Inglourious Basterds

This movie is really pretty outstanding. The opening scene is intense, frightening, shocking, and appauling all at once, and it sets up the entire film perfectly. I really had no expectations for this movie because I had read so many mixed reviews and none of them really said anything, so I actually thought this was a really good movie although a bit drawn out. The film is artfully done beautifully shot and extremely well acted.

Now here's why you may not like this quite as much as I did and why my wife absolutely HATED it.

What most expected from this movie:
1- Gore, action, and more gore and more action
2- A story that follows the Basterds as they wreak havoc on Hitler's army
3- Maybe a few subtitles as the film does take place in France after all
4- Classic Quentin Tarantino comedic dialogue

What the film actually is:
1- A character driven story HEAVY on dialogue and other than the last 20 minutes extremely light on action with a couple pretty graphic gory bits tossed in. The last 20 minutes is extremely graphic and violent.
2- The story largely follows the young Jewish girl/woman who escapes the opening scene. The Basterds are just kind of there as an afterthought because they are planning to blow up the same theater.
3- This film is conservatively speaking about 80% subtitled and spoken either in German or French.
4- The only part that is really funny (and it is hilarious) is Brad Pitt "speaking" Italian so poorly that Helen Keller could have picked him out as the American in the crowd.

I've read negative reviews about how this film is "war porn" and diminishes U.S. veterans in some way, but this couldn't be further from the truth. First of all this film is pure fiction that just happens to take place during WWII in France. Nothing depicted in this film is based in any way on fact. It is a complete fantasy of what could have possibly happened if Hitler and all the Nazi upper echelon had all decided to go to a jewish owned movie theater to watch a propaganda film.

Overall it is an extremely well made film that does just about everything well. It is a little bit drawn out at over 2.5 hours but like I said it is very well done and the acting is superb. 4.5 stars. I'd recommend it but be sure to have an open mind.

***Update***
My wife wants to watch it again. She thinks that maybe due to the fact that we started this at about 2:00 am might have had an effect on her opinion. We'll see. For me personally after a second viewing I like it even more.

One of the great pleasures of Quentin Tarantino movies is the wonderfully inventive casting that he employs. In PULP FICTION, he revived the career of John Travolta, made Samuel Jackson a star, pushed Bruce Willis into another echelon and even helped get Ving Rhames off to a good start. In JACKIE BROWN, he burnished Pam Grier & Robert Forster's careers. In KILL BILL, he reinvented Uma Thurman and reinvigorated David Carradine. Even in DEATH PROOF, he introduced the world to the amazing stuntwoman Zoe Bell and gave Kurt Russell the kind of part he's missed out on for too long.

And now, wonderfully, in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, he's introduced the American viewer to some stellar European actors, namely Melanie Laurent and particularly Christoph Waltz, now an easy favorite for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

Tarantino also frequently tries the patience of his viewers with his rococo dialogue and insistence on constantly reminding us that we're watching a movie. In PULP FICTION, all his "habits" were fresh and new to most viewers (because, really, how many of us had seen RESERVOIR DOGS before we saw FICTION?), but over time, we learned that Tarantino was often just a little too pleased with his own screenwriting and often too pleased with his own directing. In a completely off-the-wall piece like the priceless KILL BILL films, everything worked to form a crazy-quilt whole. In INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, he's too clever for his own good at times.

BASTERDS tells the completely untrue story of how World War II might have ended had a group of bloodthirsty, highly trained American Jews been allowed to infiltrate Nazi occupied France with no mission other than to take Nazi scalps. Oh, and how that mission needed to collide with one fateful night when all the top leadership of Germany attended the gala opening of a new propaganda film held at a movie theatre owned by a beautiful French girl who was actually a Jew who had escaped a massacre that had taken her entire family and now she's bent on revenge at any cost. And of how her goal coincides with that of an undercover British agent who just happens to be a German film scholar and a German double agent who happens to be a movie star.

I know that sounds a little confusing. To Tarantino's credit, the plot as laid out in this 150 minute film is actually easy to follow. In fact, he's put everything into easy-to-digest chapters. It does ask us to believe that every important member of the German government & military would all assemble in a fairly public place at one time...but if you can get past that hurdle, there is much vicarious pleasure to be had in watching WWII reinvented by Tarantino.

