Inglourious Basterds Review

Thanks for checking out my “Inglourious Basterds” review. You can see my full review in the video below, but here are the bullet points:

1) Great bad guy
2) Terrific performance by Christoph Waltz (Bad Guy)
3) Solid Performance by Brad Pitt

4) WAYYY too long (clocks over 2.5 hours)
5) Trailers are all lies. There is no action in this film. All the action in the movie is in the trailer. As a matter of fact, some of the action in the trailer isn’t even in the movie. Seriously.

6) Overly long drawn out dialog scenes with apparently no point
7) ELI ROTH IS NOT AN ACTOR. Painful every time he had to talk in this movie.

And now, the video version of my Inglourious Basterds review:

Comment with Facebook

108 thoughts on “Inglourious Basterds Review

  1. The film was fantastic, best this year. I enjoy dialogue over violence everytime. Well done to all, especially the bad guy and Brad.

    Directors never ever let someone shrink your art down to something people feel they dont have time for. Let them miss out and true fans appreciate you.

  2. hated everything eli roth said in the film but he had only 2 lines. not really that big a distraction. and mike myers is just a fucking stupid miscast. there’s no way anyone can take him seriously.

  3. I stopped frequenting this site a while back because I started to disagree with about 90% of what was posted, starting with the review of The Wrestler, the most brilliant movie of 2008. I checked in today to see the Basterds review, a film I wasn’t looking forward to because Death Proof I felt betrayed me as an audience member, but was pleasantly surprised with by it. I felt as though Tarantino’s dialogue fit with the suspense of the film, and really reminded me of Sergio Leone’s westerns, albeit quite a lot more talking, unlike Death Proof’s unrelated rants about how the ladies are doing in the “dick” department. Having read John’s review, I have to be honest here in saying that I don’t think that his argument for not enjoying the film holds any water. Let’s see his reasons:

    1) Great bad guy

    This is very true, Waltz is a great “bad guy”, playing the magnetic, charming and deadly Hans Landa.

    2) Terrific performance by Christoph Waltz (Bad Guy)

    Yea, we got that from #1.

    3) Solid Performance by Brad Pitt

    Very true. I’ve never seen the guy turn in a shit performance and here is no exception.

    4) WAYYY too long (clocks over 2.5 hours)

    Basterds, to me, felt like it could have gone on for another hour or two and I would have been fine with that. The tapestry of characters and events set within the “fictional” world of Nazi-occupied France were endlessly interesting and worthy of the wordy-yet-important conversations and actions that take place. But, this is a matter of personal opinion, I think, and not in any way a judge of John’s character or ability to write a good review. I just think that it’s a stupid point to bring up when reviewing a film that the film is “too long”. You may not agree with what the film was saying, or the way it was being said, hell you may even be sick of Tarantino’s style, but the length of a film has nothing to do with the quality of it. Abbas Kiarostami’s Taste Of Cherry is one of the most hauntingly beautiful films I’ve ever seen, clocking in at 95 minutes, while something like The Godfather clocks in right around 3 hours. Both films of quality, and both work for their respective time limits flawlessly. I do know of people who don’t like The Godfather, but it certainly isn’t because the film is “too long”. That’s the excuse of a novice audience member and should not be that of the creator of a major internet movie blog.

    5) Trailers are all lies. There is no action in this film. All the action in the movie is in the trailer. As a matter of fact, some of the action in the trailer isn’t even in the movie. Seriously.

    I’m sorry, when has Tarantino ever made an action movie? And also, wouldn’t you say that this film isn’t actually about the action, rather the film is a study in the power of film in general (the division into chapters, the 35mm nitrate and the climax of the film happening in a movie theater, as well as endless references to film by characters in Basterds)? If you were there just for the action, then you really didn’t know what you were getting into from the beginning. This film isn’t an action movie, and it’s not Tarantino’s fault that the studio marketed it that way. All I’m saying on this one is that Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the closest Tarantino came to making an action movie, he’s just not into that style, never has been. If anything, his movies could be seen as dumbed down mediations on the “less-is-more” theory in modern film. Granted, Michael Haneke does it much better (specifically Funny Games), but that argument could be made.

    6) Overly long drawn out dialog scenes with apparently no point

    I’d like to know which scenes these were. Specifics here are important to giving an accurate and concise movie review if you ask me, because anyone could make that statement about any movie, theoretically, and without a real answer as to what that those scenes with “no point” are there is, in turn, no real opinion being given here.

    7) ELI ROTH IS NOT AN ACTOR. Painful every time he had to talk in this movie.

