Review: Inglourious Basterds
Filed under: Foreign Language, The Weinstein Co., Brad Pitt, Quentin Tarantino, War

Starting with a gobsmacked VHS screening of Reservoir Dogs way back in '92, I've seen every Quentin Tarantino movie dozens upon dozens of times, but Inglourious Basterds is the first I will have seen only once before writing about it. Like the absolute best entries cinema history has to offer, his work demands repeat viewing, as much to catch all the in-jokes, references and homages as to see their cumulative, strikingly original impact. All of which is why I can only try to sufficiently deconstruct, classify and characterize Tarantino's latest, a wartime opus whose shortcomings upon first viewing are as immediately recognizable as the fact they will after many more of them prove to be virtues, ultimately creating a singular tribute to WWII movies done in the writer-director's signature, genre-bending style.
While the star of the film is really the story, there are three characters who cement together Inglourious Basterds' unwieldy but surprisingly even-weighted chapters. First, there's Colonel Landa (Christoph Waltz), a Nazi officer who earned the nickname "the Jew hunter" thanks to his indefatigable, shoe-leather-and-shark's-grin persistence. Next, there's Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent), one of Landa's few targets who escaped, who lives under an assumed name and manages a French cinema. And then there's Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), an American soldier who recruits a rabid team of Jews to hunt down Nazis and strike fear with their exploits.
When the heroism of a German soldier named Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) is set to be immortalized in a propaganda film called "Nation's Pride," Zoller schedules the premiere as Shoshanna's theater in the hopes of winning her affection. But the news that Hitler, Goebbels and several other high-ranking Nazi officials will attend inspires not one but two separate assassination plots, one from Shoshanna and one from Aldo, with only the tireless cunning of Landa standing in the way of their success.
A common criticism lobbied at films of late is that they're just too long, and Tarantino certainly tests his audience's patience indulging in the details of his WWII-era world: dusty cellars and panoramic vistas, classic movie marquees and French cafes create the real sense of a world poised on the edge of violent conflict that could erupt at any moment. (Remarkably, Tarantino's films all maintain a similar sort of razor's-edge dance between lip-snacking dialogue and the promise of deadly confrontation.) 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. But it's also easy to imagine that deliberate pacing will eventually become part of its charms: on first viewing, we don't yet know why we should be on edge, but subsequent viewings will remind us that in virtually all of the director's movies, it's the anticipation of what we know is about to happen that thrills us, not the payoff of its comparatively superficial surprises.
Meanwhile, a colleague astutely observed that Inglourious Basterds is a sort of fantasy-metaphor for Tarantino the cinephile: film quite literally wins the war. But even bigger than that is the film's sense of mythmaking – the creation, acceptance, inflation or refusal of identity that often redefines the details of history, much less reality in general. This is seen in Landa's embrace of his "Jew hunter" nickname, the formation of the Basterds as vengeance-seeking Jews engaged in a holy war against their would-be oppressors, and the elevation of Zoller's heroism to literally propagandistic proportions among many other examples. But all of them are reflections of humanity's willingness to put perception first and ignore the numbing minutiae of what really happened in favor of the broad strokes of how big, broad and significant it seemed – an irony that any film-literate viewer (much-less a cinematic encyclopedia like Tarantino) is deeply aware of, whether a story is "the truth," based on it or even really true.Of course, even in real life, the eventual record, or what goes down in "the history books" often overshadows actual events, but while Tarantino does his best to make the "facts" in his film the stuff of legends, his theme serves as a fascinating commentary on the characters, their actions, and even the film itself, especially since one imagines many would prefer to remember a more cathartic end to Hitler's regime than the considerably less exciting one that history remembers.
Ultimately, the film's most immediate problem is its lack of urgency; for a film that purports to be about a man on a mission, there's a lot more man than mission, and a lot more conversation than action. But in the same way that Jackie Brown languished in the lifestyles of its characters, Inglourious Basterds has a lived-in feel that gives it deeper authenticity and more lasting power – especially after you've figured out where it's going. There are scenes upon scenes with dynamo exchanges and nailbiter showdowns, but their impact is measured more in character detail than cumulative body count.
