Inglourious Basterds Review
Inglourious Basterds
Written and Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth, Daniel Brühl, Diane Kruger, Til Schweiger, BJ Novak
A quick look back through Quentin Tarantino’s filmography at this point in time reveals that he has covered a pretty impressive number of genres with just a handful of movies, from gangster and blaxploitation films, to kung fu and spaghetti westerns, to car chases and slasher flicks. Now it’s time to for him to pay tribute to yet another realm of cinema: the World War II drama. Inglourious Basterds has been in development for over a decade now, with Tarantino taking his time to pen the perfect script in the hopes of making this his magnum opus. I think it’s safe to say that he may very well have achieved exactly that.
From the opening scene, the movie sets a slow, deliberate pace that is the trademark of a master filmmaker in full control of his craft. This is easily his most mature film to date, and probably his best work since at least Jackie Brown, if not Pulp Fiction. Tarantino shows more restraint than perhaps ever before, and while it is a long movie with some expected moments of Tarantino flair, he keeps everything in context and never loses sight of his ultimate goal of constructing a new WWII classic.
The story picks up in Nazi-occupied France in 1941 with German Colonel Hans Landa on the trail of last remaining Jews in the countryside. He has earned himself the nickname “The Jew Hunter”, and with good reason: he is clever, perceptive, and completely ruthless. Meanwhile, Lt. Aldo Raine is putting together a team of covert Jewish-American soldiers to go behind enemy lines and terrorize the Germans. The two sides end up on a collision course a few years later when the Nazis plan the premiere of a new Joseph Goebbels movie featuring the exploits of a German war hero. With Hitler and various other higher-ups in attendance, it is the perfect opportunity to strike a crippling blow to the Third Reich — unless Col. Landa can sniff out their plot before they strike.
Coming off of Death Proof, a lot of people expected this to be a very violent movie (the marketing also played this angle up quite a bit). However, while it does have some brief moments of gore and blood n’ guts, the majority of its 153-minute running time is concerned with something else entirely: namely, creating drama and suspense. I was surprised to find out that the Basterds themselves are only a small part of the story here, and anyone expecting a full-on action film will likely be a bit disappointed. The good news is that Tarantino has defied expectations and stepped up his game to deliver something even more impressive.
There was also some early concern about some of the odd casting decisions that were made: Hostel director Eli Roth (who also appeared in Death Proof), The Office’s BJ Novak, Samm Levine (Freaks and Geeks) and… Mike Myers? How on Earth would these guys all fit into the equation? In the end, they all have a pretty minor roles in the film and/or very few lines, which is probably for the best since they are somewhat outclassed. Still I have to admit that Mike Myers’ scene was a lot of fun and totally worked. Make no mistake, Inglourious Basterds is funny, but it’s certainly not a comedy; on the other hand, it’s not quite Schindler’s List either. Basically the movie harkens back to a simpler time when WWII films offered adventure and excitement, rather a grim examination of the dark side of humanity.
Almost everything keeps in line with the period and the genre, from the costumes to the cinematography to the soundtrack. Tarantino culls plenty of Ennio Morricone and heavily favours instrumental pieces from other westerns and war films, with the exception of one David Bowie song that sets the perfect tone without throwing off the flow of the film. You won’t hear any Dick Dale surf riffs or funk tunes here. And as far as the dialogue goes, yes there is a lot of talking, but it’s not quite your typical Tarantino fluff.
Although there are some minor film geek discussions regarding German cinema, there are no out-of-place pop culture references or overly inane conversations in the film. Instead, Tarantino has simply given his actors and actresses room to do their thing, and it is a pleasure to watch the interactions. Austrian actor Christoph Waltz is amazing as Col. Landa, imposing yet playful, while Mélanie Laurent, (who has an uncanny, and probably not entirely coincidental, resemblance to Uma Thurman), is marvelous. Then there’s Brad Pitt, who puts on an awesome Tennessee accent, and seems to be enjoying himself at least as much as he did in the Steven Soderbergh’s Ocean’s trilogy.
The dynamic is also very different this time around because a huge chunk of the dialogue is in German and French. Some people have complained in the past when certain movies (ie. Valkyrie) are set in other countries and do not feature dialogue in their native language. Well, Tarantino addresses this concern and takes this about as far as you can possibly take it. In fact, it even gets pretty complex at points when there are characters on screen translating back and forth between German and French. While I can see this turning some people off, it does add to the authenticity, and more importantly, it changes the entire rhythm of the dialogue — it does not feel like Tarantino’s words coming out of their mouths.