    Eli Roth is not an actor I agree, but he was used sparingly enough that he didn’t annoy the shit out of me in this one. I actually hate Eli Roth and the shitty movies he makes, in fact I was pissed that his role wasn’t offered to Tim Roth, but in the end he played his part well as a supporting “character” in the film, nothing more. I personally didn’t think he was that bad, but then again his Boston accent was pretty damn awful.

    This is just a poor movie review. It’s fine to not like a film, but tell us why, don’t just throw up some half-assed rant about how you think you were robbed of your $10.50, because that essentially sounds like what this is.

  4. Loved everything about this movie except for Mike Myers. Granted, I expected much more action but I was pleasantly surprised by the lack thereof. The dialogue was great and I thought if not pertinent to the driving force of the plot, added to the film. Not everything has to forward the plot in some way. Great, great, great movie.

  5. Agree with the main points except for brad pitt, I thought his character was just poorly written just because it was brad pitt. It just seemed like a watered down version of his burn after reading performance.

    I did find the violence a bit much and I’ve seen a good few takeshi miike movies so I’m not squeamish. It was very real in a way but did they have do so much. Tarentino already did the ear scene in reservoir dogs so he didn’t have to prove anything. Maybe I was a bit disturbed by people’s reaction to it. Eh…

    The one thing I was surprised about and happily surprised for once was that tarantino actually made the nazi’s seem like real people, which isn’t even done in the german movies (downfall).

  6. I’m really surprised you didn’t like it! I thought the dialogue, while lengthy, was great because it was an effective way to keep the tension up throughout the movie, particularly in the beginning scene and (without giving anything away) the tavern later on. Eli Roth didn’t really bug me, and I actually thought that Mike Myers probably had the weakest performance in the movie. I didn’t pay too much attention to the trailers, and I wasn’t really expecting TOO much on the action side since I think he already kinda did that with Kill Bill (the first one anyway). Ah well, sorry you didn’t like it!

  7. Once again, I agree with you 95 percent. The opening scenes were awesome. It does drag when he get’s to those overwritten scenes. He pulls too far away from keeping the story moving. But, Quentin is such a good filmaker I never got bored. I was able to enjoy every one of those scenes. The movie was good but it wasn’t as good as the trailer suggested. Still, a must see film, filled with Tarantinoesque situations. I could do without the projector still running during the fire.

  8. I am really sad for you. I saw a brilliant film. Not Tarantinos best, but still very good. I’m sorry you didn’t get the joy out of it that I had. I felt all the dialogue was crucial, it set the mood so wonderfully. That is what Tarantino does best. When other directors will skim over things in a rushed pace, he stops and lets you really look at what is going on. That way, when the violence does hit, it hits with so much more force because you are somehow more invested in what happens to all these characters. The basement bar scene the best example of this. That has to be one of my favorite scenes in any movie the last 15 years.

  9. 4 reasons this is one of QT’s top 3:

    1. Dialogue had more direction and created more suspense than any other QT film to date. I thought that everything after Jackie Brown had unending random talk that took away from the story and characters whereas Jackie Brown and prior, the point of the movies was the dialogue. After Jackie Brown because his style was so imitated it no longer carried the weight of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown. Remember that when those films came out it was at a time when all movies were completely plot driven and story driven. The 80s made great action movies but they were no longer about character or about dissecting what films were. His films were a breath of fresh air. They were films that were self aware that this was the movies and he was subverting genre expectations.

    The dialogue was used brilliantly to create tension in each scene. Playful and dangerous at the same time. He stayed in each scene longer than you expected to build tension.

    2. To the point that there is no action in the movie. I think that that is one of the biggest pluses of the movie.This is a suspense film and just because this movie doesn’t show 1000 nazi’s being scalped doesn’t make it a bad movie. Say that they had made the movie with the Inglorious Basterds as the main characters and turned this into an action movie. It would have been a B movie with great action scenes and easily forgotten like the original inglorious bastards.

    There is nothing wrong with it being an action movie, but that’s not the point to this movie. Blame the faulty advertising but this movie is more of a tribute to the old spy movies. Check out movies like Army of Darkness, The spy who came in from the cold, Nazi Hunter B movies.

    QT is a better director than that, he has the heart of the movie be about the Shoshana and the theater which really works honestly. It is probably the most sensitive QT has ever made a character. The Basterds are better in a secondary role along with Hans Landa because they give the film the background players to the main story line. They are better in snapshots and more effective.

    3. The characters were well developed and entertaining each in their own right.

    4. Hans Landa played by Christoph Waltz and Aldo Raine played by Brad Pitt. A lot of the performances were great but these were perfect.

  10. John, I’m interested in what Taratino films you like? You’ve written that you don’t like Pulp Fiction, Death Proof, and now Inglorious Basterds. So I was wondering if he is such a genius as you stated, then what films of Taratino’s would you consider genius?

