Inglourious Basterds

In previous films, Tarantino paid tribute to everything possible, and in this one he pays tribute to himself. And it’s not bad at all! Although the controversial filmmaker cannot deny his trademarks, Inglourious Basterds feels somehow more sedentary, sensible and moderate than his annoying genre masturbation in the past. If I have to choose the character that they are most similar to, the it is undoubtedly Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). The characters in Inglourious Basterds have charm, cynicism, straightforwardness, and they talk in a protracted southern accent. The dialogues and individual situations are incredibly drawn out, but at the same time they perfectly create tension between the characters, which each additional replica can cut into a sharp and short shootout. Surprisingly, Inglourious Basterds is not an action film, but rather a conversational film. So, what is there to complain about? The fact they do nothing more in a fantastic area other than recite a banal guerrilla story, pretend to be catchy comic book characters, and bow to the subversive powers of the film. If I compare it with Tarantino's previous films, it's a complete epic... In my opinion, this is probably the best film by the king of film pulp. (17/08/2009)

If Quentin's sex life resembles his films, then one sexual act equals two hours of loaded nonsense and macho poses, only for his member to helplessly deflate after a few seconds. I have already mentioned in Tarantino's case that his first three films impressed me, but then he and I stopped understanding each other. However, I do like war films, so Quentin could have hit the mark with me here. His strong points are creativity and knowledge of cinema, which few can boast of on a global scale. Unfortunately, I don't enjoy deciphering all the references to films that Tarantino has watched in his garage, and on the contrary, I often feel like kicking him for how shamelessly he treats his ideas. There are many potentially interesting characters, but they remain as flat as a sheet of paper and only serve as a starting point for a quip or a joke. The only well-developed character and at the same time the only (anti)hero deserving the label of a despicable scoundrel is Colonel Landa, played charmingly by Christoph Waltz. The war hero adorably portrayed by Daniel Brühl is also worth mentioning, where Tarantino's sense of irony is palpable. All the members of the Allied unit are mere pawns without potential. What hurts the most is that Tarantino fails as a storyteller. The film does not work as a cohesive genre piece; it is an unabashed pulp film with a series of functional and humorous individual scenes, where Tarantino's sense of working with genre clichés, which he systematically turns on their heads, shines through. However, as a whole, it is rough, also because the degree of exaggeration fluctuates, just like the film's placement among genres. I least mind the fact that Quentin mocks history. The first ten minutes are fantastic; the scene of the execution of refugees is chilling and stylish. If Tarantino had maintained that level, he would have earned a solid 5 stars from me. However, he immediately slips into excesses, and the style vanishes. Tarantino caters to many viewers who want to "switch off," but they are too educated and knowledgeable about the world of film to be satisfied with a B-movie action flick. Quentin accommodates them by serving a postmodern mishmash with a variety of effects and tricks. He has always been a supporter of the idea that films are here for entertainment. Those who seek a message can confidently turn to the postman. Overall impression considering Landa and the charms of both femme fatales: 60%. Unfortunately, I must state that considering the exclusive international brand that Tarantino represents in the world of film, he is very conformist and could have gotten more out of himself. Outside of Hollywood's rules, he only goes so far by cleverly and justifiably using four languages in situations where the American audience strictly expects entertainment in English. (24/04/2013)

To have a two-and-a-half-hour Tarantino movie with only two characters portrayed in detail with a proper backstory (Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent) while none of them belongs to the titular “Basterds” is unforgivable. The “Basterds” are there just to give the film some sort of a weak framework; their potential started in the trailer and ended in the cutting room. All of the other elements of this flick are, however, *Cinema Paradiso*. (30/08/2009)

If it weren’t for the initial Leone-style chapter, I would have no objections. But that chapter is there. And its matchless genius sheds a big shadow over the rest of the movie that it doesn’t manage to escape (with the exception of the exquisite tension build-up in the bar). But even so... To satisfy everybody’s great expectations with a few guys in uniforms blabbing away about bullshit for two and a half hours in about seven different interiors deserves applause alone. Simply wunderbar! P.S.: And I want Tarantino to make a regular spaghetti western at last. He’s been heading toward that all his career, so why avoid the unavoidable? P.P.S.: Having watched the Basterds for a third time in just a couple of weeks, really enjoying myself each time, I realized that full stars is more suitable, and so I changed it. ♫ OST score: 5/5 (20/08/2009)

I wasn't looking forward to the film, so I kind of secretly thought that if I wasn't looking forward to it, I might enjoy it. Wrong, I didn't. Well, a couple of scenes were really good, but the rest of the movie, the rest of the 140 minutes? “Why am I yawning? Why am I looking around at everyone else? Why am I thinking about what I have to study for school tomorrow? Wait a minute, what am I doing here? Aha! Watching a movie... What's the movie about?" I'm not saying the actors didn't act well, on the contrary, some of them played first class psychos, but that's not enough for me. This movie left me completely sleepy, unsatisfied, and even more, a little disgusted. And it's not the scenes where he beats someone up – I was even saying that if he didn't smash his head in with that baseball bat, I'd give it one less star... Please explain to me what's so good about this movie! I really don't see anything there, apart from a few scenes and the fact that they really used several different languages. If I hadn't seen the film I wouldn't have missed anything, I wouldn't have been deprived of anything in my life; on the other hand, I feel like the film robbed me of a good 140 minutes, and that's not a negligible amount of time. So I just won't give it more, even if they begged me on my knees!! X-D (27/01/2010)