. I really enjoyed the performances of Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz in particular but the rest of it was just meh for me.

Not much of a review which is why I'm posting in Pyro Tramp's excellent thread instead of starting my own. I can't bring myself to care much about this film for some reason.

I completely agree.

[Yoda]

Catching this one again in a couple of hours. :)

[Sir Toose]

I completely agree.

That was MY post you responded to right? You COMPLETELY agree with ME?

First time for everything... you must getting smarter pipsqueak.

[kompheak]

it is great.
thanks.

[mark f]

It's been released in Cambodia?

[Pyro Tramp]

Zedlen, nice write up- David Bowie, definite highlight

[zedlen]

Thanks Pyro, you can't go past Bowie.

[Iroquois]

Bidness?

[Iroquois]

Guess not.

[Sir Toose]

it is great.
thanks.

You're Welcome!!

[Sir Toose]

Guess not.

In the great American south there is no business... only bidness.

[Yoda]

Saw Inglourious Basterds again last night. Still very funny, still very entertaining. It definitely drags in a couple of scenes, which was less evident the first time around (too much tension for that), but after the first viewing I knew they'd hang a little if I were to see it again.

That said, it's hard to determine how much of the impact of some later scenes/events is contingent on all that buildup, so I don't know if it can be parsed out like that.

It's still a very funny film, and I definitely picked up on a few small things I hadn't the first time around. It wouldn't shock me if I didn't see a better film for the rest of the year.

[Used Future]

I caught an early showing of this today and will try and tab my thoughts in the next couple of days.

Safe to say I thought it was pretty good, and easily Tarantino's best film since Jackie Brown.

[Veronica_888]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2514/3882970548_2407e66fd4.jpg

I should watch this. I MUST watch this.

When I first heard about this film, I had no idea it would be about history and all because of the title. Inglorious Basterds??? At first, I thought it was an Apatow film with Seth Rogen in it. LOL

[honeykid]

It's not about history. It just takes place in the past.

[lgmo]

Only recently saw Inglorious Bastards here in Australia. It was actually better than I was expecting, different but in a good way. There were typical Tarrentino traits throughout the movie. I went with my girlfriend who was actually the one to drag me along to it and she did not really enjoy it but then again, she is not really a fan of Tarrentino's work.

[nebbit]

I saw it in Tuesday, there were parts where I had to turn away but over all I loved it :yup:

[rice1245]

I would have liked more bloodshed :yup: but i say that about a lot of movies >.>

[Iroquois]

Only recently saw Inglorious Bastards here in Australia. It was actually better than I was expecting, different but in a good way. There were typical Tarrentino traits throughout the movie. I went with my girlfriend who was actually the one to drag me along to it and she did not really enjoy it but then again, she is not really a fan of Tarrentino's work.

Why would she be the one to drag you along if she's not a fan?

[lgmo]

Why would she be the one to drag you along if she's not a fan?

I don't know. I was more inclined to see District 9 and she wanted to see Inglorious Bastards more (possibly the Brad Pitt factor).

[Iroquois]

I thought as much.

[mojofilter]

Inglourious Basterds is the best film of 2009, in my own humble opinion, so far! I can't say Tarantino topped Pulp Fiction, but he sure has made a film that is as memorable as the 1994 Oscar winning classic.

Brad Pitt was hysterical as Aldo Raines. Does he deserve an Oscar nod for this performance? I doubt the Academy will give him the consideration. I mean his performance is tacky and scene-stealing, but is it as good as Benjamin Button? Not quite. However, the Oscar nods MUST be considered for 2 actors in this film; the first being Christoph Waltz as the menacing and eluding "Jewhunter", Lt. Hans Landa, and the second being Melanie Laurent as 'the jew that got away', Shosanna Dreyfus.

The cinematography was spectacular, and the dialogue was just perfect! Both categories should be getting Oscar nominations, and I do expect Tarantino to grab his second Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay in 2010.

I must admit that I am a die-hard Tarantino fan. But in no way am I being biased here. I didn't like Death Proof that much. That movie dragged on and on with the girlie talk, and the characters seemed one-dimensional. From the first viewing of Basterds, I instantly loved it. The main characters were well-rounded, especially Laurent's and Waltz's characters. I would have loved to see more of Aldo Raine's background, like the origin of the scar across his neck, and more screen time of the baseball bat executioner, "the Jew bear", played by Eli Roth.

