Film review: Inglorious Basterds
posted at 9:12 pm on August 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Quentin Tarantino says that his latest film, Inglorious Basterds, is a spaghetti western set almost accidentally in World War II. After seeing it, that description sounds like an excuse for the somewhat entertaining but mostly senseless film, which runs towards vengeance porn rather than a spaghetti western. However, given the subject matter, that might be enough.
First off, no one ever went wrong killing Nazis by the bucketload, in real life or on film, and Tarantino knows how to show every ghastly detail when he does. Only one of them has any sympathetic vibe at all; the rest of the German characters come straight out of central casting. Their deaths have a gruesome voyeuristic quality to them, but then again, they’re Nazis — the last villains that still play well as cardboard cutouts in cinema. The audience will cheer with every drop of blood that gets spilled, and who can blame them? One cannot deny the entertainment value of seeing them get their comeuppance, even while Tarantino badly mangles history and logic to do it. After all, as Indiana Jones said (before Spielberg and Lucas nuked the fridge), “I hate those guys.”
But that’s part of the problem. There’s almost no sport in it, no cleverness, and none of the wit that made Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction so compelling. In both, Tarantino made us care about what happened to otherwise despicable people. But in Inglorious Basterds, no one’s alive enough to care about, perhaps save one main character, whose plot resolution is thoroughly unsatisfying. Only one scene generated enough tension to make me sit on the edge of my seat, and unfortunately, it comes about halfway through the movie.
Even spaghetti westerns had more subtlety and character study than this, at least the good ones. Most of the Sergio Leone movies with Clint Eastwood dealt in interesting characters and anti-heroes, especially A Fistful of Dollars, which challenged the audience to pick any side at all. Part of Leone’s intent in making them was to move beyond the stock characters that had stultified American westerns, in which he succeeded, although didn’t get his artistic due for years afterward. Tarantino abandons the challenge to audiences and moves backward.
It’s still entertaining, even if it’s pretty disappointing. It runs too long, and the plot and subplots gather more holes as it goes along. The climax is a ridiculous scene that could only take place if all of the Nazis were complete idiots. That works in a comedy like Mel Brooks’ underappreciated remake of To Be or Not To Be, but not in a war drama. The film starts with a gritty scene of superb dramatic intensity, and winds up just north of Hogan’s Heroes.
The acting, though, is quite good, considering what the actors were given. Brad Pitt gives an amiable performance the leader of the group, and Christoph Waltz excels as the German SS officer Landa. Diane Kruger does well as a German actress/Allied mole, and Mélanie Laurent is luminous as Shoshana, one of the main hinges of the film. The rest of the cast won’t make much of an impression at all, thanks to Tarantino’s approach.
All in all, I’d recommend it as a rental or on one of the pay channels, or at best a discount theater event. If you just want to see Nazis killed almost non-stop and don’t expect anything else, buy the popcorn and enjoy.
Addendum: I expect to get a lot of disagreement on this one. Also, I didn’t give any plot points away, so if you choose to see it, this shouldn’t spoil any surprises.
Update: Cleaned up some style issues in the text.
Update II: Bruce Kesler has a more personal perspective, plus a story about Eli Roth.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
OK, it’s easy to slam Tarantino ’cause he doesn’t make moves that everyone understands. Kill Bill’s, Pulp Fiction, et al, are movies that are chock full of violence and pop culture references. We get that. We also get that we really aren’t supposed to get a message from every film we see. Sometimes a movie is supposed to be seen, not interpreted.
Dammit. It’s supposed to be entertainment, not indoctrination!
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:14 PM
The opening words to the movie are “Once upon a time…”
You kind of have to sit back and take it from there. I liked it and will see it again, but then I love Tarantino.
Mostly, it’s nice to see a movie in the last two decades that’s not afraid to portray Nazis as the bad guys without any equivalency bulls***. I just wish he’d do one about another more current group of Jew-hating bastards. I wish anyone would.
LibTired on August 30, 2009 at 10:15 PM
It’s worth the price of admission just to hear Waltz’s character Landa say, “That’s a Bingo!” and “Ooooohhhh, this is fun!”
Oh yeah, and Brad Pitt’s Italian is awesome, lol.
nickj116 on August 30, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Nazis at least believed in something. They were wrong in what they belived, but they were still more honorable than today’s Democrats. I hope that answers you question.
