Inglorious Basterds Could Have Been Such a Good Movie

[OhYesIdid]

Instead, it is crap.
Allow me to explain: irreverently, IB starts out as an adventure film, somewhat more coherent than Tarantino's previous work, but nevertheless it is something that has been done before. Then, towards the end of the film, it grazes greatness. You see, towards the end of the film, all the different plots (or their pieces) to kill Hitler start to go wrong. The end of the adventure is near, but it seems that it is then that everything starts to crumble, and it is then that it approached greatness as a work of art: see, Tarantino made a typical adventure film, set it in WWII, added some cartoony violence to make it clear it was his. From there on, had he given it a sad ending where everyone failed, it would have a been a satire: a big sarcastic remark on the disrespectful way Hollywood protrays suffering and warfare. Tarantino had the power to set a stereotypical adventure in the real world, a place where such adventures barely ever happen, and, when they do, they usually end in horrible catastrophe.
Then the jews shoot Hitler. The jews shoot him dead.
And it all becomes pointless.
It is at this point that it was clear to me that Tarantino was a fucking idiot. He wasn't making parodies or satires of exploitation films all those years, he was earnestly making such shitty movies, because he thought they were good. A stupid adventure set in WWII is only excusable if the end product is a mockery of, or even an attack on, those sorts of movies. Killing Hitler showed everyone just how tasteless and dumb Tarantino is. Let's hope the next one sucks enough to end his career.

By the way, my favorite movie is Kelly's Heroes. So yes, I'm a hypocrite. However, I rationalize this by arguing that IB, as a 21st century movie, should have been more mature and sensible towards the subject matter, and Tarantino, as an auteur, should have been more thoughtful when putting together "his masterpiece."

[L.A.P.]

I don't see how just because Hitler gets killed the film then ceases to be a self-parodying exploitation film. Your critique fails.:thumbdown:

[Sasha]

you mad bro?

also, tarantino struggled with the ending himself for over an decade, that might comfort you a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds

i liked the movie btw, esp the ending, the only way an brutal revenge fantasy like that works if you make clear its just that an fantasy and not an WW2 exploitation.

[OhYesIdid]

Maybe I would have liked it to be an attack and not a "self-parody", which to me is as valid as a hipster wearing a t-shirt with a picture of an old cartoon to be "ironic": people who want to watch dumb acton flicks can go right ahead, just don't come to me saying that very same junk food is marvellous because you're ashamed.
"revenge fantasy"? by setting his film in WWII he automatically exploits all the tragedy and horror.

[Reznov]

Maybe I would have liked it to be an attack and not a "self-parody", which to me is as valid as a hipster wearing a t-shirt with a picture of an old cartoon to be "ironic": people who want to watch dumb acton flicks can go right ahead, just don't come to me saying that very same junk food is marvellous because you're ashamed.
"revenge fantasy"? by setting his film in WWII he automatically exploits all the tragedy and horror.

Honestly, I think his movies are supposed to be viewed for their weird crazy stories (I saw Desperado and Once upon a time in Mexico, and was lost to the actual point of the story.)

[Ingraham Effingham]

I first saw this movie in the theater. People in the theater were cheering loudly, during the most violent, vengeful parts, especially the end. At that point i realized QT's main goal: to have the audience exhibiting the same zealotry that german citizens probably displayed when shown accounts against such violence against jews.


I'm not sure if this response was QT's goal, but still, the entire movie is a satirical remark about the subjectivity of violence overall, and hitler's death served as perfect ironic climax to that.

[Smyg]

I would have liked the movie better if there had been more dead Nazis involved.

[thesadmafioso]

I first saw this movie in the theater. People in the theater were cheering loudly, during the most violent, vengeful parts, especially the end. At that point i realized QT's main goal: to have the audience exhibiting the same zealotry that german citizens probably displayed when shown accounts against such violence against jews.


I'm not sure if this response was QT's goal, but still, the entire movie is a satirical remark about the subjectivity of violence overall, and hitler's death served as perfect ironic climax to that.