The opening scene where Lt. Landa interrogates a French farmer on whether or not he's hiding any jews, as well as the underground cavern scene where a couple of undercover Basterds and double agents confront a Nazi General, were amazingly brilliant and breathtaking!

All in all, a very very entertaining movie, and one I will want to watch again and again and again!

[saganot]

Great movie. But what else would you expect from the guy who did Pulp Fiction?

[Iroquois]

Great movie. But what else would you expect from the guy who did Pulp Fiction?

After Kill Bill and Death Proof, I'd expect something crap.

[Yoda]

I'm with you on Death Proof, but yowza, you didn't like Kill Bill?

[Iroquois]

Not really, no. It's got its moments but overall pretty mediocre.

[Pyro Tramp]

Kill Bill: Vol 1 was pretty empty, over stylised pap that dozens off Asian films best- Zatoichi released the same year, for one.

[honeykid]

Death Proof is much better than Kill Bill, which I didn't think too much of. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I liked Death Proof more than Pulp Fiction. Only Reservoir Dogs is better in the Tarantino cannon.

[Used Future]

Tarantino has described Kill Bill Vol 1&2 as being the Bride's journey (and battle) through the annals of exploitation cinema.

The films are littered with references to grindhouse classics like Game of Death (The Bride's yellow outfit); Thriller: A Cruel Picture (Elle Driver's eye patch and the female revenge theme); The 36th Chamber of Shaolin & Shaw Brothers kung fu flicks (the casting of Chia Hui Liu/Gordon Liu as Johnny Mo); The Street Fighter series and Japanese Karate films (the casting of Sonny Chiba); the Hanzo the Razor series (Sonny Chiba's character is called Hanzo) etc etc...the list really does go on and on.

But despite (and perhaps because of) all this I agree the films are empty, self indulgent and over blown. I like Tarantino and what he's about; he's made me aware of lots of really cool movies, and his passion and enthusiasm for the grindhouse really is a joy to behold. It's just I think he's seen too much and can't help himself, which doesn't always make for good films. I actually prefer watching his interviews over his movies for those reasons.

I do think Inglorious Basterds is a slight return to form though (and I stress slight). The references to cult favourites are more subtle with the exception of Hugo Stiglitz*, the spaghetti western soundtrack, and the opening scene which reminded me so much of Lee Van Cleef's introduction in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I agree with Holden Pike that the film owes alot to Sergio Corbucci's spaghetti westerns, especially the way the Basterds were almost portrayed as revolutionaries. Tarantino crafts some thrillingly tense scequences; particularly the scene with the Gestapo officer in the underground bar, and Shosanna Dreyfus' apple strudel encounter with Col. Landa. I also agree with everyone else that Christoph Waltz is absolute dynamite in the film; a real find.

On the downside I still thought the film was a little self indulgent, uneven in tone, and overlong (It'd be interesting to see Tarantino bring in another ninety minute movie). Plus unlike alot of people on these boards I really didn't care for Brad Pitt's performance at all. I thought he was mugging the whole time and cringe worthy. That said I did laugh out loud when he was attempting to speak Italian and Landa kept making him repeat himself; brilliant. Overall I'd give Inglorious Basterds 3.5-

* For those who don't know Hugo Stiglitz is a mexican actor well known among fans of Italian horror as the star of Umberto Lenzi's cult zombie crapfest Nightmare City. It's long been known that Tarantino is a fan of that movie. You could also speculate that Tarantino naming one of the Basterds after a Mexican actor further evidences the parallel with the revolutionaries of Corbucci's westerns (a stretch maybe). Oh and when Stiglitz' name flashes up in huge letters, Tarantino uses the same type face from They Call Her One Eye aka Thriller: A Cruel Picture.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ec_bXQZWE2E/SUsw8BXAXSI/AAAAAAAABuQ/wpIBwANeW1s/s400/nccapture003.JPG
The real Hugo Stiglitz.

[EDIT] I almost forgot, Tarantino name drops a cult Italian director with one of the Basterds calling himself Antonio Margheriti (in the cinema when they're posing as Italians). Antonio Margheriti made spaghetti westerns, gialli, and war movies, but is probably best known (at least in the UK) for his classic nasty Cannibal Apocalypse. Once again Tatantino is a fan of that movie.

