'Inglourious Basterds' web reviews
Franck Tabouring
Quentin Tarantino's amazing WWII drama "Inglourious Basterds" is killing its box office competition, but what do the Web's critics have to say about the film starring Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger and Christoph Waltz? Here's what:
• CinemaBlend's Josh Tyler: "'Inglourious Basterds' is a flawed premise turned into a flawed story full of characters so unique and vibrant, delivering dialogue so intense and captivating, that it’s worth putting up with what’s missing."
• Todd Gilchrist @ Cinematical: "Suffice it to say it's undeniable that the film could easily be trimmed by 20 minutes of so without losing its emotional core – and indeed, perhaps picking up a stronger dramatic momentum."
• Ron Henriques @ LatinoReview: "Tarantino once again fashions a first rate story, but as always, his self-indulgent nature gets the better of him."
• Joblo's Jimmy O: "With a terrific cast and an impressive script, Tarantino also creates his most visually inspired piece to date. This is such a beautiful film, whether it is the final sequence or a bloody shootout in a tavern, it really is a sight to see."
• Collider's Matt Goldberg: "Even at 158 minutes, “Inglourious Basterds” is a film I can’t wait to see again. It’s multi-layered, beautifully shot, uses the classic music of Ennio Morricone brilliantly, and understands its own themes and narrative devices."
• Colin Boyd @ Get The Big Picture: "I don't think I walked away with a lot of memorable lines this time, a sign of how his characters are less about Quentin Tarantino and more about serving the story."
• FilmSchoolRejects' Rob Hunter: "'Inglourious Basterds' is him filtering it all through his wit, enthusiasm, and artistic abilities, and turning it into his best film yet. Yes, I said it… this is his best film yet."
• Edward Douglas at ComingSoon: "This is Tarantino's most intricate and involving piece of cinema in years, delivering a slow build that literally explodes in the last act."
Reader Comments (2)
Saw this movie last night. Loved it! HOWEVER, I'm very disappointed that the movie never addressed Brad Pitt's scar on his neck. It could've made a great "chapter". How he got it, who gave it to him, could be why he's in the killing business to begin with. The bit at the end about being a moonshiner didn't cut it for me. I really wanted more of the "basterds" and much less of everyone else. It did lack the usual memoral lines and fighting, which I love. But overall, I loved the movie. The audience clapped and everyone had a great time. Thanks to Quentin for another enjoyable film that I will want to see over and over.
The film was promoted with the phrase "Once upon a time..." both a tribute to one of Tarantino's heroes, Sergio Leone, and a tip off that the film presented would be a FANTASY. Tarantino has been stuck in strictly revenge fantasy mode since Kill Bill, as the two Bill films, Death Proof, and now Basterds are all nothing but revenge fantasies. He clearly let us know he was not making a film that presented us with accurate history. The Nazis in the film serve two purposes, comic relief and symbol of evil and the violent destruction of them fulfills the fantasy. Hitler being violently executed by a crazed Jew in a movie theater was meant to be viewed as comedy...not alternate history.
It is well known that Tarantino does not make films that are polite or in "good taste" he makes films that satisfy his childhood film fantasies. I can't imagine a person walking into a Tarantino film thinking they are going to get a history lesson or learn something. This has never been the point of a Tarantino film, he makes films to pay tribute to the pop culture and filmmakers he loves so much. He is not a complex filmmaker, he is a kid in a candy store and like that kid all he wants to do is overindulge himself. The "fun" in seeing one of his films is watching him do so with such glee.
This film is a big goofy mess, not meant to be taken seriously, the thing is you can either laugh along with Tarantino or walk away. I won't argue that there is plenty in this film, including the ending, which could obviously be seen as "offensive to Jews" and some of my Jewish friends have already told me they think the film is a travesty...but I think the thing is you have to try to take into consideration is Tarantino's intention, which was to make a film that would make the kid in him yell "That's so cool!"
Is that sort of dumb considering Tarantino is an adult? Sure it is, but I guess watching the film is like watching kids open presents, they are thrilled and excited to be tearing off all that pretty colored paper...not very deep but it is true.