Overall, Inglourious Basterds is imperfect, particularly in our single-serving (much less single-viewing) movie culture, and probably counts as a lesser work to those who primarily associate him with katanas, kung fu, and cut-off body parts. But there's no denying it's also a richer and more textured experience than many of its predecessors, because it abandons the pretense of homage and inspiration immediately following its title card and just becomes its own movie. In which case, Tarantino both falters and triumphs, but allows history to judge rather than the first weekend's box office returns, making myth again become reality, and vice versa: Inglourious Basterds is not necessarily a fully or immediately satisfying experience on first viewing, but Tarantino's remarkable achievement is to make even its seeming problems so interesting and compelling that you not only need, but desperately want to see it many, many more times, either to make sure you're right, or more likely, prove yourself wrong.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-21-2009 @ 3:28AM
RestorationDogs said...
A film set in London 1671. During a plot to steal the Crown Jewels something goes horribly wrong in this transformative parody of Quentin Tarantino's cult classic, "Reservoir Dogs". Watch the trailer on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykHSgJM2AYQ OR go to www.RestorationDogs.com for more info.
Become a fan on FaceBook.
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 3:27AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
"probably counts as a lesser work to those who primarily associate him with katanas, kung fu, and cut-off body parts."
I can only imagine people in their 20s would associate Tarantino with his more recent and far lazier films (Kill Bill).
Reply
8-31-2009 @ 10:08AM
Nikki T said...
His movies are tedious and toooooooooooooo long. funnier than hell though. my butt fell asleep @ the movies. BUTit was worth it!
8-21-2009 @ 4:24AM
Nikki said...
I found it heart pounding. I studied QT endlessly in grad school. I find it incredible that he was able to get Brad Pitt to play the hero (or himself) as he used Uma (who is the female version of QT) to play the kung-fu hero. Here, QT gets Pitt to be John Wayne. Yes, you're right - the film does win the war AND films also become the truth. We remember the movie, we barely remember what we read in the history book. I thought his illusions to the Godfather, especially in the opening titles/sdtk was pretty good, and I swear when the "Italian" Jew Bastard in the tux at the theatre was shooting he was about to say, "say hello to my little friend." I can not tell you about all the illusions and stolen shots there were in the film because I wouldn't recognize them; but I'm sure they are there. Funny how he can write and borrow and make it his own in the end. I really was on the edge of my seat, with this one. More so than the rest. Bravo.
http://www.dreamwhorethelifeandtimesofnikkituck.blogspot.com/
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 10:11AM
Keith said...
I'll be seeing at 11 in the morning today and I'm excited. I can't help but agree that kids now probably only know Kill Bill and his Grindhouse portion, Death Proof...which, sadly, aren't even close to being his best. I can bet that no one knows about Mr. Pink bitching about how he doesn't want to be called Mr. Pink.
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 10:15AM
McMurphy said...
Let me say that QT is a talented film maker. I have seen all his films including I.B. and they are all entertaining. I use his non- linear style of editing as examples in my film classes I teach. However lets set the record straight as far as his originality goes...he has none. QT steals from certain genres/films to create his own films. The style and basic narrative structure of all his films has been done before and are well recognized by anyone who knows film history.....
Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction- Taken from French New Wave gangster films like Breathless and Shoot the Piano Player. Hook- What do not too bright gangsters talk about and do when they are not being gangsters.
Jackie Brown- QT's chance to work with the star of famous blacksploitation films of the 1970's, Pam Grier. She even starred in a film called Foxy Brown.
Hook- Strong black woman takes on the man.
Kill Bills- 1970 Kung Fu films. He casts the late David Carradine who starred in a TV series called Kung Fu. Uma Thurman wares the exact same yellow jump suit as Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon.
Hook- Bloody revenge for our just hero done wrong.
Death Proof/Grindhouse- Once again QT takes directly from 1970's genre favorites car films and horror/zombie films. Check out Two Lane Black top & Vanishing Point and Texas Chainsaw Massacre & Dawn of the Dead(original) to see all that was "borrowed" from.
Hook-Fast cars, the walking dead and beautiful half naked girls on the big screen!
Inglorious Basterds- Well, as the reviewer said it will take multiple viewings to catch all of the directors "influences". Films like The Dirty Dozen and The Big Red 1 are my obvious examples.
