HuffPost Review: Inglourious Basterds
We had a sneak preview of Quentin Tarantino's new film, Inglourious Basterds, last week at the Museum. The screening was introduced by Harvey Weinstein, and Tarantino hosted a Q&A after the film joined by Melanie Laurent, the female lead.
I will confess that I was nervous about this screening given the nature of our audience and the distinct possibility that some might have come to see the film thinking it was a serious movie about a serious history. Well, it's not. I had seen the movie several weeks ago in a mid-town screening room. It is, in parts, stunningly violent, and it departs from historical fact in both intended and unintended ways.
By now, most people are aware of its premise: a rag-tag group of Jewish soldiers are dropped into occupied France to kill -- and scalp -- Nazis in dramatically violent ways. The denouement involves the kind of revenge that some people dream about: A movie theater filled with Nazi leaders and the German High Command that is.... well, I won't spoil it.
Now, we were careful to warn everyone about the explicit violence and the fantasy nature of the film, but nevertheless, as I scanned the faces of the audience as they arrived at the Museum, I was concerned.
My worries were misplaced. With one or two exceptions, the audience remained throughout the screening, and the general reaction to the film was overwhelmingly positive. I think Inglourious Basterds has every prospect of becoming a sensational success. It is brilliantly acted, with sharp and intelligent dialogue, and is chock full of subtle --and not so subtle-- film allusions. I also think that it will attract its share of criticism from those who will claim that it trivializes the Holocaust, champions revenge at the expense of morality, and devalues historical truth.
Harvey Weinstein anticipated such criticism in his introduction to the screening by saying the first words of the film are, "Once upon a time," emphasizing its fable-like character. And Quentin Tarantino responded to one critic during the Q&A by saying, "It's a war movie, dude." For my part, I am perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief -- and perhaps some of my better judgment -- in the face of such a thoroughly entertaining and well-made movie.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is still the only HuffPost review of "Inglourious Basterds?!"
IB was an overrated, overpromoted Brad Pitt/Tarantino gorefest. Reality Tv meets Tarantino. If Tarantino wanted to do the sequel to this movie he would just need to hire Spencer Spratt who could go on and on about his love life too during the promotions for the movie, and make it all about southern hillbilly (who sounds like an Australian) for some reason wanting to k.ill rebels in Rwanda with a hot babe and lots of blood splatters. Its meaningless entertainment for people who don't like thinking too deeply
Was entertaining but I have a few critiques
1.) Too long
2.) Talky way too talky and much of it was pointless almost like a serious nod to old film versions
3.) Lander's accent faded in and out of different dialects, not sure if this was intended or what......
4.) It was a little too spoofy, could have been tightened up a bit.
5.) Mike Myers part was almost a bad skit from SNL.
I consider myself to be the perfect age to have appreciated Tarantino's career thus far. I first experienced Reservoir Dogs at a highschool party at age 14. I was mesmerized by the cinematography, soundtrack, violence and wit, but found it to be more a spectacle than a story.
Later that year, I drove thirty miles to see Pulp Fiction in an indie theater. I have to say that at that point my critical appreciation of art, music and film was lacking. I can thank this movie for opening my eyes to what true art could be.
I am thirty now and over my adult life no director has had more of an impact on cinema than Tarantino. Inglorious Basterds is magnificent and amazingly human. No one does dialogue like Quentin and the tension is built through dialogue and subtle acting cues. I dont expect everyone to like it, but for those of us that have grown up on Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds is another masterpiece of entertainment.
The film is way too long, pointlessly and endlessly talky, historically out to lunch (even to a more ludicrous degree than one would expect), and the "basterds" (we don't even get to know them) are not really in the film all that much. Finally, their cruelty is on par with that of the worst Nazis. I know this is a revenge fantasy, but I can not root for a bunch of psychopaths who love to torture, no matter what side they're on.
>>I can not root for a bunch of psychopaths who love to torture,
>>no matter what side they're on.
Fine one-sentence review of IB... and of Tarantino.
That's good, Niet, because it sure looked that way. Hee, he
I was unimpressed. Not that I'm a huge Pitt fan, but his role was essentially a cameo.
75% English subtitled German, French and Italian. Not that subtitled films are beneath me. It's just that the way I process info my brain switches gears to read the dialogue, then back to watching the scene. I feel as though I've missed subtle points of mood and whatnot for the scene. I feel a little bit "behind," I guess.
That's more my problem than the films, but I wonder why almost no one mentioned in reviews??? Hmmmm... ;)
I dislike the "revisionist" history involved. Not in the overall plot because hey, who wouldn't have wanted to do THAT to end the war early? My problem is with the depiction of the J e w i s h characters as just as gleefully violent as the N a z i s.