MikeA on August 30, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I wouldn’t say he’s overrated, but he’s hit or miss. His only good contribution to Grindhouse was the trailer. Actually, Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg’s Don’t was best, maybe tied with Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving.
alliebobbitt on August 30, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I totally agree. I rarely ever go to movies but I was vastly entertained by this one. 2.5 hours went by very quickly and the movie made me laugh at times and cringe at times (especially Landa’s last scene). I will buy the dvd when it comes out.
HawaiiLwyr on August 30, 2009 at 10:16 PM
… and the “Slugger” took way too much time walking out of the tunnel.
Inglourious Basterds earned 0 Stars at Traction Control’s Three Word Movie Review.
USCitizen on August 30, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Carpenter’s Vampires was the best movie he’s made, IMHO.
Rent it.
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I swear I must be the only person on the planet that loves the ending to Inglorious Basterds.
Great movie!
DethMetalCookieMonst on August 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Ummm…technically the dead Nazi’s in Dead Snow weren’t really classic zombies, just more like undead Nazis. DS was campy too, I liked it as well.
This movie is not going to be for everyone, but I liked it. It isn’t really supposed to be a drama I don’t think. It definately takes sever liberty with history.
Some minor spoilers follow:
Did no one catch “Das Boot” in the basement pub scene?
No one caught the campy misuse of the subtitles at the beginning of the film?
The movie wasn’t supposed to be some high drama and paragon of WWII like “Saving Private Ryan” for goodness sake.
Compared to some of the excessive “gore” of say KB Vol 1, this one wasn’t that bad. There was only one really over the top scene and it was over pretty quick.
You have to know a QT movie going in is going to be different. To each his own I guess, though I do agree with the waiting for DVD release. When it comes out on rental, give it a shot.
catmman on August 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM
You’re right Schindler’s List was practically Riefenstahlesque propaganda.
I don’t recall any/many recent movies trying to empathize with Nazis. Maybe Downfall but Goebbel’s wife and her actions towards her children guarantees that any sympathetic feelings for the Nazis are permanently extinguished.
darclon on August 30, 2009 at 10:21 PM
What film were you watching Ed? The gruesome action scenes were few and far between. The opening and tavern chapters were all about nuance. “Basterds” is the best mainstream film of the year.
Hey, didn’t you like that ghey marriage musical that the Mrs. “dragged you to”? I prefer your political opinions Ed.
toliver on August 30, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Never smoked pot in my life, but way to paint all of us with the same brush.
DethMetalCookieMonst on August 30, 2009 at 10:21 PM
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Gotta disagree with you on that one.
Most of Carpenters early stuff, Halloween, The Fog, Escape from New York, Big Trouble in Little China were FAR better than Vampires.
And not to be to much of a snob, but it took excessive liberties with the book which made the movie worse than it should have been.
catmman on August 30, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Largest city in Canada?
Loxodonta on August 30, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Methinks Ed might have a weak stomach, notthatthere’sanythingwrongwiththat.
kg598301 on August 30, 2009 at 10:23 PM
My 15 year old military history fanatic really wants to see this film.
It sounds like it’s geared toward teen age military nerds.
annoyinglittletwerp on August 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Good it ain’t, either. I walked out about half way through. It sucked.
RWLA on August 30, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Those movies were good, but Wood’s one-liners had me dying of laughter. While I liked the other movies, Big Trouble in Little China is the only other one that stands out for me.
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Biggest lake in Italy?
FontanaConservative on August 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM
That happened when I saw it too.
DethMetalCookieMonst on August 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Allow me to retort: Planet of the Apes (the original Heston flick, not that Marky Mark abortion) was nothing like the book. It turned out just fine.
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
That happened in my theater too.
HawaiiLwyr on August 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Since we’re analyzing Tarantino’s career in full, here’s my two cents:
Tarantino has a real, honest-to-goodness genius for crafting iconic cinematic moments and memories. I think he has a talent for this — staging spectacles — on par with Spielberg and Scorsese. Tarantino really understands how to use the camera to heighten suspense and to advance the story. I also think he’s outstanding at drawing out excellent performances from his actors. You’ll see this in I.G., and you’ve seen previous examples in Death Proof (Kurt Russell) and other QT films. He also has a tremendous intuitive feel for conversations, and his love of conversation as a sort of percussion section of hourly and daily human life comes through.
