SOUND OFF

This movie was incredible. You can tell how much Tarantino loves films after seeing this. The movie was nothing like the trailers, which was nice and refreshing. The Beginning and end were action packed and I was on the edge of my seat, and the middle was slow, but very entertaining. The acting was superb. Definatly up there with Moon, Funny People and Star Trek for best movies of the year (in my book).

I second that Alex! I, too am totally in love with Melanie Laurent too as Diane Kruger registered less on my radar. Yes, the flick was good, although it was not as it was marketed. I was a bit disappointed at the absence of several scenes that were in the trailer, most notably the one where one the basterds is running down a corridor firing his huge machine gun-- I think this would have been another great highlight of the flick. Nonetheless, another triumph for Tarantino.

Seriously about Christopher Waltz. He stole the show every time he was on screen. I'm ranking it up near Reservoir Dogs as his best but only slightly under Pulp Fiction. This was a beautiful piece of work though and highly worth the wait. I hate it too that they're marketing this more as an action pic than a dialog heavy feature, but thats the nature of the business. Least it'll help with the weekend gross, right?

I like that you say "to fuel the fire."

a must see film for sure

Havent has the opportunity to watch this film but we are looking forward to it. Many people are saying it is his best work! hands down Quentin Tarantino's best work http://www.trigeia.com/article.php?id=87317

Looked incredible, had an incredible cast, incredible dialogue, incredible performances = incredible movie!! Should receive a lot of oscar attention and not just for Christoph Waltz! Maybe an original screenplay nod.

it totally sucked ASS! nay, just kidding. haven't seen it yet but wanted to break the combo of positive reviews. looking forward to watch this!

The Bear jews was beast

Just watched it in London, in the UK. While not a total return to form this is his BEST picture for years, and it could easily be better if it was re-cut slightly. First off the film works well, even cut into 5 "chapters". He's taken out a lot of the flab (such as Donnie's back-story with the bat, and Shoshana's introduction to the cinema) anyone who has read the screenplay will notice these omissions, some of which help the film to run along quicker (basically the history of the bat), but in other ways makes you question simple facts of the story (the fact that we don't see Shoshana being taught to use the projector and taken under the old lady's care makes anyone who hasn't read the script ask "So, was she really her auntie, or not?") What took me out of the movie experience was follows: 1) Tarantinoesque stylized titles and music. The film has a few "kill bill" style cuts, subtitles, and voice-overs which don't sit well with the feel of the movie, the rest of it is so grown up, these reversions back to old Tarantino just feel really out of place with the period setting. Also, some of the music is dubious, an 80s German pop song? bad choice. 2) Mike Myers - All I could think was Austin Powers. 3) Eli Roth.... should never be allowed to act. He's not terrible, but then again has about six lines in the whole thing. Landa was AMAZING, but the British dude was also great in my opinion, as an Englishman this is by no means favouritism, I just thought he was awesome. Pitt was good too. The result is a really good film, with two of the most suspensful set-pieces in recent cinema history - honestly, the farmhouse scene at the beginning and the basement tavern scene are just brilliant. GO SEE IT!!! Mark D

Honestly, there were moment of sheer brilliance (like the opening scene) but some of it was just drowned in self-indulgent dialogue. There is such a thing as tasteful restraint, and I think there are quite a few scenes where the dialogue is NOT used to build tension, but is just fluff and could have been trimmed to HEIGHTEN the suspense. What ends up happening is you get a little drowned in some of it...and I think that's hurts what he was trying to do. For instance, Mike Myers scene was completely and utterly superflous. I can not recall one line of meaningful or interesting dialogue in that scene (could also be partly because I was distracted by the odd casting choice and al I could picture was austin powers). The tavern scene was excellent once it got going, but again, I think it would have been more powerful if he had made some editing decisions. Film is not a novel and it's hard to sit through that much jibber-jabber. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE great dialogue, but some of this almost put me to sleep and I think it's the same liberty he had taken in Death Proof where the camera lingered around the table of young girls as they talked about absolute nothing for 15 minutes. There's no need of it and it's pretty exhausting --- especially when you add lightning fast subtitles that drone on and on and on before we get to the point. That being said, like I said, the first scene was executed to perfection. It was purely dialogue, but it was just enough dialogue and just enough tension --- there wasn't a single line wasted in that scene and I wish the rest of the film was as powerful.

