Sound Off: Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds - Your Thoughts?
by Alex Billington
August 22, 2009
Now that you've seen it, what did you think? Although Quentin Tarantino only officially announced that he would be making Inglourious Basterds last year, this movie has been in the making for a lot longer than that. And now it's here, in theaters, no longer just a rumor he keeps bringing up. But how is it? Tarantino's best movie to date? Or his worst? Is it too long or too confusing? How are the performances from the ensemble cast that includes both big actors and unknowns? Is it entertaining? Sound off below, leave your thoughts, and let us know what you thought of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds!
To fuel the fire, after seeing both the Cannes cut and the final version, I absolutely adore this movie. It's brilliant work, from everyone involved, Tarantino on down. I won't go so far as to call it my favorite film of the year (like Brandon did), but it's definitely a highlight, especially after Tarantino tweaked the final version. I definitely think Christoph Waltz deserves an Oscar and I'm personally in love with Mélanie Laurent more than Diane Kruger, but that's just me. Although the movie is not what it's being marketed as, it's still a great story, and truly entertaining to watch play out from start to finish. Bravo, Mr. Tarantino!
What did you think of Inglourious Basterds? Quentin Tarantino's best movie or his worst?
Reader Feedback - 112 Comments
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).
Mathew on Aug 22, 2009
Breck on Aug 22, 2009
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.
Spider on Aug 22, 2009
Correcto .... this movie is an instant classic ... One of the best movies in a long time.
Szymon on Aug 22, 2009
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?
Otacon on Aug 22, 2009
Loved this movie. Give Chris Waltz an Oscar nomination right now. Where did this guy come from? Brad Pitt was so funny. Pure comedy gold. People should definitely go check it out this weekend.
anonymous on Aug 22, 2009
I like that you say "to fuel the fire."
Yo Yo Ma(nvir) on Aug 22, 2009
why did he cast "nebish" jews as the bad asses?
hanslanda on Aug 22, 2009
a must see film for sure
The Iceman on Aug 22, 2009
Better than Pulp Fiction and given just as much love from the director as Kill Bill. Dialog was superb, action was over the top but fit in the story(which is awesome). Also lots of dead Nazis always = good. I think that after taking crap for purposely making bad films as an homage(Grindhouse), this was Tarantino's proving that he is an excellent film maker.
Jerminator on Aug 22, 2009
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
Trigeia Twins on Aug 22, 2009
I rarely comment on sites but I enjoy this one enough to share my thoughts so here it goes, quick and short. First off, I throughouly enjoyed this film, start to end with no questions asked. I was strapped to my seat and I laughed and cringed when appropriate and I felt extremely satisfied when all was said and done. Brad Pitt amazed me, next to his performance in Seven and Snatch, this one defintely rivals it. I can applaud this film for so much it got right, imo, but one thing I noticed and was upset didn't make the cut was a scene from the trailer, where Samm Levine character is running through the prison cooridot shooting wildly with his machine gun. That break out scene was quick and to the point, and Hugo Stigliz is such an important character to the film I wish they showed that scene a little bit more. But once again, to show how well QT does his editing, each character was just as important as the next and he never really gave anyone the spotlight.. man I could go on. I have yet to see D9, but Inglorious stands my movie of the year, and being a sci-fi I can't wait for D9 and Avatar, especiallly since it has great reviews. Time to go watch some Battle Royale now!
Matthew on Aug 22, 2009
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.
Kenco on Aug 22, 2009
jaci on Aug 22, 2009
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!
TN on Aug 22, 2009
i loved the film, but as someone who read the screenplay, the only thing keeping this from being the first A+ film i've ever seen (i've never awarded that to any film, waiting for the absolute perfect film) was the editing. It makes Kruger's character look like a bitch for shooting the last nazi in the basement bar, because they never included the back and fourth of her afterward explaining that she killed him only because he knew she was a spy. Also, the cut Boston scene, would have greatly improved the Donny Donowitz character. Basically, with all the cuts, here and there, it made the characters all seem like short cameos, instead of learning who they really are. It was still an exceptionally great film, a master piece even (just not Tarantino's greatest masterpiece) but if it wasn't for the editing, and it was a 3hour Sergio Leone type picture, it could have probbably been my favorite film.