Tarantino’s weakness is a lack of discipline. He thinks he’s a better writer than he actually is, which is not to say he’s a bad writer, but that he isn’t a tough grader of his own writing especially dialogue writing. He seems to think that everyone will get his silly inside jokes, and that every rabbit hole of pop-cultural detritus is worth exploring. I think the reason Pulp Fiction worked so well is that the dialogue writing was so taut and sparkled with intelligence and wit. The wit is still there but not the intelligence and certainly not the tautness. Further, he seems congenitally incapable of using any conventional narrative structure, and his films, even the masterpieces, have a quilted feel to them. Then there’s the subjects of his films themselves — they are very junior-high-pulp-mags-and-comics-club.
So, Tarantino is genuinely very talented; he has flaws, quite serious ones that will probably prevent him from ever entering histoy’s ranks of truly elite directors, but he still is pretty darned good and entertaining when it all comes down to the bottom line.
Robert_Paulson on August 30, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Oh, gotcha. I hate his movies because I’m stupid. How ’bout I hate his movies because they’re pathetic drivel that I am supposed to orgasm over for their “clever” dialogue and use of violence when I really just want to punch him in his face? How about I hate his movies because they’re so frigging over rated? How about I hate his movies because he is wholy incapable of subtext? How about I just plain hate his movies because they suck?
mjk on August 30, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Nope. As I recall, a Tarantino is a folk dances, originating in southern Italy, characterized by a fast upbeat tempo, often accompanied by tambourines.
Please make a not of this for future reference.
Loxodonta on August 30, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Pulp Fiction Rules!
pilamaye on August 30, 2009 at 10:42 PM
It entertained me for all 2.5 hours, and I get bored easily. There were a handful of things to really like about this film, and there was no attempt to equivocate about the Nazis.
On the other hand, I agree with Ed that you could easily wait until this comes out on Netflix. It’s not a great movie, but a pretty solid one, like most Tarentino flicks.
Pavel on August 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM
To be quite frank people don’t go and see Tarantino films for the nuance and social commentary. They go and see them for the blood, guts, gratuitous violence, and occasional snappy one liners.
Hellrider on August 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM
No, it’s pretty much ’cause you’re stupid.
:)
Pavel on August 30, 2009 at 10:45 PM
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM
ohn1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
You’re correct about POTA, the original Heston film. Of course neither of Boulle’s books turned to films were anything like the books. Bridge on the River Kwai was different as well, but it was a GREAT film. Of course the POTA remake was more like the book and was AWFUL…
BTILC was a great one for one liners as well! That one was just plain old, campy fun!
As for Vampires, it wasn’t a terrible flick, but had it been done more in concert with the book narrative, it would have been a more engaging and I think a much more scary film. Nothing about Vampires is really frightening and the movie suffered from that.
catmman on August 30, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Looks like you’re already in knots, Pops!
Maquis on August 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I loved Pulp Fiction and both Kill Bills, and while I thought this movie was good, it left a lot to be desired. Just too many sort of random things going on and not enough of the “bastards”.
WisCon on August 30, 2009 at 10:49 PM
The movie is way overhyped and Tarentino is way overated.
Decent movie but star trek it is not
Even the violence was lacking, I liked the bear Jew baseball bat thing(was funny) but…
People liked the nazi hunter guy’s acting but I thought he was on screen to much.
kangjie on August 30, 2009 at 10:53 PM
That’s odd. My biggest complaint about the movie is that it wasn’t violent enough, and not enough Nazis were killed on camera.
Yeah, the history was completely off, and the Nazis were flat, but that was part of the appeal. I’m sick of being made to feel sympathy for the bad guy, and it’s wasted on Nazis.
Esthier on August 30, 2009 at 10:55 PM
My first Tarantino film was Reservoir Dogs, and I liked it a lot, as I’d never seen a movie put together in that fashion before then. And of all of his films that I’ve seen since then, I’ve not made it through any of them. Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill: Volume I were so over-hyped to me by friends, that there was no way they were going to live up to it. I never bothered with KB: II, Grindhouse or any other Tarantino flick since. Doubt I’ll bother with this one either, except maybe to humor someone.
By the way, the best movie that I’ve seen Brad Pitt in was Snatch by Guy Ritchie, starring Brad Pitt, Benicio del Toro, Jason Statham, Vinnie Jones and Dennis Farina (among others).