Also, while some of these exchanges stretch out for quite a long period of time, they revel in the tension that is being created. What’s more, one such scene builds to one of the fastest, most exhilarating shoot-outs I’ve ever seen on screen, and you can’t help but tip your cap to QT for his brilliant execution here. Is Inglourious Basterds long? Yes. Is it too long? Absolutely not.
In the end, this movie is so much more than I ever thought it would be. It is acted to perfection, photographed with skill and elegance, and on top of it all, it’s simply a ton of fun. How he managed to keep it classy while also having scenes of nazis getting scalped and having their heads bashed in with a baseball bat is beyond me, but leave it to Tarantino to find a way. Inglourious Basterds is easily the best film of the year thus far, and an absolute must-see (which is a pretty big statement coming just one week after District 9). I have a feeling this might even land Tarantino at the Academy Awards again next year, but regardless of what accolades it earns, this is indeed a masterpiece in its own right. Let’s just say it was well worth the ten year wait. — Sean
SCORE: 
Recommended If You Like: The Dirty Dozen, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Black Book
Comments (57)
I’ll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD for like $10.00. I’m sure there is some saving grace about it that only Tarantino can salvage.
Posted by Tomas on August 22nd, 2009This movie is a film lover’s wet dream. Tarantino always wears his influences on his sleeve and part of the joy of his films is spotting all the references and homages to films that he loves. You really can’t make a concrete judgment of a QT film until you’ve seen it at least 3 times. On the other hand I absolutely loved this movie. It’s in the top 3 best movies this year and I can’t wait to see it again. I could have easily spent 4 hours with these characters. I hope there’s an extensively longer cut coming to DVD. Chris Waltz is a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor as his performance is pure joy to watch. He devours every scene he’s in. Eli Roth was a surprise for me as I expected watching him act to be like watching QT’s attempts to act. He’s funny, crazy and isn’t given anything he can’t handle. I’m always happy to see Michael Fassbender as he’s quickly becoming someone who’s presence will sell me on a movie. All of the actors were really good and you could tell that they all relished every scene they were in. Some have complained about the extended dialogue scenes but that’s really the meat and potatoes of this film. As long as you go into this without the movie you WANT to see already in your head and keep an open mind, you really can’t go wrong.
Excellent film.
Posted by Fatbologna on August 22nd, 2009So Ryan “The Temp” Howard didn’t taint it?
Posted by Tomas on August 22nd, 2009What I as a German would like to know is if you had any problems with the huge amount of subtitles, since language is a of great importance in the movie …?
Posted by Stefan on August 22nd, 2009Tomas,
Go right ahead and sell yourself short. You’ll be depriving yourself of one of only 2 great movies to come out this summer. But I guess it’s better to be safe than sorry. I like that you assume Tarantino needs to salvage anything from his own movie. I guess if you don’t like him then this won’t change your mind, but if you’ve ever liked anything he’s done it’s definitely worth checking out. Especially considering 10 bucks will buy you a theater ticket anyway…
Posted by Fatbologna on August 22nd, 2009I just saw it this morning and liked it a lot.
For how long it is, it never seemed to slow for me and easily kept my attention.
Posted by Nick D on August 22nd, 2009Basterds was not a perfect movie, nor Tarantino’s ‘masterpiece’…. But overall it was an immensely enjoyable experience. Great performances, entertaining sequences, and as always a love of cinema comes through. Some scenes need less self-indulgence. Speaking of which, check out my Basterds review with my father, at: http://www.youtube.com/gabndad
Posted by Gab & Dad on August 22nd, 2009Sean, good review but your direction is entirely misplaced in my opinion. Like Kill Bill this is a film based on films based on reality. Here QT is about seven layers away from actual World War II stories and concepts to the point parts felt very cartoony. Don’t get me wrong I loved the film, in the same way I like a really good funny car at a car show; a heighten interpretation of a sports car taken to the limit. I don’t know how you think “classy†or the Academy Awards are relatable to this film, beyond Christopher Waltz deserving a nomination. There was a certain part in the middle of the film were I felt like I was watching a Rem and Stimpy cartoon. To a film lover like myself I can buy in to the over-the-top send up of war movies, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves on it’s place in time. Brad Pitt is not even close to a real character, you have to admit he would look equally plausible in G.I. Joe with his lock jaw inducing puss. But that’s o.k., he’s QT’s Frankenstein, made up of parts from all the great war movie heroes. Just don’t get ahead of yourself. Eli Roth is a waste – the Jew Bear is made for Liev Schreiber.
