Basterds is NOT Science Fiction in ANY stretch of the genre.

Are you sure you were even watching the same movie this post talks about?

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.

I second.

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.

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.

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.

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.