Left Coast Right Mind on August 30, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I may be old and doddering, but if I go, I can still take you with me. Anytime.
Also, BTW, I prefer cheese and crackers when you’re serving whine.
And actually, I’d rather enjoy sharing a meal with you.
Loxodonta on August 30, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Starts strong and then slides into Tarantino looking at himself in a mirror and loving what he sees. It’s kind of like every Stones album after “Some Girls.” You can’t help but like it, but it’s not why you fell in love in the first place.
And you guys are scum.
Bleeds Blue on August 30, 2009 at 10:58 PM
…no, cause sometimes a movie is made to make money and entertain. Maybe you’re just reading way too much into it. It is possible to overanalyze. Sometimes, a movie is just there to let you waste some time and have your senses filled with a smidge of fun.
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Err err…
ladyingray on August 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM
…or that… ;-)
john1schn on August 30, 2009 at 11:01 PM
I saw someone above (sorry can’t remember the name) mention THE BOONDOCK SAINTS. I love that one SOOOO much more than PULP FICTION. You actually care more for the main characters, as they go and take vengance on the bad guys.
(I am biased, I admit. The writer/director made friends with me after my review on IMDB.com, and I got to hang with him and Rocco for a couple of days. But I was raving about it long before he read my review. *Hey Troy! Still love ya, Man!)
But with that said… I saw INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and as I wasn’t taking it as serious film, I enjoyed watching the Nazis get slaughtered. There were some great scenes, and Waltz impressed me – while making me hate his guts. The rest, just Nazi-killing fun.
tickleddragon on August 30, 2009 at 11:03 PM
“Quentin Tarantino”, those two words usually mean that I pass on the movie. Haven’t really liked anything he’s done since he played an Elvis impersonator on the “Golden Girls” many years ago.
Tommy_G on August 30, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Totally disagree with the idea of this film. The fact that it came from Tarantino, that sick twisted ugly troll of a man, makes perfect sense.
keep the change on August 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Not interested. Can’t stand Pitt’s Southern accent. It’s even a low Southern, and he manages to screw that up.
spmat on August 30, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I haven’t seen the movie, but knowing about the subject matter I suspect that it is based in part on Aaron Bank’s biography. Aaron Bank was the father of Special Forces.
Towards the end of WW II, he had assembled a unit of German communists and other misfits with a mission to go after Hitler. Google Aaron Bank for more information.
Special Forces Grunt on August 30, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I’m not even sure there WAS a plot.
I saw it while waiting for the weather to clear up after hurricaine/tropical storm Danny was passing by. I think watching the waves would have been more interesting.
My son and I just watched the unedited version of Taken. That had a heck of a lot more violence, IMHO, than Basterds. However, there were a couple of differences
1. The violence in Taken by the protagonist was geared toward a result, not out of a sadistic personality as in Basterds.
2. While the protagonist of Taken certainly broke some laws, especially fwench laws, it was with a clear purpose. The activities of the Basterds would most likely fall into court martial/firing squad areas.
Believe me, I personally would not have a problem with the proper application of Dremel tools if it were a case of saving a family member’s life. However, the Basterds regularly went over the line.
Also, there didn’t seem to be a distinction between the way they treated SS officers and the regular ground pounder grunts (I may be wrong as I’m not that up on wwII nazi uniforms.)
As someone mentioned, the movie only worked if you assumed that the Nazis were total incompetent idiots.
“Gee Hans, Vas ist dis huge pile of explosive shtuff doink here”
“Ack Werner, Das ist noting to verry about”
bullseye on August 30, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Ed,
Wish I’d read your review before wasting my time and money. Preposterous movie with gratuitous pornographic violence. Brad Pitt was so enamored with himself that his performance assumed farcical proportions. Agree, the opening scene was beautifully acted and filmed and blessedly spared us a distracting over the top performance by the underwhelming Pitt who simply does not have the heft to play this role convincingly.
Charles Martel on August 30, 2009 at 11:29 PM
My two cents on Quentin Tarantino…
I liked Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. Mostly because they revolved around clever stories and characters and generally avoided excessive gore. They also had more of an ensemble cast which just worked better than Pulp Fiction and the other films that he’s done which were overloaded with marquee celebrities.