[mark f]

I mostly know Stiglitz from all the crap he made for director René Cardona Jr. in the '70s and '80s which somehow kept getting distributed in the U.S. Yes, don't ask me why, but back when I was younger, I watched Blood Feast, Tintorera, Secrets of the Bermuda Triangle, Guyana: Cult of the Damned, Treasure of the Amazon, etc. They constitute a yuckarama.

I've seen my share of Margheriti ("Anthony M. Dawson") flicks too, but many of them are watchable. :cool:

[Used Future]

Did you ever see Cyclone Mark? It's the one where they're adrift at sea and turn to cannibalism (before getting ripped apart by the shyest looking man eating sharks ever). The finale is very gory, but it takes an age for anything to happen. Stiglitz played the airline pilot in that one.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xgQV4twLZME/SRh74nShKCI/AAAAAAAAGGw/nz0U7BOy8jM/s320/Cyclone+%281978%29.jpg

[Sexy Celebrity]

I wanna see it just because it's a Quentin Tarantino film and because you guys seem to love it... but the TV spots do not interest me.

I am hesistant... even with Brad Pitt starring in it! Although, I hate the mustache, and I usually like mustaches. What's wrong with me?

[42ndStreetFreak]

"Inglorious Basterds".

Epic, weird, off the wall, nasty, twisty, fanboyish, suspenseful, well crafted....Too long, padded, schizo, FLAWED.
It is indeed like a WW2 "Pulp Fiction" mixed with...er...er...er.......something strange.

Ending would have been better with a FULL FACE carving!

The Bastereds do very little but mess things up or follow on behind...But they do provide some of the most entertaining sequences.
A film of parts stuck together with chaos. But a big leap upwards from "Death Proof" and "Kill Bill 2" for Tarantino.

And how good it was to hear a bit of the wonderful score form the wonderful "Kelly's Heroes".

[stevehamn]

I've never been a big fan of QT to begin with, but this movie left me feeling a little weird. I think the fact that it's been 65 years has left the general public desensitzed to the emotions/motivations of WWII; the Germans were simply evil, and that's about all anyone really remembers.

Obviously, it's a film for 2009 audiences. But, I think if you gave Goebbels the script to Inglourious Basterds in 1939 he'd say "Thank You", make a few minor changes, and release it himself. Let me explain:

The Nazi's in Inglourious Basterds for the most part is portrayed relatively humanely. There is the beginning where they machinegun the family (fairly humane death compared what the Nazi's did to a lot of Jews), but that's about it. A lot of times the Nazi's are portrayed as comical nincompoops but otherwise Landa shows mercy, Zoller is portrayed as a nice kid who regrets what he's done, and then there's the Staff Sgt in the bar who just had a baby shows mercy; all of whom are betrayed after trusting the "good" guys.

This brings me to my next point, while the Nazi's are portrayed as half decent, the "good" guys on the other hand, the Basterds/Allies, are portrayed as ruthless animals. They can't be trusted because they ALWAYS betray anyone who trusts them (survivor, Staff Sgt, Landa). They are animals that scalp and brutalize anyone who surrenders to them. Shosanna, would have fed into WWII German hatred of Jews perfectly. I love how the whole premise of the movie is the Allies going behind enemy lines disguised as the enemy, something that, in reality, the Nazi's did during the Battle of the Bulge and were tried as war crimnals for. The irony! Honestly, I think this movie is disrespectful to the people who ACTUALLY fought in WWII against the Germans, with a LOT more honor and humanity than these characters.

The saving grace of this movie is the ending, at least by killing the high command and killing Hitler, this movie cements itself as fiction. I could easily see people watching this movie 100 years from now and thinking it was based on a true story. *shudder* (The sad part is I bet there's people today, regardless of the ending, who still think this is a true story)
Is it conincidence or ironic that the whole movie revolves around the unveiling of a propaganda film? Is this a big prank by Tarantino on the public to show how little they understand history?

[Yoda]

I take a different approach: I think Tarantino's wallowing in the fact that he can do anything to the Nazis without the viewers feeling too bad for them, and I think he's making (perhaps facetiously) the point that the only way to deal with Nazism is to match them in cruelty. For example...