By far, the best part of the film is Chapter 1. It features Waltz as SS officer Col. Hans Landa in what is easily the most chilling portrayal of a Nazi since Ralph Fiennes donned the uniform in SCHINDLER'S LIST. Fiennes role (and that entire brilliant movie) were for altogether different purposes. Landa comes off more like a Nazi Hannibal Lecter (without the strange dining preferences)...he's a bit of a lone wolf in his own party. He's feared by all, because he has a wonderful BS detector that helps him root out deception at every turn. In the opening scene, which plays out like a delicate one-act play, Landa comes to a humble French farmhouse and speaks with the owner. We know the owner is hiding Jews beneath his floorboard, and we're pretty sure Landa knows it too. Just how he gets that information, through one of the most tense interrogation scenes you'll ever see, is a joy to behold. You literally find yourself not breathing. I leaned forward in my seat. And yet there is never a raised voice, nor a threatening gesture. The screws are applied through intensity of manner. Waltz instantly makes his character a classic. Tarantino the writer has crafted brilliant dialogue, and Tarantino the director films it all with rare taste and simplicity, and Waltz knocks it out of the park.

The rest of the film is more uneven. While Brad Pitt is a goofy delight as Aldo Raine, leader of the Basterds...it's a performance that is more campy than believable. His Basterds, including folks like director Eli Roth and B.J. Novak from TV's "The Office" are fairly interchangeable. And strangely, we look forward to them conducting KILL BILL PT. ONE type mayhem, yet they actually use relatively little screentime showing them in action. There is one short, effective scene of their own brand of interrogation...but mostly we have to take the word of other characters (like Hitler himself) that these guys are wreaking havoc on the Nazis.

And during one jarring moment, we are introduced to one of the basterds with a blast of `70s era Blaxploitation music and a `70s era title card. Why? Yes, it was funny...but it took everyone totally out of the spell the movie was weaving. Just as having Michael Myers, in thick but unconvincing makeup, play a British officer hatching a scheme to blow up a movie theater, was very distracting. Myers accent is impeccable, and he plays the part straight...but he's still unmistakably Myers and many audience members snickered when they recognized him. Very distracting.

It's as though Tarantino doesn't quite believe that he can make a straightforward film and have it be riveting. Too bad...because when he gets out of his own way (as he mostly does in the climactic sequences of the film), INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a cinematic treat. The gorgeous settings and lovely costumes even gave Tarantino a chance to show off and have it fit the tone of the film...but he still insists on going off the rails. "Hey, this is a Tarantino movie!" he seems to want to shout at us. And this causes him to get in the way of the stunning Melanie Laurant, who plays the vengeful theater owner. I've never seen her before, and she is an entrancing presence, whether in casual slacks or a gorgeous formal red dress. She dominates the final portions of the film.

I had a great time at this film, and I recommend it fairly highly. But with 10 minutes less of the sometimes too clever dialogue and 5 minutes less of Tarantino's showboating, and we might have had a true classic of suspense. See it, though, because the two performances I mentioned are worth the price of admission...heck, the opening scene is worth it.

Well, I think other reviewers have already done a terrific job discussing the story and numerous movie references in Quentin Tarantino's latest film "Inglourious Basterds," so I will make my review brief. The real star of "Inglourious Basterds" is neither Brad Pitt nor Diane Kruger. It is Christoph Waltz as COL. Hans Landa, whose great performance deserves its own film.

From the moment he steps into a farmer's house in occupied France (very intense Chapter 1, the best part of the film), we know Tarantino made a right choice. When the film is not boring, his character - smooth-talking, cunning and chilling - is always there. (Almost equally great is Michael Fassbender and the gripping basement scene involving his LT. Archie Hicox should not be missed.)

Probably those who have seen his "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" must know what is coming in Tarantino's take of a WWII-revenge story set in alternate Europe. Lots of violence have become a kind of trademark of the director (and I personally don't think it is a bad thing for any director), but the violence in his previous movies has never been tasteless like this. Scalping? Hitting a defenseless man with a bat? Surely cinema wins the war, but in a very inglourious way.

