Inglourious Basterds (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,716 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
People seem to be missing the point
ablewuzi10 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This review gives everything away, so see the movie first.

It is neither allegory nor satire, the two finest categories in both fiction and cinema, and yet it approaches perfection anyway. It is of a nature I have no name for, but it is a nature that reveals truth and undermines falsehoods.

Nothing is more cloaked in falsehood than the victor's depiction of past wars. It is especially true of the children of the victors--especially the children of US WWII veterans, like myself.

We get our view of the war from movies like Audi Murphy in To Hell and Back or Saving Private Ryan. Nothing but praise for our heroes and cheers for killing the enemy.

But QT exposes this hypocrisy by engineering a film where we are disgusted first by the excesses of the enemy and then by the excesses of our heroes. That is the first instance. The hypocrisy is slammed home in the second instance where we are first disgusted by the sight of American after American being shot dead by by a German sniper hero and secondly brought to revel in the butchery of several hundred enemy at the hands of our heroes. Tit for tat.

It fits the pattern of praise for our heroes and cheers for killing the enemy, but because it is presented both ways the hypocrisy becomes self- evident. This is why so many people hate the movie--even if they fail to realize it. High art, true art, 10 of 10.
200 out of 286 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Who the hell is Christoph Waltz?
paulmuehlendahl25 August 2009
That's what I thought, when I heard about the cast of Inglorious Basterds. And I'm both from Germany and into movies.

That guy is older than 50 and so far he almost only played in mediocre TV series - and even there he didn't play the main parts. Obviously nobody ever noticed, what he's capable of. Now, thanks to QT, he got one shot to change that - and - let's put it this way - that was a bingo! He is the living proof of what a great caster Tarrantino is.

By the way: I think it's a great privilege to watch the movie as a German - being able to understand everything. And the German dialog is written almost as good as the English.

Now I could repeat, what many others have written here before. I'll put it short: Finally, QT is back.
515 out of 789 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A bunch of haters rating it 1 star
hooliganmachin28 February 2019
So I balanced it out. This review is too short but its too the point. Watch it. Judge it yourself.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
153 minutes of patches
VaultBoyX24 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After watching Inglorious Basterds i was really surprised when i saw ratings on IMDb. Didn't expected high ratings and top 250 place. If we can only isolate and rate Christoph Waltz's acting performance i would agree that this movie deserves 10. But he is not alone, and his performance can't cover horrible plot, boring conversations, unfunny characters, alternative QT WW2 fantasy and Eli Roth as Jew bear.

The opening scene with Denis Menochet as farmer and Christoph Waltz as SS officer is best part of the movie. Only part that have same quality and connects tension from that scene with the rest of the movie is a basement scene. Basement scene was crossroad for me. Michael Fassbender was great in role of British spy and his character adds some new layer of logic and realism in movie. In moments you can actually see some plot finally breaking through the rubbish you watched after the farm scene. After the basement chapter, movie is going nowhere.

Empty space. A lot of empty space for movie that last 153 minutes. Long and boring scenes with boring characters and conversations. Childish fantasy mixed up with Spaghetti western movies and some atmosphere that don't belong to WW2 period. Thats why we have basterds to fill everything else and patch the rest of movie. They failed. Basterds are weakest/undeveloped and most boring part of movie. Movie is named by them, yes - Brad is on Movie poster ... but they are horrible. Worst role of Mr Pitt and i hope last one from Eli Roth.

Cinema/Shosanna story with David Bowie music was just another QT patch v1.1 to fill huge empty space between farm and basement. Extremely boring scenes with Mélanie Laurent (taking off cinema letters, red dresses, secret love Marcel...) will blast your brain. Yes - headache is a must.

Beside 2 good scenes, i really enjoyed listening smooth gradient of German, French and English language. But again, this is connected to Waltz and Fassbender and their personal knowledge that Tarantino used for his fantasy.

Inglorious Basterds is Hybrid movie where gangsters are replaced with Nazis adding them wild west background layer with Brad Pitt on movie poster just to sell tickets. It doesn't work in this case.

5/10 - only for Christoph Waltz and Michael Fassbender.
886 out of 1,475 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Read "Hated it" reviews before watching
htabbara22 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.

"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done." "The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz".