Mike Myers dialogue WAS there to serve the story, in the sense that he spelt out the British officer's knowledge of german film, and part of the mission, it's just that it wasn't very good, and could've been done so much better..... with a different actor. There is an argument for that scene because without it we'd be like "who the F is this British dude, and why is he here?" and also, it subconsciuosly gave us a sense of place for the introduction of a British character, whilst giving a glimpse of Churchill too. It needed to be there in one form or other, but I agree it was done poorly.

Hey, Truth (number 18), his art is not "dragging out a scene." it is his ability to create dialogue just as interesting and captivating as the action scenes. if you just want action all the time, go watch Ong Bak.

This movie was awesome i loved it Brad pitt killed it from his voice to the looks on his face. the lt shud get a oscar. when he was speakin italian to aldo the look on aldos face was worth the price of the ticket. The guy who played hitler was great. im takin the wife now wont hear much dialogue cause of her constant questions but i can enjoy the visuals. oh sticklers ( i know im spellin it wrong) hatred of the nazis was really scary

It is a masterpiece! Depicting the Nazis accordingly for their viciousness against the Jews and what most of us would have liked to have occurred against Hitler and his henchmen is in its proper perspectiveness. The cinematography and color was awesome. Brad played a character and a half ... the film took turns no one would ever think of and David Bowie's song was so great ... as well as the rest of the soundtrack. The characters were terrific and the acting was excellent. Tarantino's work is an absolute masterpiece. He indeed did invent a new shade of red! Really a stunning movie. Guess it helps that my father fought at Normandy on D-Day through the Battle of the Scheldt in Holland and Belgium to Berlin and I have directed my own film about WWII. GETTYMOVIE is the Getty/Hitler trilogy. It's directors like Tarantino that inspire one to push the envelope.

seeing brad pitt speaking italian alone is worth seeing...that part made me laugh out loud along with everybody else

i loved it. the whole thing was amazing. It's not my favorite movie he has made only because Kill Bill was sooo godly in my eyes. but i do agree that it is his best. He really shows off that why he has earned his tytle "The Master of Dialogue" and does a damn good job. the acting was superb and it was by far the best directing we have seen all year. its got my vote for movie of the summer and everyone should check it out!!!

Fantastic film! Actions sequences were spot on and the dialog perfect. Has the best performances I've seen in quite some time. A much better film than D9. The audience cheered at the end of IB whereas D9 they sped out without a sound.

I caught the film with some family last night and we all walked out electrified. We stood in the streets for a good twenty minutes, breathlessly recalling scene after scene of great cinema. Admittedly, I walked in as a Tarantino fan, having read the screenplay last year. My expectations were high. And they were exceeded. He delivered on all points. The action, the stylized violence, the edge-of-your-seat suspense, the great dialogue, and the cast sold it hard. Call it Pulp Historical Fiction. I thoroughly enjoyed QT's imaginative rewrite. Scalp earned!

Unbelievable. If going to a regular film is like eating a fast food burger, watching Inglourious Basterds is best compared to eating a 7-course meal. The opening scene and the bar scene stand out in my mind as truly epic showcases of dialogue and tension, but the entire movie is dense, and I on the other hand so little to no filler at all. Every line was important in some respect, and Tarantino did what he does best when it comes to balls-to-the-wall action, gory and violent, and absolutely insane. I was not expecting the way it ended, and it was simply insane. The entire theatre applauded after the credits appeared. I think though that the actor who played the Jew hunter should get an oscar nod, and that the opening scene will go down as one of tarantino's finest. This truly was a filmmaker's film, the dialogue, the amazing set-pieces and costumes, the sound work, and the great cinematography. Everything is so obvious tarantino, but at the same time, you wouldn't want it any other way. Like I read in one other review Christoph Waltz even drinks a glass of milk in an evil way.

One of the best movies of the year and Tarantino's best movie so far.

'I think this could be my masterpiece.' - LT Raine The film was great, no doubt, but will QT ever top Pulp Fiction? Lastly, I know IB just came out but I really want to know, what's next? He averages 3 movies a decade, and I'd venture a guess that he has 2 decades of film making left -- max. So that's 6 shots to do it...