This brings me back to where I started: Christoph Waltz. I can forget the tedious dialogues, pointless movie references (Brad Pitt as Aldo "Raine"?) and the presence of wooden Eli Roth, but not the ending which I strongly disagree with. See what happens to the best (and obviously cleverest) character in the film, and you know what I mean. But after all, this is a Brad Pitt film.

This is just a review of the Blu-Ray "2 Disc Special Edition" since there are plenty of reviews of the movie itself by reviewers far more qualified than I.

The video and sound quality is excellent and I have no complaints about that. But I have to give this 4 stars instead of 5, because, I just don't get some of the "marketing lingo" on this package:

* This version does NOT include a running commentary. None at all (not director, not actors, not cinematographer, nothing). To me this is really odd -- it seems that almost all DVDs released in the last 10 years have had some sort of commentary track. Especially with a Tarantino movie, this seems like something you really WANT to have.
* I think this is the only Blu-ray version available right now. It includes the "digital copy" but that is just a lower-res copy of a movie with DRM, nothing wrong with getting that with it, but that is one of the TWO discs in the "Special Edition"
* If this is the only one available, and it doesn't include stuff like a commentary, what makes the Marketing people put the "Special Edition" tag on it? I guess because it comes with the low-res copy, see previous item...
* Other info on the package is misleading too. It says under "Additional Features:" "The original Inglorious Bastards." This might lead one to conclude that it includes the original movie (and there would be plenty of room for an SD copy of a movie on a Blu-ray disk. This feature is just a 10-minute summary of the movie and discusses it's relation to the new movie. A nice feature worth watching, but I think the way it is named as a feature is misleading.
* Minor thing: They put a sticker about "Includes Digital Copy" on the metallic-printed cardboard sleeve. When you take off the sticker, it removes part of the metallic printing. I know these sleeves are only meant to make the product look nice and flashy and get your attention when it's on a store shelf. But for those of us that like to keep these, it was annoying the way it was stickered. If they put the sticker on the outer plastic shrink-wrap this wouldn't be a problem.

Still a great movie and I'm glad I got the disc. Giving it 4 of 5 because of the questionable "Special-ness" of the Edition.

I just wanted to comment on the idea that this movie is "war porn" or somehow diminishes US vets. Saving Private Ryan is my favorite movie. I am a combat vet of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So I tend to be sensitive to how liberal Hollywood treats veterans. There are a few scenes in Basterds where - not to spoil the movie -you sort of see military heroism from the Nazi side. Those are actually a little hard to watch. One scene is reminiscent of a scene in Private Ryan, but it is a reversal. If anything they drive home the fact that war is terrible and are by no means any kind of slam on US vets. Anyway it's a very funny well acted movie.

I did not care for this movie at all. It was boring and did not hold my interest at all. My husband said he would give it a 2 and that he liked it a little bit more than me. I have heard that it is a total guy flick so I am thinking that part might be right. I did not care for the story line or the characters. Certain scenes were dragged out way more than they needed to be, losing my interest on a lot of the movie. I wish I would not have wasted the money I spent because we will never watch it again. I would recommend renting it before buying.

Tarantino again demonstrates his mastery of the individual camera shot: the camera angle, the composition, the color saturation, ... If you can be satisfied with just this, see this movie. But if you expect more, you are likely to be sorely disappointed.

Tarantino is famous for his allusions to other movies, but here it works against him, highlighting this movie failure to incorporate any of the things that made those movies worth remembering.

The story is something that you might expect from a group of 14-16 year old boys goofing around shouting out plot ideas, each trying to be more outrageous. Not only is the convergence of the three story lines forced, the individual lines are a hodgepodges. Example, in three years the character Shosanna somehow transforms from an orphaned milkmaid on the run to an Parisian sophisticate running a high profile business. And while accents play a key role in another story line, they are of no matter in this one.

Q: What is the difference between a scene in this movie and real life? A: Real life eventually comes to an end. Many reviews talk about the elongated scenes creating a sense of tension. For me, it just dragged things out long past the point of caring what might happen. And that "caring" was purely curiosity--the characters were too indistinct or cartoonish to warrant any emotional investment.