  11. I really, really, really liked this movie, and I would probably go as far as to say this is on my top ten of the year list already. My favorite aspect of the entire film, the dialogue and the amazing techniques used to build tension to those “breaking points” or action scenes, was stuff of cinema gold.

    Oh, and points again for the villain, Hans made that damn film.

  12. Tarrantino once said that “Great artists steal. They don’t do homages”. Inglourious Basterds is proof of that. So much of this film was stolen/inspired from other movies that he no doubt loved while working as a clerk in the video store. Even the soundtrack to the film was music cues from other films. Is this such a bad thing? I’d rather my nephew go and see this, and get inspired to spend his money on something like a DVD of “Once Upon A Time in the West” than go and spend it on the stain on the screen that was Transformers 2. Yes, Basterds was long. Yes, the marketing painted a tease of the film that was so far off the mark from the finished product. But I found the entire thing completly compelling and I wouldn’t have wanted him to make it any other way.

  13. Wow, I was totally the opposite when it came to the initial scene and the bar scene that you mentioned. I was just waiting for both of these scenes to turn bad. For me Tarantino took a page out of Hitchcock for how to build tension. When you finally get to the payoff from the bar scene (and I mean the final payoff not the initial one) it is so totally earned.

  14. As usual, I heartily disagree with John.

    This is the best movie of the summer, it is as good as QT’s best, Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction.

    It isn’t an action movie, but then none of his movies are action movies. They are character pieces about interesting people who are usually caricatures.

    It is an engaging and fun ride, that didn’t remotely feel like it was 2.5 hours long. The story was a coherent, enthralling, and fun ride.

    As John always says, “film is subjective”, and I personally adored Inglorious Basterds.

    1. I agree, the movie was absolutely fantastic and the dialogue was such a subtle build up to the carnage that came in each chapter. 2.5 hours is long? Give me a break.

  15. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and I’ll agree with you on one point – Eli Roth is not an actor and was pretty horrible, but he’s not in the movie much, so I wasn’t completely turned off.

    I already knew to expect a lot of dialog (it is Tarantino), and less action, but the action that is present is intense and effective. I preferred the balance and glad there wasn’t more.

    Christoph Waltz is brilliant in his role and deserves an Oscar nomination. The rest of the cast was wonderful, so big props to Tarantino and his casting crew. I’m not a huge Pitt fan, but this was a good role for him and I enjoyed him even with his horrible accent.

  16. Basterds was a great movie. So was District 9. And John, what’s up with the negative reviews latley? Btw what did u think about the Hurt locker? Give me something positive on that at least cause it was amazing !!

  17. Haven’t seen it myself, but will soon.
    Thanks for the heads up about the “lack” of action. As you said, after watching the trailer you’d expect lots of action etc …

    Great review. So much passion.

  18. Watching your review here, I gotta make a quick note, John.

    This movie is self indulgent – totally agreed. From the non-stop talking of actresses and movie directors and such, it’s very “Let’s talk about what I want!”. And there is a LOT of dialogue that is spoken in German that a) is never subtitled and you have to figure out what’s going on.

    That said…it didn’t really bother me. Still loved it. Much better movie than Death Proof.

    1. Guess you didn’t get that part. The dialogue spoken in German that isnt subtitled, is that way to convey the fact that the person ‘listening’ to the conversation doesn’t understand German.

  19. Just got back from the theater with a friend.

    We loved it. The audience loved it. Everyone had fun with the movie.

    Yes, the dialogue is tedious and slow and sometimes mind-numbing. However, I was NOT as bored or annoyed with it as I was with Death Proof.

    This is definitely a talking heads movie. Most of the movie is literally people sitting around tables and talking. If you’re expecting action…you’re going to get a handful of really cool, stomach cringing action. But that’s it. This movie is NOT for people with little attention span.

    I gotta say…the final climax? The theater scene – CREEPY. Especially watching it in a theater. Watch it and see what I mean.

    Honestly, this movie didn’t even feel like a QT movie to me. It was shot differently and had different dialogue than what we’re used to. The length did not bother me (I got my money’s worth!) and I thought the ending was awesome…(very Death Proof-ish).

    I wouldn’t mind seeing this again soon.

  20. I absolutely loved it, and so did the rest of the audience, it seemed. To put it simply, the dialogue was heated and clever, the performances superb all around (especially Christoph Waltz), and the song choices – as in any Tarantino film – very effective.

    For me to give a film a perfect score is rare enough as it is, but this is the first time I’ve given one to two films in a row (having seen District 9 last weekend). It’s been a damn good year for films so far, with Coraline, Up, and the aforementioned District 9 ranking somewhere in my all-time Top 15. And while I’ll have to see it a few more times to say for sure, Inglourious Basterds is perhaps my fifth favorite movie of all time. Aside from last year’s Bolt, never has a movie surpassed my expectations by such a great amount.