Perhaps he is a “genius” (and from a technical aspect he is a very gifted filmaker) but all in all his body of work is just not my cup of tea.
Mike Honcho on August 30, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Sorry. I should have said 15 years, not “two decades”. Wiseguy.
The Reader
Valkyrie
Miracle at St. Anna
Those are all very recent and it’s a trend. And there’s more.
LibTired on August 30, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I will say this about Tarentino: He surprises me. I’m tired of movies where I can recite the dialogue and script the action even before it happens. QT catches me by surprise, and fairly often.
But maybe thats because he’s a far sicker basterd[sic] than I am.
Maybe not.
He does several things very well, as pointed out in several of the posts above. One of my favorites is the jarring use of cinematography and music. Near the end, where Shoshanna is all dolled up (damn, she was smokin’. And she was smokin’, too) in the circular window, with hard freakin’ rock music (in 1944)… that was jarring. And it had impact.
Overall, I thought nearly every single scene went on way too damned long. Especially the basement bar scene.
He is a sick basterd. But at least he entertains me.
And I worry about what thay says about me.
docanvil on August 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Plus, I’m very squeamish. I don’t like movies I have to watch through my fingers. :*P
pannw on August 30, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Speaking of plot holes in the movie..
1. A private wearing a sidearm… While in the same room as Hitler?? The only time I think that happened was when the fighter pilot (forgot the name) told Hitler where he could shove his oak leaves with diamonds if he couldn’t wear his sidearm to the meeting.
2. An lengthy unencoded voice transmission between axis and allied lines and no one intercepted it??
3. The entire Nazi hierarchy is in one building and the nazis don’t leave a single person outside the building allowing a guy to go from one part to the other… Must have been on Borscht break or something.
4. Three guys with no papers other than an invite waltz into a meeting of the nazi top rats and no one checks them out???
Some things I’m not sure about
1. Would the amount of explosives shown on the two guys have had the desired effect?? My guess is it would have killed a lot of people but since the prime targets were a bit above and away, I”m not sure they would have been hit.
2. If she inherited the theater from here aunt, how come none of the nazi’s figured out that the aunt was jewish??
One thing I did find interesting was that they did refer once to the nazis as the National SOCIALIST party..
bullseye on August 30, 2009 at 11:41 PM
This was a total waste of time and money. I generally like or tolerate Tarantino and take him for what he is. But this movie has some of the worst acting ever…Brad Pitt was hilarous. Yeah killing Nazis is good but there was no plot other than that, and after 30 minutes eventhat gets to be boring. The accents were ridiculous and the whole thing was 45 minutes too long. And no one in the theater applauded, most were complaining about a waste of money. Definitely not a shining moment for Tarantino. He can do violence but he can’t do war.
Deanna on August 30, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Well I guess those are about the only three WWII movies I have not seen yet (I saw bits and pies of MaSA. It’s Spike Lee what do you expect?)
That explains the confusion.
I always assumed that Valkyrie was more about nut-roots wish-fulfillment due to their association of Hitler with a more recent American politician, than any historical plot.
The Reader; I coulda told you that was crap from a mile away.
darclon on August 30, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Dumbest thing I’ve read in a long, long time. You sure you weren’t watching GI Joe?
nickj116 on August 30, 2009 at 11:49 PM
The opening scene was brilliant, when the SS officer asked the farmer if he spoke English then said they would speak English for the remainder of the conversation I rolled my eyes thinking they did that for Americans who hate subtitles, but then you find out the real reason….
borg on August 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM
The movie wasn’t about wwII. It is about now. By showing how easily we can cheer the beating, torturing and killing of Nazis, it is a commentary on to subjects we see debated today. Many of the people who cheered are probably the same ones saying that America should never torture for any reason. Tarantino wants to show Americans their hypocrisy on this.
The Buzz on August 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Sounds fun, but I bet you flick peas at table!
Maquis on August 31, 2009 at 12:05 AM
I don’t see violence p0rn – EVER.
And one of our dearest neighbors was a former German soldier, held in an American POW camp for the second part of the war. He had little choice but to join their army and he was NOT a Nazi. There were plenty of regular soldiers who weren’t involved with the Nazis at all.
As for cheering the violent killing of anyone, why should we stoop to their level? Are you saying that because terrorists behead people with a knife that we should do the same to them? I thought we grew past “an eye for an eye”. Executing a criminal quickly and efficiently is one thing, torture and extreme violence for the pleasure of it is another.
