Inglourious Basterds (review)

One of your best reviews, I think.

so, this one is not 2 hours of watching him masturbate like you said the kill bill movies were?

I felt fairly uncomfortable watching the Nazis get killed i didnt mind the jews at the start cos you dont see anything lol but I am getting squeamish in my old age the italians getting killed in Nation's Pride (they were italians weren't they?) was funny - it's quite slapsticky actually in fact you are more laughing at the germans for laughing at it. That part was so over the top (well the whole film is) that I laughed at it. Nation's Pride is such a bad movie. I felt that Zoller, being such a movie fan, was more upset about that, than the fact that he was watching himself re-enact his massacre. He was a little shit bastard rapist.

I did not know that Eli Roth directed that part

(slight spoiler) why would she bring italians to that sort of movie wtf ?

Hans Landa was a brilliant character tho I loved every bit of the movie he was in

An excellent review that I thoroughly agree with. One thing that I keep thinking back to is how incredible Daniel Bruhl is in this movie, and how remarkable his character is in general ---

(vague, nonspecific spoilers!)

--- in that he's arguably the only example in Tarantino's work of a genuine, old-fashioned Tragic Hero; someone whose downfall is not down to bad luck or being outdrawn, but is actually down to something ugly and terrible inside himself. It's absolutely fascinating to watch Zoller struggling to be a better person, and it's almost unbearable when his Nazi side eventually wins out.

The movie, in general, reminded me that Tarantino really does still have the power to surprise you.

non vague specificish spoilers!!!! you have been warned!!

I liked Daniel Bruhl but I had the opposite reading of his role. In that it seemed to me that he was gonna be the good Nazi - that's why the scene where's he going I killed 37 the first day, I killed 98 the second day was funny to me cos it wasn't what I was expecting.

I don't think he was trying to be a better person I just think he got more and more evil as he went along. The fake modesty when he tells her about killing all those guys, that frat boy self entitlement when he goes to the projectionist room. His Nazi uniform got more and more extravagant. I truly think that he doesn't like Nation's Pride and that's why he's upset at the end. Film snob!

She looks at him in the movie and reads too much into his face which was funny too - the power of the movies!!!

I just don't think he's that self - aware. Daniel was great in it tho.

No one mentioned Til Schweiger yet. Does this mean that his part is far less prominent than Germans are led to believe (which would be a good thing, if his work here isn't 100% different from his usual work)?

He has his moments - coming up to and during the scene in the bar which help to amp the tension up quite a bit

I dunno if the film was re-cut from Cannes so he might have had a bigger part then however he gives good glower.

Take it you're not a fan?

Take it you're not a fan?

Yup, I'm not.

Right?

Wrong. Tarantino is not endorsing anything about the current war because it is a different war. Any other conclusion would have to be based on information from outside of the context of the movie.

This movie does endorse justified violence. Whether some other acts of violence outside the film are justified or not is irrelevant to the review of this film.

The "Nation's Pride" film was about killing Allied soldiers in Italy, Americans. There is a scene with Americans speaking.

I pretty much was disappointed by every aspect of this film. There were some good moments and I did really like the final few scenes, but overall, I thought it was a waste of talent.

QT focused on silly shots. Why did we need to see the cream twice in the restaurant? Was it supposed to be a metaphor for the milk and the way Shoshanna's family died? What was his point?

We all know QT is known for his lengthy dialogue but that's in English where we can hear the flow of it. Having to read word after word became exhausting and it lost all meaning as QT dialogue. Now, I'm not one to skip subtitled films, but don't beat me to death with words for 3 hours. His dialogue is the kind that needs to be heard.

I knew it would be a long flick. All of his are. But he stretched out scenes needlessly. The banging of the baseball bat went way too long without causing any tension or fear. The guy didn't sound like he was coming any closer until the last few seconds. And why try to make the guy afraid when he wasn't? Plus, how did he hear Brad Pitt's instructions to come kill him if he was that far away in the tunnel? It made no sense.

Also, the casting choices were ridiculous. Eli Roth is, sadly, an even worse actor than QT himself. He completely pulled me out of the movie.

BJ Novak was quite good at his Office schtick, but we don't even get acquainted with his character until the last twenty minutes.

Which leads me to the next problem: The film title is The Inglorious Basterds. We are to assume by the previews as well and the fact that Brad Pitt is in the film, that the film will actually be about the Basterds. I went into the film expecting 3 hours of watching them do their thing in France, seeing depth from each character, and getting to know their personalities. But we get almost none of that.