...Shosanna shows a modicum of mercy to Frederick Zoller near the end, and is immediately killed. It's as if Tarantino is showing us the perils of showing mercy.
I disagree, of course, as I take the view that failing to match the cruelty of such an enemy is precisely why we were fit to oppose them in the first place, and I think Tarantino probably agrees, but I think he's making a deliberately disingenuous point about having to stoop to evil's own level to combat it.

[stevehamn]

Thanks for helping me with my post Yoda.

I think I agree with you. Perhaps, Tarantino is trying to make a point about our current War on Terror, and the issue of water-boarding/torture and not stooping to the level of your enemy.

But, my concern is, do you think 99% of people seeing this movie get that? People applauded at the end when I saw it. Were they applauding the message of not stooping to the level of your enemy? OR were they applauding the mashing in of Hitlers face and the disfiguring of Landa?

[Piddzilla]

That was MY post you responded to right? You COMPLETELY agree with ME?

First time for everything... you must getting smarter pipsqueak.

He he.. Never had anything against your taste in movies, really. It's more your personality in general.... :D

About Inglouoriuous Bertrands...

I don't think I've seen any macaroni combat films so I don't know what such a genre film is supposed to be like. But if this one was dead on I can say with certainty that it's not my thing. This kind of cartoonish violence doesn't do it for me. I was neither appauled nor excited and it didn't make me laugh either. It was... childish. The depiction of Hitler and Goebbels, two of the scariest guys in history, is supposed to take the edge of the two demons, to make fun of them. Then at the same time the evil of nazism is meant to justify the insane violence against the german soldiers. This is irrational to me.

The brilliant Tarantino dialogue... where is it? He worked with this one for ten years?? Some scenes where way too long and quite frankly - really boring. And the characters (QT:s films are always filled with colorful amazing people) were surprisingly pale.

Some good things: the grand finale in the movie theatre, that was great. Really cool. I also liked the scene with Shoshanna and Hans Landa in the café and the scene with Mike Myers and Lt. Hicox. The subtle humour and how they beautifully made fun of the British gentleman officer character - very funny.

I loved the snobbish Hicox character and couldn't believe that he died so early.
Being not so much a Brad Pitt fan I'll have to say that I think he didn't do a bad job either.

Christoph Waltz, of course, was fantastic.

[Yoda]

Thanks for helping me with my post Yoda.

I think I agree with you. Perhaps, Tarantino is trying to make a point about our current War on Terror, and the issue of water-boarding/torture and not stooping to the level of your enemy.
I'm actually saying the opposite: I'm saying Tarantino is saying we should stoop to the level of our enemy, as evidenced by the ramifications of showing mercy in the film (as described in the spoilers in my previous post).

I don't think he's "saying" this in the sense that he's trying to convince us of it. I just think he's "saying" it in the sense that that's what's being depicted. I think he's kind of kidding around. But he's certainly not saying the opposite; he's certainly not criticizing the idea.

As for why people are cheering: no idea. They could be cheering on the things you describe, or they could be cheering for the reason I would, which is that I think it's a fantastic film. I don't think anyone's cheering because they think Tarantino is making one point by ironically depicting the exact opposite, though. That's a little too jujitsu-ish, I think.

[TONGO]

Well I just finished watching it.

SPOILERS, and bad. if you havent seen it dont read my post level bad.

The nazi investigator aka The Jew Hunter played by Christoph Waltz (yes I IMDb'd it) stole the film. Pitt was an entertaining character very easy to like, but Waltz was more instrumental in this films quality. Waltz Im sure had more screen time than Pitt, and possibly more than anybody in the film.

In the begining of the film I felt a sense of Kill Bill but with WWII as the backdrop. Familiar Tarantino slow boiling drama at the farm, and great dialogue delivered by Pitt with the Basterds introduction. Then the film shifted gears for the better. With the courting of the french female theatre owner by the young nazi war hero Tarantino proved he can finally direct a simple scene without overdirecting. Much better pacing than Jackie Brown, and not once do you miss the pop culture music which is usually a staple to his films.

Gore?! Oh yeah. If it wasnt for the gore my mom couldve watched this movie, and I dont mean that as a jab. The difference between Tarantino and Scorsese is Tarantino goes out of his way to show you, but Scorsese wont but instead just not warn you. If Tarantino evolves as a filmaker he could be considered the next Scorsese, but not yet though keep reading.

