Inglourious Basterds

A film by a filmmaker who loves films. Tarantino's synthesis of B-movie aesthetics has (for now) reached its ultimate stage in the form of a war opus. There’s room for references, his own ego, and a final chapter of historical revisionism that, if it hadn't been making fun of the previous ones all along, would hardly have been understood. A pleasant surprise to my own expectations. (2009-10-07)

Tarantino has the craft down pat. He's great at leading actors, he's got a sense of timing, and his dialogue scenes have more punch than all of Bay's action scenes with screaming robots put together, but I can't digest the story he presents with the best of wills. The first chapter is phenomenal. It has everything: a great build-up, a sultry atmosphere, the suspense of what will inevitably come at any second, and the perfect entry of an extremely charismatic asshole. But the rest of the film, in my eyes, teeters on a thin line between sparse admiration and feelings of awkwardness, between what I am still logically willing to accept and what I am no longer. Narrative excess is fine, but everything has its limits, Quentin. (2009-08-30)

I wasn't looking forward to the film, so I kind of secretly thought that if I wasn't looking forward to it, I might enjoy it. Wrong, I didn't. Well, a couple of scenes were really good, but the rest of the movie, the rest of the 140 minutes? “Why am I yawning? Why am I looking around at everyone else? Why am I thinking about what I have to study for school tomorrow? Wait a minute, what am I doing here? Aha! Watching a movie... What's the movie about?" I'm not saying the actors didn't act well, on the contrary, some of them played first class psychos, but that's not enough for me. This movie left me completely sleepy, unsatisfied, and even more, a little disgusted. And it's not the scenes where he beats someone up – I was even saying that if he didn't smash his head in with that baseball bat, I'd give it one less star... Please explain to me what's so good about this movie! I really don't see anything there, apart from a few scenes and the fact that they really used several different languages. If I hadn't seen the film I wouldn't have missed anything, I wouldn't have been deprived of anything in my life; on the other hand, I feel like the film robbed me of a good 140 minutes, and that's not a negligible amount of time. So I just won't give it more, even if they begged me on my knees!! X-D (2010-01-27)

It didn't offend me, but it also didn't please me. There are a few good catchphrases, perhaps a few revealing references to Reich and Weimar German films, but... Especially the Pitt-Schweiger-Brühl trio was bland. And the women? The completely non-fatal Laurent and Kruger. Sure, there were some nice ideas in there - Jewish revenge, the swastika on the forehead, and some good period details, but they were drowned in the total period failure. (2010-03-10)

To have a two-and-a-half-hour Tarantino movie with only two characters portrayed in detail with a proper backstory (Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent) while none of them belongs to the titular “Basterds” is unforgivable. The “Basterds” are there just to give the film some sort of a weak framework; their potential started in the trailer and ended in the cutting room. All of the other elements of this flick are, however, *Cinema Paradiso*. (2009-08-30)