Common Sense on August 31, 2009 at 12:05 AM
High Plains Drifter is a fantastic revenge movie.
As for Pitt, I’ve tried to watch most of his movies and the only one I thought was worth a flip was “Snatch”
–J
saltyrover on August 31, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I think this review misses some of the allusions the film makes because of the absurd lengths it goes through to make them.
If you’re looking for something deep in this movie, you might just find it. For example, watch the imagery of the last scene and put it in context. I don’t want to give away plot, but that scene flips WWII around perfectly.
Also, the sensless killing and the fact that most audiences are brought to laughter by it may be Tarantino’s way of using the audience as his commentary. If he can bring you to laugh at such violence then is the violent transformation the Nazi’s brought about in Germany really so farfetched. A lot of people always question how the German people allowed the Haulocaust to happen and I think Tarantino uses this film to show the audience how by putting it in a mindset that is apathetic to death.
The scene in which the S.S. officer Landa questions why people hate rats and not other animals is pointing straight to this sort of reasoning on Tarantino’s part.
All this said, Defiance was still the best War movie of the last 5 years.
eski502 on August 31, 2009 at 12:07 AM
You’re pretty much dead on. The bottom line is Hollywood blows. What bugs me more than anything is their collective refusal to force audiences to confront actual evil in any politically meaningful way. Cartoon evil they have no problem with. White man evil, same. Corporate evil, sure. It’s expected, but it bugs. It wasn’t always that way.
LibTired on August 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM
This sounds like it may be better than the original movie, which couldn’t decide whether it was a spoof or a “Dirty Dozen” ripoff.
HotWeaver on August 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM
It was a damn foreign film. Most of it was in either French or German requiring sub-titles and I go to movies to avoid reading.
AaronGuzman on August 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM
This is soooo, soooo, soooo yesterday. Can’t these turkeys get up to date at all? I want to see Islamos killed. And Brad Pitt? Gag me with a spoon.
MB4 on August 31, 2009 at 12:11 AM
I don’t think so. The underlying understanding is that the badness being perpetrated in the film served the purpose of ending an unequivocally historic atrocity. I don’t think Tarantino is making any statements about how bad we all are.
The people you “cheer” for in the movie were trying to end the war and make sure that the evildoers that outlived it would not be able to escape persecution for it.
LibTired on August 31, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Tarantino never even shows the Nazis actually killing anyone, except through a floor, and you don’t see any blood, just dust and holes. And yet everyone knows Nazis are evil, so evil that beating them to death (a war crime) is perfectly ok. And everyone in the audience accepts that without question. Because Nazis here represent the ultimate bad guy, no one questions that these guys, at least, you can torture, beat and kill with impunity.
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 12:16 AM
wow.. a lot of quentin haters on here…
Sorry, but this movie was great. And people that knock on Death Proof are lame as well. I haven’t seen ANY movie in the last 3 to 5 years that had me on the edge of my seat as both these movies did.
What was great about Death Proof is (spoiler alert) you become completely invested emotionally with the girls in the first half of the movie and when they get killed it’s a total shock! Then with the second half of the movie you again become engrossed with the next batch of girls… making the tension of the car chase unbearable!!! To top it all off, Kurt Russel’s performance as Stuntman Mike is one of the best ever.
Inglourius Basterds certainly had some holes in it.. but the performances COMPLETELY make up for those holes… and there are at least 5 major scenes in the movie where I was almost sweating it was so tense… if it weren’t for Brad Pitt bringing in some great comedic relief.. I would have thought this movie was directed by someone else… it was almost a Tarantino “light” movie… it seemed much more mainstream if that makes any sense.
When I left the theater I even commented to friends “if any other director’s name was on this and not Tarantino’s, people would be hailing this as one of the greatest war movies ever and be calling it a masterpiece.” Unfortunately Quentin’s name carries plenty of weight.. good and bad.
I was hoping for more back story on the other “basterds”…that was the only thing I was disappointed with. Personally I think Pitt’s performance was solid… how could you not laugh at his face when he is talking “eye talian” to the “jerries” knowing he is totally screwed? Everyone watching the movie was laughing out loud cus it was a great movie moment..
“That’s a BINGO!”