Al on Aug 22, 2009
The Bear jews was beast
nerdherd on Aug 22, 2009
Are you all serious? That's it. I am officially done with Tarantino. His past is impeccable, sure, However.. this picture is Hardly glorious. TOO MUCH DIALOGUE. You have to realize this. His art of Dragging the scene out is out of control. He kills the moment he's trying to display by OVER-talking the aniticipation to death. You end up sitting there like, WHEN oh God, WHEN will this scene ever end??? Let alone half of it's in German. It's just ridiculous, and NOT by any means one of his smarter movies. Stop kissing Quniten's ass and brown-nosing to high heaven. This obviously HUGE waste of time doesn't deliver. Unless you like numbing your intellect for another 2 in a half hours of your life?
TRUTH on Aug 22, 2009
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
Mark D on Aug 22, 2009
to number 18 Surely the fact that you are calling for less dialogue suggests that it is you who has a numbing intellect? Or do you just have a small attention span? The length of some of the scenes were intentionally long, because guess what? To have suspense you have to move slowly through a scene, it's movie-making 101, could it be that you have got used to so many Transformers-style jump cuts, and quick story pacing, that you have forgotten the great reward of a slow-paced, slow-burning scene which ramps up the tension to breaking point?! Any shorter and they wouldn't have been half as powerful. Mark D
Mark D on Aug 22, 2009
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.
mjb on Aug 22, 2009
reservoir dogs is still tarantinos best. (no, "pulp fiction" fans.....'dogs is the best) but, IB is much better than i thought it would be. pitt was both very funny and very cheesy at different points of the movie. it's definitely worth seeing but i wouldn't buy it for my collection. it isn't something i'd want to watch "over and over" like 'dogs.
dan on Aug 22, 2009
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.
Mark D on Aug 22, 2009
Less is more in some cases. Tarantinos love to hear his dialogue on screen... that doesn't mean it's always good. I mean, and this is off the subject, but who gives a crap that Superman perceived as weak and clumsy, that was the most anti-climactic scene I have even seen in a movie that did so well as building a mythology and story. But I don't know. I haven't seen Inglorious Bastards... Kill Bill's finale left such a soar taste in my mouth I gave up on Tarantino... he's now in the category of DVD rentals for me... at least until he can flesh out an even, balanced, and fully entertaining movie such as is his best.. Pulp Fiction. Thus my opinion has been heard.
Thasaltshaker on Aug 22, 2009
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.
Marc Giguere on Aug 22, 2009
Bravo! is exactly what I thought at the end of this film. Of the Tarantino films, my second favorite (tough to beat Pulp Fiction). The dialogue, the camera work, the performances, all top notch. Really enjoyed this film.
Linda on Aug 22, 2009
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
d on Aug 22, 2009
I'd like to say I was disappointed but after Kill Bill I didn't have high expectations. The basterd scenes were great but had so little to do with the film. QT's downfall has been the dialogue and here he makes us suffer through it again but with subtitles. All the cute things he does have started to irritate me and show is arrogance as a film maker. It could have been so much better and shorter.
Pete on Aug 22, 2009
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.
MACDONALDBANK1 on Aug 22, 2009
The movie was really well done. I enjoyed every scene. My only issue was the Quentin choose to use A LOT of the same music as Kill Bill, every time I heard a similar song I was distracted by how he used it in his previous works.
ArchAdams on Aug 22, 2009
seeing brad pitt speaking italian alone is worth seeing...that part made me laugh out loud along with everybody else
key on Aug 22, 2009
This is my favorite Tarantino movie without a doubt. The opening scene will go down in the books as one of the best conversations in film. The story was his most complete and thorough. The characters were better then his others. Christoph Waltz should win the Oscar for this movie. It takes a great actor to make you fall in love with the villain which is what happened to me. I also believe Melanie Laurent should be considered for a nomination, she was brilliant. I have not been a big fan of Tarantino's work in the past because I just felt like something was missing, but in this film he finally got it right.
