MUBI

Nunca fui muito fã de filmes de guerra. Dificilmente vou ao cinema para assistir à uma produção do gênero, sem um bom motivo para isso. E sem dúvidas, Quentin Tarantino era mais do que um bom motivo. Não sei se fui com muita sede ao pote, por conta dos ótimos comentários que estavam surgindo pela internet. O fato é que acabei gostando menos do que poderia gostar.

Para dar uma nota justa ao longa, o certo seria avaliar separadamente o roteiro da produção. Enquanto Bastardos Inglórios é um filme técnicamente impecável e maravilhoso, em termos de roteiro não conseguiu me conquistar. E talvez o grande tropeço foi assistir ao filme pensando ser uma narrativa sobre o grupo de soldados liderado por Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) que caça e mata nazistas das formas mais cruéis possíveis. Mas (infelizmente?) não é o que acontece.

O roteiro gira em torno da ocupação alemã na França, nos anos que precedem a 2ª Guerra Mundial. Mostra a perseguição aos judeus, a forte liderança alemã, e a aliança das tropas americanas à outras nações. Mas é claro que tudo isso com o toque Tarantino de contar histórias. As alfinetadas, ironias e os deboches estão presentes o tempo todo, principalmente ao mostrar o poder alemão, e as rápidas cenas em que vemos Hitler reclamando de alguma coisa.

Mas que bom que um bom filme não é feito apenas de roteiro. A produção de Bastardos Inglórios reafirma a posição de Tarantino entre os grandes desta geração. Com uma direção de arte precisa, o grande destaque sem dúvida fica por conta da fotografia, que da um verdadeiro show à parte. Desde os primeiros minutos do longa, nota-se que certamente cada cena foi ensaiada exaustivamente para garantir uma química perfeita entre atores e câmera, criando mise-en-scènes dignas de se ver repetidamente no dvd, com destaque para toda a sequência inicial dentro da cabana, onde a câmera passeia livremente durante o tenso diálogo.

Outra coisa (que deveria ser ótimo) mas me incomodou um pouco, foi o uso abusivo de seus próprios clichês, que neste filme funcionam menos do que nos anteriores. Acho, por exemplo, que a forma como Tarantino apresenta seus personagens (tela frisada com o lettering em destaque), não casa com o resto do filme. Parece ser quase uma obrigatoriedade do diretor. A trilha sonora, que é sempre ponto altíssimo em suas obras, surge quase como uma continuação de algumas peças executadas em Kill Bill. E por falar na vingança da noiva, os (fantásticos) planos-sequência na cena do saguão do cinema (em Bastardos Inglórios) devem ter sido feitos por cima das cenas de luta onde Beatrix Kiddo acaba com os Crazy 88 (em Kill Bill vol. 01). Fato que só reafirma a teoria de Selton Mello no já citado Tarantino’s Mind.

No final das contas, uma nota 7 cumpre bem o seu papel. Mas para mim, Bastardos Inglórios está muito longe de ser a obra-prima que Brad Pitt diz no final (se referindo à marca que deixa na testa do oficial alemão). Aliás, também não posso esquecer de citar a hilária cena em que os Bastardos se passam por cinegrafistas italianos, na entrada da premiere no cinema.

Não são necessários nem 10 minutos de Bastardos Inglórios para saber que estamos diante de mais uma obra-prima de um cineasta que só faz obras-primas (pode falar o que quiser, mas À Prova de Morte e Jackie Brown têm momentos geniais).

A sequência inicial de Bastardos é uma das coisas mais poderosas já vistas no cinema. Através de um diálogo hipnotizante, onde o silêncio é carregado de tensão, Tarantino desenvolve com maestria (e elegância, ao passear com sua câmera ao redor dos personagens) dois fatores determinantes para trama: 1- a personalidade sarcástica (e até dócil) de seu vilão; e 2- o clima e ambientação necessários para entendermos um pouco sua visão da França ocupada pelos nazistas.

Aqui, ao invés de divagar a respeito de Like a Virgin, massagem nos pés ou sobre a personalidade fascinante do Super-Homem, ele faz uma analogia entre ratos e esquilos para explicar o asco que os nazistas sentem pelos judeus. Foda. Não à toa que um roteiro com este tipo de monólogo tenha levado quase uma década para ficar pronto. Tarantino é um artesão, um escultor de palavras. São inúmeros os diálogos memoráveis presentes no filme, que, em linhas muito gerais, acompanha um grupo de oito soldados judeus americanos à caça de nazistas – o grupo se autodenomina de “bastardos”.

Se a premissa já é badass o suficiente, espere até ver esses caras em ação: um pouco de sangue aqui, alguns cortes de cabelo ali, um dedo na ferida e muitos tiros. Sim, o exagero proposital característico do diretor está lá. Cinéfilo como nenhum outro, Tarantino gosta de abusar dos efeitos causados pelas imagens. Já que estamos na ficção, tudo vale. E a plateia reage com desconforto. Missão cumprida.

Por falar em exagero, considero Bastardos Inglórios o Kill Bill da segunda guerra. Com trama também fragmentada em capítulos, letreiros descolados (como o que apresenta o soldado Hugo Stiglitz) e movimentos de câmera quase idênticos aos do filme da noiva (citarei uma sequência específica em seguida), Tarantino faz aqui seu mais interessante exercício de metalinguagem.

E não falo apenas de Orgulho da Nação, o filme dentro do filme e homenagem ao cinema da propaganda nazista. Famoso por costurar suas tramas com elementos da cultura pop, em Bastardos Inglórios, além de fazer isso (repare que a fonte dos créditos remete aos westerns spaghetti de Sergio Leone e saiba que o nome de ‘King Kong’ grudado na testa de um militar nazista está ali não por acaso) ele também faz referência a seus filmes anteriores, principalmente Kill Bill.

Não me é estranho, por exemplo, que o nome do inteligentíssimo coronel Hans Landa soe familiar ao de Hattori Hanzo, ferreiro criador da poderosa espada de Beatrix Kiddo, de Kill Bill (Hans – Hanzo). Ou ainda a obrigatória ponta de Samuel L. Jackson como narrador da sequência sobre o poder de combustão dos rolos de filme. Para não citar o incrível tiroteio do bar, que herdou o melhor estilo Cães de Aluguel. É Tarantino citando Tarantino; e isso é brilhante.

Hans Landa, voltemos a ele. Que belo trabalho do ator austríaco Christoph Waltz (que foi premiado este ano em Cannes). Sem dúvidas, um dos vilões mais fascinantes que o cinema já produziu. Um coronel nazista que desconstrói com delicadeza o arquétipo do militar durão, violento. Falando quatro línguas fluentemente (a cena em que testa seu italiano é hilária), Hans tortura e causa medo, sim. Mas faz isso com a elegância de um lord inglês: pobre Shosanna Dreyfus (a bela fracesa Mélanie Laurent) que é obrigada a degustar um refinado doce oferecido pelo assassino de sua família, em uma sequência fabulosa (os planos-detalhe na sobremesa funcionam como uma bem-vinda fuga, como se, no mergulho ao prato, o diretor nos aliviasse do pavor e da tensão que a personagem sofre em cena).

Os belos enquadramentos são uma premissa nos filmes de Tarantino. Mais uma vez, como fã de cinema, ele compõe seus quadros com admirável precisão. Um exemplo disso acontece quando Shosanna se prepara para executar seu plano de vingança: ao usar vestido vermelho, unhas vermelhas e batom vermelho, ela nos antecipa um possível banho de sangue (sem abrir mão do véu negro, signo máximo do luto). Observando a rua pela janela, seu reflexo se mistura com o avermelhado das bandeiras nazistas estendidas do lado de fora; que bela mise-en-scène! Ao deixar o quarto, Tarantino mais uma vez imita Kill Bill ao acompanhar a personagem pelo corredor até chegar às escadas, tudo com ponto de vista de cima para baixo, num plongé que lembra uma das cenas da sequência no templo de O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu).