We know what they do and that the Germans fear them, but other than that, they are basically insignificant in the film. We see so little of them that I get confused trying to remember if the spies throughout the film are them or someone else. They are merely used as an instrument to tie up the end of the film. They're kind of like the car in the Dukes of Hazard. They're just there.

I also found it simple-minded that if a Nazi could figure out from how one held their fingers if they were a spy or not, then how would the brilliant Hans not be able to recognize a Tennessee accent speaking Italian words? Of course he did, but if Lt. Aldo Rayne (Sp?)is so good at killin' Nazis, then wouldn't he even *try* to mask his voice. Of course he would know that they'd know he wasn't Italian. The scene set up a cheap laugh but it was ridiculous to ask the audience to buy into it.

*spoiler* And I'm sorry, but I'm a stickler for leaving history as it is and the ending of the film is just ridiculous. I'm waiting for a dream-sequence; a fade out and in to a high school classroom of a teacher telling her students that that could have happened if...Not actually happening. And I get, Mary Jane, the idea of the film just being a fantasy, but I would rather see QT choose a more realistic setting and make something great out of it (Defiance comes to mind).

I was also disappointed at the lack of depth with storylines. It would have been interesting had they made at least one Nazi sympathetic. A good guy in a tough situation. I realize the dad at the bar was, but I thought they had a unique opportunity with Daniel and they just decided to go with the basest option of making him the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Also, every time I was waiting for that moment of greatness from a character or the Inglorious bunch, it just wasn't there. The actress died before she could do anything intelligent. The SS soldier turned IB was supposed to have this incredible reputation for killing Nazis and he dies in the first battle we see him in with little fanfare.

The narrator comes out of nowhere. He's not a character we recognize, so why is he talking? Who is he? Why can he talk to us? And why do we see a clip of movie about film canisters on a trolley? Is that really necessary? I'm not stupid. If you tell me that you can't take film on a train, I'll believe you. Again, where did the movie come from? Are we supposed to recognize it? Why use it?

I felt like QT is in love with himself and the way he makes movies. And he tried so hard to make us love it too, as did Brad Pitt who is evidently pining for someone to finally give him an award. Apparently there's a lot of love for this movie, but I just don't see it.

The only cool fight scene is at the end with the wrist machine gun. It's the only one that gets true attention like a good fight scene should. Everything else seemed like premature ejaculation over and over again for 165 minutes.

Which leads me to the next problem: The film title is The Inglorious Basterds. We are to assume by the previews as well and the fact that Brad Pitt is in the film, that the film will actually be about the Basterds. I went into the film expecting 3 hours of watching them do their thing in France, seeing depth from each character, and getting to know their personalities. But we get almost none of that.

But it was about Basterds. Though Brad Pitt didn't have a whole lot of screen time, every single person was involved in their plan in one way or another. The only major character who isn't directly a related is Dreyfus, and yet considering her plan and actions she is probably closer to being a basterd than some of the lesser characters like BJ Novak.

We know what they do and that the Germans fear them, but other than that, they are basically insignificant in the film. We see so little of them that I get confused trying to remember if the spies throughout the film are them or someone else. They are merely used as an instrument to tie up the end of the film. They're kind of like the car in the Dukes of Hazard. They're just there.

Again, "Basterds" can be an idea. At the beginning when they enlist Hugo, a German soldier, they do so because he hates and kills Nazis despite the fact that he isn't Jewish-American. Inglorious Basterds doesn't necessarily have to apply just to Brad Pitt and his team.

I also found it simple-minded that if a Nazi could figure out from how one held their fingers if they were a spy or not, then how would the brilliant Hans not be able to recognize a Tennessee accent speaking Italian words?

He obviously knew, and the audience knew not because of his penchant for language, but because he was playing with them by flaunting his fluent Italian in their face. Which was a much better way of showing it than say having the camera move to his face as he squints conceringly.

Also, every time I was waiting for that moment of greatness from a character or the Inglorious bunch, it just wasn't there. The actress died before she could do anything intelligent. The SS soldier turned IB was supposed to have this incredible reputation for killing Nazis and he dies in the first battle we see him in with little fanfare.