Jordan on Aug 22, 2009
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!!!
DoomCanoe on Aug 22, 2009
i loved this film i thought some scenes liek the opening ones and infact all scenes with landa and teh basterds where incredible. the only problems is qt wanted to make a "guys on a mission movie" and in that case he failed, we dont see any mission really, we dont even see them in the tavern scene. and he kills hugo off way to quick, he could have been an incredible character. and its called basterds so it whould have more basterds in it. because i found the laurent section of the film a bit bloated and maybe just not as entertaining or exciting as the basterds chapters. loved the start end and bits in the middle with landa or basterds, all else was long winded and maybea tad exsessive. of course im picking bad points because i have such a huge admiration for qt and its just his films could be perfect. over all its great and i hope the prequel sequel or wat ever else it is he has planend which will never happend has more action
daveEDMOND on Aug 22, 2009
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.
Joe on Aug 22, 2009
#18....TOO MUCH DIALOGUE. Ummm what? Did you just want a movie with no story and just guns a blazing in each scene? Did you want a boring action movie? Cause this movie rocked my cock off 10 times. Best Movie I have seen this summer.
AllmightyKeim on Aug 22, 2009
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!
Max Fischer on Aug 22, 2009
Den Film hab ich heute in Deutschland gesehen. Er war gut, aber nicht so gut wie die übrigen filme von Ihm.
Paul on Aug 22, 2009
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.
jman571 on Aug 22, 2009
After "Chapter 1" this movie goes downhill fast. In fact, my husband and I both agree this movie is one of the WORST movies we have ever seen! The movie's only positive is the fantastic performance by Christopher Waltz. The rest of the actors were awful, including Brad Pitt. If Pitt was suppose to be serious he wasn't. If he was suppose to be funny he wasn't. Maybe he was suppose to be stupid! Obviously I missed the message (Was there one?). That's why I went on line to read these reviews. I'm still lost and shocked at the positive comments on this website! My husband and I want our money back.
Connie on Aug 22, 2009
One of the best movies of the year and Tarantino's best movie so far.
Sister Jasmine Noxema Tapioca on Aug 22, 2009
ahaha I normally never EVER DO THIS (responding to trolls) but I will indulge myself: Connie you are either a major troll, or just a completely jaded ass. At the very least can you not concede that despite any problems you had with this movie, that it was not fucking awesome to see a bunch of racist anti-seimitic nazis getting beat in the head, shot, and blown up? To answer your confusion, yes Brad Pitt's character is humorous, but comedy was not the sole thing his character had to offer. What exactly did you like in Chapter One that was not present in the rest of the film? And somehow the rest of the actors are awful? were you in the shitter for every scene with Mélanie Laurent (who played Shoshanna) or one of my personal favorites, Daniel Brühl as Fredrick Zoller. Also the SS officer who called out the british agent on his flawed accent in the tavern. He was also very excellent. All in all probably the best movie I`ve seen this year. I simply cannot see that you didn`t see the humour in Brad Pitt`s character. The whole movie went up laughing in the amazing scene where when he goes to speak italian, instead it`s just him with his ridiculous southern accent.
jman571 on Aug 22, 2009
'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...
joe on Aug 22, 2009
...and no RDog's, while amazing, is not better than PFiction.
joe on Aug 22, 2009
Simply an amazing film, this years best and well worth the standing ovation it got in Oslo
David Banner on Aug 22, 2009
@ 18: exactly right. @ 20: no way. Tarantino has great dialogue but you have to watch this film and at each moment think, "does this add to the film" and "is this necessary?" this film suffers from the fact that tarantino has no close friends who will give it to him straight. this couldn't be cut down more from cannes?? how many times do we need a character to say "may i smoke my pipe?" or "can i offer you a cigarette?" these dialogue scenes dragged without purpose. people are either feeling the tension from the film's climax or have been brainwashed by quentin's early work into thinking that everything he touches has literary value. best ww2 film ever? my ass. this man makes live-action cartoons at best. tarantino's most boring film so far and i too am shocked at how much positive feedback it has gotten so far. if this movie said "a michael bay film" instead of "a film by tarantino" ppl would be ripping it apart.
jason on Aug 22, 2009
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.