Era o início de um final épico. Uma conclusão violenta, perturbadora (senti uma aflição tremenda ao ver o cinema arder em chamas, imaginando que aquilo poderia acontecer na sala em que estava), mas não menos genial. Um marco do cinema e da carreira de Quentin Tarantino, o cineasta mais mother fuckin´ cool ever!

“I think this may be my masterpiece,” says Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) as he carves a swastika on a former Nazi’s forehead for the last time. A fitting conclusion to Inglourious Basterds, which is Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece. High praise for the director of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs! Inglourious Basterds is the accumulation of a brilliant, and relatively brief, career. Like all of Tarantino’s movies, it’s largely a movie about movies. But the subject here is a WWII revenge fantasy and looking at life through the eyes of a movie-obsessed director takes on greater significance when the focus is on one of history’s darkest hours.
Our perception of history, whether we lived through a particular period or not, is shaped in large part by the media. Movies are the most accessible aspects of the media and therefore play the dominant role in creating our memories or concepts of events. It’s no mystery why we often remember our lives as a movie.
When it comes to remembering WWII, the influence of the movies is magnified. Because of the flammable composite of nitrate film (coincidentally, a crucial point in Inglourious Basterds) much of the footage and propaganda films from the First World War have long since deteriorated. But WWII was the first war to make full use of the fairly new medium. Movie studios were contracted for the production of propaganda and morale-boosting films and reminders to pay taxes or donate scrap metal were common in theaters before and after feature films.
Although Tarantino has claimed otherwise, it’s hard to believe that Inglourious Basterds wasn’t conceived from the start as a deliberately inaccurate tale set in Nazi-occupied France. It’s not only a film about WWII but a film about WWII films. With this in mind, Inglourious Basterds is no less inaccurate than Chaplin’s The Great Dictator or The Dirty Dozen. Recounting history was not the objective of those films and neither is it Tarantino’s. He makes this clear by opening the film with “Once upon a time.” Tarantino’s statement for this film is how the architects of war see warfare as a movie.
At its core, Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s most cinematic film, full of references to earlier works. The opening is an homage to many a Western, complete with the seemingly misplaced spaghetti Western soundtrack and a shot of the villains in the distance approaching a poor farmer’s homestead. This time, however, the villains are Nazis and they are targeting a French farmer suspected of sheltering Jews.
Leading this troop of Nazi officers is Col. Landa, one of the most chilling movie villains of recent years. It’s right to mention Christoph Waltz’s Oscar-winning performance as Landa. As deserved as it was, the award cannot begin to convey the shocking power of Waltz’s transformation into a monster. He makes Landa equal parts terrifying, charming, arrogant, smarmy, and unforgettable. He has predecessors, of course, like the self-serving Renault in Casablanca. But Landa is unique with his subtle womanizing, his foxiness, and his strategic switch to English while interrogating the frightened farmer.
Waltz’s brilliance is most evident in Landa’s now notorious ‘rat and squirrel’ analogy. Many actors can make evil known, but here Waltz makes it felt. But Landa’s hallmark is politeness, which only makes him more terrifying since it masks pure wickedness. His pipe is an allegory to his Janus-like persona. It’s a grotesquely oversized model of an item often associated with classy gentlemen.
Tarantino’s camerawork is most compelling during this scene, building tension as it circles around the table zeroing in on the two. Also effective is the dialogue, always one of Tarantino’s strongest notes. In the world of Quentin Tarantino, intense drawn out dialogue fused with taunting camera movements are markers of a violent resolution working its way up to eruption.
A central theme to this movie is the establishment of larger-than-life reputations. Landa knows this, and begins his harassment by asking the farmer to repeat everything he has heard about him. It’s all about creating an atmosphere of intimidation based on foreknowledge.
When we discover that the farmer is indeed hiding a Jewish family beneath the floorboards of his cottage, our fear is heightened due to anticipation. We have learned enough about Landa to realize he knew all along that the farmer was hiding them. The reason behind his switch to English now becomes obvious. His targets couldn’t speak the language and therefore couldn’t tell that their whereabouts was about to be discovered.
Our introduction to the Basterds in the next scene comes at a perfect time. It eases our anger and partially alleviates our horror after the ghastly massacre we have just witnessed. To our delight, the tables have now turned and the Nazis have become the hunted. Led by the maverick Lt. Aldo Raine, the Basterds, a motley crew of Jewish-American soldiers, are on a mission to do one thing and one thing alone: kill Nazis. Adding to this is a Mel Brooks depiction of Hitler and anachronistically quirky 70s music, putting everything into context as an homage to exploitation films.
The first Nazi execution is filmed as if in a Western, with a two man standoff and an entrance that owes much to The Dirty Dozen. The conversation between Aldo and the captured Nazi draws curious parallels to the previous one between Landa and the farmer. Aldo asks his prisoner if he knows of the Basterds’ reputation and we know right away that this exchange can only end in a bloodbath.
Brad Pitt obviously had fun with his role as Aldo Raine. He goes for a campy Appalachian dialect while paying homage to WWII exploitation flicks, like the Italian B-movie that Tarantino borrows the title from. Aldo encompasses many movie archetypes. With his little moustache he has a bit of Clark Gable, his speech and mannerisms add a touch of hillbilly, and his methods make him a classic anti-hero.
Eli Roth as the violence-prone, baseball bat-wielding Donny Donowitz is also an inspired bit of casting. With his taste for revenge and euphoric passion for baseball he represents the world’s perception of Bostonians.
Inglourious Basterds starts moving when we catch up to the lone survivor of the massacre. Three years after the murder of her family, Shosanna Dreyfus is now an independent young woman and the owner of a movie theater. Mélanie Laurent does a great job playing a difficult character. Key to Laurent’s performance is her ability to reveal so much simply with facial expressions, much like a silent movie star. This is effective for playing a withdrawn girl, silenced by the pain from her memories. Her chance to avenge her family comes when she meets Frederick Zoller, a young German officer played by Daniel Brühl. Shosanna and Frederick are almost like star-crossed lovers, two cinema buffs who admire the same directors. Except that Frederick has the horrible distinction of being a Nazi.
Frederick’s life is also built on reputation. His wartime exploits are being filmed as a propaganda piece by Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth), who lives by the motto that lives are expendable when building a reputation is at stake.
Nicknames play an important part in building reputations. Frederick goes by ‘the German Sergeant York’, Landa by ‘the Jew Hunter’, and Aldo Raine as ‘the Apache’ because of his trademark method of execution by scalping. Repeated many times throughout the film, the line “Your reputation precedes you,” can be applied to nearly every character.
The narcissism derived from reliance on reputation can also be the undoing of people. Frederick uses his attraction to Shosanna to convince Goebbels to screen Nation’s Pride (the film based on his experiences in the battlefield) in her theater, without realizing it will lead to his doom.
Landa, on the other hand, draws power form being in control. But his confidence in his way with women makes him oblivious to the fact that Shosanna recognizes him as her family’s killer. Their encounter is one of the film’s most memorable scenes: his interrogation of Shosanna over a shared meal of strudel. There is something impure about his savoring of the strudel. With subtle mannerisms Laurent expresses to us what Shosanna is thinking.
Inglourious Basterds starts out as several little private wars spliced from the bigger battle. One involves a young woman seeking revenge on the people who killed her family. Another is the Basterds hunting Nazis. Meanwhile, more plans are being formed in England.
Tellingly, both Operation Kino and Shosanna’s plan to bring down the Nazis involve cinema—both within the world of Inglourious Basterds and in Tarantino’s clever allusions to other movies. In fact, in the initial stages of Operation Kino there is a sly reference to Fight Club, when none other than Brad Pitt says, “You don’t fight in a basement.”
The preparation for Operation Kino is the biggest plum in the pudding since we get to know so many concise things about the players. We meet Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), a classic British gentleman on an undercover mission to collect all of the Nazi high commands while they attend the screening of the film. We also get to know one of the Basterds, Hugo (Til Schweiger), better as a brooding loner. We also meet Bridget von Hammersmark, a former German starlet working undercover for the Allies. Diane Kruger, a beautiful woman by any measure, brings a touch of mystery to Bridget so that we are never overly sure about her intentions.
Language is another big motif throughout the film and Tarantino is interested in the equation of language and power. Landa often flaunts his ability to speak multiple languages. Major Hellstrom (August Diehl) is initially suspicious of Hicox’s identity by noticing his accent. Indeed, it’s a lack of cultural etiquette that brings the downfall of Operation Kino. Hicox gives himself away by signaling for drinks the English way, while Aldo and the Basterds’ pitiful attempt at Italian makes for a hilarious scene later on.
Equally as interesting are the cinematic allusions in the later half of Inglourious Basterds. Cinema has helped to build many reputations after all. But the last act of the film borrows not only from the movies, but also from folklore, literature, and pop culture to define the characters. The Mexican standoff at the tavern is an homage not only to Westerns but a revelation of the film’s ambiguous morality. Later, there is a twist on Cinderella when Landa slips the shoe on Bridget’s foot, proving she was at the tavern the night before. The ensuing murder is highly sexualized. Like the strudel scene, it demonstrates that Landa blends sex, violence, and power. Meanwhile, Shosanna’s eerie final message to the Nazi high commands from beyond the grave is a perverse reference to the wizard’s first appearance in The Wizard of Oz.
The climax is a meeting of great reputations. Landa, however, is one to change with the wind and so he undermines his reputation as ‘the Jew Hunter’ when he sees a chance to score by letting the Basterds go on with their plan.
On her part, Shosanna now faces the emotional impact of her plan. Her theater will be burned to the ground and so will her livelihood. The most emotional scene in the film comes when Frederick visits Shosanna in the projection booth. What are they thinking? After an altercation, Shosanna shoots him dead but then looks out at his image on the screen and sees remorse in his face. She now sees him as a victim himself. It plays much like Romeo and Juliet, with the lovers dying side by side. The final of Inglourious Basterds is one big suicide mission except for Landa who only works for himself.
Inglourious Basterds is a film about many things. It’s a film about revenge, about reputations, and even about love. But mostly, it’s a film about movies. Only in movies can the kind of historical justice dreamed up by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds be a possibility. By far, this is the best film of 2009 and one of the decade’s best.