"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened" Now for more details go and read "Hated it" reviews.

One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 "heroes" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.

What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.

After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.

My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.
928 out of 1,604 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Waltz is a Genius!!!!!
laurylou-123 July 2009
I had the PRIVILEGE of attending the UK premier of Inglorious Basterds this evening! Having seen the trailers i had high hopes but had doubts due to a string of self indulgent films (c'mon lets be honest, self indulgence is his tarantinos middle name)

I was surprised to find though that he had pulled the cat out of the bag with this one. The film is rich with interesting dialogue, Perfect timed comedy with a dash of brutal assassination.

The crowning glory of this film though lies with Christoph Waltz whom no fault or error can be found. He manages to create a real tension in the audience whilst remaining quite "theatrical" (couldn't think of a better word). He definitely deserved his prize at Cannes and is heading for an Oscar no doubt!!!! Hoping to see him in something again soon!
496 out of 874 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tarantino's "Talking At Tables"
I_Hate_Almost_Everything14 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Chapter One: Once Upon a Time… At A Table (1941)

In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.

Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)

In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.

Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking

In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.

Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking

In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.

Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table

In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.

The End
416 out of 746 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dark but Funny Comic Fantasy
Llakor30 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Inglorious Basterds is a dark and violent comic fantasy, gloriously so. Built on the framework of The Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Basterds ditches the elongated training sequences of The Dirty Dozen to plunge into the action right away. In the process, Tarantino fixes one of The Dirty Dozen's major flaws by giving the bad guys screen time to remind us just how bad the Nazis were. The Nazis with the most screen time end up becoming the most completely human characters in the film, which ironically makes them even worse monsters.

Bu ditching the training sequences, Tarantino is also able to give us a picture of the entire war, showing us not only British, American and German soldiers, but also giving us glimpses into the world of French and German civilians, both collaborators and Resistance.

It goes without saying that any Tarantino film is going to have fantastic dialogue, but when Tarantino made the decision to have the French characters speak French and the Germans speak German, beyond adding a level of authenticity, Tarantino also somehow ensured that his dialogue in French was as sharp and funny and clever as his English dialogue.

Case in point, during the opening sequence the Nazi "Jew Hunter" SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christian Waltz) is interrogating French dairy farmer Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). Landa suspects that LaPadite is hiding a family of Jews. While subtly pressuring LaPadite, Landa asks for a glass of milk. After greedily gulping it down, Landa compliments LaPadite on his daughters and his cows, "à votre famille et à vos vaches, je dis bravo." The thing of it is, in French "vache" means cow, but it is also a vulgar name for the vagina. If reprimanded for this vulgar pun, Landa could quite convincingly claim not to understand French well enough to have meant it that way, but Landa does mean it that way and he means it as a threat. And LaPadite understands his meaning all too well.

That is a really subtle piece of acting and word-play that many audiences would never catch, or at least they might understand the subtext without knowing the exact nature of the threat. The film is rich with that kind of detail. All of the French and English dialogue is chosen with that same attention to detail and while I can't swear to the German, I would suspect that it shows a similar level of craft.

Inglorious Basterds opens with the phrase, "Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France." Personally, this reminds me of the opening of every Asterix book and movie, another comic fantasy in a war-torn occupied France. Like Asterix, Inglorious Basterds is howlingly funny in places, although the film also turns darkly serious.

In its more serious moments, Inglorious Basterds reminds us that the first casualties of war are compassion and the ability to relax, as in almost every elongated sequence of the film, Tarantino finds a new way to build cruel tension to almost unbearable levels.

Tarantino also reminds us that film is dangerous, even inflammable and that its power deserves respect.

If you can see this film as I did in a packed theatre filled with knowledgeable fans who get every joke, that you will see this masterful film the way that it was meant to be seen. If you are not that lucky, all that you will see is a great, great film that delivers a darkly funny punch.
550 out of 995 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A waste of time and money
derwunderbaremandarin23 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.

Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again "the good guys" killing "bad Nazis". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.

This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.

Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.

Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.
435 out of 785 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Comedy Of Horrors
abelardo643 October 2009
Brad Pitt sticks his index finger in Diane Kruger's leg wound and keeps it there until he gets what he wants. Funny, horribly so. The invented yarn takes "The Dirty Dozen" for a ride and sometimes abandons it to pay tribute to other movies. Lots of fun. Even "Paris when it sizzles" is mentioned in a delightfully organic piece of dialog. I was thrilled by Christoph Waltzer's character and by his sensational performance. Brad Pitt creates a true original. I love the actor's lack of vanity. There's a quirk in the character that is pure Brad Pitt. Tarantino visits a new universe but. fortunately, his hand. his brain and his heart are visible all over the place.
277 out of 494 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Rip Roaring Yarn
uhmartinez-phd7 October 2009
An fun, engrossing, beautifully crafted piece of nonsense, the likes of which we hadn't seen in a long long time. The silliness of the story is marvelously camouflaged with great dialogue and some superb performances. Christoph Waltz must be thinking already about his acceptance speech. What a performance! The civilized monster, polyglot, refined and deadly. He gets us going from the first, sensational scene. Brad Pitt is also wonderful. Was he putting a Mussolinni chin while impersonating (hilariously) an Italian? I thought so. His character's name sounds like Aldo Ray and I'm sure that's no accident. The film is full of movie references. Another character is named Fenek, as an homage to his 1970's sexpot, Edwige Fenech. What is already one of Tarantino's trademarks is his sure step along the most immediately recognizable bits of pop culture. He's clearly not a cultured man but a pop expert, king in a world where people get their news from TV, don't read, other than magazines and comics, etc. That's how it happens, to be in the right place at the right time. For better or worse this are Tarantino times.
150 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very disappointing
sssalem23 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously disappointing performance by Brad Pitt and Q T, the plot is very superficial and lame, and, unless indirectly intended, this film actually glorify the Nazis and portrays them as men of honor, and show that the Jewish people are deceiving, cant keep promises and bloody vicious. ((THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER)) Hitler together with the most notorious Nazis are attending a stupid plot less movie about the killing of 300 Italian soldiers in a small cinema theater in Paris is unbelievably ridiculous. the Nazis laughing and hooraying each killing in the movie as if watching a basketball game STUPID, the deal at the end is lame. whats really appalling is that the movie earned great reviews and is ranked here in the 40s amongst the greatest 250 films. will not be surprised if it harvested many awards, including Oscars, as well. the movie is simply a kissing ass to the Jewish people, but hey reconsider, its not even doing a great job doing that. it truly dwarfed the whole Nazi - Jews conflict and a pure insult to all who fought and suffered from the tyranny of the Nazis.
474 out of 866 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
He loves his movies, doesn't he?
leodipaolis6 October 2009
Everything is forgiven because "Inglorious Basterds" is so entertaining and at the end of the day that'ìs what matters. I think it's a pity that certain critics, specially in Italy, are determined to transform this clever pulp director into some kind of god. Maybe, partly, because Tarantino has been very clever, elevating some of the Italian pulp movies of the 60's and 70's to a sort of cult status. Italy is very grateful for that, he's rewarded with interminable praise. I fear that's the wrong approach, it's also confusing. He makes popcorn movies, brilliantly. The characters have never anything important to say, Burger King, Superman, that's the extent of its depth and I think he's tapping into a society that's getting shallower and shallower with every passing year. But, if I'm mentioning this instead of talking about all the great things I could be saying about his movie is because there is a strange force trying to brain wash me into believing that Tarantino is the most important influence in movies since time immemorial. No, he's a great director of inconsequential fun movies. I consider myself a fan and I intend to see all his future movies. This one has some wonderful touches, winking at other movies by John Sturges, Robert Aldrich etc. Brad Pitt and in particular Christoph Waltz give wonderful performances. Waltz is at the center of my favorite scenes in the film. Enjoy this movies for what it is and not for what critics are saying it is. You'll enjoy it even more that way.
153 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great fun, a real surprise
motta80-223 July 2009
It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.

Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.

So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.

Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.

Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.

What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.

Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.

That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.

All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.

It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.

The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT.
851 out of 1,584 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
More Homage-frais from a tired director
dolemite723 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'

Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?

Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)

Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)

More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.

My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)

The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is "well, if you can do so" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't?
527 out of 969 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
No Matter How You Spell It
bobt14525 August 2009
..."Inglorious" as our local theater decided to display its title on their marquee, minus the second word. It is terrific cinema.