I can agree with you here since this is more of a matter of taste. However I didn't have a problem with it because Landa (who I thought was the best part of the film) is filled with such moments of brilliance, cunning, and greatness in practically every scene he's in. And that makes Pitt's victory at the end so much more crushing than it should have been considering how simple it was.

The narrator comes out of nowhere. He's not a character we recognize, so why is he talking? Who is he?

He's Samuel Jackson!

I do agree with a lot of what you said though. Many characters are underutilized and many of the shots and effects are there purely to be interesting, but it's because of all this that make the movie good in my eyes. From what I read it seems like you came in expecting and intellectual look on the ideas of revenge and hypocrisy in a bleak WWII setting which may be why you were disappointed. I came in expecting expecting another WWII move with Taratino's usual feet, dialogue, violence, and trunk shots thrown in. But instead I got a really funny comedy that had Nazis in it. The narration, old movie reels, and other effects where there purely for comedic effect in a comedic movie. It's not there to explain what was just said, nor is it random humour, it's funny, related to the scene and unexpected which is probably the most important thing in comedy. It's different and enjoyable. I honestly did not see the ending to the theatre scene happening because there isn't a single WWII movie where it does happen. Had every WWII movie with Hitler included a shot with someones face looking like a block of cheese, it wouldn't have been funny.

Also in regards to there being no sympathetic Nazis, there was Willhelm. He was a father, polite, followed on his agreement, amiably drunk, and only wanted to see his son. In fact he was probably the nicest character in the film. Nobody cared when von Hammersmark died because she shot the defenseless Willy.

While I did really like the film and I think this is one of QT's better films, I felt there were a couple plot holes or at least some loose ends that keep the movie from getting close to great. Maybe this has been referenced in interviews and maybe it'll show up on DVD, but I feel like there should be a lot more of the movie that was cut out to shorten it up.

(SPOILER) I couldn't figure out towards the end of the movie how a 3 man team seamingly turned into a foursome. I kept wondering where the 4th guy came from. Also the scene with the cream & strudel seemed like it was building to something (or a couple things) but then little came of it besides that is was simply a suspenseful scene. I know QT wanted to show with this movie he could create suspense but, such as with that scene, I wish it served the greater plot better. It was very good but it could have been better. I also agree he created certain characters just to be cool in one scene, but then they go on to act like very different people in other scenes, which totally bugged. To me, that all helps to keep the movie from reaching that next level of greatness, but overall it's a huge improvement for QT.

yeah allied soldiers sorry total blonde moment

Of course, read things into a film if you want and when you can but just properly attribute yourself as the author of that meaning when it has to be imported by a process of "reading into".

I can certainly understand why Nazis would cheer at an on-screen Nazi war hero. That behavior is realistic, plausible, motivated, in-character and justified on their terms. Differences in what the Allies and the Nazis considered justified were real and were the causes of the war in the first place.

I remember Maximus in Gladiator taunting two audiences simultaneously with his "Are you entertained?" That scene worked because the violence depicted there had no other justification than entertainment, and both audiences were seeking entertainment. In Basterds there are again two audiences seeking entertainment but two different acts of violence are being witnessed, each justified by a different moral system. Asserting an equivalence between the two audiences here is understandable coming from pacifist but if killing Nazis is objectionable then that illustrates why most people are not pacifists.

The "films are dangerous" theme in this movie doesn't come from violence latent in the film stock but from the ideas put on film. The power of ideas is that what people permit themselves to think leads to what they permit themselves to do. Recognizing the humanity in Nazis throws a spotlight on the only remaining difference which is their ideas. If Nazis won't be reasoned with then they should be destroyed because they must be stopped.

Samuel "Motherfucking" Jackson? How in the hell did I miss that?!

My point is still valid, however. Where did he come from?

Thanks for the post, John. You actually do make me feel better about the title of the film. I hadn't thought of it in that way.

I had come into the moving fearing that it would be too bloody, so he was smart to shy away from that this time with this genre.

I just wish that if he was going to focus on certain stories that he would have given more depth to the characters. We see little flashes of a lot of people with only Hans as the only connection (maybe why he is the most fascinating character in the film).

I thought I was going to go on a journey and I left the movie feeling like I never went anywhere.

wooster182 (Wed Aug 26 09, 2:55PM):

Samuel "Motherfucking" Jackson? How in the hell did I miss that?!

My point is still valid, however. Where did he come from?

Where did he come from? Shit, he sprang out fully grown from the mind of Zeus, motherfucker!