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 12:19 AM
It’s obvious Tarantino did not intend this to be taken as a serious WWII film. It didn’t happen that way, it couldn’t have happened that way.
It’s his commentary on the present.
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I thought that was an excellent commentary on our irrational hatred of certain things and not others based on no rational underpinning whatsoever. Second look at rats!
HawaiiLwyr on August 31, 2009 at 12:30 AM
I also enjoyed Death Proof. Yes, it’s very wordy, especially the extended version, but it’s excellent. The last scene is just pure vintage Hollywood stunt work, and Kurt Russel is just amazing.
There are a lot of Quentin haters here. I’m as conservative as they come, but I give credit where credit is due. He’s an excellent director, and I love watching his movies.
Chris37 on August 31, 2009 at 12:30 AM
@ the buzz
you really don’t know Tarantino if you think that was the point of this movie…
Seriously.
One final thought.. I think this might be the first Tarantino movie to actually have the most number of people killed on screen… which also would make it totally mainstream.
I was telling my mother about the film and her response was “his movies are so violent” Now my mother watches all kinds of movies and LOVES plenty of action movies like Arnold type stuff where 200 people die in every scene.
So I tried explaining to her that really most of Quentin’s movies have about 5 deaths in the whole movie.. and some of them you don’t even SEE! But they are emotionally suspenseful and leave a very big impact.. thus leaving the viewer with the impression that they “saw” more violence..
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 12:32 AM
But today in real life we are fighting people every bit as evil as the Nazis, yet if our soldiers give them a dirty look they’re accused of a war crime.
AaronGuzman on August 31, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Totally off-topic…but kind of on as someone said they were waiting for a movie where they actually kill muslim terrorist like this one did with Nazi’s.
Did anyone notice that new tv show on A&E or history or TLC where the guy teaches you how to escape a “disaster” or terrorist threat?
I can’t remember what it was called.. but i was totally laughing when instead of a middle easterner hijacking a plane.. they had some white dudes taking hostages! I started laughing my butt off…
I can see the pre-production office meeting now “we should make the hijackers little old catholic nuns!”
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 12:40 AM
That’s the point I’m trying to make. No way in hell is that kind of movie getting made in hollywood these days. But killing Nazis? Sure, everyone (especially liberals) hates Nazis.
I think that is exactly the point Tarantino is making as well…
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 12:45 AM
You’re off your rocker.
Basterds was the best movie of the year so far. Brilliant movie that has so many metaphors it was hard to keep track of it all at once.
Oscars will be won for this one.
msipes on August 31, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Carpenter’s They Live was a great little gem. Who can resist Rowdy Roddy Piper.
Lothar Of The Hill People on August 31, 2009 at 12:50 AM
@the buzz..
I agree with you that he uses that element in pushing his story… but I disagree with you in that it isn’t his central “point” for the film as a whole.
Also.. did anyone else catch Harvey Keitel’s voice on the phone at the end! Awesome!!
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Also,
to whoever was mocking the young on here for not knowing “marathon man”…
I have seen that movie at least 100 times…
Laurence Olivier is so evil in that movie it’s insane! Try watching that movie back to back with Neil Diamonds “the jazz singer”…
IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!!!
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 12:59 AM
HuffPo Review (I’m guessing):
What about that captured German soldier’s rights under the Geneva Conventions? Wasn’t hitting him in the head with a bat torture?
The Monster on August 31, 2009 at 1:00 AM
I tried telling my friend that every Jason Bourne movie is a complete rip-off of “marathon man” mixed with “3 days of the condor”.
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:01 AM
@the monster…
well he died pretty quickly… so I guess he wasn’t really tortured
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Well, you can say it is a Jewish revenge fantasy, and it certainly is that. I just feel that the numerous obvious plot holes, Pitt’s over the top performance, etc. add up to something more than than that. And it seems very timely too, for the subject, don’t you think? Is it not possible this is a poke at the typical hollywood and liberal groupthink on this subject?
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 1:02 AM
@the Buzz
that could very well be… I just think it’s one part to the whole cloth..
Quentin likes to call a spade a spade…
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Uh huh! I see Brad Pitt is doing his Clark Gable impersonation again.
sonnyspats1 on August 31, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Don’t worry, my boy. I’d never flick yours. But I do know how to avoid peas hitting me when I’m diapering a boy on the changing table. Frankly, I thought you were beyond needing that, but some boys do mature more slowly. Now where did I leave those baby wipes?
