His worst sin as a film-maker and writer is his unashamed plagiarism of other films. Whole sequences of dialogue are sometimes lifted from lesser known films, and some sequences are copied shot for shot. Resevoir Dogs is by far the biggest offender in this regard (it's a shameless rip-off of the HK film City on Fire). He's also been known to pay off his co-writers so he can get a full 'written-by' credit. He did this most famously with Roger Avery, who wrote some of the most quoted stuff from Pulp Fiction.
So, it was with some trepidation that years ago I heard he was going to make a film called The Inglorious Bastards. Although not a great film, the Italian orginal which shares the title (and such a great title it is), is a thoroughly entertaining exploitation classic. When Tarantino initially claimed he was doing a remake of the Good the Bad and the Ugly, I was suspicious he was yet again not giving adequate credit to his source material.
Years passed and he never seemed to make the film...until now, of course. After doing some reading, and hearing him come out and acknowledge the original (though claim his was going to be completely different), I was a little intrigued. After hearing that the villain in the film won a Best Actor at Cannes, I was very intrigued. I decided to go and watch it last night.
Inglorious Basterds is an excellent film. To the best of my knowledge, the film is only referential to other films, and presents a completely original script. It has essentially nothing but the WWII setting and title in common with the original. Inglorious Basterds is definitely aimed at film buffs, with constant references to early cinema and, indeed, the entire plot revolves around the concept of cinema. Although some of this dialogue could have been cut from the film (at the middle part it does tend to drag for five or ten minutes), Inglorious Basterds is the most accomplished film Tarantino has made to date.
What is very interesting about the film is that, although the characters are all quite entertaining, the are all subordinate to the story. They function mostly to explore the larger narrative, and characters who seem like they are going to be major aren't. The film is extremely unpredictable in how it treats its characters. I really liked this aspect of the movie.
The Basterds themselves are central, though they couldn't be thought of as the main characters. That role arguably goes to Shoshanna and, possibly, Colonel Hans Landa. Special mention must be given to Christoph Waltz as Colonel Landa - his performance is absolutely remarkable. Not only is the character fascinating, Waltz's performance elevates his depth and the entire movie. I'd venture to say that Waltz makes this movie in the same way that Ledger made Batman Returns.
I'd like to say more, but I really do hate telling people what's good for them. If your curious about the film, see it. If you're not, then give it some more thought.
On a related note - cinema audiences are quite strange at times. I think they were expecting the film to be a comedy. At one point, where the audience is clearly supposed to feel sorry for a stoic German soldier, and to be shocked at his rather brutal demise, the audience burst into laughter as if it was the funniest thing in the film. Odd, especially when Tarantino goes out of his way not to demonise the Germans in this film. Later on, when
Spoiler
Hitler and Goebbels are riddled with bullets
I just can't find him boring, usually, but I do usually have a long gestation time before I watch him again. I waited a couple years (or it felt like) to view Kill Bill, and it just gave me chills as if a first viewing. He's definitely got a verve that touches in with me. As for plagiarism: I'd have to see it, indeed. Homage and mimicry can be a very fine line, but if the interplay is anything similar to A Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo, then I may end up agreeing with you (couldn't enjoy Fistful, having seen Yojimbo).