I don't hesitate to recommend this film to all but the over-squeamish. Let them never know what they're missing.

I did hesitate to give it ten stars because of my experience of Tarantino's previous films. In every case, save "Reservoir Dogs," they have improved with additional watching.

So although I gave it ten stars, I did so reluctantly. It leaves me no "up" to go to.

Yes Christoph Waltz is the Nazi we've all imagined the worst to be. He is cultured, sophisticated, suave and most sadistic, the kind of man who can make a glass of milk a threat and who puts out his cigarette abruptly in a strudel, grinding it into the whipped cream as if he were grinding his heel into a victim.

To understand Tarantino's films, you need only have a sense of dialogue, color and pacing. The colors are as bright as necessary and when necessary, brighter yet. In the French farmhouse of the opening scene, they are muted and dark, but excessively so. Outside a brilliant sun is shining, but in the one room of the house, everything is bathed in shadows and black.

It is a brilliant setting for an interrogation by Waltz, as the "Jew Hunter" of the SS, who dangles his host French farmer over the precipice of revealing what he cannot reveal numerous times, then pulls him back with obsequious lines of friendship and understanding.

A second sadistic German, well-played by August Diehl, later functions as important actor in the final plot twist. Diehl's Nazi Major, who has an ear for German accents, is almost as good as Waltz....almost.

Film classes will study much from this movie. They should look lovingly at the superb pacing. Tarantino knows just how long to draw out a scene, building suspense in the manner of Hitchcock, then at just the breaking point, suddenly coming to a resolution.

For color, look for a final shot at a French Theater, where its secretly Jewish proprietor is staging a surprise for the upper reaches of Nazi leadership.

We see her, played by Melanie Laurent, awaiting the hated German dignataries who will arrive for a film preview of the latest Deutsch film masterpiece, a propaganda piece about a German hero and his dubious accomplishments.

Laurent is framed on a balcony, reflected in the glass mirrors of the gorgeous theater, her red lips and low cut dress reflecting everywhere the intensity of her designs on her guests. It is a single shot that would be worth an entire film.

There are thankfully many more such images, many more paced scenes of exquisite dialog and suspense.

In short, see it. I'm sure you'll see it again and again.
521 out of 961 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This Movie Was A Bad Joke About WWII
HalGuentert21 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
For those that have studied WWII, and unfortunately, seen real human brains on the ground, this movie is a travesty, a sadistic farce, and a complete waste of time like most of Tarantino's other questionable work. I do admit to liking "Reservoir Dogs" to a point. However, this thing does not even have an original title.

I (unfortunately) received this DVD by mistake and see this project as a new low for Brad Pitt and the other actors taking part in this joke of making jews more barbaric than the Nazis. It perpetuates blame on the common German soldiers while covering up the major part US and UK bankers like Prescott Bush had in funding Hitler, as well as, the now confirmed part that British Intelligence had in bringing Hitler and Mussolini to power beginning immediately at the end of WWI.

WWII was a complex and tragic event, and the real world history deserves better than this self serving, mythological blood feast served up for fools too lazy to look for the truth and try to prevent a recurrence. History can repeat itself when we become manipulated by propaganda, desensitized to inhumane actions, and self righteous.

If you want to look at atrocities, many can argue that Stalin made Hitler and the Nazis look like rank amateurs in the business of murdering innocent people, as well as, the drug crazed gangs of Niger roping off streets with human intestines. Where does it end? We need to be getting the multitude of shadowy intelligence agencies under control and accountability instead of getting a cheap emotional thrill about perpetuating their myths in Hollywood and our capitol cities.
236 out of 423 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
nikki_wire4 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I simply cannot believe this movie's current rating on IMDb.

It is currently sitting in the IMDb top 100, nestled closely with The Bridge on the River Kwai, Raging Bull and the Prestige.

To find this movie in the same standing as those three is truly staggering to me. Hence I am taking the time to give this film 1 star, to hopefully help get it down towards its rightful place among the other pieces of truly worthless cinema with which it belongs.

