Inglourious Basterds

Surprisingly, Tarantino has fulfilled his promise and made a film that in his post-2000 filmography will have the same privileged status as Pulp Fiction had in the 1990s. You could praise pretty much everything about it, from the performances, through the script and the sharp dialogues, to some perfectly directed scenes (the beginning, the climax in the cinema, Shoshanna’s getting ready…). Inglourious Basterds is the best film I’ve seen in the cinema so far this year and I think District 9, Antichrist and Avatar are the only ones with chances to be better. PS: The last line of the film could have been said by Quentin himself. (28/08/2009)

Tarantino has the craft down pat. He's great at leading actors, he's got a sense of timing, and his dialogue scenes have more punch than all of Bay's action scenes with screaming robots put together, but I can't digest the story he presents with the best of wills. The first chapter is phenomenal. It has everything: a great build-up, a sultry atmosphere, the suspense of what will inevitably come at any second, and the perfect entry of an extremely charismatic asshole. But the rest of the film, in my eyes, teeters on a thin line between sparse admiration and feelings of awkwardness, between what I am still logically willing to accept and what I am no longer. Narrative excess is fine, but everything has its limits, Quentin. (30/08/2009)

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)

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)

It didn't offend me, but it also didn't please me. There are a few good catchphrases, perhaps a few revealing references to Reich and Weimar German films, but... Especially the Pitt-Schweiger-Brühl trio was bland. And the women? The completely non-fatal Laurent and Kruger. Sure, there were some nice ideas in there - Jewish revenge, the swastika on the forehead, and some good period details, but they were drowned in the total period failure. (10/03/2010)