While I don’t really like the question, I always state that “Pulp Fiction” is my favorite movie when asked. I’m one of those people who was influenced by it around the age of twelve. Tarantino will forever be an interesting director, making A-list homages of B-movies that often trump the classier pictures released alongside them.

“Basterds” is no different; and as a tongue-in-cheek story of intrigue and an unabashed kill-the-Nazis epic, it works. It functions both as a slow-burn thriller and a graphic shoot-em-up, with just about every scene building tension until climaxing in an explosion of blood and gore. The classic Hitchcock definition of suspense (a routine conversation going on while we, the audience, knows that there is a bomb under the table) is utilized several times throughout the film; my favorite scene being a twenty-plus-minute-long tavern scene that works in as many period pop-culture references as possible while instilling a feeling of dread and anxiety.

Mélanie Laurent and Brad Pitt are fun to watch as the almost-insane heroes, and Christoph Waltz is the icing on the cake, deftly chewing the scenery as the ultimate villain you love to hate. This film made me a fan of Michael Fassbender, who I did not recognize at all from “Hunger”. Here, he channels David Niven as the more-British-than-British soldier (“If you offer me a scotch and plain water, I could drink a scotch and plain water”) and has a lot of fun with it. Mike Myers and Rod Taylor may be the most unlikely screen combination featured in a recent movie. Oh and hey, David Bowie pops up during a montage. Yes, while the film must be commended for its attention to historical accuracy and language detail, I loved its willingness to break anachronistic rules. It’s a movie and it Tarantino knows it.

Damn good stuff.

First off, i thought that this was a personal let down as I’m a huge tarantino fan, along with mediocre deathproof (I liked that more than this).
Mainly in the films ending is where the problem for the movie is.

Spoilers if you havent seen this, watch it first then read on.

My main problem with the movie is I felt the german actor and the main kernal/general villan needed to have traded places. It made no sense for a die hard nazi general to want to defect and didnt come off to well as germans were fanatisists and the general wouldnt have done it so easily for giggles and just to do so in real life. The actor had a better reason for defecting and would have made the ending actualy funny and more poignant, to be seen as an american hero by betraying his countrymen so he could go to hollywood and become a mainstream actor. The hunt for red october was a terrific defection movie, this is murky and needed a bit of a rewrite for the last 15 minutes of the movie.

That would have made the ending well deserved and helarious as carving into the actors forhead would have ruined his movie career and make his efforts for screwing his countrymen over moot, the main german badguy gets off way too lightly in my opinion. Also the german kernal/general deserved to be shot by the female for killing her family in the beginning of the movie instead of the german actor. Because of the bungled ending I cant quite recommend this giving it two stars and would say watch it when you dont have anything else to watch and are a die hard tarantino fan.

First off, lemme say that Tarantino is incapable of making an un-entertaining film. He has an understanding of movies that a lot of American directors don’t have, and I appreciate that. Now, with all that nice shit outta the way, I have some MAJOR issues with his most recent film; “Inglorious Bastards”. Just like all of Quentin Tarantino’s other films, Inglorious Bastards is a “movie mix tape” of a specific drama. In this case, it’s the “men on a mission” war movie genre (“dirty dozen”, “the great escape”, “ice station zebra”, “inglorious basterds” (1978), etc). Tarantino (kinda) stays true to the formula of those movies. For example, a ragtag group of WW2 soldiers are sent off to do a special side mission, which usually includes killing Nazi’s. In fact, the final Mission in Inglorious Bastards is a direct homage to the final mission in; “Dirty Dozen” & “Inglorious Basterds” (1978). The first major problem with the film is that it’s called “Inglorious Bastards”, but the “bastards” are only in about 1/3 of the film. Yes, the trailer is quite deceiving. One of the key elements of the of the old WW2 action movies that the film was paying homage to, is that they always give a back story on each member in the group of solders sent off to do the mission. In Tarantino’s film, they only do this with one of the “Bastards” at random (which is one of the best parts of the movie, but still…). The next problem I have with the movie is the same problem I’ve had with Tarantino since the last half of Kill Bill 2. And that is; the unnecessary, sometimes forced, wordy dialogue. Sometimes Tarantino gets so caught up in trying to write “cool” sounding dialogue that it just goes on and on, and it eventually takes you out of the movie. For example, at the beginning of the film, the main villain asks someone if it’s ok for them to continue their conversation in English and not German. This would be fine, but it took about a page & a half of the script for him to get to the simple point of asking if they could continue their conversation in English. Sometimes the script in Inglorious Bastards is quite similar to the pointless talk between the female characters in “Death Proof”, you find yourself wanting to scream; “GOD, GET TO THE FUCKING POINT ALREADY!” My last issue with the film is that I couldn’t help but imagine how much better the movie would’ve been with the originally intended cast, including Tarantino regulars; Michael Madsen and Tim Roth (they were officially signed on at one point), and rumors of Samuel Jackson (who ended up narrating the film) and Sylvester Stallone making appearances in the movie as well. Now, don’t get me wrong there are some Great parts in the film, mainly by actors; Til Schwiger, Michael Fassbender and the main villain character played by Christoph Waltz. Plus Tarantino doesn’t hold back on the violence (which is something new, because in the past most of the violence in his past films are shot just off camera). Plus, I’m aware that this is a Tarantino movie, and just like the Coen Brothers, you’re still probably going to see it no matter what. But just be aware, you might find yourself day dreaming off from time to time, and the TITLE CHARACTERS aren’t in the movie as much as the trailer would have you think.

