I think if people are coming out of this movie disappointed (which I'm sure they are), the problem is more with the way that Tarantino has been talking about it and the marketing than with the movie itself. Tarantino has spent years talking Inglourious Basterds up as his "guys on a mission" movie -- and it isn't. At all. The stuff with Brad Pitt and the Basterds doesn't amount to much more than a subplot, and what is there doesn't really resemble stuff like the Dirty Dozen that supposedly inspired QT. And of course the ads have been making it out to be an action movie starring Brad Pitt. Which it isn't.

But once you get past what it isn't, and realize what it is, I think it's actually a really good movie. Certainly leaps and bounds above the mediocre Death Proof, and more in line with his quality stuff like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I thought the opening scene with the Jew Hunter and the dairy farmer was pretty much riveting, and right up there with the best of Tarantino. Once you realize that most of the suspense is going to come from the nuances of the many conversations, and not from overt action, the movie is actually pretty darn good. Or so I thought, at least.

Also, the whole last sequence in the theatre was pretty much awesome.

His latest films feel like circle jerks for other movie directors.

I think that's become such a trite criticism for Tarantino, something that people pull out by default when they want to put the man down because it's easy and so many other people have done it. I mean, Tarantino has certainly said how influenced he was by "man on a mission" films when making Inglouious Basterds, but in the end, does it feel like any "man on a mission" film you've ever seen? What film, in particular, does it seem like he's ripping off here? Or director? Tarantino wears his influences on his sleeve, sure, but he generally ends up using those influences to come up with something fairly unique (with the possible exception of Kill Bill Vol. 1, which was still about a million times better than most of the schlocky kung-fu films that inspired him).

It may well be that he wears his influences on his sleeve but on the whole they seem a bit capricious. His film is, I will agree with you, unique. But that doesn't salvage it from the un-polished feel and the stilted overused Tarantino movie regularities like the nicknames. Nearly every fucking character in the movie had a little 'what they call him' intro where Samuel L Jackson voiced over background info on this new person the audience was meeting. I'd be impressed if he grew a little as a writer and didnt need to side track the story just to intro a character. As it stands, it's still a so-so movie and his originality was undeniably lacking.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but if it's anything like Deathproof, I'll pass. The long ass dialog scenes punctuated by quick vignettes of action quickly grew stale for me. Somewhere he got the ratio backwards; at most a 50/50 mix.

Well, agree to disagree I guess -- I liked the introductory interludes, and thought that the film felt fairly original and certainly held my interest the entire time. The performances were definitely above average (important for a film like this), and a lot of Tarantino's dialogue is more interesting and generates more suspense than many other directors' action scenes.

And videosiftbannedme -- I agree about Death Proof. This is a much better film.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I liked it a lot. Definitely not what I was expecting from Tarantino. Loved that most of the movie was not in English, how much of the plot was about language - and that they were forced to cast multiple polyglots for major roles!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Also, for people who didn't like the copious amounts of dialog - I suggest you take a break from first person shooters to help you enjoy the true pleasures of a good movie. It's not about explosions and CGI.

[/grumpy old man]

Yeah, sorry JiggaJonson - I haven't enjoyed a Tarantino film as much as this since Pulp Fiction. Your major criticism appears to be that there wasn't enough killing in it, which doesn't even warrant a response. "Oh, and they talked all the time! I hate movies that require my conscious thought!" You'd prefer mindless killing, no subplots and constant attention to Brad Pitt? Not the film, nor the director, for you.

I found the plot riveting, fast enough to keep me interested but leisurely enough to explore the characters in some depth. The Jew Hunter's dialogue and performance was simply inspired!

After the disappointment of Death Proof, this is a very welcome return for Tarantino - all plaudits are deserved.

>> ^kymbos:


well I did say "Now that isn't to say I'm a fan of action films where it's simply blood and guts" and I'm not, I just wanted more character development on who I considered to be the main character. The whole movie bounced around erratically from person to person until you didn't know where the thread that tied it all together was.

The Jew Killer character and the woman who owned the theater would have made better sense as main characters. They are in a way, but again it's hard to pin down who the story is really focused on, this is the lack of polish i describe. I would have much preferred a story that centered on the relationship and revenge plot of those two over tossing the 'Basterds' into the mix. The final product was pretentious.

So more character development would have been achieved by more scalping? I don't think so. Tarantino's approach of cutting between major characters to tell the story is one he used to great effect in Pulp Fiction, but this time with fewer characters. Their stories intersect and build to the finale. And I believe the thread tying it all together was killing Nazis - specifically Hitler.

Unfortunately, I don't see how your arguments support your final assessment of the film being pretentious, and I tend to agree with Sarzy about trite criticisms and default positions with regard to Tarantino. I really think he is the most ambitious and creative director of the modern era, and I'm so glad to see he hasn't disappeared completely up his own arse.

Having read your take before going to see it last night, I expected hardly any violence and action. I was instead surprised by how much graphic violence and murder there was. I can't guess as to how many deaths would have satisfied you.