Inglourious Basterds

[Worm of Despite]

Repeating you? Perhaps ignoring! Nah...I just missed that bit, for some reason!

[danlo]

I really wanted to see this movie-but some idiot on the Morning Show on 94 Rock blurted out the ending-totally ruining it for me. Ah well, there's always District 9.

[Worm of Despite]

I really wanted to see this movie-but some idiot on the Morning Show on 94 Rock blurted out the ending-totally ruining it for me. Ah well, there's always District 9.

Spoiled or not, the movie's still worth seeing. Some things you can know ahead of time but the experience is totally different.

[Rigel]

It's still worth seeing. I knew about the ending, and it didn't lesson it for me at all

[[Syl]]

I'm not sure how to judge this movie. Yes, critically, it was fascinating. The story, however, felt like an excuse. Well, several excuses. Maybe it was my mood, but I didn't have the kind of rapport with the characters to truly appreciate the suspsense-building of some of the scenes. I can't fault the actors; they did an amazing job.

Hmm, I think it might have a lot to do with me coming off a week-long binge of Generation Kill. As long as the movie was, it can't compete with a mini-series for characterization, and the violence of WWII is a bit removed compared to the fresh wound that is the Iraq War.

[Fist and Faith]

What's with the spelling of Basterds? Is there a particular reason? Or is Bastard spelled that way outside of the USA?

[CovenantJr]

What's with the spelling of Basterds? Is there a particular reason? Or is Bastard spelled that way outside of the USA?

No, it isn't. Since the whole title is misspelled, I assume it's a deliberate attempt to reference the original while remaining distinct from it.

[dlbpharmd]

The misspelling is based on Brad Pitt's character, a redneck from Maynardville, TN. I live about an hour or so from Maynardville and it truly is redneck heaven. My high school team played them (basketball) every year, and in my mind's eye I can still see the tobacco chewing students throwing rolls of toilet paper at us as we ran out of the visitor's locker room. I kid you not.

I'm not a big fan of QT myself. I didn't like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, but I am a fan of Kill Bill. From Dusk til Dawn is just OK for me. I loved Inglorious Basterds. The dialogue, the acting (let's just go ahead and nominate Waltz for Best Supporting Actor right now,) the action sequences, the comedy...oh, and the ending. Genius!

So far, best movie I've seen this year, hands down.

[Lord Mhoram]

let's just go ahead and nominate Waltz for Best Supporting Actor right now

[dlbpharmd]

The misspelling is based on Brad Pitt's character, a redneck from Maynardville, TN. I live about an hour or so from Maynardville and it truly is redneck heaven. My high school team played them (basketball) every year, and in my mind's eye I can still see the tobacco chewing students throwing rolls of toilet paper at us as we ran out of the visitor's locker room. I kid you not.

Along those lines, the first 3-point shot in Tennessee high school basketball happened at Maynardville High school, fall 1987. Against my team. Those basterds.

[Fist and Faith]

I hadn't realized Inglourious was also spelled wrong. I thought it was just spelled otherwise over here, like colour/color.

Thanks, Don. Good image about the basketball games, too.

[CovenantJr]

Fresh from Basterds tonight. A very good film, probably Tarantino's best, but far from perfect. Without Waltz it would have been considerably diminished; the man was a joy to watch. Perhaps strangely, my favourite scene in the whole film was the first (and most serious) one.

[matrixman]

Perhaps strangely, my favourite scene in the whole film was the first (and most serious) one.

Just saw the movie myself. The opening is my favorite too. It was a heartwrenching, Schindler's List kind of scene.

Maybe it was my mood, but I didn't have the kind of rapport with the characters to truly appreciate the suspsense-building of some of the scenes.

I couldn't fully connect with all the characters either, although the opening episode was gripping.

Overall I liked the movie. I join in the chorus of praise for Christoph Waltz. The climax totally surprised me.

[CovenantJr]

By the way, I meant to say:

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.

I had an identical experience with the same scene. I took that scene to be a serious demonstration of the Basterds' ruthless brutality and dehumanisation of their enemies, but a sizeable chunk of the audience guffawed. Maybe that was the way it was intended, and I was wrong. I don't understand how Tarantino thinks. It wasn't an isolated incident, though; the audience laughed their way through all the serious parts (except, mercifully, the opening scene).

[Montresor]

I had an identical experience with the same scene. I took that scene to be a serious demonstration of the Basterds' ruthless brutality and dehumanisation of their enemies, but a sizeable chunk of the audience guffawed. Maybe that was the way it was intended, and I was wrong. I don't understand how Tarantino thinks. It wasn't an isolated incident, though; the audience laughed their way through all the serious parts (except, mercifully, the opening scene).

I've seen the film twice so far, and the same thing happened the second time, though not nearly as pronounced. I think the audience can't be entirely blamed as the lead up is partly done for comic potential. However, I have little doubt it was meant to work by subverting audience expectations i.e. build the scene up with a few laughs and then shock the audience with a moment of extreme violence. Two things lead me to this conclusion - 1, the German soldier who is executed is consistently portrayed as brave and dignified, while the humour comes only from the Basterds; and 2 - I saw an interview with Eli Roth in which he said the scenes in which he had to kill people emotionally drained him. I think, if no-one else was, Roth played the execution to be completely straight.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

***WARNING: This review has spoilers throughout, if you haven't seen the film and plan to, do not read this.***

Why? ...

Why did he make this film? It's obvious from the film that he might not have known either. The opening scene is wonderful at first, it takes it's time, has some very good shot composition (one of his best, IMO)...but we do get a standard nazi officer cliche character who does standard nazi officer cliche things like telling the head of family to please be at home in his own house as he leers at one of the guys' daughters. Despite the overlong dialogue, the opening scene is wonderful and finishes brilliantly...but the composition and genre confusion (though subtle) of that first seen is a true oracle of things to come.