In my opinion there were a lot of wrong things with this film. First of all a reviewer claimed that Mike Myers appearance here was “almost unrecognizable” NOT true; as soon as he appeared on the frame I knew who he was and when he spoke it was confirmed, given that, his small scene felt like a skit from SNL and it removed me from the setting I was supposed to be in (France 1941?). The film was mostly slow and boring the only good or interesting parts were with Diane Kruger, Daniel Bruhl, and Melanie Laurent. These fine actors made this movie interesting. Even Christoph Waltz who was celebrated by almost everyone as a great performance failed to impress me. He was good but his scenes were just NOT interesting (“that’s a Bingo!”). The music didn’t fit the mood of the film, everytime it played for unknown reasons it reminded me of Robert Rodriguez and that stayed in my head interfering my viewing of the film til the music went silent. Brad Pitt I thought was awful, his worst performance in years right next to The Curious case of Benjamin Buttons. An awful performance that made me cringe everytime he came on the screen and spoke in that loud, annoying, unbeleivable accent. Many of the usual Tarantino elements were present in this film and they were very intrusive. The freeze frame and narration to explain something that’s coming, his fascination with the female feet, the mexican standoff where everyone points a gun at each other (just to name a few). These elements are no longer a Tarantino trademark, they are just old, overused and really boring to witness, much like the ones M Knight Shyamalan uses in his films. Their charm has worn off for both directors, and now when you notice them it’s like rubbing sand paper on your skin. Please find new ways of telling a story, both of you. Not everything was bad in this film, like the fine acting of the previously mentioned actors plus it was great to rediscover Michael Fassbender having missed Hunger, it was great to see him here again doing a superb job (he has become my “new” favorite actor). One more great role and he is sure to get an Oscar nomination. The cinematography by Robert Richardson was simply amazing. The lighting and the colors used were pleasant to the eyes and watching it was just breathtaking. Every frame was perfectly executed, and the scene where the camera follows Shosanna down the stairs and then finds Col. Hans Landa and follows him to where he joins Lt. Aldo Raine and Bridget von Hammersmark I thought was just remarkable, beautifully done. The other great scene in this film was the fire in the theater, it was dazzling to see the flames dancing and burning on the screen. I wish not to upset anyone who loved this film, this is just my opinion, stating that I didn’t completely enjoyed this film. It’s just a matter of taste.

This is truly a great movie, celebrating everything that’s wonderful about cinema. Granted, although it isn’t anywhere near as brilliant as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, Inglourious Basterds hits Tarantino’s recent full-blown or half misfires like Death Proof (boring dialogue, uninteresting characters) and Kill Bill (fun, but annoyingly superficial at times) right out of the park, and rejuvenates this once-great director’s career.

There’s really no need for nitpicking about the blatant historic inaccuracies, since this is just sheer good fun – made abundantly clear by the first chapter’s title, ‘Once Upon a Time… in Nazi-occupied France’ -, with Christoph Waltz as an inspired nazi villain, Brad Pitt’s laughable Tennessee accent providing comic relief, and great, highly convincing performances by Mélanie Laurent and Diane Kruger, rekindling memories of the leading ladies of cinema’s golden age.

Furthermore, making the characters speak in their native tongues was a bold – Americans are known for disliking subtitles, especially in a ‘talky’ movie like this one – , but refreshing move, certainly after having to sit through ‘Shakespeare-English’ abominations like, for example, Valkyrie.

Combine all of this with an exciting, exceptionally smart storyline and a fantastic, at times anachronistic soundtrack (especially Bowie’s ‘Cat People’ is put to good use), and what you’ve got is a highly entertaining two-and-a-half hour thrill ride.

So, in short: welcome back, QT!

A warmly satisfying film experience. Tarantino has again struck the balance of irony, bloodshed, and inventive story structure that makes his work a grinning sensation. Basterds is especially unique with its violent fisting of historical accuracy. The film is grounded in fiction, told colorfully, without boundaries (i.e., Bowie in WWII). Such is the appeal of this decade’s Tarantino. Unfortunately, the formula of his work is becoming familiar, so it comes off as contrived, pretentious, and, honestly, a bit hacked together. What I mean is that this film is quite obviously a salvage operation of epic proportions, the plots yanked from an enormous draft, strung loosely together, and left tetering on a wooden leg. It so happens that the dilapidated, self-indulgent playpen of Tarantino is better than most things, but the longer he goes without making films of substance, the less tolerant I become of stylized fun. Basterds is a bit weighed down with too many scenes of redundant dialogue, but they are suspenseful and well-acted as usual. Pitt is outstanding and Christoph Waltz breaks into the US with vigor and tremendous skill.

Christopher Waltz was excellent and Oscar worthy. Most of the scenes were involving when not being subjected to the unnecessary and sometimes cringe worthy violence. Unfortunately, Brad Pitt was pretty bad and Eli Roth was really bad. Did Tarantino not realize they were acting poorly and hurting the film? The other performances were mostly good. The voice over explaining to the audience the highly flammable nature of nitrate film was insulting.

The film began to fall apart toward the end. Tarantino couldn’t control himself from resorting to high school boys bathroom kitsch (Hey dude! Look at that! That’s wicked awesome!). I have no need to see actual heads scalped or swastikas carved into foreheads. There was violence only for the sake of violence and after a while it became tedious and juvenile. It added nothing to the film and only detracted from what was a pretty good story.

Spending time with Tarantino’s Basterds is more than words can ever say. Who cares if it’s historically accurate or not? The whole thing is completley badass. For anyone with a bloodthirsty obsession for hardcore WWII violence, this is the place to be. It’s even more special if, for example, you’re Jewish like I am, because this movie takes place in an alternate timeline where we end up getting our vengeance, but I’m not spoiling the movie to tell you why. Anyway, I haven’t seen any of the other Tarantino movies, but this is the first thing I’ve seen from him and yet I see that he packed a lot more than a knuckle sandwich. He made it so that it hits your entire body harder than a bat to the head.

Inglourious Basterds is not a war film. Nor is it historical. Inglourious Basterds is a spaghetti western. Nazi-occupied France is no more than a canvas for Tarantino to scribble his colorful stories and characters. Sometimes the results are insultingly simple doodles, but more often than not they beautifully coalesce into cathartic assaults of aesthetics from the director’s encyclopedic mind of movies. History be damned.

Because of this emulation I found the film decidedly more fun than QT’s previous efforts. That distinct “movieness” is more present than ever, in large part due to a literally film-oriented plot. Cinema is the McGuffin here, and there were some unsettlingly surreal moments, for me as a viewer, in which the camera paints the characters as audience members themselves.

Though too high-concept and stylized to resonate emotionally, the film left me pondering the deterrence and deception of not only war propaganda, but the figurehead-edness of modern media. During the climax when the film bravely barrages into alternate history (more so than before I mean), consider the alternative; the obvious fabrication is anything but.

