Quoted from albinopenguin especially when his face was shot to shit

Hitler gets shot up? Not that I'll see it, but that kind of blows from a historical point of view.

Quoted from cloroxmartini Hitler gets shot up? Not that I'll see it, but that kind of blows from a historical point of view.

That's part of what makes this film good. It's not sticking to history. It's a fabulous "what if" kind of movie.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear That's part of what makes this film good. It's not sticking to history. It's a fabulous "what if" kind of movie.

Yeah, it's completely fictional and hell, that makes it way better. Hell if Hitler wasn't involve some how I don't think Taratino would have based it during WWII.

This was terrific! Obviously it wasn't the film I'd hoped for when I first saw the trailer but I'm still very surprised at how good it was. I'd say it's Tarantino's 3rd best film out of all of them, including the ones he didn't direct. Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill are still ahead, respectively. First off, the WWII backdrop works well for Tarantino. The mixed languages and lack of hipster influence in the dialogue makes it feel like a real movie for a change and not just a hodgepodge of pop culture references. Hans Landa obviously steals the show. Easily the best character Tarantino's ever written as he has more personality than any other character in the film combined. Pitt and Roth were decent but my favorite Basterd was Stiglitz. What a total badass! I would've liked to have seen more of the Basterds but honestly the other characters were intriguing enough that I didn't really miss them. Even the Shosanna/Marcel subplot was intriguing, despite the suffocating Jon Luc Goddard influence (God, I hate that guy!).

Obviously, I didn't leave the theater without quibbles. The transitions to Sam Jackson's narrative were awkward and out of place, the scalpings looked pretty fake and surprisingly un-brutal and there were times when the film channeled a little too much Kill Bill. Not necessarily a bad thing but Tarantino's been able to give every other one of his films a distinct style. Chapter 2 in particular felt a tad too back-to-the-well. None of them hurt the film in the end though. It was really pretty damn entertaining. Way funnier than I expected and probably the first Tarantino flick I'd ever call "moving."

So yeah. Good stuff! Tied with Watchmen as my #2 film this year (Drag Me To Hell still holds the top spot).

What a great movie!

I really wasn't planning on seeing this, because I had a feeling I was going to be terribly disappointed.  But Friday night my buddy convinced me to go with him on Saturday to see it.  And as it got closer to showtime, I found myself getting more excited.  And then it blew away even my heightened expectations.

Toby is right.  This is his second best movie after Resevoir Dogs.  Don't get me wrong, there were some issues with it, as people have already mentioned.  They could have cut 15 -20 minutes and not lost anything (or added another Basterds chapter) but you can say that about all of Tarantino's movies, except Resevoir Dogs.  (and as people mentioned, it was the first Chapter, the one with Shosanna and Lana, and the bar scene that went too long).

I personally didn't like the Bowie song, or the Hitler part, but neither of them bothered me enough to dislike the movie.

It was fun, it was funny, it was gory enough for me, and from the groans, I'm assuming most of the other people in the theater.  Definitely worth seeing.

I see it's outearning District 9 at the moment. QT is back!

I watched this film again to see if my opinion would change. It has, but only for the better. It was good watching it with a young crowd who were keen to be entertained.

It's long, a lot of it is dull and some of the scenes go on. And on.

But Waltz is brilliant. Outstandingly good performance. It's more of a spaghetti western than a war movie.

The tension is kept up throughout. The plot is a bit silly and those numerous film references irk after a while. Who gives a shit.

But, when it's good it's great. Thoroughly enjoyed Pitt as Raine as well. He's been unfirly slagged for his wooden performance. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Even if it's wrong.

I loved this movie. It's not without it's faults, but then what isn't. QT is back! He's been sorely missed.

I saw this the other day and really enjoyed it. I'm not the biggest QT fan but I do respect his work and am always curious to see what he comes up with.

I think he did a great job of showing the urgency and cruelty of the times while adding good comic relief moments. I expected more of the Basterds, as well, but I was satisfied with what I saw.

I thought the bar scene was also very long, but at the same time it worked well because it really brought out the tension and the real challenges of spies during that time.

The acting was excellent.  I do think Shosanna's role should have been larger as I was thrown about her position in the film. Meaning, it seemed like she could have had more of a role, but it was so minimal, that I wondered, if she should have been there at all.  But then, I see that she was supposed to be more of a main character. Interesting.

One of my only pet peeves of the film, is the accuracy in the women's dress and hair. In the 40s, one of my favorite periods, their hairstyles were overly dramatic to make up for the rationing of material and stark clothing. Aside from the movie star, Shosanna did not have this and I thought that was lacking.  A tiny thing to some, but it would have added to this already authentic movie.

I saw Inglorious Basterds last night and thought it was just okay. I'd rank it above Jackie Brown and Dusk Til Dawn and just below Kill Bill. But it isn't within a bulls roar of his early stuff like Pulp Fiction True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. The fact that it took Tarantino 8 years to make this middle of the road flick just confirms that he's lost whatever it was he had when burst on to the scene.

Finally got around to seeing Inglorious Basterds yesterday.

Let’s start by saying that QT is easily 1 of my all time favorite writers and directors.  Many of his previous works are at the top of my list, with True Romance and Pulp Fiction probably being 2 of my favorite non horror movies of all time.

I was a bit worried about IB, based on trailers and what I’d read, so I guess it’s not surprising that I waited as long as I did.  It turned out to be everything I love about QT as well as everything I was worried about going in.  I left the theater kind of scratching my head, and still today, it’s difficult for me to decide if I liked it or not overall.  For the record, I definitely didn’t dislike or hate it, but I’m 50/50 as to whether I’d actually say I really liked it.

Here’s the skinny…

As others have noted correctly, this is definitely a QT flick, through and through.  No one else would attempt to get away with the stuff he did, and most likely, no one else would get away with it either.  It’s nice that he can do what he wants for the most part, but it’s also a bit of an issue.

The opening scene is a perfect example of what’s right and wrong with this movie at the same time.  It’s shockingly long…and slow…and quite dull for the most part.  It’s also amazingly well set up, played out, and moving…maybe even terrifying in ways, once we learn the family is indeed under the floorboards.  But why let it run so damn long?  I didn’t time it, but I’d bet it was at least 12 minutes, if not a lot more, and the vast majority involved 2 characters, sitting and talking in 1 very drab, dull setting.  Throw in the fact that over half of the conversation is in other languages, and subtitled, and it’s just shocking to me that this is how he chose to open things up.

But, don’t get me wrong, cause I did enjoy this intro, but it left me worried about the rest of the movie, based on how slow and long this played out.  It’s the best and worst of a guy like QT.

Another great example is the basement bar scene, which is just downright WAY too long, slow, and dull for the most part.  People in here often knock scripts because they involve nothing but talking heads…meaningless banter with absolutely no action going on. This is a perfect example of how scenes such as these can actually work, but also why they are a gamble, and even how they detract from a movie.

How long was this scene?  25 minutes or so?  Longer?  I don’t know, but I do know that it should have been cut way, way back.  The biggest problem I had with it was how fast and furious the action hit, when it finally did.  I wasn’t even sure who was dead, but then again, everyone except Bridget and Wilhelm was taken out in a matter of seconds.  We lost 3 Basterds in seconds, and 2 of them appeared to be cool characters who could have offered so many good scenes to come.  A waste IMO.

The movie was too rambling for me as well.  The Basterds really weren’t the main stars or plot here at all.  They were barely in it, if you think about it.  I did like Shosanna’s character and plot, but it wasn’t the movie it makes itself out to be.

Acting was great all around, except for Mr. Brad Pitt, IMO.  I hated his phony accent and I really didn’t think his character had much to offer or even do. He was not the star of this movie, but he was necessary to launch it the way it did, and generate interest.  It’s funny, cause a female friend of mine was telling me she couldn’t wait to see this…because Brad Pitt was in it.  I warned her up front that it wasn’t her type of movie and that she would literally hate it.  She said I was crazy and that she just couldn’t wait to see her Brad.  She hated it, fell asleep several times, and almost walked out even.  Oh well.

Finally, I think the biggest issue for me was that I just couldn’t figure out what feelings I should have.  Was it serious?  Was it a joke?  Was it all in fun?  Was it viscous?  Was there a message?  Well, yes to all questions, and that’s the issue. It was bloody and full of over the top graphic violence, but it was done in a tongue in cheek way for the most part.  It was moving, sad, and emotional, but done in a tongue in cheek way, again.  It was serious, but joking, and I always seem to take issue when that’s the case.

The soundtrack was exceptional, as are all QT’s flicks.  The man likes his eclectic tunes and figures out how to incorporate them into his movies flawlessly. The Bowie tune was a classic example…again, of what works, and what doesn’t.  It was so powerful with that tune and that scene of Shosanna “getting ready”.  But it was also shockingly slow, dull, and drawn out.  Did that scene really run almost the entire song?  Like 3 minutes at least?  Of her looking in a mirror and putting on makeup?  Yep, it did. It worked for me for sure, but a scene like that isn’t going to work anywhere else…ever!  Amazing!

OK, so here I am again, feeling exactly the same way I did yesterday when the credits started rolling.  Yeah, sure, I liked it, and I loved parts of it, but at 2 ½ hours, it left me bored and confused at its pace during much of the movie.  It’s obvious QT has the talent to pull off pretty much anything he wants to, but it’s also obvious that he makes his movies the way he wants to, and I doubt he really cares what we all think, when it’s all said and done.

I would recommend this to QT fans in a heartbeat, but not to the general public.  For me personally, I’m glad I saw it, and I’m sure I’ll watch it again when it comes to the movie channels…I won’t buy the DVD though, and I’ll look forward to much better in the future from my man, QT.

Well, my views on QT's movies are generally different from the majority. His early works, 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Pulp Fiction' were very, very good films, but it was 'Jackie Brown' that sat best with me. I consider that to be his masterpiece, and yet most consider it one of his weaker efforts. 'Pulp Fiction' remains the most overrated of the bunch, for me. Great film, but every film aficionado must consider this a masterpiece, it would seem.

