Believe it or not, there are things going on this weekend that don’t involve “Avatar.” Namely, Quentin Tarantino’s seventh film to date, “Inglourious Basterds,” hits theaters nationwide. I’ve offered my considerably negative thoughts already, but be sure to let us know what you thought once you see it this weekend. I expect it’ll do pretty decent business and will likely find an audience, but reactions have certainly been divided so far.
Comments
64 responses to “Tell us what you thought of ‘Inglourious Basterds’”
I was surprised to see after all the negative talk on here that most of the reviews for this have actually been very positive…Some reviewers are calling it Tarantino’s best work since Pulp Fiction. I guess I’ll just have to judge for myself.
Screw IB and Avatar…. Nikke Finke has just reported that ‘Shutter Island’ has moved from 2nd October 2009 to 19th February 2010….so pissed
no way on Shutter Island????
she’s the only one running the story right now– think its legit?
Yeah, tim, you’d be surprised what happens outside this website. For example, did you know that not every film from Michael Mann is considered a masterpiece?
I’ve never once made a claim that every Michael Mann film was a masterpiece, if that’s what you’re getting at, Hamer. You haven’t been reading long enough, I guess, or you would have seen my negative review of “Miami Vice” and my endless ruminations on how “Collateral” misses the mark.
Just because someone respects a filmmaker enough to write about him frequently doesn’t mean he or she simplistically thinks all output from that filmmaker qualifies as a “masterpiece.”
Stop being such a smart ass and attempt an actual discussion for a change.
Hamer save the arguments for another time. I agree with you, but it seems like you’re just trying to stir up more shit.
Anyway, I thought Inglourious Basterds was a hell of a lot of fun. Probably Tarantino’s funniest film, and possibly better than Kill Bill. Also, Waltz was so fucking awesome. So awesome. Roth’s character was cool, but that man cannot act. 8/10.
Uh, wow, Kris. Sensitive much? I guess I can’t make a joke around here, either.
Jesus Christ, lighten up.
Well, maybe he’s sensitive because you’ve been attacking him all week. Also, this is the internet buddy. Can’t read your mind, only your words.
Kris, maybe we need emoticons around here. Ha.
Didn’t know one day counted as “all week” here. If Kris can’t handle criticism of two posts, maybe he should find another line of work.
What criticism? You bitched an ran, as usual. I’m happy to engage, as always. But when you post something both ignorant and purely baiting, why would I bother?
I loved Inglourious Basterds. I’m still mulling it over and will need to see it a few more times before I rank it along with Tarantino’s other movies, but I’m pretty shocked by the divided reaction this thing is getting.
It’s more deliberately paced than I expected (not sure why I expected anything other than that), but it’s also a bit more resonant than I anticipated.
I haven’t waded into the negative reviews much yet so I can’t argue with them other than to say again that Jeff Wells’ phony moral argument against the movie is complete hypocritical BS on his part. No surprise there really.
“What criticism? You bitched an ran, as usual.”
More exaggerations from Kris, as usual. You spent weeks hammering Tarantino, I told you it was getting old, and you threw a tantrum. Whatever delusions of “winning” the argument you may have is due to me getting bored of humoring you playing the victim. And last I checked, I got the last word on our Watchmen and The Passion of the Christ arguments.
You want to apologize for overreacting here, I’ll accept it any time.
What last word? I probably grew tired of your endless bickering, Robert. Sometimes it feels better to just move on. I humbly suggest you do the same.
Oh, this?
http://incontention.com/?p=4776
Yeah, you came in a month later. Forgive me for not giving a shit so long after the fact.
Yeah, funny how I had to retype that response after it disappeared. But hey, it’s your site, your rules.
“Sometimes it feels better to just move on.”
Let me know when you do the same so I can make comments without fear of an explosion from you.
I’d much rather keep you in fear.
Whatever you say, Kris. Like I said, it’s your site, your rules, and your integrity. I’m just a visitor.
Quake in your boots!
stop fighting u guyz :(
Inglourious Basterds is Quentin Tarantino’s best film since Pulp Fiction, and may in fact be better.
I was very happy to see the philistines wiggle in their seats at the high volume of French and German spoken in the film. The mouth breathers were expecting something entirely different, as if they had not heard of Tarantino before.
Eli Roth cannot act, and part of Pitt’s performance is silly, but the rest of the cast is so perfect.