Simply an amazing film, this years best and well worth the standing ovation it got in Oslo

OK first off, way too much dialogue. Although yes it was a very good movie, it could have been better. The move is called inglorous bastards, and it hardly had the basterds in the movie. All the action scenes u saw in the previews, is what u saw in the movie, give or take a few scenes. It should have focused more on the basterds.

ehh was okay but definetely NOT his best work (still regard Reservoir Dogs as his best) #46 couldnt have said it better myself also i think Tarentino knows that touching upon a topic where any Nazis die will guarantee him positive reception by almost anyone. I cant deny that although the film wasnt what i thought itd be Tarantino still is a clever and smart guy

I think everyone should note: just because someone takes issue with the sheer level of dialog on display doesn't necessarily make them Michael Bay-addled drones. Now, I disagree with the poster who claimed that the dialog was excessive and useless... but I can see where QT's gone overboard with it in recent years. I loved Death Proof-- I mean, LOVED it-- but the sheer level of talk that unspools in some of the earlier scenes on the directors' cut (now the only cut available, I believe) threatens to derail it in parts. That said, Inglourious Basterds was TERRIFIC. I think some light trimming on the dialog front couldn't have hurt, but that's such a minimal complaint for such a wonderful movie. The opening scene was magnetic in its power and tension... the climax delivered in a major way... the Tarantino flourishes throughout, reminding us all of exactly who's responsible for all this... top-notch shit all around, man. Anyone who can't appreciate the skill level across the board from the ensemble has no business discussing such things. The action was a lot more sparing than I would have expected, but terrifically timed and executed. And, of course, I have to echo the feelings of, it seems, literally everyone else, and say: Christoph. Mother. Fucking. Waltz. Where did you come from, and where can I see more of you? This is Grade-A material, everyone. Run.

#18 you know i was afraid of that, i definitely felt that in death proof, lots and lots of unnecessary dialogue, and i walked in totally expecting that here, and yes there is quite a bit of dialogue, but here, unlike death proof, it was totally worth it! loved it loved it!

To number 19, Michael Fassbender, the so called "British dude" is Irish/German. Get your facts straight you idiot.

Really enjoyed it and some fantastic character performances from all. I do feel though some things slightly misfired such as Mike Myers as the General just didnt sit right for me but thats a personal reaction. Also i wished for a more of a Team on a mission feel from the basterds and an actual sight of them in a battle scenario with those Natzees in the trees. But maybe this is the intention and the right feeling as you want more of it all !! I give it a 9 out of ten on the Fenometer !!!

The only complaint i had about this movie is that i had to go pee thourghout the whole movie but every scene was so intriguing and pulls u in just by the conversations i dident want to get up wich was smart on my part

Loved it. Only thing I kept wondering was what happened to Pvt. Hirschberg and the other Basterd? They were in the scene with the veterinarian and then they weren't part of the final cinema plot.

@46 %100 percent right with everything, along with 18. I dont think that I'm a film judge or anything, but I think I have somewhat good taste in movies. I can handle a slow movie, but this one was just horrible. The german/austrian general was a great actor, but my god the movie never stopped talking. I understood the whole "suspense" idea that you drag a scene out. That worked for the first Chapter. Then he did it....for every scene...and it got worse and worse. So much mundane conversation. Mike Myers scene didn't add anything. The people behind me were snoring. It was ridiculous. District 9 was a million times better. After 2.5 hours of talking....the 5 minutes of action didn't save anything. Oh and not a single sex scene or anything either. The fact that people are calling this film "amazing" blows my mind. I loved Tarantino's other movies, but this one was a bomb, I hope it makes no money and it all goes to District 9, it deserves it.

#63 -In the restaurant, when Shosana is asked to use her cinema to premiere "Nation's Pride", there is a doggy style scene involving the producer and the lady with the black hair. -I counldn't agree more with every positive remove. -One thing i will say is that if it wasn't for the Cannes review i might have been let down a little bit(justa tiny, tiny ) because i would have thought it would have just been a "men on a mission" type movie, but i was more than satisfied in the end. Some of those scenes have been racing though my mind and prob will stick with me for a long time. - first Sharlto Copey, now Christoph Waltz....we need more of these great actors!

first off fuck all of you hating on this movie. If your bitching about dialogue and want mindless action go see transformers you douches. ok got that out of the way. after seeing it for my second time i can securely say entire movie was amazing with the one exception being the majority of chapter 3 which seemed a little mundane although i appreciated the great acting of both shoshana and hans landa in their scene together in the restaraunt. otherwise this movie is spectacular, all of the action is plot-driven and all of the dialogue is meaningful and very clever.