I think that was his actual intent, given the scene where the Germans are watching a war movie. You see the audience of Nazi's go into an absolute uproar when the German sniper picks off allied soldiers, in much the same way he anticipated many American's to react to the brutal killing of Nazi soldiers. I saw it is a a general critique of deriving jubilation from violence more so than anything else.

If not for the inclusion of that scene I might agree with you, but I think that it sort of shows the presence of intent.

[Tim Finnegan]

Instead, it is crap.
Allow me to explain: irreverently, IB starts out as an adventure film, somewhat more coherent than Tarantino's previous work, but nevertheless it is something that has been done before. Then, towards the end of the film, it grazes greatness. You see, towards the end of the film, all the different plots (or their pieces) to kill Hitler start to go wrong. The end of the adventure is near, but it seems that it is then that everything starts to crumble, and it is then that it approached greatness as a work of art: see, Tarantino made a typical adventure film, set it in WWII, added some cartoony violence to make it clear it was his. From there on, had he given it a sad ending where everyone failed, it would have a been a satire: a big sarcastic remark on the disrespectful way Hollywood protrays suffering and warfare. Tarantino had the power to set a stereotypical adventure in the real world, a place where such adventures barely ever happen, and, when they do, they usually end in horrible catastrophe.
Then the jews shoot Hitler. The jews shoot him dead.
And it all becomes pointless.
It is at this point that it was clear to me that Tarantino was a fucking idiot. He wasn't making parodies or satires of exploitation films all those years, he was earnestly making such shitty movies, because he thought they were good. A stupid adventure set in WWII is only excusable if the end product is a mockery of, or even an attack on, those sorts of movies. Killing Hitler showed everyone just how tasteless and dumb Tarantino is. Let's hope the next one sucks enough to end his career.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your criticism at all. You just jump into a screaming condemnation of Tarantino halfway through the post with no real explanation as to how you got there and no real attempt to explain what you're talking about to anyone who doesn't unquestioningly buy into your axiom of "a stupid adventure blahdy blahdy blah". You're barely coherent. :confused:

[Manic Impressive]

Honestly, I think his movies are supposed to be viewed for their weird crazy stories (I saw Desperado and Once upon a time in Mexico, and was lost to the actual point of the story.)
They were both directed by Robert Rodriguez. Desperado is basically a remake of El Mariachi even though it's supposed to be a sequel anyway if you watch them in order it'll make a little more sense.

[L.A.P.]

I think that was his actual intent, given the scene where the Germans are watching a war movie. You see the audience of Nazi's go into an absolute uproar when the German sniper picks off allied soldiers, in much the same way he anticipated many American's to react to the brutal killing of Nazi soldiers. I saw it is a a general critique of deriving jubilation from violence more so than anything else.

If not for the inclusion of that scene I might agree with you, but I think that it sort of shows the presence of intent.

This. The movie is brilliant and it's unfortunate that the OP can't understand it.

[Ingraham Effingham]

I think that was his actual intent, given the scene where the Germans are watching a war movie. You see the audience of Nazi's go into an absolute uproar when the German sniper picks off allied soldiers, in much the same way he anticipated many American's to react to the brutal killing of Nazi soldiers. I saw it is a a general critique of deriving jubilation from violence more so than anything else.

If not for the inclusion of that scene I might agree with you, but I think that it sort of shows the presence of intent.

That makes sense. I guess his intent was lost on much of the audience, then!

[thesadmafioso]

That makes sense. I guess his intent was lost on much of the audience, then!

It certainly was, regretfully. This fact made me cringe the few times I watched it in theaters.

[Sasha]

That makes sense. I guess his intent was lost on much of the audience, then!


you should have been at an US-theater back when starshiptroopers came out....

[Ingraham Effingham]

you should have been at an US-theater back when starshiptroopers came out....