Isn’t this supposed to be about Inglorious Bastards (I refuse to spell it otherwise). I mean, Kris you’re in charge, as you probably know. And Robert, cool down, I doubt you’d say all this stuff to Kris’ face. Let’s rejoice and be excited about Oscar Season, Inception, and Avatar.
Robert H. – You’re becoming an annoyance to what seems like every other thread now. Either make a sound argument or leave. If you dislike Kris’s opinion so much quit reading the site.
BACK ON TOPIC!
“Inglourious Basterds” is like an episode of “‘Allo ‘Allo!” as directed by Quentin Tarantino. And that’s a good thing.
Everyone I’ve talked to who’s seen it has loved it, I’m not sure it’s accurate to call opinion divided.
Agreed. Critical consensus is very very positive.
I really enjoyed Inglourious Basterds. I thought the stand outs were Melanie Laurent, Til Schweiger, Michael Fassbender (duh), and of course Christoph Waltz (whom deserves an Oscar nom). Much more violent than I anticipated, but very funny also. The La Louisane scene and the theater scene at the end were tension building and executed perfectly.
Four out of five stars.
I guess this is where I’m supposed to talk about Inglourious Basterds, so I’ll just copy-and-paste my thoughts from the other thread:
Okay, so I just got back from Inglourious Basterds, and man was I bored out of my skull. Long, drawn out conversations, usually unnecessary, plagued the film, and the worst part was (with the exception of the first scene) none of them were that interesting.
I mean, really, was there ANY point to the conversation between Shosanna and Landa, with its closeups of creme and strudel? Or the constant back-and-forth in the tavern that didn’t contain an ounce of tension? Or how about the totally out-of-place narration bits from Samuel L. Jackson? The first time was gratuitous, and the second time was condescending towards the audience. “Okay, so after the characters make it obvious that the nitrate film is flammable, Sam Jackson is gonna spell it out for you.” Thanks for treating me like an idiot, Quentin.
With the exception of Waltz, none of the performances were strong, and in the case of Pitt and Roth, terrible. But I have to admit Waltz, though his linguistics were very impressive, didn’t knock me out my seat with his performance in the way that Jackson in Pulp Fiction or Thurman in Kill Bill did. In fact, sometimes his character was totally inconsistent (though that may be due to bad direction). For example, why did he go berserk and strangle von Hammersmark for betraying the Nazis only to make a deal with the Allies mere minutes later?
Shit like this happened all the time in Inglourious Basterds, where plot points would take forever to get through amid all the pointless chit-chat and none of the main characters were well-developed or interesting.
And Eli Roth is a bitch-ass. There, I said it.
And Scott, shut up.
I had a really good time at the film. I do feel that Quentin could have drawn out a bit more thematic subtext in a few of the extended conversational scenes, but nonetheless, as building tension went, they (mostly) worked like gangbusters. I just sat back, chilled, and took in the atmosphere of the piece. So refreshing to actually get a good look at characters’ faces, and little mannerisms and behaviour, rather than having them be rapidly cut away from with the constant shaky cam madness that dominates the multiplex.
Waltz is, of course, tremendous, and Laurent, Krueger, and the individual who played the undercover British soldier (Fassbender?) are also very good in their respective roles. Pitt’s way broad, but he made me laugh on numerous occasions, so I’d argue he’s cartoonish in a good way…he deflates any pretense in the room rather quickly.
Most of the dialogue is very nicely written, and it actually may be QT’s least profane film ever, which is a plus for those who take more issue with the coarse language than the violence in his films. And I thought the film moved along at a good clip (though the tavern scene is deliberately drawn out, to good effect), though I really groove on most of QT’s stylized wordplay, and do not suffer from any form of ADD.
On a side not, were I a modern-day German, I wouldn’t take issue with how most of the German soldiers are depicted. The “War Hero”, for instance, is given plenty of dimension, of both the positive and negative (moral) variety, as are a number of the less central soldier characters. They’re loyal to their military, though caught up in events that that may not agree with (ethically)…as is the case in many wars, on both sides. Not that QT goes out of his way to focus on any moral misgivings, but they’re palpable nonetheless.
Like most Tarantion flicks, I have a feeling that this will play even better on second viewing, but for now, I’d go no lower than a B+, which puts it among the better films I’ve seen thus far this year. Not for everyone, to be certain, but definitely for me.
