Nicky Marianna

The cinema is an artform not a social vehicle. If you adhere to your own standard of political correction, then we should all deplore Casablanca for putting the Nazis in a light devoid of true violence and inherent evil.

Aug 21 - 10:30 AM

Rossiter Drake

Well said, Nicky. Also, the character was a delight to watch, but hardly delightful - he's the movie's central villain, and his "charm," as you put it, was completely forced (and intentionally so). What film were you watching?

Aug 21 - 10:53 AM

Marshall Selin

That was the point of the villian, guess it went over her head.

Aug 21 - 11:26 AM

Jeremy May

Tarantino wanted you to fall in love with each of his characters, rather than just the Heroes, and the Villain is usually more interesting and mysterious. You want to hate him for what he does, but his charm and poetic behavior just make you love his charater. That was what Tarantino was attempting and he succeeded.

Aug 21 - 11:37 AM

First Last

How did Dargis survive her stint on the L.A. Weekly? Her reviews were eltist diatribes then and they still are. She still carries the weight of the world around with her as well. Yawn. I always used her as a reverse barometer as to which films to see, anyway. So I guess thank you for that.

Aug 21 - 01:20 PM

Myster Blonde

Hey Dargis, this is a MOVIE not a documentary. You must figure that out first before writing a review.

Aug 21 - 03:16 PM

Max Kruemcke

Having movie love is a bad thing? Charming villains are offensive? He's the bad guy for a reason. There were anti-jewish statements in this movie for a reason, possibly because ITS A MOVIE ABOUT NAZIS. This review should have been shortened to: "I don't get Tarantino, and I'm offended easily."

Aug 21 - 03:45 PM

Mark Polakow

I thikn thou protesteth too much, or something like that. I think you are full of your own **** if you claim not to have been entertained by this movie. You clearly and in detail outline all the ways in which this movie succeeds and works sooo well, then you just essentially say but it doesn't work. I think this was a wonderful, orginal, and daring script with brilliant technical direction.. and I actually think you do too - but you don't have the guts to admit it.

Aug 22 - 10:32 AM

First Last

More of the same from Dargis (readers of the LA Times thank you so much for departing that gig ... movie reviews there are so much better now that they've been left to reviewers that stick to reviewing movies). So in love with her prose, self-anointed cleverness, and sense of self-importance that she forgot she's actually writing about.

Aug 22 - 02:04 PM

Chris Wilson

Excellent review Manohla. Tarantino could go down as one of the greatest filmmakers in history to have never made a great film. "Inglourious Basterds" has several great scenes, most notably the opening, which reveals what could be. But Tarantino's need to be hip undermines all of his work. His skill with dialog is stunning and yet, it's as if he's never read a book in his life. His films are a celebration of moviemaking, clever and skillful. But what Kael said about Peckinpah (a filmmaker who leaves Tarantino in the dust), "I'm not sure what the film says to us, except that filmmaking can be a glorious high," really applies to QT.

Aug 23 - 06:32 AM

perry perry

after the first 40 mins of watching this crap, i was hoping that the nazi's would win this one.

yes, it is that bad.

Aug 23 - 06:02 PM

jay yyyyyyy

Thanks guys I always read the reviews which get the most grief in the comments section. They might not be popular but they do come up with some interesting ideas.

Aug 23 - 10:31 PM

Nathan Bartocci

Oh, I agree! And by making him the main villain of the film and carving him up in the final shot of the film he is definitely showing himself as a Nazi sympathizer!

Aug 25 - 09:19 PM

Matt Popham

Some of you would do well to read the entire review (not just the Rotten Tomatoes blurb) and also get to know a critic a little better before attacking them.

Manohla is no stranger to movie love and has long been one of Tarantino's staunchest defenders. However, she has also had concerns throughout her career about portrayals of Nazism in film. And these concerns have philosophical legitimacy even if you disagree with them.

But that's the problem with a site like this one. It's democratized to the point of being reductive. Any schmuck with an opinion, however uniformed, can spout off simply because he doesn't like the 10-20 words of a review that Rotten Tomatoes chooses to post.

My schmucky opinion...? I don't have any problems with Nazism or violence in film. But no matter how clever or splashy, I'm sick to death of Tarantino's anti-intellectual, self-centered films. He may be the hippest video store clerk in town, but he's also a one trick pony, and a hollow one at that...

Aug 29 - 02:07 PM

marc coignard

i disagree. there are lots of films where the main character is a violent, vicious bastard of sorts, but he is still a great attraction to the movie-goer. think Christian Bale in American Psycho or Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight. the best parts about those movies was the psychotic, murdering lunatic who ate up the screen. such is the case with QT's "most delightful Nazi", who beyond his patches and title of "Jew Hunter" is what a great villian should be: fun to play, interesting to watch, and what drives the film forward.

Aug 30 - 11:34 PM

L C

The Dargis review was pretty accurate. Finally got to see the movie tonight, and it may be the first Tarantino movie I've disliked overall. The villain's performance did steal the movie, and some of the scenes and shots were typically good QT.
The pacing, though, was painfully bad and the duration too long by about an hour. That was from lack of decent editing and self-indulgence on QT's part, not because the dialogue was good enough to justify a 2.5 hour movie. Lesser-known directors don't have that luxury, and that's not always a bad thing.

Sep 9 - 09:28 PM

L C

The Dargis review was pretty accurate. Finally got to see the movie tonight, and it may be the first Tarantino movie I've disliked overall. The villain's performance did steal the movie, and some of the scenes and shots were typically good QT.
The pacing, though, was painfully bad and the duration too long by about an hour. That was from lack of decent editing and self-indulgence on QT's part, not because the dialogue was good enough to justify a 2.5 hour movie. Lesser-known directors don't have that luxury, and that's not always a bad thing.

Sep 9 - 09:29 PM

Mat Rex

Yeah your right Manohla, a movie that is based on pure fiction alone shouldn't have other fictitious qualities to the "bad guys" in the movie.

I wouldn't call the "bad guy" a delightful nazi.... he's a well educated, intelligent, problem solving individual who kills.... the only pollution I see are the conclusions you have come up with based on the main bad guys role.

Dec 28 - 09:05 AM