I can understand that this is a movie that you either love or hate - it is certainly true that it is both a provocative and original film. However, what surprises me is the massive bias towards the "love" side, given the film's content - which can be summarised as an unashamedly unrealistic and soulless collection of sadistic/casual mindless violence, strangely blended with dramatic scenes of the kind of things that genuinely took place under the Nazis.

What I am trying to say is that combining very tense, well written SS interrogation scenes (which evoke some genuine emotional investment in the film) with comic book character British generals/Nazi leaders/Jewish soldiers makes for an extremely uncomfortable combination for me. At times it feels like someone has spliced together Schindlers List with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

My best guess is that the film's originality and uncompromising approach is refreshing to people bored of the same old Hollywood formulae. Certainly the film is unpredictable. The plot (such as it is) is extremely meandering and many of the characters' actions are pretty much inexplicable. *SPOILER* (I point here towards Colonel Landa's killing of Bridget and his non-killing of Shosanna.) But then again every single character is so one dimensional that it leaves you with no idea which characters you are supposed to actually care about anyway. There is no real shock when anyone gets killed because you don't know who anyone is or what makes them tick.

Brad Pitt gets the award here for the most wooden and pointless character to appear - he is truly awful throughout the film and finds himself in a role where he does not have to portray a single emotion throughout the film. Nothing.

My final point is that originality on its own does not make a great film. Yes, Tarantino has made a movie where you see things that you have never seen before in a major Hollywood release, but that is not any sort of achievement. The reason a high budget film has not been made before where the entire German high command has a day at the cinema in occupied France with almost no guards or security is because that idea is stupid. Yes, the film is stupid - and no amount of brushing over with "Tarantino is being postmodern" or "he's being ironic" will overcome that plain fact.

In summary this is a film that takes an exploitation film script, (that would ordinarily be filed under "trash cinema") gives it a big name director/very high quality cast and then takes the plaudits for being ground breaking.

It is not. It is simply a steaming turd given a coat of gloss paint.
261 out of 470 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Can't understand the hype - Brad Pitt in worst shape ever
philipp-rogge12 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...

When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.

So why this verdict?

First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool.

Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...

Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...

So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...
217 out of 388 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bolesroor27 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Inglorious Basterds" is a movie so clueless, so sloppy, so jam-packed full of half-ass characters and shock-value violence, so relentlessly terrible that I can't even muster the rage and indignation that most intelligent film fans feel toward Quentin Tarantino.

I just pity him.

American soldiers engaging in acts of deplorable violence against Nazi soldiers is not only justified- it's hilarious! And admirable. Just look at Hugo Stiglitz' statistics from the 1942-43 season in a flashback segment narrated by Samuel L. Jackson. Yes, Samuel L. Jackson. The idea that we're supposed to derive satisfaction from the torture of Nazis is just as abhorrent as a Nazi relishing the torture of a Jew. Let me tell Quentin something he should have learned in grade school: two loathsome evils do not make a right.

Brad Pitt- one of my favorite actors- gives the worst performance of his career as a loudmouth macho bloodthirsty cartoon... I'll never look at him the same way again. He also looked particularly angry... for some reason I get the feeling he and Tarantino didn't quite get along. I can picture Brad slapping him silly between takes. Next time slap harder.

Quentin has finally gone off the deep end and become the hack we all feared he would. He doesn't know if he's making a war movie, a parody of a war movie, an outrageous B-movie bloodbath or a documentary about milk & strudel. This is the definitive shrug by an artist who has nothing to say and insists on saying it loud.

The one standout in the film is supposed to be Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa, the icy, intelligent, brutally-violent Nazi commander. (There's a character we've never seen before.) His only crime seems to be the masterful use of conversation as an indirect threat of violence. The only reason for this of course is that Tarantino hasn't bothered to create any genuine tension or conflict, so we as an audience are forced to watch characters being forced to listen to Landa's menacing monologues. Dinner with a Nazi is scary enough... but by the time we get to his fifth interrogation I simply stopped caring.

Who gets the award for worst stunt casting: human dingleberry BJ Novak from "The Office" or Mike Myers as British General Winthorp J. Starchington, III? I'd have to give the award to Myers, since his absurd makeup and wandering accent are funnier than Austin Powers on his best day.