This is not one of QT’s best works because it has none of the character development and fascinating story structure of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. It is a frustrating movie with amazing scenes (the opening) and pop art b.s. (Samuel Jackson’s lesson on the flammability of nitrate film).
I also have no idea how you don’t think this is not QT’s most violent film. Everything is on show here Sean, and QT plays with the audience daring them to watch. Remember, Pulp Fiction’s head explosion was off camera, only one on screen mutilation happened in Reservoir Dogs.
SPOILER SPOILER: the climax is a reversed retribution fantasy crematorium.
I think you feel this way because the violence in this film is so over-the-top and mixed with dark humor (QT is the master of this) that none of it registered with you. There will be the standard violence in film backlash associated with all QT films.
Some things learned and worth pondering. This film doesn’t have any of the great exterior, logistical, breaking and entering, stealth moves I associate with so many World War II B films. That got me thinking how none of QT’s films ever have exterior set pieces. Even in Deathproof he used the typical backroads of Southern California used in thousands of movies and TV shows. He really does not venture outdoors very much, I don’t know why? Anyway, I was hoping for a QT version of a protracted breaking and entering – everything is too easy for our characters here.
Another thing I’ve been thinking about since seeing this (and the early work of Blomkamp) is directors that have a singular style and way of making films. A lot of the good feelings for Inglorious Basterds from myself, and the members of the excited audience I saw it with, were more about seeing a new Tarantino film and what he has in store. I’ve been thinking about his films and how different they are to all other films. For lack of a better word there is a cartian “gestalt†that occurs during his films were you see and hear things that might be repugnant, or derivative in another movie but as part of a “Tarantino Event†it feeds a inner zest in the film lover. It would be cool if you guys talk about directors that cause this sensation in you, as well as, directors that have this gestalt but it doesn’t register with you.
And I got to mention the language and accents! I think this movie is the best evidence of what I had argued on Valkyrie were the lack of accents was a stupid mistake. The accents and language here do more to set the story than the sets, mainly because the sets are mostly interiors and there are NO ARMAMENTS (that’s really amazing when you think about it). QT plays games with the audience as you think in the opening scene on the “can we speak English?†line that would be the end of foreign language, but NOOOO!
I also need to find the list of non World War II films each chapter reference, I know Rio Bravo or Days of Heaven is reference in the opening scene…anyway if you guys have this list I would like it.
Anyway, thank God this and D9 saved Summer 09!
Posted by rus in chicago on August 22nd, 2009great review!
Posted by jb on August 22nd, 2009I enjoyed “Inglourious Basterds” quite a bit.
Two obvious references: The final sequence was an obvious homage to De Palma’s “Carrie,” and the first scene replicates that famous shot from “The Searchers” when Shosanna makes a run for it.
Posted by Colin on August 22nd, 2009Getting nothing but great reviews despite a pretty fair amount of bad buzz earlier.
Despite the fact I’m already pretty close to overdosing on BP, I Can’t wait to see it.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on August 23rd, 2009Inglourious Basterds is without a doubt, one of the most beautifully composed films ever made. The camera swoops unpredictably around sets, subtlety emphasizing the tone of every confrontation. Every set is convincingly historically accurate, but complete control over color is maintained in every shot. Tarantino demonstrates a masterful command of every aspect of filmmaking; every sight and sound presented on his screen is calculated to make the viewer feel absolute exhilaration, absolute drama, and most impressively, absolute empathy with his characters.
Check out the rest of my review at:
Posted by Paul on August 23rd, 2009http://cfilmc.com/inglourious-basterds/
great review for the best movie of the year so far
Posted by mitch on August 23rd, 2009inglourios bastered was with out a doubt the fucking gayest movie of all time…..
Posted by booby young on August 23rd, 2009I completely agree with the reviewer,this is a great movie, but it is not the movie i expected to see from Q.T.
People complain about having such long sequences and the languages, but this is exactly what past tarantino movies have lacked, and what people have complained about. You cannot complain about the lack of character development on the bastards, because they werent intended to be crazy characters (minus pitt and roth’s characters). Lt.Aldo is a ruthless, yet hilarious character, and he sheds alot of comic relief when necessary. This movie has all of the long dialogue based scenes that are in all the top dramatic movies, but also has the brutality QT is famous for, as well as the sick humor. When has a film last contained scenes such as the opening of this movie and a soldier bashing in the head of a nazi like a monster, then jumping around and bragging about it like an immature teenager. The mix of serious drama, and dark comedy make this movie outstanding, different from any other movie becuase of QT. (O.K. the coen brothers hit that note sometimes) This film has the dramatic dialogue of any movie you would see at the oscars, but injected with scenes that are guarunteed to put a smile on your face, no matter how grotesque (see final scene).
THe language issue shouldnt even have been brought up. Everybody yells murder when a movie has english speaking actors play foriegn roles, but the same is true when you get a movie full of annoying bables in annother language. QT controls the language barrier to such an extent it is beyond impresive. THe scenes in german/french/etc. are never boring, all of the speakers are very passionate while acting in their native tounges, much better than getting an actor who learned to speak german. I have never seen a director do better bridging the language gap in a movie, but i guess as long as people have to do ssome reading there will be something to complain about. This is one the best films to come out in a while, and fits perfectly into his already amazing resume of films.
B.T.W – This movie is not perfect, but its f**king awesome. Sure there are some parts where something could have been trimed down, or even downsized, but the scenes build up beautifully (everybody was waiting for something to happen in that card game scene). No movie is perfect, it has its flaws, but i defy you to not love brad pitts character at the end of the movie (applies to people who arent movie violence freaks or movie snobs – think every character has to be dramatic and “deep” or they’re unwatchable and worthless).
Posted by Tyler on August 23rd, 2009Tarantino is like a great hip-hop producer–he samples the best parts of other works and loops and flips them until the become his own thing. Tarantino is the RZA of filmmaking!!!
Posted by Ryan M. on August 23rd, 2009Sean you nailed it with that review, this movie gets even better the second time you watch it. And for those who are dissapointed you did not get an all action piece then thats your fault for EXPECTING one!.
Go watch Dirty Dozen or Where Eagles Dare if thats what you want, I dare say that if thats what Tarantino had made everybody would slate it for being a copy…
What he made instead was a taut pot boiler of a movie with a fantastic cast.
As for the subs, it did not bother me at all, in fact I prefer it to the old lets speak english movies like Valkyrie.
Posted by Ryan on August 23rd, 2009Fatbologna, I hated “Dusk Til Dawn”, but loved (as his best) Reservoir Dogs. The rest are kind of “meh”. Yes, in each of his other movies there were good parts or memorable moments (like in Pulp Fiction), but overall a rare revisit. I think Brad Pitt is the shining star here. I heard Adam Sandler was offered the role…which would have been a disaster, because I only see him as “The Wedding Singer”.
Posted by Tomas on August 23rd, 2009Most Reviews seem to be good so far but the film look’s as if it’s not going to break $20 million,Damm one more good film to FLOP.
Posted by jaime on August 23rd, 2009seem to be a very good movie. will see it soon.
Posted by little los angeles on August 23rd, 2009@jamie
What are you talking about yesterday morning it was headed towards a 30 million plus opening weekend?
It almost made 20 million on Friday alone.
Posted by David Wilson on August 23rd, 2009The review by rus chicago was almost as long as the movie. However, it was a total waste of time.
The movie was excellent. I will watch it again and again.
Posted by Franco on August 23rd, 2009I’m in America right now. Since this movie isn’t being released in The USA or The Western Hemisphere in general, which would be understandable and expected, is there a chance it will be released in Ireland, The UK or Belgium?
Posted by Notepaddy Niles on August 23rd, 2009Niles, I saw it last wednesday in belgium and on a hot wednesday evening it managed to pretty much fill up every seat on the first night!! Me and my buddy left the theatre very watisfied with the movie and are probably going back next week or so, it was amazing!!
But being from belgium I pretty much understood the spoken german, french and english in the movie, and am wondering how american and canadian audiences reacted to the movie being almost entirely in another language. And will this fall in the best foreign film category at the oscars next year?
COMPREEENDOOOWWWW!!
Posted by bert belgium on August 23rd, 2009marvelous review
Posted by kris on August 23rd, 2009this movie was the besst movie i had seen all summeer i would give it a 5stars cause i love brad pit and i loved this mover it was the best and if u thought it sucked the go fuck ur self cause it was awsome but i know that u have difgfrent oppenions
Posted by breighanna willits on August 23rd, 2009I think that last comment was from a prawn
Posted by rus in chicago on August 23rd, 2009I walked away very disappointed, and I cant tell you how frustrating that is to walk out of a Tarantino movie unhappy twice in a row when the guy is arguably your favorite director.
I did flip flop on Death Proof, and was guilty of hyperbole as an immediate reaction. This time I’m trying to temper it and will just wait till I see it again.
Posted by Goon on August 23rd, 2009So which character was Cloris Leachman? And Rod Taylor–was he Churchill? Is he the same actor from “The Birds”?
Posted by TxSig on August 23rd, 2009Everyone loves Brad Pitt movies.
Posted by Technology Slice on August 23rd, 2009Runs in Chicago wrote a great review. I will not be able to see this flik for a long time, there is not a movie theater within 400 miles of me, but I hope to on video.
Posted by bocasbozo on August 23rd, 2009I was skeptical going into this film knowing that it was a “war” movie and it coming off a mess like death proof, BUT i was totally blown away! Far and above what I expected.
This was the first Tarantino film i’ve seen in theaters and boy, was it fun! This movie was made for massive audiences! Everything from the camera movements, to the slow motion scenes, to the score (the score was nothing short of epic) was spot on and brilliantly done. I hate to say it for fear of seemingly like some Tarantino groupie, but everything about this film was “professional.” When the ending line is spoken and the editor cuts to credits and music i though, “god damn, this is a professional in a league of amateurs” and i wanted to turn right around and by a ticket for the next show.
As a film major and script writer, the tension in this film is palpable and although the scenes are long they are far from boring. They build upon themselves until you are left sitting at the edge of your seat waiting for that spark.
Beautifully acted, beautifully shot, beautifully written; the best movie i’ve seen this year and my new second favorite Tarantino film, closely tailing pulp fiction.
Posted by cavecreaturefilms on August 23rd, 2009MOVIE GOOD. ME SEE MOVIE AGAIN!
Posted by Ledgewood on August 24th, 2009KICK ASS FILM! I’m going to go see it again next week.
Posted by Marc on August 24th, 2009yeah seriously, screenplays by rule do not have camera direction, musical score nor do they demonstrate the “take” an actor or acting ensemble will take – and you are going to judge a QT film on just the script?!
Posted by rus in chicago on August 24th, 2009Read the script and hated it. Kill Bill was actually a better read in its original long form. I’m in the UK and the only love for QT has been from tabloid sycophants. Moreover certain journos have bemoaned the disclaimer they signed disallowing them from reviewing the movie until the official release. These particular writers have not been complementary about what they saw which admittedly may be a reaction to QT’s preciousness but he has never had such bad press for his work in the UK which is generally fond of his work.
Posted by John on August 24th, 2009I will listen eagerly to why all of you gave it 4 and to be honest you better come up with a compelling argument otherwise you will start looking too generous.
Sean – Next has got to be one of the most uniquely shit films I have ever seen. You mentioned it a while back before reviewing Knowing. What happened to the nuke?
Posted by John on August 24th, 2009I dont know about anyone else, but I wouldnt take ultimatums from someone who reads the script instead of the movie and then talks as if they’re the same thing.
Posted by Goon on August 24th, 2009All I can say is that it was not a given that I would love this movie, and I’m not a Tarantino fanboy. Death Proof and Kill Bill 1 and 2 were not perfect films in my opinion. Inglourious Basterds, however, is pretty damn close.
With regards to Next, I agree completely, it is uniquely shit.
Posted by Sean on August 24th, 2009The movie is masterpiece – what more can you say. A very well made film.
Posted by SimonZ on August 24th, 2009Well said! I agree and think it’s his deepest film. If you’re interested, I have some more competent-sounding thoughts here: http://frothygirlz.com/2009/08/22/inglourious-basterds-laying-all-the-cards-on-the-table/
Did you notice a bunch of call=backs to earlier Tarantino films? Like putting people in the same situation and having it play out a certain way one time then differently another, like Death Proof–or the Reservoir-Dogs-esque Mexican standoff.
Posted by Nat Almirall on August 24th, 2009callback or repeating himself?
Posted by rus in chicago on August 24th, 2009It seems to be too deliberate to be repeating himself.
Posted by Nat Almirall on August 24th, 2009Goon – It all starts with the script. With Kill Bill the script reflected pretty much what was on the screen. If you liked a QT script then you would probably like the resultant film. I admit that this does not apply to most other directors or writers but he does both and has unprecedented levels of control on a production.
Sean – Fair enough. I think I will get more out of the spoiler discussion tomorrow.
Posted by John on August 24th, 2009John, the script has no accounting for the quality of Woltz’ performance or the visual or soundtrack choices or a number of other very important things. There are a number of directors that it is just foolish to judge by script alone, and I believe QT is one of them.
Posted by Goon on August 24th, 2009Maybe once a year do I invest in a ticket for the movie theater. Nothing really made these days worth seeing as it’s either a poorly made remake or just pure crap.
‘Inglourious Bastards’? BEST FILM MADE IN A VERY LONG TIME!
Bravo, Mr. Tarantino!
Posted by Wolfie on August 24th, 2009We will have to agree to disagree Mr Goon.
Posted by John on August 24th, 2009i can’t wait to see this movie. it looks so fuckin awesome. to quote the lama from emporors new groove
“bring it on”
Posted by rick on August 24th, 2009John.
You, sir, are wrong. You won’t ever be right in this matter. You can’t ever be taken seriously judging anything you haven’t experienced firsthand. Books, Movies, Games, anything. It’s like watching people ride a rollercoaster and then telling everyone that gets off that the ride sucked… dumb.
Posted by Fatbologna on August 24th, 2009Also, it’s been pretty well covered that the script is nothing like the end product on this particular film.
This was mentioned by people who read the script THEN SAW THE MOVIE…Whodathunk??
Posted by Fatbologna on August 24th, 2009yeah, I never order any food unless the recipe really wows me, nor do I take a chance on a woman unless her written bio matches mine perfectly, oh and I would never see a painting in person if the glyph in the art catalog didn’t blow me away….really? what a sad way to live.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 24th, 2009“We will have to agree to disagree Mr Goon.”
So you think with all of QT’s style, his casting and soundtrack choices, his sense of cinematography, that all you need is the script to decide whether or not the film is good. I just think thats nuts.
Using Lardass Lunchmeat’s example, yes, it would be like me judging the experience of a rollercoaster by looking at its blueprints.
Posted by Goon on August 24th, 2009Goon,
Thank you for not only putting my example to better use but also the excellent play-on-words of my name.
Verygoodsir.
Posted by Fatbologna on August 24th, 2009@John
Why you would even read the script before seeing the movie is beyond me. You’re just cheating yourself out of experiencing the movie the way it was intended to be experienced. If reading the script was really the same as watching the movie, then I guess this whole film industry business is just a massive waste of time and money.
I also think it’s impolite the demand compelling arguments for why somebody liked a film you didn’t even see, yet have already made up your mind up about. Just saying.
Posted by JY on August 24th, 2009What I loved about this is that I was excited to see a movie and came away loving a great film.
Posted by Paul on August 24th, 2009Low expectations after the post Cannes poor buzz. I was blown away. Absolutely blown away.
Tarantino has produced his mastodon with Kill Bill, his overall masterpiece and defining piece with Pulp Fiction and this to me is him proving what an amazing director he is. Its 154 minutes long and extremely well composed.
Its suspense, emotion, thrilling action and hysterical humour all wrapped into an absolutely perfectly balanced piece.
Tarantino cannot produce a new Pulp Fiction, or top it. The film in itself is one thing, but the snowball effect its had as the years have gone by is massive. I honestly think the guy is just having fun now.
Posted by AK on August 24th, 2009QT’s weakest effort showcases what happens when the orchestra is assembled but not properly conducted. Want a great World War II movie made lately? Go get “Defiance”. Want to see WWII-ish action-adventure? Go watch “Kelly’s Heros”. You want to see Nazis poleaxed in a highly deserved fashion? Scan ahead to the climactic scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. This one is neither a great war movie or great war fantasy movie.
The ingredients were promising. With 10 years to work it out, it appears the “think long, think wrong” principle got put into play. There are plenty of good things to see in the movie and any QT fan will watch it to see the pieces but as an ensemble it falls flat as bread in which the yeast didn’t activate.
Soundtracks are usually a strong point for a QT movie. Other than the song by Bowie, it’s a snoozefest and as inspiring as watching paint dry. Buy the soundtrack CD and you’ll have good music to go to take a nap by, which is NOT the way people react to other QT soundtracks.
Seeing some graphics used in past QT movies and being nearly put to sleep myself, I was left wishing I had spent the time watching all 10 parts of Kill Bill, which is the definitive QT movie. A few laughs, some gory scenes and a hardcore smart Nazi officer facing off against a hardcore tough American officer aren’t enough to salvage this film. Rent a DVD or if you collect QT movies, buy it, but don’t waste your time in the theater on it.
Posted by Just An Observer on August 28th, 2009Leave a Reply