James D: I thought the extended subtitles (this is basically a foreign-language film) and extended conversations might cause some shifting in the seats in my theatre as well, but the audience where I am (a suburb of Vancouver, BC) were really into it, laughing at all the uncomfortable silences, and actually applauding at the end (the final line certainly helped). I’m beginning to think that theatrical walk-outs are more of an American phenomena, as I haven’t really experienced one myself, as far as I can recall.
I thought it pretty amazing, actually. The dialogue was hypnotic, the acting was stellar, the direction was some of the best of the year (especially in the tavern scene). So…huge success for me.
And Robert, shut up.
*That would be side “note”, in the third-to-last paragraph, and it looks like I misspelled Quentin’s last name once as well.*
“I mean, really, was there ANY point to the conversation between Shosanna and Landa, with its closeups of creme and strudel?”
Well, the close-ups on the food, at a base level, just give you a flavour (no pun intended) of the environment they’re in, which is something of a lost art in most (American) films these days…lingering in the moment. As for the dramatic point to the scene, I mean, geez, she’s sitting right across from the German who murdered her family…most of his scenes focus on his feeling out of potential threats to his cause…and it makes perfect sense for the film to feature a mid-point scene where the two main adversaries very nearly collide.
“Or the constant back-and-forth in the tavern that didn’t contain an ounce of tension?”
Wow, this viewer felt it contained oodles of tension, with you just waiting for the moment that the undercover British soldier would tip his hand in some random way…in a very confined environment…with a bunch of armed German soldiers just a table away, within earshot. Oh well…one’s person’s tension is another’s tedium…and so it goes.
And Landa’s reaction to the “mountain climbing” explanation was tremendous…there’s real joy in that performance.
Uh oh, looks like another drama queen can’t take dissent without acting like a child. Why don’t you leave and let the adults talk for a while, Joel?
Anyway, Clayton, I understand that Shosanna saw and recognized Col. Landa, but since they never interacted again and nothing in the conversation had much bearing on future scenes, that entire dialogue was superfluous to the overall plot.
And I liked Landa’s reaction to the “mountain climing” excuse, it was his violent rage during the shoe scene that confused me since he was so eager to betray the SS in the next scene.
“when you post something both ignorant…” – Khristopher Tapley
ignorant huh? you mean like claiming reaction is mixed. If you look outside this website you will see that most of the critics and audiences of the world loved this film. I don’t think Rotten Tomatoes is the best or most accurate way of judging reaction, but only 25 critics didn’t like it.
Almost 200 did. Critics that matter, Ebert, Ropper, Travers, and another couple hundred of their colleagues liked it. That goes for audience members as well.
Now of course, for those who don’t like it, thats just their opinion. And I’m cool if dialog goes a long way for you, but to purposely slant this article to make it appear people aren’t madly in love with this film, doesn’t just do an injustice to the site, but to your senses of predicting what may be a film nominated for Best Picture. You may not like it, but have the decency to recognize that overwhelming most people do.
Not planning on leaving any time soon. Just had a moment of vicious sarcasm. Plus, you said it to Scott, who had a fair point, so…where does that leave us?
Oh and I’m not a drama queen. Much prefer comedy.
Actually, Scott didn’t have a fair point, he just decided to troll in here and help Kris explode a misunderstanding of a joke out of proportion, which only happened because he let a disagreement I had with him stew in his mind too long. But of course you wouldn’t know this, because you just came in.
So that leaves you looking embarrassed and not contributing anything more than a three-sentence review of Inglourious Basterds. Nice job.
Actually, it takes much more than that to embarrass me. In fact, nearly nothing embarrasses me, but whatever.
And I’ve got much more than a three-sentence review of Inglourious Basterds, thank you very much. Probably been reviewing movies a longer time than a fair share of people on this thread. Six years, to be exact–and I’m not even twenty yet–and if you talk to anyone other than me, they’d say that I’m really good. I think I’m okay. They’re probably right, as I’ve been published in Dallas Morning News over 100 times, thank you, and won an award for it. I could probably crank out a better review than you did if I had more time on my hands than I did at the time. So…nope…not embarrassed. Whatcha got for me next, huh? More snarky-snarky? Cause my current review for Basterds is over 900 words. Yeah.
(Oh and “current review” means the one I’m still working on. It’s not on my blog yet, lol.)
*rolls eyes* But of course, your outstanding prose (“Cause my current review for Basterds is over 900 words. Yeah.”) was a dead-giveaway.