Why Tarantino wanted to fictionalize historical facts and characters is beyond me. As I write this Im reminded of From Dusk Till Dawn, and how incredible the first half of the movie was. Then the second half got way campy and ludicrous with the vampires, and never before or since had I ever seen a film go so far south so fast. In the movie Hitlers actually killed. Actually killing Hitler?! IMO It just cheapened the whole film, and made it feel like Grindhouse. Scorsese wouldnt have done it.

Also was disappointed on the resolution of the Waltzs' Jew Hunter character. Yeah carving the swastika was a nice touch, but is that it?! The movie was building to the most incredible climax with Pitts capture. Col Handa (Waltz) deciding to make a deal with these "boogeymen of the nazis" just had no punch. Pitts character closed the movie looking at Handas swastika wound saying "Now thats my masterpiece!" then the film goes to credits with Directed By Quentin Tarantino.

Sorry Quentin, but Pulp Fiction was alot better. Kill Bill was better too. Kill Bill embraced all the pop culture, and melodrama and is a forever classic. Pulp Fiction told drama in a new hip way, and was a hell of alot more creative than Basterds. Basterds was damn strong, but damn flawed as well. So yeah its a good watch, but dont expect Tarantinos Saving Private Ryan nor believe its even his best work ever. Damn Id sure hope not.

[mark f]

I'm not sure. Maybe I just live in an Alternate Universe from everybody (or an alternate movie universe since there's no difference). You remember the awesome scene in Pulp Fiction where the Uma Thurman character draws a "square"? I agree it's an awesome scene, but she draws a rectangle which somewhat mitigates the "Coolness Factor".

I don't hold Tarantino in any special regard. In fact, the more I learn about him, the more immature I believe the guy is. I'd rather have you MoFos be in our discussions about Powell/Pressburger, Persona, Alain Resnais, The Tenant, The Innocents, etc. because I believe that Tarantino wants everything to be easily representational, except for perhaps his idiotic changing of his movie's title to somehow make it seem that he's DEEP. HA! C'mon, QT, join MoFo and talk to us. We'll show you deep!

Inglourious Basterds, I have no problem giving it a 3.5+. It obviously doesn't stand up as a legit war adventure. It's not The Guns of Navarone, The Train, Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen, Operation Crossbow, Von Ryan's Express, etc. It just doesn't have that strong a plot, but it does have a hook, a gimmick and a reason to want to watch the thing. The hook is obviously that this guy (Brad Pitt), who stole his name from Aldo Ray, wants scalps of all dead Nazis and wants all living Nazis to wear something which will always identify them as Nazis. Now, this Guy has American Indian "Blood" in him (even if it's not Apache), so the scalp thing makes sense to some people even if it's mostly BS.

Tarantino does seem more oibsessed with namedropping Leni Riefenstahl and G.W. Pabst, and then he even brings in Oscar winner Emil Jannings to the conclusion. It's unclear what, if anything, Tarantino understands about pre-WWII German cinema and WWII Goebbels propaganda, but since his movie doesn't even take place in any form of reality, it doesn't matter to me. I'd probably say that overall, I gave the film extra points for trying to act like Tarantino knew "anything" about German cinema at all while just faking it to try to make his film better and more "realistic".

I have a few more points to make. Tarantino goes out of his way to have the SS Officer compare King Kong to African slaves and then he has another Officer do the same to try to condemn an African-Frenchman who seems so conducive to the Jewish woman's plot to destroy the Third Reich. On the other hand, the Nazis are quite disturbed that African slave blood helped the U.S. during the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics. I find the film very complex politically, but since it's a fantasy, you have to decide for yourself whether that's a strength or a wimpy weakness.

[Uncle Jay]

Best film of the year thus far...Tarantino continues to prove he is a filmmaker to be reckoned with, especially in this day and age. Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece, but this does come very close.

-UJ

[actrogirl]

Pulp Fiction has to be the best "Tarantino" flick, doesn't it? The rest just don't seem to cut it.

I agree, pulp fiction had to be his best work. he had some preety powerful actors in that one. actors who could make any director look great.

[jakethesnake39xd]

Very good, but far from perfect. Tarantino has done MUCH better. I personally loved how stylish it was, but at times the dialogue got a little tedious. And I don't mean all dialogue scenes, because the uncomfortable ones were very awesome. I'm talking more along the lines of the weird Mike Myers part. Just odd.