  21. John…I respect your opinion on Inglorious Basterds, as film apreciation is subjective, but you should see this movie one more time. On your second viewing, perhaps pay more attention to the dialogue, which in my opinion was brilliant, mixing tension and humor. I understand that here in America moviegoers are lazy to read subtittles, but hey, QT was smart about keeping dialogues in the respective character’s language. It would have been stupid to have all those Nazi dudes speak english among themselves.

    Agreed, Christoph Waltz deserves a best supporting actor Golden Globe award and an Oscar for his role as Hans Landa. Brad Pitt isfunny as hell as the redneck Aldo Reine, And Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfuss was awsome too.

    I did wish Adam Sandler had chosen to do “The Jew Bear”…it would have made the climax of the movie be one of the most satisfying images for any Jewish person to ever see on film.

    This movie has an ACTION PACKED kick ass climax which was will built, and even though I am not Jewish, what I saw still has me smiling joyfully, wishing it would have happened for real.

    To me, Inglorious Basterds, Public Enemies, District 9, Moon, and The Hangover were the best films of the summer.

    John…do yourself a favor and take a second look at this film. This is QT’s best film since Pulp Fiction. The script is linear, yet very original and very well structured, the dialogue is hillarious and tense.

    The few action scenes have been the best QT has done so far(usually action scenes in QT’s films are kind of clumsy, even in Kill Bill V1 & V2…but here they are done in a Brian DePalma manner of quick brutality). Also, Hans Landa is enough reason to watch this film again.

    John…Take a second look at Inglorious Basterds.

  22. I feel like you’re losing your touch. I used to agree with you quite a lot, but lately we haven’t been. I’m not sure what’s changed. Anyways, a couple of things:

    1. The Trailer – You’re right, it is a misleading trailer. Most of the action in the movie was in the trailer. This was obviously smart marketing to get American audiences to go out and see it. However, with you and I both being movie buffs, I’m surprised you didn’t look up information regarding this movie after Cannes and at least come to understand that it wasn’t going to be another Kill Bill vol. 1.

    2. I loved every scene. Every scene was so intense because of all the subtext, what was goin on under the dialogue. For example, when Hans runs into Soshanna (aka Emmanuelle) at the restaurant and offers her milk. The bar scene was fantastic. Yes, at first most of the dialogue seems a bit pointless, but it always comes around full circle. For example, the guy who was the new father. Seems pointless to know that, but it came around for two reasons: 1) it was a way for the Basterds to get Bridget von Hammersmark out of there safely (by convincing him he’ll live if he lets her go), and 2) it lead to Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) to find the note she wrote to the newborn, which gave away Bridget’s cover.

    3. Eli Roth – he’s barely in the movie. And what little he had was really not bad at all. I’m not sure why this irked you so much. The “home run” gag was twistedly funny, and most of his other, short, lines were funny. He seemed to be a comic relief. (It should be noted that this role was originally intended for Adam Sandler, who couldn’t do it due to Funny People – which I also liked).

    4. Mike Myers – You said he was so bad, but don’t say why. Why was Mike Myers so bad? I loved that scene. The performances were so, so good. It was just a joy to sit there and watch them. This goes for every scene (for me).

    5. Tarantino does NOT edit his films! Every single movie of his ever since Reservoir Dogs has been edited by Sally Menke – a woman. I’m surprised you don’t know this.

    Since your expectations were misplaced, I suggest you watch it again with as open a mind as possible. You loved District 9 and Cloverfield when you first saw them, but after you saw them a second time your opinions of them lowered. Perhaps your opinion will change in a more positive direction upon a second viewing.

    Sally Menke

    1. please disregard the “sally menke” at the end of my previous post. must’ve written it there to remember what her name was while writing my post but forgot to delete it at the end…

  23. To be honest, i actually enjoyed the fact that it was NOT the action film that was “promised” by the trailer. I really enjoyed the “slower” scenes, especially the scene in the bar that you mentioned, that scene, along with the opening of Basterds might make it into my Top 5 list of favorite Tarantino moments. I agree that the movie could have been a little shorter, but 90 minutes? no way!

    Basterds is already my favorite Tarantino movie after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but then again, you can`t really compare these three movies because they are totally different, i enjoyed Basterds a lot more than Kill Bill though.

  24. loved the movie but it was way to long. i agree with john about the bar scene. what was the point? didn’t really care about the romance between the black dude and the jewish chick and the movie was really inaccurate. besides that it was awesome.