HOSTELNCOMBAT on Aug 22, 2009
Lindsay on Aug 22, 2009
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
Dean on Aug 22, 2009
@ 47 If had bothered to learn anything about Tarantino before seeing this movie you would have known his movies are all about people talking about doing things and show very little of the actual doing. He is the King of Dialogue and mastered it perfectly in this movie.
Jordan on Aug 22, 2009
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.
Andrew 3000 on Aug 23, 2009
#36 "Did you just want a movie with no story and just guns a blazing in each scene? Did you want a boring action movie?" I think you are referring to transformers 2 or GI Joe. Movies should make you think sometimes too, not just be two and a half hours of CG explosions. I loved "Basterds"
Mathew on Aug 23, 2009
#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!
Brian Barajas on Aug 23, 2009
The only thing I need to say is that it was fan-fucking-tastic. Seriously, some of the most fun I've had at the theater in a long time.
Josh M on Aug 23, 2009
To number 19, Michael Fassbender, the so called "British dude" is Irish/German. Get your facts straight you idiot.
Kenco on Aug 23, 2009
Wow, an unbelievable movie! I love all of Tarantino's banter and dialogue in every scene. It has such a quiet tense feeling that seems to drag on forever.... then BOOM, the big payoff!! I love it!!!!
La Shmoove on Aug 23, 2009
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 !!!
Fenris on Aug 23, 2009
Yup, think i'm going to see it again. Besides the action, the humor, etc, it was the dialogue that really did it for me. It's, as most of Tarantino's movies, a little gem of a movie. Christoph Waltz really blew me away, the trailer showed him as something else. In the movie he's brilliant, excellent actor ...my question is where the hell was this guy doing all these years? 😀 So, good job Tarantino, keep doing these lovely movies 🙂
Adrian on Aug 23, 2009
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
Andrew P on Aug 23, 2009
to 55, Kenco. I was referring to the character not the actor. You idiot.
Mark D on Aug 23, 2009
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.
Mike on Aug 23, 2009
@ 61 They could only have three in the final cinema plot because that's all that could get in. Thus the other two had to sit that one out.
Jordan on Aug 23, 2009
@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.
Anonymous on Aug 23, 2009
I agree with those noting it was too dialog heavy, as if Tarentino is trying to prove something as a writer when he doesn't have to. It could have easily been shorter, a lot shorter. Not to say those scenes wernt written well or were acted poorly by any means, each scene in itself was a mastery. But they slowed down the faster paced "war" parts of the film I thought. He did kill the build up many times I think, because eventually watching you are at first rife with anticipation, then bored and stop caring because you are tired of waiting for it. Much like Death Proof, the long ass monologues totally imbalanced the action scenes which Tarentino is also renounced for, I kept wishing for more. Especially with Basterds as I don't think anyone was satisfied with how little we got to really see the Basterds at work. All in all I can call this a great and entertaining film with some amazing acting, but the astonishing length of the talking scenes gives too much imbalance not to be noticed, which to me is the only serious issue I have with it.
Breach on Aug 23, 2009
#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!
daniel j on Aug 23, 2009
More basterds scenes is my only let down in this movie.
Vic on Aug 23, 2009
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.
jim on Aug 23, 2009
Great fucken film.
Mr.Big on Aug 23, 2009
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.
seanathan on Aug 23, 2009
God I loved this film in so many ways!! Stop reading and go see it. Tarantino's best in my opinion and I've seen all his movies. Brad Pitt and Landa both great in the movie!!!!!!!!
Zack on Aug 23, 2009
"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.
TheDude on Aug 23, 2009
69 is the man
Al on Aug 23, 2009
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..
TheDude on Aug 23, 2009
As I sat watching this just today, and as a HUGE Tarantino fan, i was waiting for the big payoff in those lengthy scenes. Now while they are indeed lengthy, the more i think about it, every second of those heavy dialogue scenes was well worth it. At first i thought this movie could use some serious trimming down, and i love every single one of his movies. But then i read #69 opinion and it made sense. Everything with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 minutes of the entire movie which is 153 min long, works to the highest degree. I applaud Tarantino for not trimming anything from this film. A true cinema masterpiece.