Timeline and narrative of Inglourious Basterds was constructed very awkwardly. The soundtrack was lacking and did not fit well (unlike most other Tarantino films). Tarantino seems to be caught in an orgy of different film styles/ideas/techniques that ultimately clash and leave the viewer scratching their heads. All of the Basterds held little to no character development, the little that was offered was laughable (aka the on screen character titles/backgrounds..weak). Brad Pitt and Eli Roth did a terrible job acting. Near the ending when the theatre began to erupt in flames, it was overdone and exaggerated. I mean the part with hitlers face being ripped apart? Unnecessary. Also, Hitler and Goebbles depicted as crying maniacs, what is the point of this? Is it supposed to be a mockery? Why does Tarantino create these cute “audience information” scenes about old film being much more flammable? The Jewish girl in the end shoots the German soldier Fredrick, then feels bad (sappy music ensues) and walks towards him to comfort? I don’t think evidence of her hatred towards Germans needs to be explained.

I dont know what he was trying to do with this one but it did not work out well.

enjoyful,hillarious,gory.this is what comes in mind if i have to think about this film.,being a proud Tarantino fans,i couldn’t say i’m disappointed with this film (though i also can’t say i loved it more than Kill Bill or Pulp fiction,say).

The biggest surprise is,how this film consist mainly of dialogues,.from the calm opening of chapter 1 (in which we are introduced by the character of Hans Landa,played by Cristolph Waltz,deserving his cannes best actor winner) that consist of almost 15-20 minutes of him talking with someone in a table.,into the also calm resolution of the film (which i personally think as the only little flaw),.but fortunately,it is Tarantino.the dialogue,though some feels a little bit ‘unimportant’,is always unique.

Those who do not fond of Tarantino might find find this boring,silly,and even a chaotic mess.but for me,it is a perfect popcorn experience of 2009,that can only be rivaled with Star Trek,so far.

Every few years when a new Tarantino “event” is being released I think in the back of my mind that this is going to be the one that humbles him. Nobody can be that consistantly good all the time. Especially since the synopsis to his films never do the films themselves justice. Inglorious Basterds is a Tarantino movie – looks like it, smells like it, feels like it. Until his next film I am thoroughly convinced that he can do no wrong as a moviemaker. I watched two great movies over the past week or so, both Bergman films – Winter Light and The Silence. Both movies give you the feeling of having seen something great and profound. They have the weight of something very important. They are, in a sense, expected to be great. Film buffs are almost pre-conditioned to respond to Bergman films in that way. But Tarantino, now with his bloody WWII action film, which comes after his B-movie grindhouse thriller Death Proof, which was preceded by his awesome 2-part “kung-fu” epic Kill Bill, which came after his goofball crime masterpiece Jackie Brown…you see where this is going? How are these movies this good? If anyone else made them they would be dismissable, genre trash, but Tarantino’s entire filmography, from Reservoir Dogs to Inglorious Basterds represents the most unique, original, and consistantly entertaining catalogue of any living filmmaker. There are so many Tarantino hacks, disciples, out there (too many actually) but there is absolutely no substitute for the real thing. Tarantino’s brain functions on an entirely different frequency and all the Tarantino wannabe’s just make people like me appreciate him all the more.
Inglorious Basterds is strange in that if you actually count the number of scenes that fill 2hrs 30min I suspect it would be significantly less that the average number of scenes in a typical 2 hour movie. Like Sergio Leone’s great film Once Upon a time in the West, IB is composed of long and deliberately drawn out scenes. And like Once Upon a Time in the West, the effect is not one of boredom (as certain screenwriting gurus teach that scenes should never run longer than 3-4 minute for fear of losing the audiences attention) but oddly drawing the viewer into it. There is an incredible scene in IB that takes place in a basement bar that runs for what I would guess must have been 20 minutes. Lots of stuff is happening during the scene and it’s only gradually that you become aware of how the suspense is growing and building to climax. Its very subtle and clever and I imagine it takes incredible skill to pace something like that and have the confidence to draw the audience into an awareness of the ultimate consequences of a series of minor actions. Great stuff. Tarantino is able to milk these scenes for all they’re worth. There are two quotes worth mentioning regarding Tarantino, one by Howard Hawkes that says, “a good movie is three good scenes and no bad scenes.” As with most of Tarantino’s films there are far more than 3 great scenes and nothing that is obligatory, nothing done merely as a bridge to get from point A to point C, nothing done without tremendous love and attention to detail. The other quote is by the Japanese director Akria Kurosawa regarding a characteristic of great artists that “can do in 2 or 3 strokes what would take anyone else 10-12 strokes to accomplish.” That was something I was thinking about when considering the number of actual scene in the film.
What shows most in this, as well as Tarantino’s other films, is how much he loves movies. He understands how and why certain movies work and how to employ certain techniques to maximum effect. A lot of filmmakers love film or “cinema” or movies but Tarantino’s love is infectious. I remember when he made Jackie Brown and was doing interviews talking about his influences I suddenly had to go out and see Coffy, Black Caesar and other black exploitation films. When Kill Bill came out it was 5 Fingers of Death and Lady Snowblood. You want to see what he finds so appealing about these movies that most critics and scholars miss. And his passion in talking about the movies of someone like Howard Hawkes or GW Pabst in the same breath as Jack Hill is inspiring. He just loves movies, all movies, without prejudice or pretension.
Inglorious Basterds is one of the best movies of the year. So exciting and so much fun. Simply great from beginning to end!

Director Quentin Tarantino’s eighth feature film Inglourious Basterds is an excitedly violent wartime opus that is, at its best, concerned with the wonder of cinema.

The scenes are long – sometimes overly so – and structured to evoke a maximum amount of tension before exploding into violence. Tarantino mimics Sergio Leone, starting a scene with wide shots and inching into close-ups, but he doesn’t leave it at that. Inglourious Basterds is a cinema nerd’s dream come true and the script is riddled with references to classic German films while each scene visually nods to classic directors – John Ford, Brian de Palma, G.W. Pabst, and F.W. Murnau are all embedded in the director’s aesthetic.

Still, there are no signs of Tarantino becoming a humanist director. There’s a shred of humanity in the brilliant first scene, but the rest brings me to wander whether Tarantino will ever level his violence fetish and make a film that will hold a place in the annals of cinema next to the greatest films of his idols.

for all of the tarantino haters out there, eat your hearts out, cause this is a film of pure brilliance from the work of an eccentric genius. in this film, tarantino really used his creative freedom to the full extent. damn, he even bend the already-written history. like almost every cinephile said, he is talented and he knows it. from the dialogs, the color tone, the plot, the script, the music, the gore; heck, everything in this film are all very tarantino. well, actually he already made his own style way back in the early 90s with his critically acclaimed debut reservoir dogs, but with this film, he crafted it into perfection. he made his style more grand in this film.

as for the acting, do i need to say more about christoph waltz as col. hans landa? even the more experienced brad pitt, which acted very well too in this film, was defeated by the amazing acting of christoph waltz. well, actually almost everyone acted very well in this film (yes, even eli roth), but christoph waltz really stole the show here. me myself was always excited everytime he came out on the screen.

this is going to sound very cliche, but inglourious basterds is tarantino’s best since pulp fiction. and remember that last sentence in the film before the credit rolls? lt. aldo raine said, “i think this just might be my masterpiece.” for me, that was not lt. aldo raine talking, that was mr. quentin tarantino himself.