ok, let's see if we can clear up a few things as to possible "why"s for some of the things in the movie. THE TITLE DIDN'T MATCH THE MOVIE- so a movie title 'inglorious basterds' wasn't all about THE inglorious basterds. it was about bastards in general- how landa turncoats, how dreyfuss plays zoller, how hammersmark betrays her country. everyone in the movie is a bastard. call it a metaphor, if you will, but the movie was ENTIRELY about inglorious basterds, just not the ones the preview led us to believe. WAS PITT SUPPOSED TO FUNNY OR SERIOUS?- how about both? haven't you ever seen a character be serious AND funny? how about a real person? it happens, and that's what pitt plays. raine is a simpler man with unwaivering intentions. so in tense situations (i.e. being held captive, interrogating nazis) there are really only three ways to play it- high strung (which is already being done by the hitler character), controlled malevolence (landa), or affably detached, which is where raine is played. if he plays him more serious, he's just a mirror of landa; too crazy and he's just hitler with an american flag. so he's a determined southerner that occasionally cracks some witticisms, which plays beautifully against the villains. MIKE MYERS IS UNNECESSARY- i can see why people would think that, but i'd like to play devil's advocate. at that point in the movie, we'd experienced a couple back to back, dialogue heavy, serious scenes that help explain the plot (zoller and dreyfus, etc.). and then comes this scene that is also merely there to explain the presence of the british agent. more long, serious dialogue would have dragged down the pacing considerably, so quentin uses a neat trick- he makes you think the scene is "funny" (more quirky, really) by giving you a "wait, what the hell?" moment with mike myers (same with sam jackson's voice overs). if his character had been a prominent dramatic actor or even a brit that you didn't recognize, that scene would have been cut because no one would care for it. but because it IS there, we are given a bit of levity amidst the story driven center of the movie. mike myers was completely necessary for that. I WANTED A GUYS ON A MISSION MOVIE- then go rent the dirty dozen, because the guys on mission to kill nazis movie was perfected with that, and tarantino knows better than to try to make "the dirty baker's dozen". i'll admit, i thought it was going to be that, too, and had it been, i would have said "it was good, but dirty dozen did it better and with a better cast." but qt made a movie none of us had seen before- a plot driven revenge movie that pays homage (it is qt, after all) to ww2 cinema while still being its own unique story. IF THIS FILM HAD SAID "BY MICHAEL BAY"...- first off, i don't remember one slow motion explosion scene in this movie, but i'll bite. you see a bay movie, you expect a certain degree of suck, and it is sort of forgiven because it just comes with the territory. as an old friend of mine used to say "i don't see his movies to think, i see them because it makes popcorn taste better." however, with tarantino, you EXPECT a classic every time out, and with that, he gets his fair share of skeptics. i mean just look at this thread- "it wasn't as good as (insert "pulp fiction," "reservoir dogs," "kill bill," or even "death proof")". people bashing him simply because he didn't live up to their enormous standards set for him that are not set for other directors outside of leone and scorcese. so to say "had this been a michael bay film, you'd be tearing it apart" is completely inverted- had this been michael bay, we would have said "WHOA! bay found out what a script is!" trust me, we quentin fans are looking for ways to not like this movie, we just find so few. and yet i still say it wasn't reservoir dogs:P and finally, "TOO MUCH DIALOGUE"- yes, it's rampant throughout the movie, and a couple of times it felt almost unnecessary. but look at what is happening in those scenes. the dialogue in the opening chapter fuels the tension of how quiet the hidden jews are having to be while knowing how close they are to doom, as well as introducing us to the main antagonist of the film and how his mind works. completely necessary. the bar scene while they basterds play the name game. the focus is NOT on them playing a silly game, it's on stiglitz, and how he is trying to control his desire to slaughter everyone in the room wearing an swastika on their uniform. how else do you portray that? pull an gaudy uber close up a la general hosital? no, you do it with a subtle camera pan while the rest of the characters are being jovial and show him stone faced. (truth be told, i laughed when i saw it, but it was more of an "ha, holy shit, he's wants to stab this guy in the throat!" reaction) the restaurant scene. this was the only one that felt a little long to me, but i still liked it because, again, it's not so much the conversation, but how the characters are reacting to the conversation. dreyfus (or mimeaux? at that point) has to hold herself still while knowing the plan unfolding in her head is being handed to her on a silver platter. then, she has to converse with landa over strudel, all the while trying to hold back the tears and fear of knowing she is chit chatting with the monster who murdered her family. both actors were ridiculously good in that scene, so please don't try and say there was "too much dialogue" there. all of these scenes had sub text that was instrumental to the movie and the plot and ESPECIALLY the characters that was not really all in the words, but how they were being said, reacted upon, and NOT reacted upon. but feel free to let me know if there are other scenes that seemed to word driven, and i'd be happy to explain to you why they are as well! to say that it was boring or too long and therefore not good, please go rent "once upon a time in america" or "the great escape" and tell me if those are too long and boring for them to be good. if you still think so, then i guess there is no need for us to keep talking (and if they are, then i'm sure you didn't get this far on this thread, ha ha!) but having to explain all this is like having to explain a really good joke- even if you now "get it," you won't laugh, you'll just possibly understand why you should have.