All that said, it wasn't a total loss. Christopher Waltz as Col. Landa steals the entire film. If there is no Oscar in his future for this film then there is no justice. He is, quite frankly, just about the only reason to pay to see it.
People talk about "ending the war early." Well, gee, I suppose we could have burned Saddam alive without a trial and we';d be out of Iraq by now, huh?
As well, that ignores the fact that there were two other countries that the Allies were at war with. Remember where the term Axis came from?
"People talk about "ending the war early." Well, gee, I suppose we could have burned Saddam alive without a trial and we';d be out of Iraq by now, huh?"
If H i t l e r and the others named in the film had all been eliminated in one fell swoop, it is very likely that the war would have ended.
Unless you think, as with Iraq, there would have been some sort of German insurgency (Which is what our problem in Iraq is at the moment.) If that's what you believe I challenge you to back that up because, out of reams of material dissecting the war over the decades there's little to nothing to back up the notion.
Moussolini depended upon the Reich's power. Italy had nowhere near the infrastructure necessary to take the mantle as the sole aggressor in Europe. He also would not have been able to somehow seize the power vacuum in Germany because he wasn't particularly well liked by the Germans for one thing.
Japan was part of the "Axis" largely in name only. They committed almost nothing to Europe. All they cared about was the Pacific theatre. The Allies were pressing a two-front war as far as that goes. Ending those men in Europe would've ended the war in Europe.
And that's all I meant.
This movie is trash. In a time when most people under the age of 30 don't even know who Hitler is, here is "entertainment" that insults all of our ancestors who endured this nightmare. I am insulted for my grandparents and I am insulted for the men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis to defend the USA. This movide makes all the accurate movies that have come before it look much more trivial as well. "Schindler's List" was the last great movie about the horrors of WW2 that comes to my mind. Tarantino and his actors should apologize to our military people and the victims of WW2, both direct and circumstantial, for trivializing their pain and heartbreak. This movie should have at both the start and end a 20 second frame saying "this story is not based on fact except in general terms." Then you can walk out and ask for your money back if you don't want to waste your time on a "story".
Oh!!! Poor lil' babe! Sad face? ;(
"This movie should have at both the start and end a 20 second frame saying "this story is not based on fact except in general terms."
That was understood before the movie was released. I don't think it trivializes what happened to Jews during WW2. If anything, its gratifying for an American of any nationality to see nazis get their comeuppance--especially in the hands of pi**ed off American Jews.
I've seen Schindler's List and much real footage of helpless Jews in concentration camps. Any human being with an ounce of humanity is appalled by that whether they are Jewish or not. What's wrong with imagining the shoe on the other foot and seeing the nazis helpless for a change--even if its not real?
"What's wrong with imagining the shoe on the other foot and seeing the nazis helpless for a change--even if its not real?"
Because it;'s imagining the shoe on the other foot. What would you think of, say "Inglorious Iraqis," in which relatives of the victims of Abu Ghraib cause murder and mayhem in the US? Celebrating violence by anyone as righteous is disgusting.
Best movie of the year!
Best movie I've seen all year.
I saw it today and enjoyed it.
What surprised me is that Pitt and the American actors aren't the main stars of the film and really only have supporting roles. Most of the screen time is taken up by Melanie Laurent, Diane Druger, and the main star of the movie, Christoph Waltz (who WILL be nominated in the best actor category; Pitt should be nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category).
A war movie should be an ACTION movie. ESPECIALLY a remake of IB.
This movie was boring. Too much dialogue. Brad Pitt spends 100% of the movie -I kid you not- just standing around talking.
None of the "good guys" are likable, other than a few bits of comic relief. We are only shown extreme violence on those we hate.
I'm older now so I'm more concerned if it extreme hate fantasies like this make the world uglier and meaner.
Anyhow I'll take the original IB over this!
This was the best film this year and in years from Hollywood.
The violence is nothing compared to Saving Private Ryan. There is maybe 15-20 minutes.
The film is not about revenge. It's simply not. It may look like it on the surface. But it's not.
It is about how human the Nazis were. Not in a way to make you feel like you understand where they were coming from and to sympathize with their side. No. They were humanized in a way to show that these people were just like you and me... full of life... full of humor... looking for happiness and love... proud. They were not monsters that lost their minds. They were you and me if we decided this moment to take over the world and murder an entire race of people.
The greatest evil of the Nazis is that they were murdering the world while enjoying life in every way you and I do every day.