Sometimes a cinephile just wants to have fun. I don’t plan to defend the movie or rant about it. When I watch Tarantino I laugh my head off and in that sense he delivers… at least for me. I know he’s got a lot of haters on this site, which is really ironic because he has said several times he’s not interested in being taken so seriously. I found very catartic to watch Hitler being killed in such a gruesome way… I just missed one little thing that I always look forward to in his films: his amazing soundtracks… It just wasn’t there.

Dificilmente se podria calificar a QuentinTarantino como un “auteur” (entendido esto como un creador de “cine artistico”, o compararle con figuras de la talla de un Scorsese, un Godard, en fin, de esos de los que uno esperaria verles compitiendo siempre por una chingada palma de oro en Cannes) mas bien, su cine es del tipo que, como el mismo lo define, hay que verlo en compañia de los amigos, degustando de una pizza y unas cervezas, lo mismo con las peliculas de Robert Rodriguez, Michael Bay, John Woo, en fin, es uno de esos weyes con los que resulta inutil (por no decir mamon) el pretender ver una pelicula suya en un “plan critico” y simplemente entrar a la sala con la disposicion de pasar un buen rato, que, despues de todo, es ese el objetivo de ir a un cine. Vista desde esa optica, Inglorius Basterds resulta una experiencia sumamente disfrutable.Llama la atencion, como en casi todas sus cintas, el poco apego de Tarantino a los convencionalismos de la inmensa mayoria del cine popcorn americano, es decir, no tiende a resolver algunas situaciones en sus historias como lo harian otros directores, con salidas faciles o finales felices, sino que al contrario (y esto es lo que shockea a algunos espectadores, y sin embargo, es lo que mas vale la pena de su cine) procura ir, las menos de las veces, en un camino contrario, ya que, por ejemplo, no se tienta ni tantito el culo en masacrar de un modo violento y cabron a sus personajes femeninos, ni tampoco, como en muchas otras peliculas, se presenta un triunfo definitivo del bien sobre el mal, sino que, como siempre (y se agradece) los personajes del mundo tarantinesco se mueven en una especie de delgado limbo moral: los “buenos” no son “tan” buenos, y los malos, en este caso, los nazis, por lo general unos villanos claramente definidos, resultan ser, a veces, incluso mas carismaticos e inteligentes que los heroes de la pelicula. No vale la pena mencionar su poco apego a los hechos reales (que, por cierto, no han faltado los pendejos que se fueron con la finta, despúes de ver la pelicula, de que fue asi como es descrito en el film, el final de la segunda guerra mundial) sino que, por el contrario, hay que celebrar que Tarantino recupere el paso despues del resbalonconcaidaconrotadehocico que significo su anterior Death Proof, y que vuelven a situar al buen Quentin como uno de esos directores de cine (bastante comercial, le duela a quien le duela) a quienes vale la pena seguir. Para la trivia: uno de los personajes, uno de los “bastardos” como gustan de llamarse a si mismos, se llama Hugo Stiglitz. Quien sabe si el nombre habra sido una sugerencia de Robert Rodriguez, o Tarantino lo habra escuchado en alguna parte, en fin, el caso es que Hugo Stiglitz es el nombre de un actor, tan popular como mediocre, que participo en infinidad de peliculas mexicanas y coproducciones norteamericanas alla por las años 70’s y 80’s. Aparece tambien en los creditos Enzo G. Castellari, director italiano que filmo tambien buena parte de los mas “prestigiosos” fusiles de Mad max,y, claro, la Inglorious basterds original.

Inglorious Basterds is like this big,huge joke that never takes itself seriously and at some point, too seriously: It’s always what’s wrong with some Tarantino films.Is it a satire?A true cinematic experience? An homage to personal favorites? The characters and performances are too caricatural, the directing too inspired, the music too pathetic, the action too already seen in so many Tarantino movies now.
Inglorious Basters does achieve one particular goal though: It’s very ecological, and that is because it recycles already used sequences, stick it to already used dialogue, and play it with already used music.
Forgettable.

DEJENLO JUGAR

No demoraré en decir que Inglourious Basterds es Tarantino jugando a los soldaditos. Su cine, (¿cine?), no debe ser tomado en serio, como nos intentan imponer. Esto lo confirma la presentación en Cannes de este film, teniendo que soportar a su director danzando en la alfombra roja con su actriz (Mélanie Laurent, quizá uno de los rostros más bellos en la historia del cine), con su juvenil sonrisa de niño delirante bajo los efectos de algún alucinógeno, y ridículo; Tarantino no le teme a él, eso está bien (porque además lo convierte en un director consecuente y coherente con su obra), ahora, ¿toda esta graciosa danza (parodiando u homenajeando –con Tarantino nunca se sabe–, su Pulp Fiction, bailando a lo Thurman–Travolta) en una película sobre (¿sobre?), algún breve episodio de la Segunda Guerra Mundial?

No deja de parecerme extraño que se le adjudique y celebre a su director (como forma y medio de originalidad) reinventar la SGM. La buenas críticas han mencionado esto como algo certero, curioso pero por demás interesante. Reinventar. Yo creo, como muchos, que ni ésta Guerra, ni ninguna otra, necesita ser reinventada (ya es bastante terrible la realidad de una contienda de esas magnitudes como para reinventarla); sólo basta con que no sea olvidada.

Para entender a su director (si alguno encuentra esta labor interesante), basta trazar dos o tres líneas, y tal vez, la más importante es recordar, siempre, cuál es su país de origen; allí comienza todo. No es extraño que provenga de una nación que ha demorado tanto (y aún no logra conseguirlo), en comprender Vietnam; lo extraño (y sí digno al menos de un breve análisis), es saber cómo una película como Inglourious Basterds gusta tanto fuera de ese circuito Estadounidense…, ¿será porque dicen que su director es un tipo cool?
“Quentin, tenemos el dinero, hagamos la película; será mucho mejor que “Letters from Iwo Jima”.

Si no fuera Tarantino, habrían condenado a la horca a su autor; quizá no lo hagan porque Tarantino es sólo un director, astuto (a veces hábil), pero esto no lo convierte en un Cineasta. No es alguien diferente, es simplemente ridículo. Diferentes han sido y son Antonioni, Godard, Pialat, Carax. Tarantino es estúpido, o solamente estúpido, y que no le tema al ridículo no lo excluye de serlo.

Inglorious Basterds es sólo una película; bordea el homenaje, la no-historia y acaba siendo una comedia de fin de semana. Ahora, ¿por qué debemos tolerar, dentro del marco de la reinventada SGM, ciertos caprichosos homenajes, el incomunicable rostro de Pitt, la música de Spaghetti western, la voz en off –innecesaria– de Samuel L. Jackson? ¿El asesinato de Nazis contenido bajo alguna atmósfera de cinefilia?

Tarantino dijo que quería ver y hacer algo distinto; parece que estaba harto de los films que muestran a los judíos como víctimas, e invirtió las cosas. El New York Times declaró que Tarantino, finalmente, dentro del género de películas de acción, se ha reído del Holocausto. Si aceptamos esto, también entonces debemos aceptar y recordar aquel concepto Rivettiano “De la abyección”.

Una película despreciable, y olvidable como su director. Si han agregado hace poco, dentro del Top 10 de películas abyectas a “The boy in the striped pyjamas”, precedidas por “Schindler’s List” y “La vita è bella”, quizá debamos concederle un lugarcito a Inglorious Basterds.

Para Elisa de Beethoven oyéndose dentro de un plano de Western, la lágrima cayendo coreográficamente por el rostro del finalmente delator, las cabezas de soldados alemanes retratadas en primer plano mientras son mutiladas, los golpes mortales en la frente con un bate de béisbol (segundos antes ese mismo bate acaricia ese rostro alemán), la chica judía que toma venganza pero antes debe estar sentada a la mesa con el asesino de su familia… Stop. STOP!