The Sam Jackson narration was awesome, and it was there precisely to be awesome; to make you go "holy shit, that's sam jackson!" -- just for fun. Also, if you prefer, it serves to remind you you're watching a piece of fiction, and helps prepare you for some of the wild detours the film takes from real history.

But I prefer the "awesome" explanation better.

I'm reading this to be informed, though I dislike QT and don't intend to see the film; and I have a question. What does the film, and what do the contributors here, mean by "Nazis"? SS troops and members of the Party? Or Wehrmacht? Or Germans?

I would be disappointed were it the third option. Only 32% of Germans voted for the NDSAP in the last free election, and the army was raised by conscription, so it is reasonable to assume that only about 32% of the army that was old enough to vote in 1933 were NDSAP voters. Bump it up to 50% say for the youngsters who came to maturity under the Third Reich. Of course, we had to fight the Germans as a people and the Wehrmacht as an army to get rid of the Nazis as rulers, but I still don't like the confusion of categories here. Should we, in 2005, have denoted the US Army and the whole American people as "Bushies"?

Tell me it ain't so!

The definition of a Nazi in Inglourious Basterds is simple: anyone wearing a Nazi uniform.

Not that it matters, since you've said you aren't going to watch the film. Sounds like you have awful taste in movies, honestly. How can you not like a single QT film? Not even Jackie Brown?

You probably haven't even seen Jackie Brown, have you?

@Newbs: there was no such thing as a "Nazi uniform". The SA had uniforms in the pre-war days, and the SS had uniforms -- the black stuff with the double lightning flash. If you mean that the film's definition of "Nazi" is anyone wearing a SS uniform, fair enough. If you mean anyone wearing a Wehrmacht uniform, you are an ignoramus.

Answer to your ASSuming, question is "twice".

Grinebiter (Thu Aug 27 09, 1:10PM):

@Newbs: there was no such thing as a "Nazi uniform".

Not my problem, buddy. I'm just telling you the answer to your question.

If you mean anyone wearing a Wehrmacht uniform, you are an ignoramus.

No, you are the ignoramus, I'm afraid. You asked a question about the movie and I answered it. Take your History gripes up with Tarantino.

Next, you'll ask me what District 9 considers to be an "alien" and I'll tell you "it's the creepy bug dudes who came off the spaceship". Then you'll respond "there are no such things as creepy bug dudes or spaceships" and call me an idiot. In this example it will be you, again, who is actually the idiot.

Now, can't we just be nice to each other? It's not my fault you don't want to see good movies.

You want me to be nice to you, then you don't answer a civil question with snarks like "You probably haven't even seen Jackie Brown, have you?"

And if Tarantino had invented his own allohistorical uniforms, so that there was a "Nazi" one, well, fair enough, but you could have informed me thereof in a civil manner.

No, I'm not going to be nice to you, or for that matter nasty to you; I am going to ignore you, and talk instead with folks like Accounting Ninja, with whom I just had a vigorous but friendly debate. You could learn a lot from her.

Finally saw it today.

*MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT*

I remember this review long ago for "Starship Troopers," I think it was in EW, where the reviewer said the movie made sense by realizing "this is what Star Wars would have looked if the Nazis had won." Well, this movie is the inverse: Inglorious Basterds is what a Nazi War film would have looked if the Allies won.

...yeah, I know. Go with it...

The whole movie is essentially Quentin's tribute to the made-as-it-was-really-happening WWII movies between '42 and '45. Just imagine this was a movie in production on the Hollywood backlot in early 1944... the odds that by the time this flick hit the theaters our boys would be charging onto the shores of Calais... and playing out the ruthless war fantasy that brave Americans led by a Tennessee-born Apache (!) teamed with nobly suffering French Jewish resistance fighters plotted the capture and execution of the Nazi Overlords. Just close your mind to the history books, don't remember what happened after June 6 1944 and just imagine this as the type of film American audiences would be seeing (well, sans the bloodshed and beer drinking (see the trivia entry for "Ice Cold In Alex" to understand that ref))... it partly explains why discussion about the death camps don't even come up, public knowledge about them didn't come until 1945...

When I finished watching this movie, I checked off all the war films I knew from that era that echoed the plot and its resolution: Bogart's "Sahara," Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn's "Desperate Journey" (5 downed Allied pilots take on the whole Third Reich AND WIN), and the British propanganda "Went the Day Well?" And not to mention another Bogart movie... a classic... there's even an unforgettable song related to it... hold on, it's coming to me... nah, maybe MaryAnn can name it. Anyway, each of those movies made before the end of the world war was certain, yet drawn in clear lines of good/evil black/white. It's just this is a Tarantino movie after all, made after the 1960s, which is morally blurred and shades of gray.

My only gripe: not know the fate of Shoshanna's film projectionist/lover Marcel. It would have been cool to see him escape at the end as the Ishmael character, and that the narrator was a son/grandson passing on the war story to the next generation...

Grinebiter (Thu Aug 27 09, 3:11PM):

You want me to be nice to you, then you don't answer a civil question with snarks like "You probably haven't even seen Jackie Brown, have you?"

And if Tarantino had invented his own allohistorical uniforms, so that there was a "Nazi" one, well, fair enough, but you could have informed me thereof in a civil manner.

I tried, my dear. First, there's no specific differentiation in the film between a "nazi" uniform and an "ss" uniform or any variation thereof. There are all different kinds of uniforms, sure, but placing each in its distinct historical place isn't really a priority in Inglourious Basterds. And I'm sorry I don't know as much about history and uniforms as you, but I didn't realize I had to explain it any more specifically than that.

**SPOILERS**
Uniforms are actually an important subject in the film, specifically how they can be taken off and discarded after the war. The phrase "Nazi uniform" is used quite often, without regard to rank, branch, race, creed, or breakfast preference. I don't know what to tell you other than that. If you've got some kind of historical-slash-semantic quibble with this, unfortunately I can't help you.
**END SPOILERS**

The point here is: because you refuse to watch the movie you interpreted my answer as glib, when in actuality it's perfectly appropriate... and yet since I apparently don't know much about Nazis and their uniforms, or Germans and theirs, you called me an ignoramus. All I'm trying to do is give you a helpful answer (and a little playful ribbing about your taste in movies, the implication of which is that if you've seen Jackie Brown you'd recognize Tarantino's brilliance), without going into specifics so as to keep spoilers to a minimum. If you interpret that as uncivil, or unfriendly, or unintelligent, well there's nothing I can do except drive on by.

But wait... You saw Jackie Brown twice and you still don't like Quentin Tarantino? We live on two different planets, my friend. That shit is classic.

PaulW (Thu Aug 27 09, 4:28PM):

It would have been cool to see him escape at the end as the Ishmael character, and that the narrator was a son/grandson passing on the war story to the next generation...

Hmmm... I don't know about this. I don't think the narration was supposed to be linear, any more than the story's resolution was supposed to be factual. In order to tie the narration to Marcel, there'd have to be a lot more of it. Personally, I kinda like it that there's just a couple segments of "just how badass is this guy" type narration, and only when necessary.

As for Marcel, maybe there's some more with him in the longer version Tarantino showed at Cannes? I wouldn't mind seeing that extra footage, even if it does pad the film a bit.

I just sat through this with my teenage son, who is a QT fan. I am QT ambivalent, and this movie hasn't changed my opinion. The experience for me was like going shoe shopping with my wife - one of us is excited and engaged but the other just wants it to be over. IB is a war movie with a full complement of Nazis, but it's got precious little action (violent or comedic), only routine moral ambivalence and very very very long setups.

Landa started off compelling and ubercreepy, but ultimately he was only a comic book fantasy super-villain - a bit like all those Gestapo officers who hang around bars noticing unconvincing accents. I don't agree that Zoller was wrestling with a good side - he was just a self-important creep on the pull.

I did enjoy Mike Myers and the incompetent English contribution to the war effort with its over-detailed "three finger giveaway". I also take my hat off to the genre-busting ending. Still, I would gladly have seen the film without any of the Basterds in it - chapters 1, 3 and 5.

I was curious about the Nazi/Wehrmacht distinction myself, and on my second viewing I paid attention and noted that EVERY German killed by the Basterds was a Nazi. Even the grunts were Waffen-SS, not Wehrmacht Heer. Indeed, it looked to me like the only Wehrmacht soldier was Hugo Stiglitz, who became one of the Basterds.