"Bonjourno"..haha..one of the most refreshing and entertaining movies I've seen in a long time..give me QT over Transformers 2 or any other movie this summer.

Oh and I definitely think Christoph Waltz was brilliant! He should win an Oscar at the least. I hope we get to see more of him in future films..

OUT'F'n'STANDING!!! I can't get my mind off of it. Right amount of everything. Must go see it again!

I loved it..it was gritty and hilarious at the same time. Just offered up an amazing alternate reality for WWII...I was in the theater with a bunch of geriatrics and they were hooting and hollering and cheering, it was awesome that even that demographic loved it. Brad Pitts performance was great, I'd love to see it again.

Better then pulp fiction?, up there with resevoir dogs? Damn I must see this movie.

##18 says what exactly what i thought about this movie. I saw both District 9 and IB on the same day, and i hated IB and loved District 9.

REALLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE MOVIE. Fell asleep in it twice. Not a typical outing by Tarintino. It does not have the flow or rythm of his previous films. Wait for it to be on cable so you can DVR it and pause and or fast forward through it.

i agree with 47. Too much dialogue. In fact, im not the biggest fan of tarantino movies at this point. Kill Bill sucked. Both of them. The movie overall is watchable though. I wouldn't pay to see it again nor would i pay to take a date. When it comes out on video then ill watch it again. His older movies were much better than the most recent.

This movie is great; dialogue, characters, story, sets, etc. I loved all of the acting. The Pest, was a pest. The Jew Hunter was supurb. Pitt playing an old school LT ... was great! I had read that he was miscast but I couldn't disagree more. His sense of humor and "just get it done" brashness seemed to be a nod to characters played by John Wayne. Best Supporting Actor: Col Hans Landa.

It was a very good movie. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it was an awesome movie. I was disappointed with his last two film, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and Death Proof. The dialogue was almost perfect. I wished that the women's roles where punched up a bit. Christoph was fabulous in it. Wow. He is not an evil monster for being an SS officer. He is not a saint for letting Shosanna. He is morally ambiguous. He is more of an opportunist to find glory.

I believe this movie is a simple case of "the emperor's new clothes." Praise crap = get more crap.

under Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs for sure. Little better than Kill Bill. Eli Roth annoys me. He was cool until after he did the "Ted Williams knocks it outta the park!" thing; that was freakin annoying. I love BJ Novak as an Office fan, but he was not right at all for the part. He either did a bad job or casting did or both. However, the movie was Tarantino at his best, Brad Pitt was badass and funny, Waltz did the best job out of anyone on screen, the actor that played Stiglitz was beyond perfect, and the movie had me biting my nails the whole time.

Two things ruined this movie for me: 1. The audience. There were several scenes where you knew something awful was about to happen, but there was a line or two that were funny, but not laugh-out-loud funny, which several members of the audience laughed at and took me out of the tension of the moment. One lady behind me audibly gasped at just about anything on screen (like when the Frenchman in the opening scene admitted that he was hiding Jews in his house) which was incredibly annoying. I'll have to see it again on DVD. 2. The titles and music. There were several Kill Bill-like titles that flashed on the screen at random points and completely interupted the tension. And his unbelievably weird taste in music--from some random 80s song in the middle of the film to the spaghetti-western soundtrack. At least there wasn't any Rza this time. But the biggest drawback for me was Brad Pitt's character. You've got Christopher Waltz -- his acting was unbelievable. He should be in every movie from now on. Then you've got Brad Pitt--usually a great actor but it's like he was playing a cartoon version of his character. His accent and inflection were SO bad (and the credits even listed him as having a dialog coach!)...it was like he was purposely trying to act badly. Maybe there was some kind of ironic point to it (that's how a Goebbels would have portrayed Pitt's character in one of his movies?), but I didn't appreciate it. He had funny lines and I wanted to like him, but I couldn't get past that performance. So based on my in-theater experience, I feel like a B- to C+. I'll have to try again when it comes out on DVD.