Efrain on Aug 23, 2009
OUT'F'n'STANDING!!! I can't get my mind off of it. Right amount of everything. Must go see it again!
Superhaus on Aug 23, 2009
I love how people on this thread use the word "is" as if any of the nameless/faceless readers of this site have the authority to determine what is or isn't Tarantino's best film or what poeple should or shouldn't enjoy. I smile every time someone writes something like "Kill Bill is his best movie - not Pulp Fiction. Sorry Pulp Fiction lovers!" Hilarious. As you sit in your boxers before your laptop, your objectivity and authority on these matters is, I'm sure, undisputed. And for my part, I loved "Inglourious Basterds" for many of the reasons already mentioned.
Dan on Aug 23, 2009
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.
Holly on Aug 23, 2009
Nothing new to add, enjoyed the movie! I love how the ending was basically a big parody of the old nazi propaganda films.
LW on Aug 23, 2009
Better then pulp fiction?, up there with resevoir dogs? Damn I must see this movie.
JimD on Aug 23, 2009
DAMN GOOD. I've been thinking about what has made me smile about this movie for the past 4 days in which I've seen it: 1) Hans Landa 2) The reds violently separating its tone from the drab earthy tones 3) Camerawork: Framing and camera movement 4) David Bowies "Cat People" montage/sequence 5) A wonderful hybrid of a new setting alongside the most familiar, fondest, and bestest Tarantino-isms, all collected in 1 movie
Voice of Reason on Aug 23, 2009
##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.
OdinMW on Aug 23, 2009
#40 The kitchen is the only place your opinion matters.
Tom Arnold on Aug 23, 2009
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.
bill343 on Aug 23, 2009
I loved just about every moment from this movie. there were a few edit flaws and mike myers scene was a bit off but they were nothing I couldn't overlook or would stop me from enjoying the movie as a whole. #69 you sum it up perfectly.
pcr on Aug 24, 2009
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.
eh on Aug 24, 2009
I can't stop thinking about this movie. I've been excited for it for MONTHS (you are to blame, FS!) and I started to worry I had set the bar too high in my mind but it was GREAT. There will no doubt be people that hate this movie, but that's just like any movie. I think you almost have to critique Tarantino movies differently than any other movie because he makes movies differently than anyone else. He is unconventional and puts things in his movies that no one else does, that don't seem to fit, but yet somehow work really, really well. His strength is in his writing, and Basterds showcases that fact tremendously. Each scene was filled with intense pressure and GREAT dialogue. This movie has THE BEST characters I've seen in a movie in a LONG time. Character development seems to be the first thing to go when people are making movies anymore, but these characters were rich and strong. I didn't mean to write so much, and feel like I could go on and on. There are, in all honesty, some things I would tweak or change if I made the movie, but like I said...it's Tarantino, and that man will do whatever the hell he wants and doesn't care what anyone thinks. And to that I say 'hats off and please please make that pre-quel!' ALSO...BRAD PITT WAS AMAZING!
jamin on Aug 24, 2009
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.
Khalil7 on Aug 24, 2009
i totally agree with Al #16 "Basically, with all the cuts, here and there, it made the characters all seem like short cameos, instead of learning who they really are." that is exactly what bothered me about it.
mike j chevalier on Aug 24, 2009
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.
Branden on Aug 24, 2009
I distinctly disliked this film. No matter how you toss it, Inglourious Basterds was simply BORING. It ended up feeling bloated yet undercooked. The trailer showed me everything I wanted to see, then the film showed me obtuse characters talking ENDLESSLY about what happened in the trailer. I can't say the film was BAD, because the pace of it was so deliberate. The film, despite being overly long and languid, felt spare. With scenes that long, there are only so many scenes to show. With so few scenes, you can't build a satisfying narrative. When you cram TWO stories into that narrative, there's no chance to realize either one. So if you're not going to show me a story, give me characters that are interesting. They never showed up. Christopher Waltz's performance as Landa was striking and monstrous, but no one else connected for me. The characters from the very title of the film rarely appeared and even then had few lines. The production design was supple, but wasn't appropriately photographed to show it off. The music cues were tired and stripped from Tarantino's previous efforts. The tension in the long slow-burn scenes was undermined by inconsistent editing that was alternately too lazy or too hasty. Tarantino needs to stop pulling the rug out from under himself. SHOW us something. Stop talking about it. Inglourious Basterds = WEAK and BORING.