Si algunos quieren y les sienta bien, déjenlo jugar al juvenil Tarantino, con sus soldaditos, con sus homenajes y sus caprichos, pero no intenten vendérnoslos. Finalmente, los que no podemos permitir ese juego, podemos hacer algo: olvidarlo, y tratar de ser menos originales, y menos estúpidos.

This has to be the most over rated movie of the year. Now with that said I did enjoy this film. I think that Hans Landa is Tarantino’s best written character since Max Cherry. Another thing that has to be mentioned is the fact that it might possibly be the worst marketed film of the year. The majority of the trailers and tv spots showed the film being mostly action and in no way did it hint at the possibility of there being subtitles. Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite directors and Im glad to see that he finally got the chance to make his magnum opus. But in no way is this film perfect like most are saying. It is more of an excercise of tension. Every scene is a build up of tension and then release. Tarantino shows that he is very talented at employing this device. But for a film that took so long to be made that was supposedly trimmed from a gigantic script it does seem like a rather small scale war movie. Dont get me wrong some of the best war movies are the smaller ones opposed to the big epics but those focus on characters instead of hundreds of soldiers storming up a beach. Inglorious Basterds really didnt focus on either. When Tarantino exploded on the scene with Pulp Fiction he started a new style of character’s speaking dialouge that didnt have to be just about that given scene and didnt just have to be a device to move the story forward. Characters could just talk about cheeseburgers and amsterdam. In Inglorious Basterds the characters are there to fufill their duties. nothing more. They dont really come from anywhere and didnt really do anything before the events in the film. I’m glad that this film isnt being bashed by fans who were expecting more english dialouge or more brad pitt. and im glad that after death proof (which I also liked) Tarantino is being welcomed back into the arms of everyone again. And the Leone touches are nice as always. It was also damn good to hear ennio marricone in a theater again.

A sprawling, messy, over the top and gloriously insane experience. I’ll agree with what a lot of people have already said; Inglourious Basterds is not a terrifically complex film, but then I’m not sure it was ever intended to be.

It’s fair to say that the story itself could have vastly benefited from focusing more specifically on the Basterds and the “men on a mission” plot and how it careens headlong into the Soshanna revenge plot. however, the episodic nature of the sorytelling allows us to really immerse ourselves into the totally insane alternate reality of World War II that Tarantino creates.

This is really a fable or a fantasy film more than anything else. It’s a film that disregards reality or veracity in favour of mood, performance and theatricality. It’s not going to be for evryone, but it certainly was for me. I enjoyed every minute of the film.

Oh, and Christoph Waltz is a revelation.

Awful, awful, awful movie.

Sucktastic.
Quentin Tarantino’s self-proclaimed “masterpiece” falls just shy of “piece-o-sh*t”. I don’t even know where to begin with my grievances regarding this film, maybe the usual Tarantino-esque overuse of pointless and irrelevant dialogue? (though it still doesn’t hold a candle to his Grindhouse “Death Proof” feature in terms of stupid rambling) Or perhaps the excessively long, drawn-out, sequences, which did nothing to advance the progression of the story? (20 minute introduction for pointless Brit who dies shortly thereafter?) Hmm or was it the lack of character development? Poor acting? Gratuitous violence? Mike Myers?? All of the above? Maybe the fact that the entire movie was an excuse to get up-in-arms once again about Nazi action in the 1940s, stir up a whole lot of unnecessary aggression towards Germany several decades after the fact, that would certainly seem called for.

The one thing which I can appreciate about this film is an outstanding performance by Christoph Waltz, as the nefarious, multi-lingual Nazi officer, kudos to him.

Otherwise, this film was putrid, belonging to a particular exclusive genre which I refer to as “Directorial Masturbation”—- when an established, and once respectable director/film visionary creates an awful, abhorrent, repugnant film which they may find amusing or particularly enjoyable, but no one else would really care to see. Unfortunately though in some cases, as in this one, we the naive audience (blinded by the veil of illustrious directorial names/praise) do not necessarily know when we are on the precipice of walking in on the Tim Burtons, David Lynchs, and Tarantinos of Hollywood, flogging the proverbial dolphin, and once we see it, oh boy do we regret it.

Joke’s on us, well played Tarantino, well played….

Un Tarantino que parece querer resignificarse, buscar nuevos rumbos para contar sus historias bastardas, para ver qué queda despues de la batalla contra si mismo. Porque si hay una guerra en su última pelicula, es la él contra si mismo. El campo de batalla filmico que gestiona en esta pelicula es vital para que Tarantino logre decidirse, finalmente, si se queda o si se va. Por eso construye su pelicula menos excesiva, despojada prácticamente de sus jueguitos narrativos, de todos sus explosivos artificiosos para porducir algo que no tiene necesidad de niguno de esos trucos de mago cool para emocionar. Por primera vez en mucho tiempo, Tarantino consigue su pelicula mas redonda, mas parecida a sus primeras obras, en la que nunca se deja de sentir un agradecido aire de renovación dentro de su universo filmico, que se veía cada vez mas y mas acotado. “Ingloriuos Basterds” es, en ese sentido, como un nueva opera prima, casi como si un nuevo Tarantino hiciera su aparición, uno mas preocupado en entregar una pelicula que cierre por todos lados, que haga de su funcionalidad algo de lo que pueda estar orgulloso y no un nuevo capitulo en su enciclopedia de cómo hacer peliculas para el cinéfilo desatado. Tarantino se contiene, va despacio, generando momentos de puro orgurllo visual, confiando en la historia que tiene entre manos, creyendo que todo lo que nos cuenta es algo que realmente tiene potencial y que vale la pena por completo. La cautela con la que nos cuenta esta historia es una de las cosas que mas sorprenden: la sensación de enfrentarme a una pelicula que se tratara de soldados norteamericanos matando a soldados nazis “porque si” por un poco mas de dos horas, me sonaba como algo completamente desorbitado, una “tarantineada” mas, un nuevo gesto cool; sin embargo, Tarantino, como buen soladado que es, va con cuidado porque sabe que el campo de batalla esta lleno de bombas, y, por suerte, no logra hacer explotar niguna por su descontrol, sino que esta vez el exceso esta magnificamente justificado. La posible pelicula que podria haber sido “Ingloriuos Basterds” es, por suerte, otra completamente distinta. A “The Basterds” se los muestra solo una vez haciendo de las suyas, y este es el primer sintoma del novedoso control de Tarantino: a la pelicula no le hace falta otra secuencia como estas, por lo tanto, no la pone. Somos testigos del procedimiento de los Basterds esa única vez, y con eso nos alcanza. La pelicula habla de otra cosa, habla de la victoria, o intenta hablar de ello, y por eso Tarantino necesita cambiar la historia. Y aca tampoco se excede, aunque lo parezca, porque sabe que para hacer semejante cosa necesita justificarse de alguna manera (antes ni siquera le hubiese interesado la justficación: lo hago porque quiero), y es por ese motivo que la pelicula esta enmarcada en una especie de cuento de hadas, que, aunque suene raro, esto es asi. Por eso el “once upon a time” al principio del film, otro de las prubas de que estamos en frente de un verdadero director de cine, en frente de un Tarantino que no es el de un par de peliculas atras. Lo mismo sucede con el mito del zapato, que aparece en otra secuencia fundamental. Y la cita, claro, el posmodernismo de siempre, que si, esta, pero eso, al menos yo, nunca se lo reproche.