Loxodonta on August 31, 2009 at 1:08 AM
@sonnyspats1
HAHA! that was awesome..
I really did enjoy pitt in this movie…but his character is really minor in the whole picture… people seem to love to rip on him… but he is a good actor… even when he is doing something over the top.
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:09 AM
I felt that Pitt’s character was one dimensional. In fact, the only characters really developed are Shoshanna’s, the nazi “Jew Hunter”, and the nazi sniper. Everyone else is pretty one dimensional.
I almost didn’t go to see it because I was so disgusted by Pitt’s bad accent in the trailer. But after watching, I think that was a deliberate ploy. Or not, but I got past it anyway.
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 1:14 AM
I mean, it’s hard, cause it’s hard to point out where I really disagree with Ed’s criticisms here. I think it’s a very different movie for Tarantino, but I think where it excels is that it pushes something that people aren’t necessarily so comfortable with. In most of his movies he’s pushing you to care about characters you don’t want to care about, understanding why they did what they did, but in this is pushing you to care about the gruesome things themselves, not to appreciate the characters despite the gruesome things. If that makes sense. There were a lot of errors in execution, I think there’s like an hour and a subplot line in the middle you could cut out entirely and the movie would be better for it, but in terms of the overall concept of combining revenge porn with the circumstances where revenge porn would be the most in keeping with our social norms, which I think he achieved, I think the movie was really cool.
Also, if you can’t turn your brain off and enjoy someone brutalizing a Nazi, you should check and make sure your heart is still beating.
galenrox on August 31, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Tarantino’s really a good action “anime” director. Kill Bill’s style is straight out of action manga or anime affair – Action scenes that involve a solitary hero cutting through WAVES of enemies, heavy usage of cryptic, self conscious and dialogues, and individual opponents with specific, stylized attributes. See some similarities between Bill’s assassin crew and the “Akatsuki” from the Naruto series.
He definitely brings something new to the American audience, but for some Asians familiar with Asian pop culture and anime genre, be’s merely sampling and slightly reinventing stuff we’re very used to. Some of his newer movies aren’t really that great. But they might appeal to some American moviegoers, for whom the Matrix series was such an groundbreaking event.
Mad Kimchi on August 31, 2009 at 1:16 AM
@ galenrox…
yeah.. agreed.. as soon as the bat hit the head.. most of the audience let out a very audible grown… I actually said “oh shit!” out loud…and not in the laughing manner…
@the Buzz.. I totally agree with the one dimensional problem… that was my biggest complaint!! I really wanted to know more about the Basterds so that they didn’t come across as just one bland mold.
I actually cared more about the german defector character more than Pitts, mainly because you had his back story… and it provided that depth.
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:20 AM
I think he is not so much pushing you to care about the acts, but instead to think about them and how they can seem so acceptable in one context, but totally unacceptable in another (the current world situation).
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 1:22 AM
I think that is the reason the characters are so one dimensional. It’s not really about them.
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 1:25 AM
I, uh, well, hmmm… What was the question? ‘~’
Maquis on August 31, 2009 at 1:29 AM
@the buzz…
the basterds are one dimensional in a sense…
Quentin has discussed doing a prequel that he has already written about them… how they get to Germany… all their missions… etc..
Really the only character who has real dimension in this is Landa… he is so evil he makes Max Von Sydow seem like a kitten!
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:29 AM
I’ll just stick with the Dirty Dozen. Awesome movie with a satisfyingly high Nazi body count–and without all the obnoxious Tarantinoisms spilled all over it.
Hmm, lets see…Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson, or Brad Pitt*? Is there really any comparison here?
*gag
DangerHighVoltage on August 31, 2009 at 1:30 AM
And Shoshanna to a slightly lesser extent. Watching the two of them when they meet at the restaurant was one of my favorite parts. the tension was almost unbearable. Not to mention she’s smokin hot…
The Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 1:34 AM
@Dangerhighvoltage
I don’t know.. I saw Death Wish 4 the other day.. and that ruined Bronson for me..
I wish I was one of the “sons of lee marvin”
johnnyboy on August 31, 2009 at 1:36 AM
So. Uh. Romantic comedy?
What roll does Doris Day play.
kurtzz3 on August 31, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »