Will Basterds polarize audiences? That's a given. But for anyone professing true movie love, there's no resisting it.
Very good review. Travers is always reliable.
Aug 21 - 03:11 PM
Review is too kind. Tarantino needs a remedial course in editing.Too much time spent proving how 'clever' he is and not enough spent restraining himself.RESTRAINT is underrated.
Aug 21 - 07:05 PM
cold ice aka claude pace
CRAP CRAP AND MEGA CRAP. ANOTHER TARANTINO BORING MOVIE EVEN WORST THAN KILL BILL.
Aug 21 - 11:44 PM
I'm surprised you think this movie as crap. Judging from your picture and this being the 3rd time I have read your spam so far, you come off as being just as self important as this film's director.
Aug 22 - 02:33 AM
Shut the fuck up, maybe if you could make a better film your argument would be valid but as it is now your opinion is CRAP CRAP CRAP
Apr 15 - 08:19 PM
"But for anyone professing true movie love, there's no resisting it."
Wow...having thought for more than thirty years that I truly loved movies, imagine my surprise at learning I must not. Because after sitting through Tarantino's latest film, I've decided it was an unmitigated -- cue the Neil Young song, folks -- "piece of crap." Badly shot, badly edited, overly long and unbearably self-important, Inglourious Basterds is completely resistable, whether as cinema, snark, grindhouse schlock...or pretty much whatever you choose to call it. It's another "Death Proof," where the audience generally came to wish they were neither deaf-proof nor death-proof, just so long as the pain would stop.
I mean this movie really sucks.
One could argue that Tarantino was riffing on Spaghetti-style cinema, but if so, his opening sequence ranks as one of the most protracted, boring homages ever conceived. I mean, it's more tiresome and unimaginative than the 20-minute title credits from 1978's Superman. And precisely how condescending can a filmmaker be and not have his (or her) audience hate his (or her) guts? To wit: the scene in Inglourious Basterds when the farm girl re-encounters Landa, the man who killed her family. Do we really need to see the stupid shot of her running from the farm again? Yes, if you're an idiot... which Tarantino evidently thinks we are.
Similarly, the inane use of titles to point out key Germans like Bormann in the theater sequence...is that really necessary? I mean, I'll admit that when it comes to historical events pre-dating, say, the evening news or the latest Twitter feed, most Gen X- and Y-ers are dumb as rocks. But still...do you need to rub their nose in it?
And the whole "let's have a Jew beat a German officer to death with a baseball bat" sequence? No offense, but it was about as exciting as watching paint dry (yes, the tapping of the bat was "sooo scary"). De Palma it 20 years ago -- and better -- in The Untouchables!
At best, Inglourious Basterds is a mish-mash of nihilistic play. There is no film-making skill in evidence (some of the shot selection is really appalling and can't be excused as "homage"). There is no lucid commentary of any type concerning anything of value. And the acting is genuinely bad...including the Landa character, contrary to what all the apologists out there are saying. He chews scenery, folks, as does everyone else in the film...and chewing scenery is not good acting.
In fact, I would argue that Quentin has now crossed the line into Hal Needham film-making...where the film-making experience itself -- the ensemble casts on set, the rehearsals, the banter and play of boys with toys -- is more important than whatever ultimately results on screen. The only difference between Needham and Tarantino being this: at least with Needham you were provided outtakes at the end of the film to show you how much fun THEY had had making it, even though the movie itself sucked.
With Quentin, you receive no such consolation prize (at least not until the DVD release, when you'll be blessed with hours of chit-chat from him on how the film was made, how it's a reference to this and that, how great those films were, etc. etc.). Nope...you only have the two-and-a-half hours of crap you just watched.
There is only the numina of the circle jerk to Inglourious Basterds...the film is a collective call to beat off to the tune of the most loudmouthed masturbatory snark in the room, Tarantino himself. And it's not worth it. I don't know what Travers thought he was watching...but it wasn't cinema, great film, a good movie, or even passable entertainment. It was just plain crap.
Aug 22 - 04:32 PM
Aplin F., you are a buzzkill.It would be one thing to say you didn't like this or that about the film, but you appear to think that everything in this movie was awful (directing, characters, writing, even the acting of "the Landa character").I'm hoping you are either a more acclaimed filmmaker than Tarantino or a more respected critic than Travers to write such a bold review. But unfortunately you are more likely just a film school snob.As a final note, my personal favorite line from your ridiculous post: "He chews scenery, folks, as does everyone else in the film...and chewing scenery is not good acting." You are unbearably lame.
Aug 22 - 10:53 PM
may i suggest that you remove your head from quents butt and watch this movie clean.
Aug 23 - 05:53 PM
Best Tarantino to date. Travers manages to articulate a movie lover's weakness that Tarantino capitalizes on--that we cannot resist an extraordinary ensemble, clever characterization, unforgettable bodacious psychotic story-lines, truth that is hard to take in a disrespectful delivery. Basterds was like reading a great long book. It takes time before you can pick up another one and you want a long one. -Lovedog
Sep 6 - 03:16 PM
Sep 6 - 03:21 PM
Tarantino insults your intelligence and you clap him back?
Mar 9 - 08:30 AM