By the film's finale even the fundamentals of film-making have been abandoned and all sense of reality obliterated. We enter a small French movie theater so full of Nazi officers and SS propaganda that it might as well be Hitler's disco. Quentin has forgotten to introduce key characters earlier in the film, so now he compensates by scrawling their names in on-screen title cards, using hand-drawn arrows to identify them in the crowd shots. (Even with this pathetically sloppy device we have no idea who these people are- or why we should care.) Then Tarantino plays a David Bowie song on the soundtrack that was recorded 40 years after the film takes place! Your guess is as good as mine.

A movie this awful does raise a lot of questions: Do most teenage refugees own and operate their own cinema? Are nonstop subtitles good for your eyes? Do war heroes play themselves in motion pictures? Do Nazis kidnap women and buy them dinner? Does Der Fuhrer pay full price for a matinée?

Does a dying German soldier have just enough energy left to shoot our heroine? Would any high-ranking Nazi ever surrender to enemy soldiers after HE captured THEM? Should you try to masquerade as Italian when you can't speak the language?

Was Hitler really gunned down in a movie theater?

Of course not.

Of course not.

170 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worst movie I've seen in a long time - AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS!!!
mr_chatila26 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.

I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.

The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.

This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.

Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.

He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.

I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.

I give it 0 / 10.
491 out of 908 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Self indulgent and reliant on reputation
allanharley0113 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Reviews of this film are largely split into 2 camps; it's good because, or it's bad despite, it's direction by Tarantino.

The question I asked myself after this was would this have been made without the Pitt/ Tarantino stamp? The answer was no; and the result was a film that made me so irate that I was moved to post my first review on IMDb...

I found everything about this film treated the film goer with something approaching contempt. The script was thin with the exception of one well written character - Landa. Scripting for other characters was anodyne or non-existent, or, in the case of the "Jew-Bear", simply a bit weird. Same for the other aspects of characterisation, that was formulaic and thin in nearly every case, especially the made-for-Pitt Aldo Raine and the other Basterds. Style pastiching that normally works didn't; subject matter was treated with either insufficient levity or indifference; scenes were badly edited or irrelevant. The redeeming aspects were cinematography and production values - style over content.

So - am I taking it too seriously? No; this is not a funny film (though occasionally it seems to try) and the violence that is shown sits uneasily between cartoonish and unnecessary - a prime example is that of the surrendered German who was beaten to death; added nothing, in any way. In fact the tone of the film was so inconsistent in the way it considered the material that it made me very uneasy.

For me - Tarantino needs to start making films to impress others, not just himself. Obviously (most of) the rest of the world disagrees, but that's something either Mr T or I will have to learn to live with...

One of the most disappointing films I've seen.
184 out of 328 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brave, unique and just sheer brilliant!
produpp2 June 2009
Inglorious Basterds makes no apologies, asks for no forgiveness, it's a no holds barred assault on the senses. Tarantino doesn't care if he offends, if he steps all over stereotypes and clichés, this is film making at it purest. It's great to see a film maker whose work clearly isn't interfeared with by the powers that be. Tarantino is a master of effortlessly cranking up immense tension and suddenly mixing it with laugh out loud moments; you're not sure if you should be looking away in disgust or rolling around laughing, either way it's a roller coaster and one not to be missed! It's not for everyone, certainly if you're not a fan of Tarantino's style, this may be a little hard to swallow, but never-the-less, it is a film which simply has to be seen. No self respecting film fan should miss this. And the performance of Christoph Waltz... Oscar don't you dare ignore him!!
1,039 out of 1,967 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrible Waste of Money & Time!
LightningDutch14 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering "that was disgusting", "what a waste of time", "I should've walked out", "where was the comedy", "that was pathetic", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!
241 out of 436 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quentin Tarantino is a Crazy Basterd
Billy_Costigan23 August 2009
I can't imagine a director whose thirst for blood and violence is greater than Quentin Tarantino's. (At least in his films) Inglourious Basterds is no different. We all know Tarantino, the guy who exploded on the scene in the early 90s with cult classics, such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since, he has been a disappointment for some. Well, I am relieved to say, Tarantino has not lost his touch. He brings us his best since Pulp Fiction and thankfully so.

We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the "Jew Hunter" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.

War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.

The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.

Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.
552 out of 1,030 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed