I saw it, and actually loved it. It was exactly what I expected: entertaining, with Tarantino's flair. It was long, but I never felt bored.

So overall, a very good film.

Just saw it the other day and I can surely say that Tarantino is back to his best. The film is fantastic. The tension that mounts throughout is what makes this film so great aswell as the usual Tarantino dialogue etc. However, Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa in the film) steals the show and it wouldn't surprise me if he got a best supporting actor nomination at the oscars.

Quoted from RobertSpence However, Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa in the film) steals the show and it wouldn't surprise me if he got a best supporting actor nomination at the oscars.

You're not the only one who thinks so. Critics and fans alike are raving about Waltz's performance. Even the film's detractors are giving him props. It makes me excited. Considering Robert Downy Jr. can get a nomination for a Ben Stiller comedy, I wouldn't be surprised if this guy gets a nod as well.

Saw it last night, was supposed to take Mrs Murphy on Saturday night but couldn't wait and went to see the first showing on my own.

It was excellent, it really was. The performances from all the cast were top notch and for me is what has made this film a success. Even Mike Meyers in his brief role was brilliant and Michael Fassbender did a great job too.

I wished I had not already read the script and tried to imagine what is must of been like for the rest of the audience watching while not knowing what was coming next and can only assume it was an even better experience for it. But even without knowing how things pan out  it was still a great film and while it is definitely QT back to his best he does seem to have moved on somewhat as it does very much feel like a different kind of movie from the Pulp Fiction/Jackie Brown era.

Although you knew it was QT alright, I mean who else would make a period WWII film with a mexican style soundtrack and a David Bowie song?

Christoph Waltz was excellent, everyone is right here, his character was the only one for me that departed somewhat from the script and while I read him as quite a serious, straight character Waltz managed to add some humour and humanity into the character  that really worked.

Melanie Laurent is beautiful and was perfect as Shoshanna, but with her lies my only real problem with the film and that is that I am sure (and need to read the script again to make sure) that there was lots more back story on Shoshanna and her early life in Paris with her Aunt. None of this was in the film and it more or less relegated Shoshanna to a supporting character rather than the central character as per the script. In fact the script seemed to be a yet another chick on a revenge mission QT staple and this certainly was not followed through in the movie.

Maybe it was decided that he had already made that movie, or maybe the addition of Brad Pitt to the cast made it important that Aldo was more the main character. I don't know, I would have liked to have seen more of the Shoshanna story, maybe there is a directors cut in the works somewhere?

Overall though I am very pleased with the film and looking forward to seeing it again tomorrow and seeing what the missus (who has not read the script) thinks.

A couple of geeky questions...

Is this the first QT film ever without a shot from the trunk of a car?

Was the American General on the radio at the end being played by Harvey Keitel? Sounded like him anyway.

How is Eli Roth in this movie? Can he act?

~Zack~

Quoted from Zack How is Eli Roth in this movie? Can he act? ~Zack~

He was great at what he did, but to be honest I don't think he had a single line in the film until the climax and that was a bit of a comedic turn. There was certainly not much acting going on.

Okay, I know I wrote my initial thoughts on the movie compared to the script but for something more akin to a review of the film I shall give it a go.

The film is good, have no doubt about that. It is certainly not Deathproof and while it still would rank below Pulp Fiction in my book it certainly is as good as, if not better than Kill Bill part 1 and Jackie Brown.

What Tarrantinto has done is make a war film in the style of a Spaghetti Western, over the top characters, plots and dialog that take place over the backdrop of conventional and  very violent WWII setting. The most important thing is that it works remarkably well and there is no reason that anyone who has enjoyed at least one Tarintino film in the past will not enjoy this one. It is certainly a Tarantino film, even if it is Tarantino trying to be Sergio Leone.

The use of subtitles is a great move by QT here, after all this is a director renowned for his wonderful and realistic dialogue and yet we have have a film that contains a good mixture of French, German and English (I will not really include the Italian in that). I think it is another brave move my QT, we all know how subtitled films bomb at the US Box Office as a rule and it will be interesting to see if the lure of Tarantino is enough too convince hoards of American teenagers to sit through two and a half hours of subtitles.

The climax in the theater is simply amazing and just reeks of Pacino in Scarface, no doubt very intentionally, but very well done and a great ending to a film that never once takes itself seriously and yet manages to not stray over the line into complete farce. Typical of Tarantino is the scene where Shoshanna is preparing her revenge to the soundtrack of Bowie's Cat Peope, Is there any other director who would even dream of doing that in a movie set in 1944 Paris?

All in all this is a great, fun, violent, funny, fast and loud war film with Quentin Tarantino splashed all over it, I cannot see what there is not to like in this film. The writing is brilliant, the music while so out of place works so very well and it is surely to Tarantino's credit that he has managed to get brilliant performances from every single actor in the film.

No doubt this film will open the age old debate of whether Tarantino is a thief or just a movie fan who loves referencing and re-using his influences. I definitely put him in the latter camp, in fact while everyone is entitled to their own opinion I do have to say anyone who does not agree is wrong. Haha, seriously though, how can anyone have a bad word to say about someone who makes films with so much passion and sheer love for his craft as Quentin Tarantinto? Like him or loath him you have to admit he is one hell of a filmmaker. I just wish he would make more films.

Seriously folks, everyone, go to and watch it this weekend, it certainly is no Deathproof.

I fucking loved Death Proof (it's two words everyone, look it up) and I know I'm in the minority on this but I seriously think it stands on the shelf with Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill as classic Tarantino.

There is a difference between a great movie and a great Tarantino movie. Of the two, Inglourious Basterds falls into the former. For me, what is missing from the film that would make it a good Tarantino film is that one magic music moment. Who among us will ever forget the torture scene from Resevoir Dogs when Stuck in the Middle With You is playing? Or Kill Bill's use of Battle Without Honour or Humanity? Even Death Proof had that great lap dance scene with Down In Mexico playing. Inglourious Basterds had nothing. I can't remember one great song that played during one great scene.

Having said that, Inglourious Basterds is a fucking awesome flick. The performances are universally brilliant. Obviously Christoph Wentz is the stand out as Colonel Landa, but I want to mention Eli Roth. His performance in this movie is funnier and scarier than anything in any movie he has ever directed. My advice to him would be to stick to in front of the camera stuff from now on. That's where his talent lies. And he barely has a line in this movie.

And therein lies another major problem I had with the film. I expected it to be about the basterds and their mission, but so little time is given to the supporting members of the basterds that it's a little difficult to care. So much is going on, so many characters, so many subplots, that the basterds themselves kind of fall by the wayside. I was expecting much more time with them, and I didn't get it. I was expecting three hours of scalpings. It was built up like Kill Bill. The trailers made it very clear that this was a woman out for revenge, and the movies delivered; fuck me swinging, balls out it did it deliver. But I.G. did not, on that regard at least.

The rest of this movie was absolutely awesome. Beautifully shot and written, with great and memorable performances from the entire cast. Tarantino has said that a prequel is possible and, even though he has said this about every movie he has ever made, I am definately looking forward to spending more time in the Basterd's universe if I am given the opportunity.

It's the best movie I've seen so far this year.

I split the reviews from the rumor thread into this one to keep things separated.  The rumor thread is now locked since the movie's been released.

Quoted from Murphy Was the American General on the radio at the end being played by Harvey Keitel? Sounded like him anyway.

I thought the exact same thing, and found out that it was.

But yeah, its been two days since I saw this film, and I already want to see it again. I love this film. I saw it with 8 people, and 3 of us - including me - actually preferred it to Pulp Fiction (it's important to note that all 3 of us also prefer Reservoir Dogs to P.F.). Lots of people might disagree, but I think that I.G. was a fantastic. The film was a lot better than the script, as I personally felt the script was a bit boring.

Yeah, I loved this film.

Saw it last night and loved it. A bit more subtitles than I expected, but I didn't mind. Waltz and Pitt were awesome. Even Roth did great as the "Bear Jew". His baseball bat "rant" was hilarious. Great movie.

~Zack~

Good comments Murphy!

I can't write reviews so I'm just going to speak from the heart.

I LOVED IT!!!!

How fresh it was to see something like this. Totally unique IMHO. Sure there are occasional WWII movies, but they all sort of stay true to history and are often heavy dramas. This one is bold, fresh, violent, funny and everything else.

Btw, who else could pull off playing  F�r Elise with a spagetti western twang to it. Or like Murphy said David Bowie???

Brilliant!!

All the characters were great and original. LOVED Pitt and I'm not usually that crazy about him. He was really really great. Looked a lot like Marlon Brando though... Maybe that was intentional... The Godfather?

I loved Eli Roth too and Waltz was great too.

I do think chapter ! and 3 could have been a little shorter, but perhaps it was because I had read the script and new how it would end. My favorite parts were the ones involving the Basterds. I would have liked to see more of them.

Anyway, I think the movie was great and I also think seeing Nazis getting their asses kicked makes everyone feel good. So yeah, this is a feel good movie for sure!!  

PS. people did applaud at the end!

My theatre had a midnight showing of this last night. I talked to my managers (they see the dry run the day before opening night) and they said the same thing: Typical QT movie. Talk. Plot. Talk. Plot. Not enough killing. Wasn't his best.

I can't stand QT, and I have no desire to see this at all.

Not enough killing?  lol there's always 4 or more people getting killed in all of his movies.

Just saw it, and I'd give it an A- overall. to be honest, i wish it followed the basterds more because i found their stories to be really intriguing. but you can't review a movie based on your expecations. you have to review it for what it actually is.

The good: the opening sequence is one of the best scenes QT has ever done, Waltz and his character were awesome, solid story, its really fun at times,  getting smothered with a pillow + getting stabbed in the face = kickass, and as expected, the dialogue is natural and fluid (but that's why QT is the king of dialogue)

The bad: some of the scenes (especially the restaurant one) were a little too long and could have been more tightly edited, a little more gore would have been nice, the scar on brad pitt's neck was never explained (or did i just miss that part?)

BUT my biggest gripe with the film was how hitler was portrayed. and please, allow me to explain myself. ive never liked how movies portray hitler and nazis as these bumbling idiots. im not defending nazis or hitler, just how they are portrayed in film. to me, making hitler act like a loud, obnoxious, whining baby is overdone and played out for a cheap laugh. even if there is an element of truth to his portrayal, hitler was no idiot in real life. i dunno, maybe i just never found the humor in charlie chaplin's The Great Dictator. So in this film, i wish hitler was portrayed as a serious, dangerous person because it would have been more fitting (especially when his face was shot to shit)