    1. “the movie was really inaccurate”

      Tony are you joking or is that actually your criticism of the movie? In a recent interview with QT he was asked about his version of history. In essence he said, “I know how history goes and I don’t really care. This is my story and my characters and this is how it plays out in this story. History really has nothing to do with it.”

      So if historical accuracy is your beef, my guess is you don’t see too many “historical” movies that you like.

      “the romance between the black dude and the jewish chick”

      Romance? They kissed once. Otherwise it was all plotting and schemeing to kill Nazis. I think you should either rewatch and re-evaluate the movie or reevaluate how you look at movies. Those are the two dumbest criticisms I’ve ever heard.

  25. I have to disagree strongly, this film was stunning, easily my favourite film of the summer.

    I go to the cinema nearly every week and its the first film since Return Of The King i’ve been to which got a round of applause at the end (UK here, we are quite reserved)

    I agree that it really isnt what the marketing men have positioned it as but never the less it was hugely enjoyable, i had a huge smile on my face throughout the long scenes of dialogue. Considering all the disappointments this summer im hugely thankful for this gem!

  26. At our country we get the movie unrated, all the blood and gore will be seeing. Not that bullshit about leaving some scenes away because they are too hard.

  27. Just watched it tonight and I thought it was great. I also loved both the bad guy and Brad Pitt. I thought the story line for the Nazi women was fantastic. And thought the few action scenes in the movie were also fantastic. I would give it a 4.5/5.

    I think people should know that about 50% of this movie is subtitled.

  28. Oh yes, Love love LOVE the musical queues that were all throwbacks to various genres – spaghetti westerns, film noir, 70’s exploitation and Hitchcock thrillers.

    And all the details in the film are another part of what makes it wonderful. The scene with the projector showing the woman laughing while projecting on to the smoke was awesome.

  29. 1) Regardless of what the trailers tell you, this is a Tarantino film. One would think that by now (this being his 6th [directed] film, that people would understand that he focuses on “unnecessary” and “pointless” dialogue always. That’s what he does. That’s his style. And frankly that’s part of the joy of his movies. If you don’t dig on that, that’s totally cool. But I disagree 100% that dialogue HAS to always be part of the plot. Personally I think that’s ridiculous. The diner scene in Reservoir Dogs is possibly one of the best scenes in a fantastic film. It had nothing to do with the story or plot. Death Proof (know what happens to chicks who carry knives?), Pulp Fiction (five dollar shake), Jackie Brown, et al. are all filled with this stuff. Don’t like it? Fine. But don’t act all surprised that he had people sitting around a table talking. To say it’s unnecessary is not true. Without it, most of QT charm is gone. That’s pretty necessary to me.

    2) You made a note on your iPhone that said “Tarantino is back”? A) You had to write that down to remember it? and B) you were texting during a movie? Or was this later? Please tell me you’re smarter and more courteous than that.

    3) “Way too long.” Flew by like gangbusters. I couldn’t believe I was in a theater for that long. It felt like an hour and a half tops.

    4) “Extremely bored.” Wow. I was absolutely riveted. That last 25 minutes is intense as all hell. And this “boring long talking going on in the bar”? Really? The intensity there is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

    I’m shocked. I too loved the opening scene, but we’re on two different pages here. Without the talking, the “gunz blazin'” stuff you wanted would not work and would not matter in the slightest with context and the best way to get real context is to listen and watch people interact. Few screenwriters today capture interactive banter as wittily, charming and pure fun as Tarantino. Image the final scene between the actor and the projectionist. How confusing, non-impactful and lame would that scene be without all of the encounters between these two characters previously? It doesn’t matter if what they’re talking about is plot driven or not. It’s getting you familiar with main characters and not in a boring way, but in a witty banter sort of way.

    You are way off base on this one. Easily in my top ten of the year so far.

    1. Riveting as a post-it-note.

      I’m glad you liked it. But there is a difference between solid insightful dialog that pushes the story forward and gives layers and meaning to charcters or events in the film. The dialog (at least much of it) in Basterds did none of that. Often just talking so QT can hear his own words with no point, purpose or value. If that engaged you, fantastic… to me it was empty time wasted… and a lot of it.

      When QT is on, he’s one of the best. I’m sorry, but I think you’re way off on saying one of his films is just like all the others. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. In Basterds… it just doesn’t.

      Again, just my opinion, and I’m glad you liked it. To me it was drivel.

  30. So let me get this right.

    You like:

    Crank 2
    and Punisher Warzone

    But you didn’t like:

    Inglourious Basterds
    The Wrestler
    Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
    No Country For Old Men
    (and from what I remember) There Will Be Blood??

    You’re certainly entitled to your opinions but I gotta say that you have odd taste.