WARNING: SPOILERS

It's been about a week since I've seen this film, and I'm still smitten. I loved it loved it loved it. I was, at first, hesitant to see it, being wary of any movie that incorporates humor and Holocaust. But wow wow wow. I won't soon forget the colonel's performance, especially in that opening scene. And I loved so much, too, how the film incriminated the audience in its bloodlust. How the film both satiated our desires to see Nazi leaders and their most illustrious followers die through its alternate reality, to see such a gruesome war end in one night--its momentary rewriting of painful history--and yet still reminded us how bloodthirsty we all can be, how much both we and the basterds who shot Hitler *relished* in those deaths (even just for a moment, if we were completely involved in the narrative and not a skeptical outsider). And even the over-the-topness of that ending, how we had fire, explosion, and rifle-shots even though we didn't need all three -- it all created both catharsis and uneasiness simultaneously. And then how the ending was in a movie theatre, the screen and the red curtain burning like our own (I was in an old L.A. theatre that actually had a red curtain) -- it hit that element home for me. I do wonder if this is his masterpiece. I loved Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, but I dunno. This is pretty up there, for me.

I enjoyed it enough in the theater, but ultimately found it slight. By opting for his traditional episodic structure and hopping across genres, Tarantino effectively drained any emotional investment I had in any of the characters by the final chapter. So while the earlier scene with Landa and Shosanna in the cafe was one of the best I have ever seen, it was largely negated by what followed. Or perhaps not, if one accepts that Tarantino movies are always about the parts, rather than the whole. Nevertheless, I wish Tarantino would actually opt for a "serious" movie, because this movie suggests to me that he could do very well indeed.

Jolly, I can see where you're coming from. I guess I was so pleased because, after seeing the trailer, I came into this movie expecting to not really *deeply* identify with characters on an emotional level (along with the expectation of not appreciating humor in a Holocaust film), yet I found myself seriously caring for Shosanna. My main complaint about the film is that they didn't come back to Shosanna enough -- I wanted more of her story and less of the Basterds'. At the end, I found I cared much for her and a lot less about anyone else in the film, as if QT should have focused more on her personally story, much in the way he focused on The Bride. Maybe the very presence of Shosanna ended up being a make-or-break for me; I don't believe she was even featured in the trailer at all. Because QT introduced this character I respected and cared for so early (the opening scene), the Basterds themselves didn't need to be developed as much. Maybe I just appreciated her ruthlessness and her unwillingness to compromise. Either way, I was emotionally attached to her to the end, even with the episodic structure and genre-bending of the film.

*personal, not personally (obviously)

*Spoilers Alert*

Sara, it occurs to me that my real problem is that I didn't really buy into Shosanna's transition between the third chapter and the end. Or perhaps I did, and part of that transition involved accepting that revenge would inevitably involve her death, so that I didn't feel any mourning for the character when it actually happened (any mourning happened earlier and was cut short by moving to a chapter not involving her). In any case, Melanie Laurent's performance was superb. And to think that she spoke French the entire time...

I think this film is quite specifically about the way we scapegoat movie villains. I mean, a bunch of people are getting brutally and violently murdered by a group of psychos, but it's totally OK to root for them, because the people being murdered are Nazis. Even though these are among the more sympathetic Nazis we've seen on screen, and even though Aldo and the Basterds are pretty much borderline psychopaths, it's "alright" because of the context. Tarantino basically amps up this situation and throws it in our face, making us think about screen violence and why we cheer it.

...Which, it seems to me, has been a consistent theme of most of his work, and not something that sets Basterds apart neccessarily.

I have been a reader of your site for quite a while now, maryann. I am also a die hard Tarantino fan. And I must say that even though I strongly disagree with you about the Kill bill films, I must say that you're scathing review of kill bill vol. 2 has to be one of the funniest, sharpest, and most entertaining reviews I have read in quite some time. I'm just curious as to what you think of his early films, "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction', as they are the only Tarantino films not reviewed on your site. I would just like to hear your opinion about those two films, and hopefully maybe one day you could write reviews for those films.

My feeling was quite a bit different from MJ's. I thought Basterds worked, but found its attempts at being deep ... well, attempts, not successes.

Basterds' story is weak and disjointed, and most of the characters are flat and cliche. Most of the jokes and tension-building tricks are so obvious you're basically waiting for them to happen -- but without real tension, just resignation. "Does Tarantino really think we're so much dumber than he is?" was my feeling much of the time.

Tarantino's commentary about film within the film blah blah blah is just so obvious -- anyone who has sat through a film history course has seen the same things much more subtly before.