Basicamente “Ingloriuos Basterds” es la historia de Tarantino destruyendo todo lo que alguna vez fue. Por eso, la parte clave de la pelicula es ese incendio completamente cinematográfico (en el sentido mas literal posible), ubicado en una sala de cine, con espectadores y donde el fuego es producido por la misma cinta, por las mismas imagenes a 24 cuadros por segundo. Tarantino quema todo, hace estallar todo. Sabe que la única forma de reinventarse es haciendo demoler todo lo que alguna vez fue. Por eso, ese incendio que en la pelicula funciona como victoria, es tambien otra victoria fuera de la pantalla, donde los espectadores estamos en frente de un posible bautismo cinéfilo en gloria al nuevo Tarantino.

La destrucción de la última parte de la pelicula, no solo lo instaura como un director de cine con todas las letras (pienso en De Palma, pienso en Coppola), maginifcando por completo la idea de movilizarse en el cine que siempre le gusto tanto, sino que tambien sirve para terminar de derrumbar al Tarantino que conociamos. “Ingloriuos Basterds” es un nuevo comienzo, creo fervientamente en eso. Creo que Tarantino sabe del talento que tiene y, por fin, logra demostrarlo con toda la intensidad que puede. Sabe, tambien, que esta sea posiblemente su obra maestra, por eso lo dice al final, por eso la última frase de la pelicula es esa: “esta es mi obra maestra”. Es verdad. Quentin, esta es tu obra maestra.

Vacuous and annoying or challenging and totally engaging?

A visually stunning,highly stylised and strongly ironic incredibly violent film. Humanity is rarely shown after ‘1st Chapter’ unless seriously emotionally damaged or psychopathic. This film appears to hold little sacrosanct except the ability to rewrite history again: this might be considered the film strongest point, that of appealing to the west to comprehend the craziness of turning it’s values on their heads to support multi-nationals need for war and terror.But this is his most grizzly general release film yet, virtually no holds barred, the absolutely shallow portrayal of the whole cast and the punishment of the only demonstrated humane act, AND THE RE-WORKING OF THE WAR SO JEWS SLAUGHTER GERMANS AND ENACT SOME WAR CRIMES, are all acceptable in a film if the outcome of watching it leads to new/greater insight into the human condition,,, This film is beautifully shot, with many nods to many classic scenes from undoubtedly great moments in film, there is a great sound track and suspense is unbearably stretched and action is portrayed convincingly, it’s a joy to hear the war in original language with sub-titled German, French and Italian speakers, there is the usual fast paced script I’ve come to expect from Mr Tarantino. It is a very potent film. …But this is where I have to say I find this film lacking any justification in playing with such heavy subjects, it doesn’t lead to anything. I try and find why one of the most individual writer\directors in the world has spent so much time on this production. I cannot see how this is worth any consideration. If you are going to touch these subjects you need to show something more than nihilism. If I’m generous I might suggest Mr Tarantino is showing us a reflection of the world today, that he is trying to shock us, to share his masturbatory fantasy about war, the world and the obvious nihilism that is at the heart of much world conflict. If that were true then this film is at best only a caricature of at best the first steps of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s ‘Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma’ (1975). The challenge to a viewer, as worded by one reviewer imagining Pasolini challenging his continued viewing of Salo, “I don’t know — why are you watching? Was I supposed to entertain you? Are Nazis supposed to be entertaining? Is that what you want from a film: Nazis which are safely up there on the screen and don’t penetrate your safe little world? Well, fuck you.” [ Rodney Welch on Fri 05 Dec at 07:26 PM, responding to: The Fearful Symmetry of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s ‘Salò’ by Ben Simington, http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/347 ] Well I think that is roughly what Tarantino has provided, except for his film the sadists are the Jews and German seeking sadistic revenge on the German heirachy. It just, just touches the edges of Salo’s determinist construct. I can’t grasp how the basterds can fail to question how they differ from the Germans they seek revenge from. The basterds seek to denigrate, de-humanise, torture and kill with often extreme violence, if they choose revenge to become their idealism, then how do they separate themselves from the fascists, that they seek to take their revenge out upon? Such sadistic behaviour can only lead to revenge being sort for the basterds’ actions. So in the end ‘Inglourious Basterds’ just titillates with brutish sadistic murderous Jews, Nazis and not to forget the odd psychopath as well, in such a way that the reality is kept at a distance. There’s only masturbation and nihilism. On the surface ‘Inglourious Basterds’ is a wonderfully well crafted film. It also has no heart and so becomes ultimately pretty forgettable. P.S. For those of you who find your self reliving bits of ‘Inglourious Basterds’ that is because Mr Tarantino has constructed many ‘tributes’ to other great moments of cinema. So to be honest he’s just spoiling the revelations that those films might have brought you if they weren’t contaminated by viewing ‘Inglourious Basterds’. P.P.S. Sorry about poor grammar and somewhat woolly thinking I’m on strong painkillers which are hardly working!

Spent three “Inglourious” hours last evening watching Tarantino’s latest opus and I must say that I was thoroughly satisfied. The repartee, especially when Christoph Waltz is involved is mesmerizing; I didn’t want it to end. While I am a fan of Brad Pitt, and he is admittedly an underrated actor, the movie lives and dies with Waltz. He certainly should be a candidate for a best actor academy award. When he starts speaking fluent Italian to the three Basterds at the cinema, I nearly busted a gut; so fluidly and with such oozing malice, I haven’t witnessed in a role for many, many years. Bravo to Waltz.
I also adore the women in Tarantino’s films, especially here. I think I am in love with Mélanie Laurent, but her colleagues, Diane Kruger and Julie Dreyfus acquit themselves wonderfully.
Back in the day, if I had seen such a great film, I would have remained in the theater to watch it again. The film was that good. Alas, they toss you out of the theater now. Highly Recommended!

This is Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction, and I definitely had a great time watching it (granted I came to the theater straight from the bar.) No substance to speak of, but I think it’s safe to say no one expects such a thing from the guy. Nor should anyone expect anything the least bit historically accurate other than trademark pop cultural references. What Inglourious Basterds does have to offer is an alternative style WWII film with laughs, thrills and interesting conversation presented in a style which pays homage both to the spaghetti western and french new wave classics. More specifically, I would imagine Jean Pierre Melville was on Tarantino’s mind during it’s production. The acting was flawless by the way, and Pitt was fantastic (and I really don’t care for him very much.) In short, QT has once again done what he always does – tells an enjoyable story, perfect for distracting anyone from the realities of life for a little bit. Why over analyze something which was never intended for heavy analysis? Quite a pleasent surprise – 4 stars.

This film left me a bit dumbfounded, as I’d forgotten Tarantino’s staunch penchant for writing female roles in the feministic sense, i.e. portraying women as they are. Stanley Kubrick notoriously once answered a question of what he likes when making films by saying he knew what he didn’t like, and to me, that is the essential of Tarantino’s scripting of female roles. So, all in all, a feministic script. Good. But what about the film in other aspects? While the Kill Bill series served as a complete homage to Asian cinema, especially the pulp parts, this film waves hi to the western spaghetti films while staying true to his dialogue-cum-monologues. In every scene, Tarantino seemingly has decided that one or two character steals the scene with some quite outlandish acting. While Christoph Waltz’s acting is completely wonderful, the direction is tight and led me through a simple and great film, where two parallel stories start the film: one French girl is separated from her family because of the nazis and small American group of soldiers, commanded by Brad Pitt’s character, is led into Germany to “kill nazis”. Every scene is very non-apologetic. No big Hollywood scores are played as people are killed and most of the killing is displayed as-is. Come to think of it, most of everything in this film is displayed as-is, i.e. not sugar-coated. It’s a funny, tragic and hugely entertaining story of revenge – an obvious line through most films by Tarantino – and is well worth your time.