@ #18, you are a wise man! This film is nothing more than a huge pile of fecal sludge. I have been asking to myself why did I liked it anyway...even though I knew it was wrong. Now i have an answer: This film is a compilation of all-time cool moments of italo western era. And, who doesn't like compilations? In my eyes Tarantino always makes films based on other films, because he isn't capable of creating new things. QT is a master of modern recycling.

I want my money back. Seriously. Put it this way. The best thing of the movie is Brad Pitt and he's only, I repeat, ONLY in 10% of the movie and probably says under 100 words total. Even the slaying of Hitler wasn't that good. Oh sure they pumped him full of lead and then some more, I know he's Hitler, but he's barely portrayed as evil other than the fact that he's given the status of being Hitler. So it was rather neutral to see him die. I wish a brought a book or game boy or something to play through most of the movie. only in the last 20 minutes did ANY thing really happen. I was ready to walk out had I not been so blocked into my seat.

Something extra to add, QT's next 3 projects are: Come Drink with Me The Man with the Iron Fist Faster, Pussycat Kill! Kill! If I were to guess, 'The Man with the Iron Fist' would be the title of his martial arts movie and not 'Come Drink With Me' as I posted above. And Come Drink With Me has a possible release date of 2009? What QT's gunna direct and what he's 'just' gunna exe pro, no idea yet. Anyhow, a remake of Faster, Pussycat Kill! Kill! ?

I really enjoyed the movie more than I thought. what has been bugging me was the bar scene where the SS officier finally knew that the British officier was a spy and not German. She said later that what gave him away was he ordered three drinks. How did that give him away? Was there some German custom where that was very "unGermanlike"? I just can't figure it out. Anybody??

One of the worst and most overrated films I've ever seen.

One of the most suspenseful movies I have ever seen. My gut was in wrenches throughout the entire movie- the beginning set the tone for the rest of the film. I thought this was his best film to date, and should be oscar worthy. The bar scene was fantastic (Bev & Dan, germans start counting from their thumb not index finger), and the end was a great surprise.

Tarantino THRIVES on dialogue; but, more accurately, he thrives on soliloquy... Quentin loves a single character spouting off a stream of profundities, like Sam Jackson reciting biblical scripture before he murders people in Pulp Fiction, for example. However, if you watch "Inglourious Basterds" without subtitles (as I did -- I watched a pre-release version, before they added the subtitles), I was struck by HOW LITTLE action was really in this film. And the dialogue that dominates 85% of the movie simply IS NOT that great. Well delivered, to be sure, but the lines just aren't that great or memorable. Quentin's teasers led me to believe it would be an action-packed revenge psycho-fantasy. It was not. I mean, don't get me wrong, when the Basterds "did their thing," it was exactly what I wanted to see and hear. Unfortunately, the Basterds are actually on-screen for only about 20 minutes out of 140 minutes. Too much inglourious, and not enough basterds.

So, I work in the film biz and saw IB in a screening for guild members. I didn't hate it but I didn't like it either. Connie has a right to her opinions and it doesn't make her a troll. I had no problem with dialog, I like dialog, I just thought it wasn't a very good film. There was some good acting and probably one Oscar front runner but I didn't like that it rewrote history. Aside from feeling that a lot of folks are going to be pissed about that (though WWII survivors are dwindling so?) it took me right out of the film. Maybe if I had done a lot of reading up on it first or it had a subtitle of "a jewish revenge fantasy" or something? I would have gotten in the spirit of it's "fantasy". Personally I don't know. I guess he should do sequels for the other groups that were exterminated. We can have the "Gay Bastards" and the "Gypsy bastards". Maybe he can redo the revolutionary war and let the British win? The possibilities are endless! Anyway the history bit was bothersome but my major problem was the film just didn't grab me. I was never "on the edge of my seat". I will say that it's not just poster to this site that love this film, there are a lot of folks who do. And a lot of industry folks really like it so it may well get a bunch of nominations. But I didn't like it. To all the video game, testosterone overloaded idiots who trashed a woman for having the audacity to post an opinion, you know where your opinion counts (counts, you know that thing you do on your fingers). I'll give you a clue, it's not in the kitchen.