That the film ultimately works as entertainment is a tribute to Tarantino's ability to make an action picture, and Basterds works on the level of action: blood flies, things burn, and revenge -- the sweetest of sweetmeats -- makes the ending satisfying.

But trying to find a deeper meaning without pushing hard for it? You'd have about equal luck trying to find a real narrative in Basterds.

Sorry, I just saw it this past Sunday, and I came here looking for a review.

Thought I'd say to Karla:

"Also the scene with the cream & strudel seemed like it was building to something (or a couple things) but then little came of it besides that is was simply a suspenseful scene."

That was the point. Not everything suspenseful in real life "pays off" or builds to anything -- it merely dissipates.

Contrary to some who think the shots of cream and strudel were superfluous, I thought it was wonderful how we focused on small, seemingly unimportant things. When you are gripped by emotion, sometimes things become more obvious, greater in relief, your senses heightened by the adrenalin running through your body.

It also felt like Shoshanna was trying to put her mind away from the fact she was sitting across from her family's murderer, and distracting herself by looking at simple, neutral objects. However, the fact one of those objects was cream was a terrible blow, considering she was, after all, the daughter of a dairy farmer. It was sad ... not pointless.

The ominous opening farmhouse scene sticks with me. That was so well crafted.That was produced "straight."
Then, things got loose and nutty.
Oh well, it's Quentin's "stamp."
But that Landa guy is laden with talent.

To the critic: I wonder if you have picked up a newspaper or turned on a news channel in the last few years. Where in our world today do you see evidence to suggest that the ever-escalating violence in our pop culture, amped up regularly by Mr. Tarantino in his juvenile, if not mentally ill "art", has remained on film? It hasn't, it isn't, and it won't. Freedom of expression does not release one from the responsibility of humaneness. When Tarantino makes filth like this, as he regularly does, all he is doing is giving his fans permission to see the person sitting next to them in the theatre as "the other", and to act accordingly. Clint Eastwood made a career out of it, but at least had the restraint to leave most of the blood off-screen. Tarantino may try to wrap this trash in a ribbon by suggesting at the end that we shouldn't be laughing at it, but that's like a porno film which ends with the naked lady getting up and telling us we shouldn't dehumanize sexuality. It is simply unacceptable to any thoughtful, humane person. Why not you?

Where in our world today do you see evidence to suggest that the ever-escalating violence in our pop culture, amped up regularly by Mr. Tarantino in his juvenile, if not mentally ill "art", has remained on film?

I'm not MaryAnn, but I'm going to answer this. I see absolutely no evidence, other than the fearmongering blasts of our media that you put so much faith into, that society is more violent than it has been in previous years. The difference is that we're frightened by modern violence, whereas historical violence, whether it's the Vikings, Al Capone or 'Scuttlers', is either seen as quaint or brushed away under the carpet as unrepresentative of its time. Once, people talked of gang fights between mods and rockers as being a sign of the downfall of society. Nowadays it's nostalgia fodder.

Where there is serious violence in our society, you'll notice that it tends to cluster in the areas with a poor educational infrastructure and desperate poverty. If you want people to believe that films, rather than poverty, is the motor of social dysfunction, your task is to prove that Quentin Tarantino is more popular in low-income areas. I don't think you will be able to do this.

When Tarantino makes filth like this, as he regularly does, all he is doing is giving his fans permission to see the person sitting next to them in the theatre as "the other", and to act accordingly.

You seriously believe this? And you're accusing other people of being mentally ill? For the record, I have seen three Quentin Tarantino films at the cinema, and not once have I felt empowered to kill the person sat next to me. Nor have any of the many, many other admirers of his work I have met. This is because, unlike you it seems, fans of violent films tend to be able to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

Ever escalating violence in our pop culture? Gee, let me think, two Transformers movies, two Predator movies, three Spiderman movies, three X-Men movies, four Lethal Weapon movies, four Die Hard movies, four Terminator movies, five Superman movies, six Batman movies ... how many Alien movies? I lost track. And oh, yeah, Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galatica...

Before there was television, before the current incarnation pop culture, there was violence in real life involving: daily farm life (butchering your own animals), slavery, civil war, indian conflicts, wars with Mexico and Spain, subduing the Phillipines, World War One, and World War Two. Life has been comparatively pretty peaceful since then. If dramatized violence keeps people from forgetting that war is not glorious, then I approve of it.