That one, i waited for DVD.
Speaking of which, i thought this was pretty interesting:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19259_6-mind-blowing-ways-starship-troopers-predicted-future.html

Considering this is the same guy that did Robocop, maybe he IS a time traveller...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I laughed pretty hard when they shot Hitler. That was an absurd scene.

I disagree about it not being an exploitation film too, or at least not a quasi-exploitation film. Exploitation films have colored every single film he's done, including IB. The ridiculous cartoon Hitler should've been somewhat indicative of that. I'm not necessarily opposed to WW2sploitation (Nazisploitation) anyway...I don't think it's a sacred cow that can't be touched.

[OhYesIdid]

That makes sense. I guess his intent was lost on much of the audience, then!

Well, what good is it then if it is not made clear? I'm tired of people standing up for this douchey, talentless, jerk. His movies might be analyzable, but that does not mean he's making them with a point.
If he was trying to make a point about how people cheering the death of nazis are just like nazis cheering for the sharpshooter, why not set it in occupied Iraq and show some US soldiers watching a contemporary American action movie? See, I really liked Four Lions, it is a satire about four guys setting out to commit a terrorist attack because they think it's oh so very muslim. Four Lions had poignancy and packed a punch, especially in the UK, because the film-makers did not shy away from contemporary struggle: they faced it head-on and that's what makes it so powerful.
Finnegan, how is it not a stupid adventure? How is it not escapism? and ES, why is WWII not sacred? I don't know about you, but I consider it a very real war that should be treated with reverence. One could even argue that were Tarantino a proper artist, he would make up his own situation and world, because using WWII as a backdrop is taking advantage of the pre-existing emotional attachment modern audiences have with the story. If he's not going to make his point abstractly, through his inventions, then what right does he have to hijack a gruesome collective memory and use it for his film? If he was trying to make a point using jews and nazis as examples, why not stick to the story of, y'know, the real relationship between jews and nazis. You might have had a valid point, and the movie theater interpretation would have been valid had Tarantino shot a sad ending, instead of just going "lol jk" and filling up a Hitler dummy with squibs.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, what good is it then if it is not made clear?
He included a scene in which Hitler laughed uproariously at an ultra-violent war film. He couldn't've made it more clear if the words "YOU ARE ALL HITLER" had flashed up on the screen in huge red letters. :rolleyes:


If he was trying to make a point using jews and nazis as examples, why not stick to the story of, y'know, the real relationship between jews and nazis.
Does Hollywood have any particular history of that? I'm really not sure that the usual cliché of the Jew-as-the-eternal- victim, unable to be anything more but a passive weakling for the good Aryans to bound in and rescue them from the bad Aryans, is much better than Tarantino at least giving them a bit of agency, which very few other films seriously attempt to do. I mean, given the endless torrent of Holocaust films over the last couple of decades, how many have actually shown Jews exhibiting the capability to resist? Defiance is the only one I can think of, and even that demanded that they be focused primarily on running away rather than fighting to be accepted as legitimate, the brother who attempted to join up with Soviet partisans being presented as mistaken for it. Tarantino may not exactly be painting from life, but at least he's offering a perspective which is quite usually ignored.

[thesadmafioso]

Well, what good is it then if it is not made clear? I'm tired of people standing up for this douchey, talentless, jerk. His movies might be analyzable, but that does not mean he's making them with a point.
If he was trying to make a point about how people cheering the death of nazis are just like nazis cheering for the sharpshooter, why not set it in occupied Iraq and show some US soldiers watching a contemporary American action movie?

Finnegan makes a valid point, it was already quite readily apparent. I think that if he went beyond the context of WWII it would of just been made obvious to a point where his intent would be rendered more or less ineffectual. The political value of such a choice in setting when mixed with the theme and style would of made this sort of comparison very difficult to make. He was really hinging the impact of that scene on the setting of the movie and its use of one of America's classic enemies. The juxtaposition from that would just be lost if you shed an excessive of light on it.