The initial "chapter" is much discussed in various reviews as masterfully building suspense in the interrogation of the farmer. But for anyone who has watched an interrogation scene in a competent police procedural on TV, this plays as incredibly false: Totally absent is the critical portion of the "dance", the sequence where the subject is entrapped by his own explanations. And the demonstration of the brilliance and special talents of "The Jew Hunter"? Apparently, other Germans wouldn't think to look in the large, glaringly obvious crawl space under the house.

If you watch this for anything other than the technical skill of the individual shots, be prepared to constantly mutter "Stupid" and "Preposterous" and "Lame", but mostly "Get on with it already!"

Quentin Tarantino is all about the gimmick now. While PULP FICTION was a fresh, unique, maze of a movie with memorable characters and KILL BILL VOL.1 was a perfect combo of the kung fu revenge film (modernized for the mass audience), everything else he's done feels either half-baked, self-congratulatory, incomplete, or all of the above. I think that in most of his dialogue-driven films (JACKIE BROWN, KILL BILL VOL. 2, DEATH PROOF, and this film INGLORIOUS BASTERDS), Tarantino THINKS he knows how certain people talk. I know that it's supposed to be "his vision" and "just a movie", but there still has to be something for the audience to connect to as it's going on. In most of his films, I feel no connection. And that is definitely true of this film INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS gets off to a promising start introducing us to the despicable Jew Hunter Colonel Hans Landa (played brilliantly by Oscar frontrunner Christoph Waltz) and his interrogation of a French farmer. This tense scene effectively touches upon the evil that was Nazism, especially it's conclusion. Then, the movie falls apart immediately with, ironically, the introduction of the title characters! The Basterd unit, led by Brad Pitt (in a seriocomic role playing Sgt. Aldo Raine) are too distant to the viewer and we get absolutely no handle on what any of them is about, except for perhaps Hugo Stiglitz, but even his intro and backstory is muzzled by Tarantino's self-congratulation by using out-of-place elements from his other films (odd 70s-style subtitles and narration).

There's been a lot of buzz about a second scene in a basement of a Paris bar where a showdown between some of the Basterds and German soldiers occurs. It's a well executed scene, but drags on for way too long and is really devoid of any of the depth or provocation that Tarantino displayed in similarly long scenes in PULP FICTION. The whole time this scene was going on, I was like, "What's the point?!" And after the climax of the scene, we are left with one surviving character (the most annoying of the scene) that we are supposed to empathize with, but all his droning and whining just makes me glad of what actually happened to him. I wish more characters in this were treated to a fitting end to get them out of this mess of a film.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS does have two strong, well written female characters, the lead French-Jewish refugee Shosanna Dreyfuss (heartbreaking Melainie Laurent) and supporting double-agent German actress Bridget von Hammersmark (sexy Diane Kruger, who for my money, is the second best character in the film behind Hans Landa). Shosanna is really the core character of the film and Tarantino does her justice early on, then lets her down big time (as well as Landa) with his histrionics and weirdness in the painfully dull, long, tedious final act.

This is my big complaint with the film. Tarantino has great ideas and executes SOME of them well, but steps on his own toes so much that he ends up screwing up his own film! With 70s title threads, jive-talking narrators, music stolen from his previous films (which he already stole from other films!), an idiotic interpretation of Hitler and his falling regime, and even the equivalent of an 80s music video, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS plays like one of Tarantino's dreams (or nightmares if you prefer).

The single disc DVD release is very disappointing. Almost NO special features. Boo! Rent it, don't buy it if you're into special features on DVDs.

Caution: Might Be A Spoiler Review.

Movie Cons:
1) If you don't like really violent scenes, I'd suggest fast-forwarding through them. They're a bit much, in my opinion. I get that it's a Q.T. film but it's always just above and beyond gross.
2) If you go cross-eyes reading subtitles, this may be really challenging.
3) If you have issues with violence towards women, this may bother you.
4) Man, does it twist with WW2 history. Big time. And it is so off with the time-line of early June 1944.
5) A major plot development is never fully explained. How DOES she end up with that movie theater anyway?

Pros:
1)Those caveats aside, this is a really well done film, beautifully shot. Lighting and scenes, set dressing, costumes etc. are really outstanding. I believe they may have made one mistake with the British officer's uniform but that's a small detail. I liked the pacing of the film especially. It really is a character study with adventure and gore thrown in.

2) Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa is simply amazing!! He is so charmingly creepy that I felt like I was being ensnared, undressed and hung out to dry in a slime pit. The first scene is so taut that I had to stop the DVD and breath a bit. You know it's NOT going to end nicely but still, I was riveted. It wasn't over-paced either. Perfect. Funny thing is, I felt watching Mr. Waltz' performance that he probably is a great guy in "real" life. I'd put him down as one of the great film villains!

3) Brad Pitt is handsome and wise-cracking with an accent you could cut concrete with. I'm not a fan of his but he was great!

4) The two lead females are talented and gorgeous. If you wonder why Diane Kruger looks familiar, she was in the National Treasure movies. And she must speak a bunch of languages because her accents (to me) were excellent!

5) If you're multi-lingual and want to brush up on your French, German and Italian, it's great practice!

6) The casting is brilliant, well-done!

I would recommend this movie highly, but if you're squeamish at all, fast forward when the knives, guns and baseball bats come out.

I'm a big fan of Tarantino. He's always been a man I've respected as a film maker and his collection of films sit comfortably in my list of favourite films of all time. This is one he's been working on for over a decade, refining the script to create his ultimate masterpiece that he was hoping would match the perfection of Pulp Fiction. This sincerely did not disappoint and the wait made it even more special when I got my chance to see it for the first time. Tarantino is sincerely a master of cinema and although some of his more recent films, amongst critics, are generally hit and miss, this is genuinely a masterpiece and displays the man's ability on top form once again.

The story unfolds over 5 chapters: Once upon a time... In Nazi occupied France; Inglourious Basterds; A German Night in Paris; Operation Kino and Revenge of the Giant Face. It tells of two separate plots to assassinate Hitler at the same time and place. On the one side we have Emmanuelle Mimieux, a cinema owner with revenge in her heart as her previous name was Shoshanna Dreyfus and she is the only surviving member of her family who were murdered by SS Colonel Hans Landa. The other side focuses on a group lead by Lieutenant Aldo Raine known as the Basterds are a group of Nazi killers who just enjoy killing Nazi's until they find out about a plan to hold a propaganda film premiere in the cinema owned by Emanuelle in which the Fuehrer will be in attendance. This group of Nazi killers are determined to kill the head Nazi, but the question is, will they even get close to their goal?

One of Tarantino's main talents is that he has an ear for intense dialogue and can create a lengthy scene which has only that and allow the viewer to be gripped throughout. This is not different as the dialogue in this film is intense and filled with dynamic mood changes and superb acting. Sure, the fact that the dialogue is heavy with subtitles, they work in setting an authentic mood and rather than having the actors play Germans or Frenchmen talking to their fellow countrymen in American accents which would diminish the mood entirely, I personally preferred the subtitles. The first scene of the movie I see it as acknowledging this possibility of subtitle overkill by having Colonel Landa request that the opposing character Perrier LaPadite switch to English as his French was exhausted. Although there was a plot justification for this switch, it was a clever and I found it to be quite a humorous aspect.

The acting is sublime, it really is. There are moments when it is slightly camp and the stereotypical traits are a bit over -exaggerated but they add a little relief to what is quite an intense film throughout. The cast are well fitted to their roles, especially Christopher Waltz as "The Jew Hunter" Hans Landa and Brad Pitt as Aldo "The Apache" Raine. They are both comically and seriously believable in their own right and add a lot to the film individually. The talk that Waltz should gain an academy award for his role in this film is well deserved and I pray he receives that nomination and ultimately the award. The supporting cast members such as Eli Roth, Mike Myers, Diane Kruger, Melanie Laurent and Martin Wuttke add their own individual flairs to the film to make it a genuinely pleasant experience.

There is also certainly a western movie style influence with the film and you know it's a Tarantino film the minute it begins. He has an individuality with his films that allows you to notice instantly that he had a hand in putting this masterpiece together. This is definitely an Oscar worthy film that I would strongly recommend to anybody with an ounce of respect for truly marvellous film making. For the HD fans there are the elements that take advantage of this, especially with the beautifully vibrant scenery. So get it, you will not be disappointed.