    1. First of all Audioout,

      If you publicly put up ALL the movies you like and dislike, we could make a list too.

      Secondly, I never said I didn’t like No Country for Old Men (Just that I didn’t think it deserved the Best Picture Oscar) or There Will Be Blood (Which I thought should have beat No Country.

      And yes… half blood prince sucked ass

      1. “Half Blood Prince sucked ass”, whoa those are harsh words, in the review you didn’t seem so pissed, you gave it a 5. Also under the don’t like list: Funny People, I saw it a few weeks ago and I agree with John on certain aspects of it, but I’d put it in my top 6 of the year.

      2. I apologize John about my mistaking of your opinion on No Country and There Will Be Blood. I tried to go back and find what you said exactly but couldn’t, at least in the limited amount of time I dedicated to fact finding.

        And yes, There Will Be Blood definitely should have beaten No Country in the Oscars.

    2. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was a PIECE OF SHIT.

      FUCK that movie.

      It was a failure, Id rather kill a baby tyhen bear to watch that puddle of rotten possum period blood

      Id rather drink squid semen from a hobos asshole then watch that shit again.

      When that movie was done, somewhere in heaven god was shaking his head in disaprovement.

      The fact that you questioned John for not liking HP6 makes you now completely irrelevant to our circle of life.

      1. Oh and By the way….Wanted, Transformers, Twilight and Punisher War Zone where amazing movies. I also not only like them, but love them.

        Crank 2 was an insult to mankind and questions my IQ.

        Youve obviously never read the book.

      2. I’m not sure what you mean by “clearly you’ve never read the book.” I’ve read all the books and I loved the movie, but there was no way it was the best.

        And I REALLY disagree with Twilight heavily. That REALLY sucked ass.

        Inglorious Basterds is outstanding.

    3. I think I’m the only one in the world who didn’t like No Country for Old Men.

      There will be Blood rules! “I drink your milkshake!”

      I loved Inglorious Basterds

      Loved Wrestler

      Loved Potter 6

      Twilight sucks ass

      Wanted and Transformers are great.

  31. I have to say I really loved this movie. I felt that the weakness in some areas was easy to overlook when taking the movie as a whole.
    I work in the investigations/law enforcement field and I was amazed after the first scene with Landa and the farmer. That was the most realistic depiction of an interrogation I have ever seen on film. The rapport building, locking the person into a story, and then pulling the floor out from beneath them we as true to how it actually happens as is possible in a film.
    I am a Pitt fan, and thought he did a solid job. I thought his role was set up to be an annoying distraction, but with the exception of the scene with Landa in the bar he was good.

  32. This movie is a film student’s wet dream. I hated Death Proof because of the boring dialouge that had no purpose what so ever. However, in IB, the long dialouge was witty,funny,and entertaining, even when it didn’t revolve around the story. After Death Proof I became a taratino hater, and for some reason, I wanted this to suck, but it didn’t. No there isn’t much action. This is not Michale Bay movie. When there is action, you’re actually surprised and impressed by it, because you’re not getting it every 5 minutes. That’s an old rule that hasn’t been followed latley. If QT had his way, he wouldn’t have promoted the film the way it was, but it wasn’t up to him. This was a cinematic achievment that I was happy to spend 9 dollars on. I can understand why some who ranked Transformers as their favorite movie of 07, and Wanted as the best summer movie of 08, would be bored by this.

  33. Isnt it amazing what expectation can do to someones experience at the movies John? I am very sorry to here you didnt like it. I guess for me, it was going in with no expectation at all. Because for me its one of the best films of the year. I loved everything about it. But I know what you mean, there have been several times I have been to see a movie and expected more, due to advertising or whatnot. Just to be dissapointed. Just please forgive me for enjoying it.

  34. I have to agree with you to a point. My opinion is that whenever the Basterds are on screen it is exciting and entertaining, but the majority of everything else is really boring. But an argument can be made that the boredom makes the action more exciting. When I told one of my friends that there was alot of no action he told me it was probably just suspense and I thought to myself that while there was some suspense there was alot of bullshit nothingness, and in that point I agree with you. I also agree that whenever Eli Roth spoke it seemed retarded, if he had never talked he would’ve seemed cooler and that the marketing of this movie was rather misleading.
    Where I have a different opinion of you is that I left the movie satisfied simply because I really liked the climax. Alot of nothing did happen but unlike the rest of the movie, that nothingness was suspense. And also once the climax was over the movie ended itself quickly, but unlike Transformers 2, it gave itself enough time to end well.
    I left the theater satisfied and a little happy, but not as happy as after watching District 9 (way more enjoyable movie).