Naturally not everyone is going to catch the intent of the scene, but that is part of the point Tarantino was making.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The movie was so boring, I can't understand how anybody liked it. The only parts I liked were when they were killing Nazis. Most of it was dialogue that just dragged on and on for me.

[OhYesIdid]

I recently saw The Black Book, which presented a good story about a jewish woman standing up to the Nazis and it didn't go all retarded on me. ART, I wouldn't have minded if it had been at least interesting or vibrant dialogue, as the one in Reservoir Dogs. Different strokes, I guess.

[thesadmafioso]

The movie was so boring, I can't understand how anybody liked it. The only parts I liked were when they were killing Nazis. Most of it was dialogue that just dragged on and on for me.

I would literally say the exact opposite of the movie. The Nazi killing was so horribly over the top in its gore content, but I guess it was sort of necessary for some of the key thematic points of the piece to work.

[brigadista]

army of crime...good recent movie and a true story

[OhYesIdid]

army of crime...good recent movie and a true story

Whoa, I googled it and it looks awesome

[Tim Finnegan]

I recently saw The Black Book, which presented a good story about a jewish woman standing up to the Nazis and it didn't go all retarded on me.
Ok, fair enough, there are a handful, but you get my point: what Tarantino allowed his Jewish characters to do differs tremendously from what Jewish characters are usually permitted to do in this setting. I honestly think that a lot of the anger when it came out, a lot of the cries of "disrespectful", basically come down to this unwillingness to play by the usual narrative, crucial as it is in establishing the Anglo-American West as the messianic embodiment of all liberal democratic values.


army of crime...good recent movie and a true story
Ok, actually, I watched that last month, so I should've remembered that one, although for the record I'd say that it's sort of an exception to the tendency that I'm talking about, because the Jewishness of the Jewish characters isn't a central point of the film, but a motivating factor, like the anti-fascist of the communist characters or the Armenian character's past in the Armenian Genocide.

[Sasha]

I recently saw The Black Book, which presented a good story about a jewish woman standing up to the Nazis and it didn't go all retarded on me.


blackbook? oh come on, i mean its def not as bad as showgirls but i would actually consider starship troopers an more honest, less ridiculous and more worthwhile politically movie than that dungheap (and yes they are all 3 by the same director)
talking about exploitative, i know verhoeven is an sexist pig to begin with so any movie he made has titty overdose but that extra "hot jew getting fucked again and again by dashing nazi" touch just made it all extra wrong...

[Os Cangaceiros]

and ES, why is WWII not sacred? I don't know about you, but I consider it a very real war that should be treated with reverence.

Man screw that. Yes, it was a war, horrible things happened etc. But I'll let that sacred cow be served up for hamburger all day long if it entertains or amuses me.

My grandfather went to Europe during WW2 as a GI (I'm sure there are plenty of people here who also had relatives who were involved in the conflict). And he loved Hogan's Heroes.


blackbook? oh come on, i mean its def not as bad as showgirls

how dare you.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I own a few Naziploitation films, but none of them are very good.

All of them were made by the masters of 70's schlock, the Italians.

[La Comédie Noire]

The pacing was a little off, but usually my gripe with pacing is it goes too fast, so it's a little refreshing to have a movie where the pacing is moving a little slow IMO.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I recently saw The Black Book, which presented a good story about a jewish woman standing up to the Nazis and it didn't go all retarded on me. ART, I wouldn't have minded if it had been at least interesting or vibrant dialogue, as the one in Reservoir Dogs. Different strokes, I guess.
Yeah it's not that there was too much dialogue, it's that the dialogue that did take place was so boring that the only thing I looked forward to was some violence, and there wasn't actually that much violence. I can sit through movies that have very little to no action like The Godfather series or The Bicycle Thief and find them to be very entertaining and deep. But the dialogue in this movie just droned on and on...and on...and on, most of it seemed completely pointless too.

[Dogs On Acid]

Inglorious Basterds was just... meh...