[michaelcorleone]

Along with Star Trek, this is among the most overrated movies of the decade.

[friendly-stranger]

I watched Valkyrie a few days before seeing this. It was interesting to contrast the two. Valkyrie is probably the better film, but it's definitely less "fun".

[Yoda]

Along with Star Trek, this is among the most overrated movies of the decade.
C'mon, I expect a lot more outta you than that. ;) Tell us why.

In case you can't tell by my prodding, I loved it (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/inglourious_basterds.html).

[honeykid]

Yeah, I mean, even though I've not seen the new Star Trek film, I'm sure that The Dark Knight was much more overrated. ;)

[Black Rawkus]

I watched Valkyrie a few days before seeing this. It was interesting to contrast the two. Valkyrie is probably the better film, but it's definitely less "fun".


I love both film but I disagree with you, Inglousrious Basterds is much better film because I like what Quentin did.......He picks French actors to play French character, Germany actors to play Germany character, etc. I hate the deal with how the Hollywood American tried to play foreign character that have a bad accent, etc.

[Black Rawkus]

Inglourious Basterds is the best film of 2009 and I love it.

9/10

[latoure]

Im dying to see this movie. Im a WW-2 buff and it on my list for this week!

[honeykid]

If you're a WWII buff, then I doubt you'll want to see this film. :D

[mark f]

Now wait a sec here. Part of the fun of the movie is how it completely rewrites history, and you know what? Some of the best parts are definitely the parts which never happened in real life, but now we have them all recorded for posterity, so if you want to see what really did/didn't happen to Hitler, this film gives it to you, up close and personal. Sorry if Drew wasn't included in the cast; she would have fit in nicely, maybe as Diane Kruger. :laugh:

[honeykid]

Well, that might be part of the fun, hell that might be the best of the film, but if someone says they're a WWII buff (or any historical period) then, usually, historical inaccuracies are their biggest bugbear. That being the case, the very parts you mentioned (the made up bits) are unlikely to be part of the fun for them, are they? Now, as in this film they're blindingly obvious, maybe they'll be able to look past them and enjoy. If not, then I don't think a good time's going to be had. That's all I meant.

[mark f]

That's fine and all well and good. It's just that you, yourself, would have to see how outrageous this all plays out to know better whether a "history buff" would like it. The fact that Tarantino had the gall to change the history of the world actually makes the flick much better in my eyes, and, for what it's worth, I'm a history buff...

[1badgmc]

If any history buff is going to a movie expecting perfectly factual accounts of events needs to have their head examined anyhow. That's why movies like that are "based on a true story" and not "depicted as it actually happened." Even the most die hard buffs have to let their hair down now and then and live a little fantasy at the movies. :)

[n3wt]

I had this dvd for Christmas and I love it! another Tarantino great!

[Robban94]

And once we're in enemy territory, as a bushwhackin' guerrilla army, we're gonna be doin' one thing and one thing only... killin' Nazis.

Just awesome.

[Thursday Next]

Just finished watching Inglorious Bastards and still not quite sure what to make of it. It enthralled and irritated me in equal measure. The music was excellent. There were some beautiful shots and some wonderfully tense, well scripted scenes – the opening scene, the strudel scene, the game in the bar. And I loved that the French characters spoke French and the German characters spoke German – none of your 'Allo Allo' style Germans speaking English to each other in bad German accents. And it had August Diehl. And it didn't bother me at all that it changed history, films always do. Although I think I'd have preferred it if I hadn't known beforehand that it did.

But on the other hand, there were a few things that bothered me. Mike Myers, for one, in his Austin Powers English accent cameo. When the poor German accent of the English spy is a plot point... well, perhaps it was deliberate. The whole film, frankly, could have been done (and better) without the eponymous basterds. Shoshanna's side of the story is much more interesting. I wasn't keen on Brad Pitt in this at all, although I know others have praised him. Adopting a Tennessee drawl and a constipated squint doesn't quite cut it as an acting performance for me. And the style of the film wasn't quite as consistent as it could have been. Some of it was quite restrained by Tarantino standards, but then we got a burst of voiceover and little cartoon arrows pointing out who everyone is – I think it needed either more of that, earlier on, or none at all. It lacked the kinetic style of Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill but failed to quite replace it with anything solid and the odd bursts of grim humour didn't quite gel, for me. There's no subtlety to it. Although perhaps I shouldn't be looking for subtlety in a Tarantino movie.