  35. Really enjoyed this film and the performances from the actors. The pacing is very slow but it didn’t bother me all that much. I felt the long areas created a sense of tension especially in the bar scene which has to be my favorite. I loved how the bar scene evolved and the climax had everyone in the theater cheering.

    Saw the film at midnight with a great crowd although there were some people that walked out in mid stream. Too bad. I can see how people can call this film boring but the film just seemed to grow on me.

    Will certainly see it again.

    Funny Thing: Eli Roth got a positive reaction from the crowd every time he was on screen.

      1. He was the only one that felt a bet strange to me…I liked his performance but kept thinking maybe he could have been replaced.

        I think they needed someone that could realistically hold the other side of the screen to Brad Pitt. It felt a bit one sided because Eli was sort of playing Pitts right hand man. I would have liked to see BJ Novak (The Office) and Brad Pitt have more scenes together…they worked for me in a Brains and Brawn fashion.

    1. I have to agree with other posters in this thread who enjoyed the movie. I was entertained, riveted, glued, the whole way through, no problems with the length, no problems with the dialogue. This thing is crafted to perfection, unlike many movies where things just happen, happen, happen, without the right amount of weight to them, this movie made me anticipate what was going to happen next becuase the dialogue, meticulously builds the tension, up up up, and when the movie isn’t building tension, its funny, its action packed, its fascinating. I just loved it. Highly recommended. First movie I’ve seen this year I really LOVED, refreshing after wanting that from District 9 and being disappointed.

  36. John I truly see your point on the long scenes even though I still found them interesting. What I would like to know is how did you feel about the foreign speaking sections? I thought it was brilliant how he had people speaking their own languages. Also why is every critic getting annoyed with Tarantino’s dialogue? In Pulp Fiction there is so many parts where the dialogue really has nothing to do with the plot, thats his style. It seems now thats why people don’t like him I’m just confused about it. Like your review even though I disagree, because you do bring up good points.

    1. I really liked the movie too but I thought Eli Roth was horrible. Every time he opened his mouth I cringed. In a film with strong performances he sticks out like a sore thumb. But that’s me.

      1. He barely opened his mouth though. You could have put ANYONE in that part and it would have worked. Can he act? I doubt it. Did that matter? For me, not one bit.

      2. I would’ve preferred the character mute. I’m not saying Roth’s few horribly delivered lines ruined the movie, only that I’d prefer a professional actor. God knows there’s many out there looking for a break.

  37. Yeah, of course, to each their own, John. I’m not saying your opinon is wrong, as as you so often say, the most beautiful thing about film is the subjectivity of it. But I just wanted to address a couple of things you said specifically:


    1) The length of it didn’t bother me at all, and as I said I enjoy Tarantino’s dialogue so much that I could watch a movie 3 and a half hours long of it. To be honest the film absolutely flew by for me.

    2) As I said above, the dialogue IS the point of the film, it doesn’t necessarily have to be going anywhere. It’s like that in all of his films, sections that are just there as people sitting around talking with no real furthering of the plot going on (Royale with Cheese from Pulp Fiction, “Chicks With Guns” talk in Jackie Brown, The diner scene in Reservoir Dogs – take your pick). But the quality of his dialogue, if you actually listen to it instead of having the expectation that it’s moving the plot anywhere, is some of the best in modern day moviemaking.

    4) The British character, played by Michael Fassbender, couldn’t have been cut out entirely, as it would have effected the plot (you said it wouldn’t have at all) – he was the guy who was supposed to be Bridget Von Hammersmarck’s (Diane Kruger’s character) date to the film premiere, along with the other two Basterds, and with him being killed that’s why Aldo Raine, and the other two guys, had to step in in their place.

    5) I liked Mike Myers’ cameo because for me that scene played as a parody of the old war movies when the plan will be explained in the way-too-big room with the big map on the wall. Even Winston Churchill sitting at the piano shows it’s meant to be kind of a parody:P

    6) The violence is in there enough, IMO, but I’m glad he didn’t absolutely fill the movie with it. As I said, his movies are about dialogue and the only reason this looked to be otherwise (i.e. action packed) is because the Weinsteins have to do that with their marketing to grab immediate interest. (Also, the thing about the guy running down the hall shooting the gun not being in the movie – it probably ended up on the cutting room floor, and was probably just an extension of the scene where they break out Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz)


    As I said, to each their own, but I would just like to get some more of your opinion on those points I listed.

    1. ross another great post,im no great tarantino fan but the dialogue was great, and a welcome change from the rash of simple setups leading to shaky cammed unremarkable action, what violence there is in this film drew gasps from the crowd. i had a huge smile on my face through each scene, hans landa easily the best character ive seen in a film for a long long time

    2. I agree with John. This movie has some terrible pacing issues. Also, when you are sitting next to an person of African American decent you realize it might be a little racist.