I was disappointed with Tarantino. The anti-nazi message was good, so was the ending, but the rest... :mellow:

[Octavian]

Was I the only one who enjoyed the movie through and through. I thought the dialogue flowed well and wasn't too extended or boring. My only problem with the movie was it seemed Tarantino really tried to dumb down the movie. The whole jew bear scene to me seemed a little too thick headed and a lot of the dialogue scenes were to low browish.

[Dogs On Acid]

Was I the only one who enjoyed the movie through and through. I thought the dialogue flowed well and wasn't too extended or boring. My only problem with the movie was it seemed Tarantino really tried to dumb down the movie. The whole jew bear scene to me seemed a little too thick headed and a lot of the dialogue scenes were to low browish.

Yeah just watch Pulp Fiction, a matured film, then watch Inglorious Basterds, it's obvious.

[brigadista]

Ok, fair enough, there are a handful, but you get my point: what Tarantino allowed his Jewish characters to do differs tremendously from what Jewish characters are usually permitted to do in this setting. I honestly think that a lot of the anger when it came out, a lot of the cries of "disrespectful", basically come down to this unwillingness to play by the usual narrative, crucial as it is in establishing the Anglo-American West as the messianic embodiment of all liberal democratic values.




Ok, actually, I watched that last month, so I should've remembered that one, although for the record I'd say that it's sort of an exception to the tendency that I'm talking about, because the Jewishness of the Jewish characters isn't a central point of the film, but a motivating factor, like the anti-fascist of the communist characters or the Armenian character's past in the Armenian Genocide.

Black book was ok but failed in the completely unnecessary misogyny on display

Army of crime also has something to say about anti immigrant stuff in France today

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I wanted to like Inglorious Basterds, I really did. But it's just not that good. There's some good parts here and there, but I have enjoyed a lot more Tarantino movies, like Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill vol 1&2, and Pulp Fiction.

[heirofstalin]

Maybe I would have liked it to be an attack and not a "self-parody", which to me is as valid as a hipster wearing a t-shirt with a picture of an old cartoon to be "ironic": people who want to watch dumb acton flicks can go right ahead, just don't come to me saying that very same junk food is marvellous because you're ashamed.
"revenge fantasy"? by setting his film in WWII he automatically exploits all the tragedy and horror.

i agree, it was another hollywood whitewash of WWII, so shameless in its deciet and revision of history. It is sums up all that is wrong with modern day media and the nasty portrayal of war and suffering.

By making the jews the killer of hitler they were implying that jews were the only rightful killers of that man, when so many others suffered, 80 million to be precise. at his hands.

whereas only "6 million" of the jews were "gassed", and even that is disputed by neutral archeologists and historians, the ones that arent funded by holocaust museums and israel and international banks.

[Sasha]

whereas only "6 million" of the jews were "gassed", and even that is disputed by neutral archeologists and historians, the ones that arent funded by holocaust museums and israel and international banks.

enjoy your ban

[Sir Comradical]

Too violent for me. Yeah, go ahead and laugh.

:(

[Blackburn]

I liked it.

Sure, it was the typical American rewrite to make them the focus of WW2, and to make it look like the single handedly won the war...

but I still liked it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Sure, it was the typical American rewrite to make them the focus of WW2, and to make it look like the single handedly won the war...
Yeah, that was kinda the joke. :confused:

It really is amazing how many people didn't even begin to understand this movie. It's not exactly like Tarantino is making dense, highly intellectual stuff, here, he dumps all this right out in the open.

[Magón]

I wanted to like Inglorious Basterds, I really did. But it's just not that good. There's some good parts here and there, but I have enjoyed a lot more Tarantino movies, like Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill vol 1&2, and Pulp Fiction.

This might just be my gear head side talking, but I thought Tarantino's Death Proof (Grindhouse), was much better than Kill Bill Vol. 2.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

This might just be my gear head side talking, but I thought Tarantino's Death Proof (Grindhouse), was much better than Kill Bill Vol. 2.
I don't blame you. I didn't enjoy Vol 2 as much as Vol 1.