The whole concept of the film bothered me a bit. It's basically an orgy of revenge. It's like fanfiction for history.

[adidasss]

Great review Thurs, pretty much agree on everything. Except for the last bit, but I don't think you liked Kill Bill either, which was an all out revenge extravaganza, only much more cohesive and succesful...

[Thursday Next]

You're right, I didn't like Kill Bill, for a whole host of reasons I won't go into now. But the thing about Inglourious Basterds is that it isn't so much a revenge movie as a revenge fantasy. It's not characters taking revenge on characters - the characters of the Basterds are never developed beyond "we're gonna be doin' one thing and one thing only... killin' Nazis." It's like a ten year old first hearing about the holocaust and saying 'yeah, well if I'd been there we'd have had this whole secret army of Jews and we'd have gone round scalping Nazis and we'd have trapped Hitler and a bunch of Nazis in a cinema and we'd have pumped them full of bullets and set fire to them and then blown them up.' It's kind of... immature.

Which is a shame, because parts of it really are brilliant. I think Tarantino needs to co-write with someone who can rein him in a bit.

[christine]

At last I watched Inglourious Basterds, and I loved it. Like Thurs, I particularly liked that people spoke in their own language and also loved the tension in some of the scenes. The opener in which Landau broke down the farmer almost made me sweat too!
Yes, there were silly bits and Mike Myers was in one of them, but I dunno, I always find it difficult to be hard to Tarantino. His enthusiasm no matter how misguided some people find it, always endears his films to me. His reverence of older actors for one, his seeking out Rod Taylor to do Churchill, his giving that little cameo to Castellari, that sort of thing makes me smile. As does his cinematic references (Pabst etc) to me they're not self indulgent, they're a likeable trait. Doesn't mean to say I'm a huge fan of his films, Death Proof bored me, Jackie Brown remains my favourite , but Inglourious Basterds was very entertaining and will be worth another view.

[Project Steel]

I didn't like this movie at all. I've tried to watch it twice, but haven't made it all the way through either time. The first time I fell asleep, and the second time I just gave up and cut it off. I really wanted to like this, but can't. It was just so boring. I felt like the whole thing was just talking, and talking about a lot of nothing that went nowhere. If he had just cut the dialogue down a bit it would be better or at least made dialogue more relevant. I know that there is supposed to be a really good ending, but if I have to fast forward to make it there, then is it worth it.

[honeykid]

... Yes, there were silly bits and Mike Myers was in one of them...

That couldn't have been a surprise, christine. :D

[seventhseal]

I didn't like this movie at all. I've tried to watch it twice, but haven't made it all the way through either time. The first time I fell asleep, and the second time I just gave up and cut it off. I really wanted to like this, but can't. It was just so boring. I felt like the whole thing was just talking, and talking about a lot of nothing that went nowhere. If he had just cut the dialogue down a bit it would be better or at least made dialogue more relevant.

I agree with you to a degree, there is a lot of dialogue, but not an excessive amount, its really about character progression, and there is a lot of action as well, I completely disagree with you when you said that the dialogue wasn't relevant to the plot, small parts strayed but most of it was very involved in the plot, and it was terrific character development i think and some very good scenes thanks to Tarantino

the ending by the way is amazing, you should have a monster, and sit through it to see it cause its very interesting

[LanceyH]

I had to watch Inglourious Basterds twice to really "get" it. And it was worth the repeated viewing as I know think that this may be his most accomplished film. I too did not find much to like about Kill Bill, but this has more than made up for it. If nothing else, I think this has some of the best acting he's ever directed. Waltz is amazing.

[Yoda]

I just read that Hitler's favorite dessert was whipped cream. Wonder if that's why QT threw in a few beats about cream in the dining scene.

[earlsmoviepicks]

Very good review. all those points hit home, particularly Austin Powers and Pitt's exaggerated acting.

[Gabrielle947]

Not the best Tarantino film for me but the most developed in quality.

[Robert the List]

An aggregate of around 30 minutes of absolute dire crap (almost entirely the bits with Pitt in), in an otherwise brilliant film.