  38. I thought it was an utter piece of brilliance, one that gets even better watching it at second time (I saw it twice in two days), and up there with QT’s best (I’ll need to wait for the DVD and more rewatches before I can truly rank it with his other movies).

    About what you said about the dialogue, that’s what people said about Death Proof (including yourself, I believe) – but the point IS the dialogue itself. Did you expect anything different from Tarantino? I know the trailers promise action, but the Weinsteins HAD to advertise it that way, to make their money. But the point of Tarantino’s movies is the dialogue, that is mixed in with ocassional violence.

    I LOVE Tarantino’s style, and particularly his style of dialogue, and so I could listen to it all the time. That’s why I LOVED Death Proof, a seriously misunderstood and underrated movie.

    Other things that are fantastic about IB:

    – Interesting, entertaining, iconic characters
    – One of the best characters and villianous performances of the decade (by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa)
    – The sheer love of cinema that Tarantino has bleeding out of the movie in every single scene
    – The fact that he has Germans speaking in German, French speaking in French, and Americans/British speaking in English, as it realistically would be.
    – The climax of the film

    There’s many, MANY more things that are brilliant about it, but I’ll stop there. Just in case you missed it, I. LOVED. THIS. MOVIE.


    1. Oh, and not to mention, there is probably a good 30 minutes of stuff cut out of the screenplay (a BRILLIANT read if any of you get a chance) that would have added even MORE to the film. This film could easily be 3 and 1/2 hours long, and still have me craving more.

    2. ross you hit the nail on the head there, stunning film, movieblog has had a lot of quite strong negative reviews this summer for some stunning films, perhaps johns own experience of making a film is tainting his love for the media!

    3. Ross – I agree.

      I dont usually like Tarantino’s work, but this movie was excellent, it will stand the test of time and match right up with Pulp Fiction as some of his best work.

    4. I agree with Ross. I loved this flick. What do you expect, but a movie with the MAJORITY being dialogue from Tarantino. It’s Tarantino’s style. He loves dialogue, and I’m glad he writes great dialogue because I love listening to it. I don’t think any scene was pointless at all. Brilliant movie.

    5. I’m with Ross everything he wrote…

      I don’t understand how you can go into a Tarantino movie NOT expecting a shitload of dialogue. Some if may be pointless and self indulgent but the majority of it is all leading to a certain point in the conversation. This is what we expect from Tarantino and he has delivered in spades.

      Between this and Avatar john, I think you need to start lowering your expectations maybe … It might help you enjoy the movies more. (Granted, Cameron pretty much set the expectation level with Avatar lol, and might I say ‘hit the mark’).

      John I respectfully disagree with the second second half of your review. TARANTINO IS BACK!!!

    6. Ross- I agree with everything you’ve said in your comment; this film is brilliant.

      Hands down, Tarantino’s best and quite possible greatest piece of cinema I have seen in many, many years.

  39. Well, bad or not, I’m seeing it tomorrow (would you pass up a free ticket?). I have no problem with long movies, and Tarantino’s rants amuse me (Opening of Reservoir Dogs, anyone?). And I read in an interview the cutting was really rushed. And yeah, John; what about the number ratings? Just can’t decide anymore? Oh well. Thanks anyway.

      1. I have to really really disagree with you on this. I don’t get how you could have expected anything more from Tarantino? Not only is the dialouge itself intense and insanely action packed, but whereas a film like Death Proof has some pointless dialouge, there is not one scene that felt to much or pointless. This is probably the best film I have seen all year. Take the opening of the film for example. 15 minutes of all dialouge, yet so compelling and really tense.

        I would like to know what you feel about longer films. Are you alright with longer films? Do you think that there is a length that is TO long? There are films like Bel Atar’s Satan’s Tango which clocks in at I believe 7/7 and a half hours, and is amazing, or The Decalouge which is 10 hours long, both films being fantastic.

        I’m not trying to be confrontational at all, I would just like to know what you think.

  40. Since when did you stop giving movies ratings, GI JOE, District 9? Why haven’t you given a full review for District 9, you did a “Quick Thoughts” which said you’d give a full review soon, and that thing this morning where you complained about the bad things and we still have no rating, so just out of curiousity what would you give GI JOE, District 9, and Inglourious Basterds?

  41. For some reason.. I am leery about this movie. Maybe its the fake southern accent by Brad lol. I was at the first showing of Grindhouse and couldnt wait for it.. but this one.. It just doesnt look like anything Taratino SHOULD be doing. Speaking of Death Proof.. I only liked the last part of it.. the first part was horrid. Truly. And if Basterds is like that.. no thank you.

Leave a Reply