Keep in mind that the cut I saw was the 160-minute Cannes edit, and Tarantino has said that he will be putting together a slightly different edit when it officially debuts.

-----------

Inglourious Basterds starts with a bang, with a fantastic sequence between Nazi and self-proclaimed 'Jew Hunter' Standartenführer Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), as he visits a small French country house suspecting a man and his family of harboring Jews. As he talks with the owner of the house, several shots reveal a young woman named Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent) and her family hiding under the floorboards. It's a phenomenal scene with crackling dialogue and a lot of tension, and ends brutally in a way that sets up what appears to be an action-packed revenge film. Unfortunately, the action pretty much stops there. Instead of the great dialogue and interesting characters one might expect from a Tarantino film, we are left with many endless scenes of dialogue that have no real point and make the general plot incomprehensible. It's hard to care about any of these characters and their plights because the screenplay fails to develop them and make them relatable. Shoshanna seems to be crafted initially as a character similar to 'The Bride' from the Kill Bill films, but she's pretty much a caricature - even attempts at developing her with a love interest (Jacky Ido) don't succeed because their romance is so out of nowhere. The majority of this film involves a plot to assassinate Hitler at a cinema, who allows Tarantino to throw in many 'oh-so-clever' references to classic films that seem obvious and forced. And for those going to see this film for the 'inglourious basterds' that are being advertised to no end in the promotional material, you're going to be sorely disappointed. The segments involving these characters are easily the best and feel the most Tarantino-esque of anything in this film. However, they are few and far between. Star Brad Pitt is only in the film for an hour at most, while the other Basterds are given limited screentime that ranges from about forty minutes to just over five. The way they are introduced is sloppy too. The character of Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schwieger) is given an elaborate and incredibly entertaining introduction when he first appears that explains his entire backstory in a matter of minutes. However, this technique is not used with any of the other characters and Stiglitz is almost never seen again in the film. Even Pitt's Aldo Raine, while a fun character that Pitt succeeds with, is entirely one-dimensional. It all leads to a cluttered and confusing climax that really shows the film's lack of a real tone or a central protagonist. The film has beautiful cinematography and is far from terrible thanks to a phenomenal performance from Waltz and solid work from Pitt, but it's a crushing disappointment that Tarantino could have done so much more with. The final line of the film occurs when Pitt decides to put a mark on his final Nazi victim, just so everyone will know who he truly is. He carves into his forehead a swastika, and stares directly into the camera and goes "This is my masterpiece." Oh Tarantino, if only. C/C+

Why does that poster have "basterds" spelled correctly?

I think at one point the movie went with the proper spelling of both words but later changed it. That teaser poster came out like a year ago.

I hate miss spelled things for advertising, it seems very silly.

I think I'm going to try to see this again this weekend. Although Tarantino's edits from the Cannes cut I saw certainly won't change much of the film (he omitted a whole minute of footage), maybe I'll enjoy it more now that I don't have sky-high expectations.

or that you saw reviews and realized, hey i have to change my opinion because critics liked it?

I'm baffled by how positive reviews are which makes me think I might have missed something the first time around. Is there something wrong with that? I've been saying since I saw it that I would like to give it another chance at some point.

there's nothing wrong with altering your opinion if you realize that it was incorrect,
but doing it simply because everyone disagrees with you is dumb, although I don't think that's what your doing, so no worries.

BJs Grade:

A 9.4|10

phenomenal film, QT indeed makes another masterpiece, I want to see it again.

Agreed. They were the two best parts of the movie. Waltz won the Actor award at Cannes so he's definitely a contender.

And I really disliked the character of Shoshanna - she was so poorly developed that it was hard to care about her, and in my opinion weakened the effect of the finale.

I agree with Magnus, though I really loved Shoshanna's story. I loved the clever use of fonts in the credits and chapters as well.

A

This movie is in some ways very similar to Kill Bill vol 2.

The film had some pretty great scenes, Waltz was almost as good as you can read everywhere and I wasn't bored for a second. But overall the film lacked something. While I appreciated the single chapters, it didn't worked as a whole. B+

Bumsti

As long as Tarantino has been talking about a WWII movie, there were some notions that it would be the ultimate action film. Back then, there were rumors that Stallone and Schwarzenegger (in Nazi garb) would have a ten minute slug fest; that Bruce Willis and a whole slew of 80s action heroes would team up for one action rampage. Somewhere over the years that project morphed into The Expendables, but c'mon now, Tarantino's WWII movie was never going to be another Saving Private Ryan.