Anyway, 'Inglourious Basterds' pushes 'Jackie Brown' all the way. It's vintage Tarantino. Huge surprise, 'cos the trailer-makers should be scalped. Never have a set of trailers done such an injustice to a movie.

Right off, from the opening moments, QT crafted a tense, perfectly paced, dialogue-driven epic of a scene. Couldn't disagree more with Jeff that it "drags". I know you were fan of it in equal measure, Jeff, but it was film heaven for me. This notion that a film must do a certain thing by a certain point is ludicrous. Why should the pace move the story along when this kind of directing can tease out every nuance of tension. Through the heavy dialogue, we get a real sense of who these people are. We have the devilish looks of our French friend, to the Chigurh-eqsue menace from Landa. The dialogue is very pointed. We learn so much about Landa. We understand his motives in life, his mission as the "Jew Hunter" and how he views it, his selfishness, his tenacity - it's not nonsense dialogue.

Another criticism levelled is the lack of a protagonist. Why should we always have someone to root for? 'American Psycho' remains one of my all-time favourites, and he's a despicable person. Compelling characters are more important. I mean, look at Travis Bickle - what a SOB. Truly fantastic film, and again, one of my faves. Whether or not the main character is likeable, or very little action happens is of little consequence to me. If the story is worth following, it will keep me. It's the same with theatre - less musical, and more gritty, dialogue-driven plays. That's the way I like it.

It's my suspicion that the opening scene/non-conforming structure in IB play better to the European audience, and the difference in cinema output tends to confirm this. That's not a subtle dig at American filmmaking, or Americans, btw. To my mind, Hollywood still puts out the lions share of the best work each year.

The standout scene, however, was the mind-bogglingly good bar scene. Wow, that's the best work I have seen from Tarantino. The performances were stellar, and we see tension fill every single second. As the audience, we never quite know where the story will twist and turn, and each spoken word challenges us to try and fit the jigsaw together before it unravels before us.

Typical with Tarantino's work is the set of self-contained stories that complete the whole, and he weaves them together with an assured cohesion. Enough adulation for now.

Having said all the above, I really think the next QT film should be Tarantino dropping the 'Tarantino' from his work, and trying his hand at something more traditional in pacing, structure and character development - something with a considerable message. That isn't to suggest that he should go 'commercial', but I want to see something from him that has some real heart.

Quoted from Dreamscale Finally, I think the biggest issue for me was that I just couldn’t figure out what feelings I should have.  Was it serious?  Was it a joke?  Was it all in fun?  Was it viscous?  Was there a message?  Well, yes to all questions, and that’s the issue. It was bloody and full of over the top graphic violence, but it was done in a tongue in cheek way for the most part.  It was moving, sad, and emotional, but done in a tongue in cheek way, again.  It was serious, but joking, and I always seem to take issue when that’s the case.

Completely agree. Last night, I rewatched 'Almost Famous', and that film has some heart. Tarantino crafting a movie with similar heart, a movie that can create real sadness/happiness/consideration and realisation at the end credits would confirm him as a talent of more than just 'Tarantino'. My only real criticism of his movies is that he produces abstract pieces devoid of true emotion, which often take little time to figure his message. When I think of the very best, they create films which really have something to say. His skills seem more than substantial enough to get there.

Andrew

Quoted from Takeshi I saw Inglorious Basterds last night and thought it was just okay. I'd rank it above Jackie Brown and Dusk Til Dawn and just below Kill Bill. But it isn't within a bulls roar of his early stuff like Pulp Fiction True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. The fact that it took Tarantino 8 years to make this middle of the road flick just confirms that he's lost whatever it was he had when burst on to the scene.

Did he lose his writing ability or his directing ability? Dusk and True Romance were written by him so if I'm putting HIS films up against one another those two wouldn't be considered unless you're an ultimate completionist for his entire body (Acting, Directing, Writing, Films he likes)

This is a fairly decent flick but again like I mentioned before about another movie it ultimately suffers from being too long.

On the 30 minute conversation with Quentin and Brad Pitt he says that the basement pub scene is like thirty minutes long.

As someone who watches a lot of movies it is one of the better ones i saw this year.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley On the 30 minute conversation with Quentin and Brad Pitt he says that the basement pub scene is like thirty minutes long.

That story (story 4) was the weakest in my opinion. It just went on TOO long. I mean, I enjoyed it, but compared to the rest, it fucking dragged.

I do feel bad, though, that the best part of the movie was the beginning AKA Chapter 1... It's a shame, but at least it was great.

Chapter 1 was also WAY too long!  I liked it and it worked over all, but it was painfully long, slow, and dull.  Not the way to start things off, IMO.    

Quoted from Dreamscale Chapter 1 was alos WAY too long!  I liked it and it worked over all, but it was painfully long, slow, and dull.  Not teh way to start things off, IMO.

Aw, you didn't like their friendly little chit chat? That's ok. =(

No, don't get me wrong, I did like it and it worked over all...BUT it was just so frickin' insanely long, drawn out, slow...and...well...just crazily long.