Hook- Band of army anti-heroes exercise their own form of bloody justice.
I hear QT'S next film may be a remake of Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill. This seems to be right up his ally. How much credit will he take as being an auteur after he bends the 70's cult classic into his vision?
I like QT. I think he is one crazy film maker who does what he wants. Obviously all those years working in a video store has given him a extremely wide knowledge of film. I also like him because he never denies that he is taking from the old films at liberty....there really are no rules on how you have to make a film.
I do think he should not be talked about in the same breath as such true auteurs like David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch or Wes Anderson all who have morphed their film and genre histories into their own true visions.
The fact is QT lost all his potential for true originality when he lost his writing partner of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction Roger Avary. QT hasn't done anything remotely original since then. His post Avary films have all been reduced to popcorn experiments in the bending of existing 1970's cinema.
Reply
8-22-2009 @ 3:45AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Avary added quite a bit to his work. It's like Wes Anderson since he lost contributions from crooked nose. Wes' last few films have just been cold.
8-22-2009 @ 3:44AM
deathxrebirth said...
Ho-hum. "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"
I am sick and tired of everyone pointing out how much is stolen or borrowed when it comes to QT's films. Yeah, while true, doesn't mean he is the only one doing it. And he does it in the way that you KNOW you are watching a QT movie. Unlike say, the million of QT knock off's that came out after Pulp Fiction.
Speaking of, where is Pulp Fiction on your list?
Not that I really want to hear about it. The QT is so unoriginal is getting tired. It is tiring when you hear the haters use it to bash him and even more tiring coming from a "fan". We know he pays homages, maybe even lifts scenes directly, but he does it well and adds the perfect touch of himself to every single movie.
8-24-2009 @ 11:35PM
McNulty said...
I was so obsessed with Reservoir Dogs back in the 90's that I directed and acted in a stage reproduction. I know the script backwards and forwards. I loved Pulp Fiction as well, though it hasn't aged as well as Dogs, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, I thought Kill Bill and Death Proof were novelties. Kill Bill might have been a great film if it weren't crassly vivisected. I was starting to write Tarantino off.
But you know what... Inglourious Basterds turns out to be his best movie. I thought it was timeless and perfect. I was getting a real Kubrick and Hitchcock vibe from it and I didn't think there was one wasted line.
Here's the thing about QT that I wish more people would realize: he writes 'character' films. His movies are about putting multi-dimensional characters together, and letting the characters do what they would do to each other.
This is why his movies seem so strange to some people.
We've become acclimated to a particular kind of screenwriting that focuses on plot and efficiency. More and more, movies are being written around set-pieces. Characters are just going through the motions to get you from one big action sequence to the next. Dialogue is stripped down to it's simplest form: "Jump!", "Run for it!", "I am going to kill you" etc.
As a movie-going public, we have lost the ability to read subtext and nuance. We can nitpick the resolution issues on a CGI dinosaur, but he can't identify the underlying meaning of a subtle smirk. We need to be told what the smirk means.
Writing for characters and writing for pacing/plotting are two fundamentally different writing styles. If you write for characters you start by defining who the characters are, and you let the characters find their story. If you write for pacing, you start with an outline of the movie, and mold the characters into it.
Because QT works in genre, I think people assume he writes for plot. He so obviously does not.
8-30-2009 @ 7:37PM
Nikki T said...
I'll keep it simple. Loved it. Of course there is a lot of borrowed themes from his past movies buts that's Tarrantino!Where i live i never saw so many geractic people in my life. well we know why anywho Brad Pitt is frickin' funnier than shit. You gotta see it a couple of times though you always find subliminal hidden messages or not.Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!
8-21-2009 @ 6:11PM
BrackAttack said...
"Inglourious Basterds is not necessarily a fully or immediately satisfying experience on first viewing"
I totally disagree on this point, I saw the film last night and I thoroughly enjoyed the storytelling, the suspense was paced very well and I never once looked at my watch. I've been thinking about this film all day since. Another great film by this director.
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 1:15PM
huh said...
Good timing for a lil positive PR, what with the Jews currently under fire for stealing organs from murdered Gazans, mostly women and orphans
Reply
8-30-2009 @ 11:18PM
Nikki T said...
why does everyone have to be so deep. Either you're a follower of Mr. Ts' work or you aint. yadda yadda yadda already.
8-21-2009 @ 6:11PM
jonathan said...
"...a wartime opus whose shortcomings upon first viewing are as immediately recognizable as the fact they will after many more of them prove to be virtues..."
I think this is called being "in the tank."
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 4:08PM
michuk said...
Inglourious Basterds is a film about World War II that you haven't seen before. It's a fairy tale, a product of imagination, a cruel fantasy and a morality play, all in one.
I'm certainly going to watch it again at least once as Tarantino movies always taste better the second time. And this is best Tarantino in years!
Read my review here: Who's the bastard?.
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 6:07PM
michuk said...
Somehow the link didn't work. My review is here: http://michuk.filmaster.com/review/whos-the-bastard/
8-25-2009 @ 1:00PM
McNulty said...
I was so obsessed with Reservoir Dogs back in the 90's that I directed and acted in a stage reproduction. I know the script backwards and forwards. I loved Pulp Fiction as well, though it hasn't aged as well as Dogs, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, I thought Kill Bill and Death Proof were novelties. Kill Bill might have been a great film if it weren't crassly vivisected. I was starting to write Tarantino off.
But you know what... Inglourious Basterds turns out to be his best movie. I thought it was timeless and perfect. I was getting a real Kubrick and Hitchcock vibe from it and I didn't think there was one wasted line.
Here's the thing about QT that I wish more people would realize: he writes 'character' films. His movies are about putting multi-dimensional characters together, and letting the characters do what they would do to each other.
This is why his movies seem so strange to some people.
We've become acclimated to a particular kind of screenwriting that focuses on plot and efficiency. More and more, movies are being written around set-pieces. Characters are just going through the motions to get you from one big action sequence to the next. Dialogue is stripped down to it's simplest form: "Jump!", "Run for it!", "I am going to kill you" etc.
As a movie-going public, we have lost the ability to read subtext and nuance. We can nitpick the resolution issues on a CGI dinosaur, but he can't identify the underlying meaning of a subtle smirk. We need to be told what the smirk means.
Writing for characters and writing for pacing/plotting are two fundamentally different writing styles. If you write for characters you start by defining who the characters are, and you let the characters find their story. If you write for pacing, you start with an outline of the movie, and mold the characters into it.
QT works in genre, and I think people assume he writes for plot because he uses genre archtypes. But the genre really isn't key to his movies success.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 12:45PM
jermicanol said...
Kids and also others who wish to see movies with action does like to see the movie Inglourious Basterds (2009) I was really amazed by this movie and it was out standing to watch a movie like this, sure it does have a wonderful movie story and it does keep us entertaining well too free movies I have seen this movie and it was out sanding to watch this movie
source
http://www.80millionmoviesfree.com
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 8:48PM
jackbailey said...
I just watched this movie last night with my 19 and 20 year
old son and daughter. It was and will be added to my favourites collection of blu-ray/dvds btw my QT section is pretty large but I dont personally have the Kill Bill//Grindhouse
style of his stuff.
I just want to say that this movie isn't to be taken seriously as is most of QT stuff (read between the lines) I LOVED IT and will watch it again. Especially because I missed most of the laughs. I live in a small town and because of that the cinema here rarely gets packed at the time we went, but we were lucky to find a seat, not to mention that we weren't the only ones laughing..... If the fact that the end everyone clapped and stayed until the completion of all the credits tells you something isn't enough.... How about this, my kids told me that
had to say it was the best QT movie since RESERVOIR DOGS and please take into account their ages 19 and 20 (also my daughter - who happens to be a Brad Pitt fan - only told people she was seeing a QT movie). Which comes to my second point Brad Pitt is a good actor you just have to look beyond the face and you can really see an actor, he is a great actor and a funny actor who has often shared the spotlight. Often he is used for ads to bring in more fans.
But Inglourious Basterds was great sometimes the subtitles were a little quick for me because I was laughing so hard but I still loved it and more reason to catch up later.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 4:03PM
techo said...
ok movie .......nice sound ...watch it on http://cool-movies.com
http://cool-movies.com/watch-inglourious-basterds/
Reply