Instead, what we have here are five delicious chapters, two of which could practically be stage productions. Tarantino has always been great with individual scenes, and the first and fourth sections of this film are a fine demonstration of dialogue as a builder of suspense. The assured framing and terrific Morricone score make the movie's running time fly by.

I wouldn't fault one for pointing out how sorely underused most of the Basterds are. For that matter, he was a fool thinking his protege Eli Roth could act. Then there's the anarchic ending, which is going to divide plenty of people. I found it to be outlandish, kinda wonderful wish fulfillment.

This isn't going to be the film that makes you change your opinion on Tarantino. For my money, it proves he's got plenty more to say and show yet.

moviedude, you are quite a fool if you think that tarantino thinks that eli roth can act. btw i think that this film is even better than kill bill, i havent been this euphoric after a film since i dont know when. i am forced to rate this film an A.

inglorious bastards

I was really looking forward to watching this film and after doing so I'm underwhelmed in this Tarantino effort.

I thought the film was long, the story somewhat interesting, only a couple characters really appealed to me, not nearly as gory or bloody as I was under the impression it would be, not very impressed with Pitt's role (I wish he had been shot), disappointed that Novak and the freeks n geeks guy didn't get to do much more with there roles (give'em a death scene or something).

I did enjoy Shoshanna's splice of her film at the end and her laughing as the film scorched the screen. I enjoyed the german actresses character, the jew hunter and frederick. The opening sequence I liked very much. It was very tense and had a good tone. Didn't care for the whole Pitt speech to the IB recruits. The bat scene was intense. His accent not so hot (both Pitt and the bat boy).

The best part for me was in the bar where the shootout took place. The most uninteresting were anything with Hitler and Goebbels besides them being pumped full of lead at the end.

I really hated how QT re-hashed music he did from KB. Maybe it's just me but that music he selected for KB was classic and it's a part of KB now so to use parts of it in this film was very unoriginal to me. I also didn't like the freeze frame name intro for Goebbels just like he did in KB again. That was again unoriginal to be doing that.

Overall, I didn't dislike the movie because it did have some moments but it certainly wasn't the effort or film that I was expecting.

Grade - B

I would agree with your thought on Waltz. He gives the most interesting performance and memorable one. TBH, I almost wished he got away with what he did scot free.

Pitts character was just a toon to me.

This may be my favorite movie of 2009 so far. It's a beautiful film in every sense. It hits right on so many notes that even though I could find fault if I really tried hard, I'm too happy after seeing it that I'd rather not. For comparison sake, District 9 and Watchmen would be somewhere in my top 5 of the year as well.

Agree absolutely about the performance of the lead villain deserving an Oscar.

It's entertaining, mostly. But it's a mess, the final product clearly a rush job (ironic considering how long he sat on this), and the seams show. Oh, do they show.

Disappointing.

Thank God for you. No, really.

His use of the Cat People theme made me LOL.

I guess that made more sense when Natassja Kinski was supposed to be in the film?

Perhaps Quentin Tarantino will never top his debut masterpiece.

I'm sad to report that Inglourious Basterds is yet another step down in Tarantino's slow descent in quality of each of his subsequent films after his brilliant Reservoir Dogs.

Sure... the slide has been gradual, to the point of infinitesimal at times, but it is a downward slide nonetheless.

As much as I enjoyed the alternative history parlayed in IB, I never became entirely ensnared in it's narrative.

As hilarious as several scenes may have been, I couldn't achieve the psychic bellylaugh that QT seemed to be shooting for.

I saw the wink, but couldn't quite close my eye to the manufactured nature of it.

Despite all that, it's better than many trumpeted films this year. Tarantino's fall from grace is the equal of many directors' soaring achievement. The exposed dialogue language management alone is worth the price of admission. Quentin's worst, so far, still rates a solid:


out of

it's a fantastic film, simply fantastic. the problem is there is no way he will ever do anything as brilliant as reservoir dogs and nearly brilliant as pulp fiction. still, i truly loved it.

I fucking hate Tarantino and his film making style with a passion unlike any other. I don't want to get into why because I could only defend myself thoroughly in a verbal discussion. I will say though that I was supposed to write a review for this movie, but after seeing it, decided to step away and let someone else do it. I am way too biased to give a critical analysis of this film and it would not be fair to any readers to hear me rant about how much I despise Tarantino in anything other than a column. But since I will not write about why I hate him, I won't even do a column.... I believe there is a podcast in the near future though...