*sigh* I’m bored, and I really don’t feel like getting into a penis measuring contest consisting of you bragging about how many words you’ve written (In the adult world, nobody cares about word count). You want to keep blowing your own horn on this thread, I’m not humoring you any more.
NOW, as for AL’s comment (which actually means something), it almost stuns me that 86% of critics gave the movie favorable reviews. I’m tempted to point to the dashing British hero being a film critic, but that’s too easy, and I can’t stand chalking critic consensus up to explanations like that. Maybe the film will end up like Superman Returns or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and recieve a much colder reception upon reevaluations. Or maybe it will be destined for classic status and I’ll never get it, who knows.
I find myself confused by some of the negative reviews. Could it be that reading the script before seeing the film ruined the experience for some?
I notice a lot of the people who didn’t like the film had read the script before their screening. Just a thought.
I don’t want to get into a full-fledge review, but I’ll just say I loved every second of this sucker. And it is QT’s best movie since Pulp Fiction, and my true favorite of the year thus far. 8.5/10.
Just came back from the cinema. I’m a huge QT fan! So obviously I loved the movie. Felt that QT has showcased his best writing skills in this film. I do feel that the rest of films in QTs body of work have been more entertaining compared to this. But this film delivers more than what you would expect out of a Tarantino film. I do believe, this is probably the most entertaining WWII movie. In one side, Pitt and Roth donned the typical 2D characters – just for plain & simple kick-ass QT fun. On the other side, Waltz, Laurent and even Kruger delivered remarkable performances. That’s the reason why I could not make up my mind on where I actually fit this film in QTs canon. I will definitely go for a second viewing to come to a conclusion :)
I saw this in a regular multiplex. Audience loved the movie and there was 10 sec applause at the end – which I have never seen before in a multiplex, except for The Dark Knight.
They did show the Avatar teaser. The guy sitting next to me thought it is a game trailer. First I was laughing at his ignorance and then started feeling bad that how audience would make statements like this, without realizing the 14 years of thought process and effort behind the movie.
This was a fabulous piece of work by Tarantino. Incredibly tension filled, and a masterful job of tightening the screws in scene after scene until the thrill of it all takes you right to the edge. And a wonderful mixture of comedy, as the film sways back and forth between high drama, high tension, and a witty playfulness that breaks up the tension nicely.
Once again he’s produced some very memorable characters, written a tremendous amount of outstanding dialog, and has gotten some great work out of the actors.
This was so totally worth the wait.
Just got back from the theater and loved it. Completely and utterly adored every minute of it. I haven’t seen a Quentin Tarantino film since Pulp Fiction and this is the first I’ve seen on the big screen. The initial draw for me was Brad Pitt and he was a lot of fun to watch but Christoph Waltz stole the show. I’m checking it out again tomorrow night with a second group of friends.
SPOILERS
Robert, he killed Kruger’s character because she was working against the Nazis. He then turned around to work with Pitt because he knew it was his only way to get away from the war after he realised the SS were about to get their comeuppance.
I thought it was fun, a different take on WW II at least. Pitt was way off the mark (as if he were in a high school play or something), but Waltz in particular and Kruger to a lesser extent were captivating. And I loved the cinematography.
A lot of great elements that added up to a good (but not great, not top 10) movie.
This movie gets a high B+ from me. Damn good. That climax was just astounding. My heart was pounding throughout the buildup at the theatre, and man…I’ve never seen something like that climax. Wow. That scene, the 1st scene and the tavern scene are the best written in my book. That first scene especially. Tarantino is back.
Robert Hamer said,
“Okay, so I just got back from Inglourious Basterds, and man was I bored out of my skull. Long, drawn out conversations, usually unnecessary, plagued the film, and the worst part was (with the exception of the first scene) none of them were that interesting.”
I like your dissenting humor around here, so I’m not making any personal attacks, but I do have to ask, what were you expecting from Tarantino?
It’s sort of like going into a Woody Allen film and saying, “What was with all those nebbish and neurotic characters?!”
Robert Hamer said,
“Okay, so I just got back from Inglourious Basterds, and man was I bored out of my skull. Long, drawn out conversations, usually unnecessary, plagued the film, and the worst part was (with the exception of the first scene) none of them were that interesting.”
I like your dissenting humor around here, so I’m not making any personal attacks, but I do have to ask, what were you expecting from Tarantino?
It’s sort of like coming out of a Woody Allen film and saying, “What was with all those nebbish and neurotic characters?!”