This is not an exploitation film. It is a masterpiece. It is about a fantasy confrontation between Nazis and Jews and yes the Jews do exact revenge on the Nazis in this film. But that is just the window dressing.
Maybe might watch this film and come away thinking that this was not about anything more than revenge. But that is because the film doesn't hit you over the head with it's real theme. It's simply shows you the truth in the midst of this revenge story.
nah.
succinct, and correct.
As a historian, I have no problem with Mr. Tarantino making up a story from whole cloth for his "homage". The sad thing for me is that many significant, heroic actions of that war get lost in the shuffle. Last year I ran into a retired Chief Gunner's Mate who served aboard USS California(BB-44) from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day. He received two Bronze Stars for his valor during the Battles of Surigao Straits and Lingayen Gulf. For me, the testament to US forces of Valor under extreme circumstances are best exemplified in THIS action where 7 destroyers and 5 escort carriers engaged Adm Kurita's Center force of 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers and 12 destroyers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
Including the actions of this one particular ship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Johnston_(DD-557)
Yet it's a story that's never been told cinematically. It was papered over immediately after the fact to cover Adm. William Halsey's gross dereliction of duty. But then, I guess the Nazis are the only "acceptable" villains left.
I watched a History Channel program about this battle. Just incredible bravery on the part of those Navy crews, and ,yes, it would make for a gripping film.
Spielberg's doing a pointless remake of the wonderful "Harvey," when he could be telling epic stories like these.
absolutely correct.
I agree it is a great story. Especially since the men who were so brave were the commanders of the smaller "jeep" carriers who were considered the second class in the navy. But Spielberg? Please spare me. Did you see Saving Private Ryan? On the one hand the absolute most accurate recreation of WWII battle I've ever seen but the plot and characters and acting (more like mugging, talking to you Tom Hanks) were standard Spielberg 2 dimensional schmaltz.
I have my own ideas about heroes in various wars who would make excellent subjects for movies, although probably not in Hollywood.
Ishmael1...GREAT POST!......I noted earlier here....has there ever really been a great film concerning the Pacific theater of WW2? They all seem to have their limitations -particularly to those of us familiar with the conflagration -and, all the documentary footage available -all of which seems so beyond what Hollywood has ever come up with.....With The Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa -thats the film I would like to see Tarantino tackle -it would make for a great horor film......As for Bull Halsey -there were many critics of Raymond Spruance -how conservative he was in battle -as he annihilated the Japanese Carrier fleet at Midway and then their airforce at Saipan......time gives us the clarity to see why he was Nimitz's go to admiral -not the hot head -but the guy with ice water flowing through his veins- he never lost a battle nor endangered his men -as Halsey did with his blunder at Leyte-
I think its kind of extreme to say that Halsey was derelict in his duty but I agree Spruance was definitely the better admiral. As you point out he was criticized by so many people for not being more aggressive at Leyte but with hindsight we can see that he was really the better commander. Even though he didn't sink the Japanese carriers his conservative strategy protected the invasion force and also caused the Japanese to essentially loose the majority of their remaining aircraft, and carriers without planes are pretty useless.
I agree with most of your comment. Its reinforced even more by Brad Pitt's recent statement that this movie was essentially the end of all WWII movies, that Tarantino had said all that can be said about that war. This movie may be a diverting bit of entertainment but the idea that its all that can be said about that war is laughable.
My one disagreement is saying that Halsey showed dereliction of duty in that battle. I think Halsey definitely showed poor judgement but understandable poor judgement. In a previous battle Admiral Spruance had displayed proper judgement and caution by not doing what Halsey did. Rather than being drawn off to try and sink the Japanese fleet he kept his ships near the beach defending the invasion force. For that Spruance was roundly criticized for being too cautious. Halsey was working in that atmosphere where the Navy was salivating for a knock out blow to sink the remaining Japanese fleet and as a result he fell for the Japanese feint and went after aircraft carriers that were already essentially nutered since they had no planes. In retrospect now we can see that Spruance was right and Halsey was wrong but its too harsh to say Halsey was somehow derelict in his duty. He was being his normal, aggressive self. That personality won a lot of victories for the US but in this instant caused him to blunder.
I dont disagree with this-
I could and probably should elaborate -Halsey was there for us when the chips were down -no doubt and was a major factor in the not always certain victory at Guadalcanal -btw RedDogBear -have you gotten to the great revisionist book on Midway -Shattered Sword? Fascinating, well researched new look at the destruction of Kido Butai-
Just got back from seeing the film. I thoroughly enjoyed it. At some parts, the dialog driven scenes seemed to drag along (as with all Tarantino films) but the pay off was worth it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