Hmmm.

Spoiler

Next scene we get an over the top, near campy scene of preview fame...and it's entertaining, bringing a grin to the face. We then get a comical version of de fuhrer who questions a nazi allowed to live by the Basterds and we get to see a flashback scene. Here a proud, self-controlled nazi officer refuses to divulge secrets and gets to meet the Bear Jew who procedes to bash his brains in. A funny, entertaining scene. But, during this scene we all the sudden, unexpectedly, and completely off kilter with what the first scene set up as far as our expectations of the film, get a stop frame headline introduction to a nazi nazi-killer and a quick flashback to his past and how he became a Basterd, then back to the Jew Bear intro.

Exquise me?

We go on to the other story thread of the girl who escaped from the slaughter of her family in the first scene now running a cinema (why did they let her go? Nazis must not be able to run). A nazi war hero tries to woo her, later divulging that he is the star of a huge film being made by hur Stroesser, about his exploits at killing French and Americans. He gets Stroesser to move the premiere to the girl's cinema, allowing her to exact revenge.

Umm, okay? ...

The film from here seems to try to be a commentary on film as propaganda, which the first two initial scenes did not ready us for...so now we have the serious Jew/Nazi theme, the overhanded, funny, gory, action, guilty-pleasure theme, and the film as propoganda theme all vying for screen time in a long film. And unfortunately, combined with Tarantino's pension for dialogue and more dialogue, though interesting as it is...well, it just doesn't work and makes the film chaotic and overall incoherent, even flat out boring at times.

Problem.

What type of film is this? Are we to take it serious, Defiance remake like? Are we to take it lightly, satirical, comical indulgence? Are we to look into the deeper meanings of the propaganda/cinema takes? This is the main issue for me.

(sigh)

The film is beautifully shot, colored, very well acted, even exhuberant. The dialogue is very interesting at times, but very boring at others. I felt the opening scene was done very well but could have been shorter. The dialogue in the 'basement' of which Pitt's character drew many laughs of mention, was way, way too long and almost unnecessary as the buildup was pointless - we all knew it was going to end in blood, and then it did with a surprise twist - boy did it NOT work for me...? Why? Now everyone we just started to get used to was dead. For what? That whole scene could have been cut, it had almost no point. None whatsoever other than the shoe being left as a clue for Waltz's character, Landa (phenomenal job). The scene with Myers made me laugh everytime he was in the frame, I was just waiting for him to do something funny. Well, the scene set up the basement scene...but why was it in the film? Did it really need to be? I would have rather followed the Basterds.

Now for my Op:

Tarantino's need to 'devide' his films up into sections and include the audience in this with those headlines was fine with Kill Bill, but what the hell is it doing in this film? If the film were only about the Basterds, including the section cutup headlines, and the stopframe headlines, and the pointless little 'penned nazi names' during the last act/scene, would fit...but all this doesn't fit with the more seriously themed path of the other story threads - the tone of the film is all over the place.

People say that Tarantino takes himself too seriously. I found myself swearing at him repeatedly for this very thing, subjecting his audience to overlong dialogue and a mishmashedly confused plot/film. But I also feel that Tarantino doesn't take himself seriously enough as a filmmaker with some breathtaking talent in certain areas, cinematography being the main. It's sad actually. It seems that the film became far more serious, and far deeper, than Tarantino had initially intended.

Back to the plot. What was the plot..again? Oh, yeah. And the plot holes...should I care? Is the film serious enough for the plot holes to matter? I don't think Tarantino intended the film to be taken serious enough that they would matter...he definitly knows they exist. For instances: the reels being stacked behind the screen, would the SS really not think it peculier? Why didn't the Bear Jew and friend not react to the cinema being on fire though their own bombs hadn't gone off yet? AND. Tarantino didn't even need the Basterds to kill Hitler?! Why then call the film what he did? Hell, the Basterds weren't in half the film as it is, at least in tone alone.

Grrr.

In the end, the experience is a somewhat entertaining, gory film with vibrant visuals, very good acting, some funny dialogue and a few interesting characters. It's a film that just doesn't know what it wants to be but still draws you in and brings you along. If anything, Inglourisous Basterds is a mishmash of what Tarantino might accomplish if given a directorial straight jacket.

[Montresor]

I think you're rather missing the point quite widely. It's hardly surprising that you may wonder at the disjointed nature of the film, or at the completely different tone of parts. The film subverts expectations on almost every front.

A few comments I'll spoiler:

Spoiler

The setting up and the killing of the characters in the basement is the best example of this subversion. The British officer's death really took me by surprise...nor am I the only one. The two people I've seen this film with both commented on the fact that they were expecting him to be somehow alive. Why should he be? Do films have to follow the same old formula of plot and character progression?

As for the big stack of film reels, are you really surprised that Landa would have let it pass? It was clear he was up to something from the moment he met Shoshanna in the restaurant. As for letting her go (at the opening) - yes, it is strange . . . that's the point.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

Spoiler

What Point? To subvert the expectations of the audience? That's great when done well...but why introduce a character a third through and then kill him off...it was Tarantino waisting my time - how I felt...Yeah I guess the reels being left makes sense in light of his request at the end, but letting the girl go just doesn't really make any sense and somewhat ruins my favorite scene from the film.

[Montresor]

Spoiler

The British Officer is clearly a plot cypher - he's a fundamental part of the movie, both in explaining the themes of the movie, and in setting up the finale. The fact that he's such an enteraining diversion goes hand in hand with the rest of the movie.

[kevinswatch]

Just came back from seeing it. Good quality fun. At times it seemed to drag, but entertaining all the way.-jay