MadPizza on Aug 24, 2009
I believe this movie is a simple case of "the emperor's new clothes." Praise crap = get more crap.
LarryStick on Aug 24, 2009
The movie was decent. The Basterds were so much fun to watch on the screen but they get about 30-45 minutes of a 2.5 hour movie because the dialogue just DRAGS on for characters that were boring and unnecessary.
Dave on Aug 24, 2009
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.
Branden on Aug 24, 2009
In my opinion, this movie completely deceived anyone expecting a typical war movie. And I love it. I love the fact that Tarantino casted internationally. I loved that Brad pitt downplayed is action, or sex symbol status. He was likea parody of every g.i. joe from the old WW II movies. I loved that tarantino explored the third reich in several dimensions, i.e. landa, zoller, goebells, hitler and that weasely gestapo officer from the bar. Dreyfuss was equally impressive. Yet this could have been a very dark film with no real redemption. Instead is was a witty, fantasy -based satire of propaganda films. QT did with the basterds what spielberg did with jaws: he showed the shark as little as possible in order to get effect. In my opinion it worked. For me the finishing tarantino touch was harvey keitel's voice on the phone giving brad pitt instructions. I can almost see him hosing off pitt and novak after the credits roll. =) thanks QT! YOU MADE MY SUMMER!
indyjack on Aug 24, 2009
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.
Rob Cameron on Aug 24, 2009
not going to give you a speech, reminded me so much of old school tarantino. it was like pulp fiction of world war two movies, i was amazed. i loved it.
sam on Aug 24, 2009
@ #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.
pipo on Aug 25, 2009
#18....complaining because half the film was in German?? You do realize that this was a WW2 film right? And they were in...............drum roll please........GERMANY!! The movie rocked! A must see!
Hayes on Aug 25, 2009
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.
Matt on Aug 25, 2009
QT's next film is called 'Come Drink With Me' Released: December 31, 2011 Keywords: Martial Arts Distributed by: Weinstein Co. Source: Remake Director: Quentin Tarantino
David Banner on Aug 26, 2009
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! ?
David Banner on Aug 26, 2009
#83.....I am with you man!!!! , what does she (and her husband) know?
Dan on Aug 28, 2009
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??
Bev on Sep 2, 2009
Bev, The germans - when ordering three of something - use their index, second and thumb...however, the basterd used index, second and third fingers! Dan
Dan on Sep 2, 2009
One of the worst and most overrated films I've ever seen.
k on Sep 3, 2009
Can someone please take Mike Myers outside and shoot him.
Malkie on Sep 6, 2009
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.
blester01 on Sep 7, 2009
Well said #69. Isn't QT movies have alot of dialogue? Sounds like most of you guys are stuck on action movies like transformers 2. If it doesn't have enough action than its not good? Thats what it sounds like. It didn't seem like alot of dialogue to me. Like #69 said they were reasons for those long dialogue. The character reaction and getting to know what the antagonist does. This is the funniest thing I've heard people say. Too much dialogue? Really? When there's not enough dialogue people get upset about that because they don't know the character or a scene is not explained right. I thought this movie was really good. I give it a 4 out of 5.
Tony Woods on Sep 8, 2009
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.
Charles Miller on Sep 21, 2009
the spider man look alike dude sucked the girl in the red dress sucked the pastry scene where he eats the pastry was yummy i wish they would show that more (the pastry) blah blah blah blah blah
mackiemack on Nov 15, 2009
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.
Scott on Jan 30, 2010
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!! IT IS SURELY ONE OF TARANTINO'S BEST MOVIES SO FAR! I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT HE COMES UP WITH NEXT.
Elaine on May 14, 2010
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.