Inglourious Basterds

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. (03/10/2010)

After seeing Death Proof, I said to myself that Quentin should have a crack at the Basterds, but I really didn’t expect him to react to my words. But it was a good decision and I can just say: “I’m happy. Good old Quentin is back." The dialogs deserve a chapter to themselves. Tarantino really enjoys himself and the Germans turn into a band of blabbering catchphrase mongers. The same applies to Pitt’s Apache Aldo and to all of them, in fact (yes, Diane Kruger too). Til Schweiger plays the role of his life (I bet his character was originally written for Schwarzenegger). But it’s mainly Christoph Waltz who gives an acting recital, and he literally shines throughout the movie and I think an Oscar nomination is essential. Melanie Laurent absolutely buries Uma Thurman and Kill Bill. Her revenge is far more punch and emotions can be wrung out by the gallon. The climax of the movie is the first chapter which is a western set in World War Two. The atmosphere can be cut with a knife and the unknown actors are completely at one with their characters. And the music by Ennio Morricone sends chills down the spine and the story takes you off into movieland. Beautiful. P.S.: The trailer gives a false impression. It’s more or less only about chapter two. But the main story takes place in the other chapters. Unexpected. P.P.S.: And who didn’t notice that S. L. J. talks about how flammable celluloid is. (08/31/2009)

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 (01/27/2010)

A film by a filmmaker who loves films. Tarantino's synthesis of B-movie aesthetics has (for now) reached its ultimate stage in the form of a war opus. There’s room for references, his own ego, and a final chapter of historical revisionism that, if it hadn't been making fun of the previous ones all along, would hardly have been understood. A pleasant surprise to my own expectations. (10/07/2009)

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. (04/24/2013)