Customer Reviews

Inglourious Basterds (Two-Disc Special Edition)

5 star:		(214)
4 star:		(91)
3 star:		(62)
2 star:		(59)
1 star:		(102)

 

 

This is just a review of the Blu-Ray "2 Disc Special Edition" since there are plenty of reviews of the movie itself by reviewers far more qualified than I.

The video and sound quality is excellent and I have no complaints about that. But I have to give this 4 stars instead of 5, because, I just don't get some of the "marketing lingo" on this package:

* This version does NOT include a running commentary. None at all (not director, not actors, not cinematographer, nothing). To me this is really odd -- it seems that almost all DVDs released in the last 10 years have had some sort of commentary track. Especially with a Tarantino movie, this seems like something you really WANT to have.
* I think this is the only Blu-ray version available right now. It includes the "digital copy" but that is just a lower-res copy of a movie with DRM, nothing wrong with getting that with it, but that is one of the TWO discs in the "Special Edition"
* If this is the only one available, and it doesn't include stuff like a commentary, what makes the Marketing people put the "Special Edition" tag on it? I guess because it comes with the low-res copy, see previous item...
* Other info on the package is misleading too. It says under "Additional Features:" "The original Inglorious Bastards." This might lead one to conclude that it includes the original movie (and there would be plenty of room for an SD copy of a movie on a Blu-ray disk. This feature is just a 10-minute summary of the movie and discusses it's relation to the new movie. A nice feature worth watching, but I think the way it is named as a feature is misleading.
* Minor thing: They put a sticker about "Includes Digital Copy" on the metallic-printed cardboard sleeve. When you take off the sticker, it removes part of the metallic printing. I know these sleeves are only meant to make the product look nice and flashy and get your attention when it's on a store shelf. But for those of us that like to keep these, it was annoying the way it was stickered. If they put the sticker on the outer plastic shrink-wrap this wouldn't be a problem.

Still a great movie and I'm glad I got the disc. Giving it 4 of 5 because of the questionable "Special-ness" of the Edition.

This movie is really pretty outstanding. The opening scene is intense, frightening, shocking, and appauling all at once, and it sets up the entire film perfectly. I really had no expectations for this movie because I had read so many mixed reviews and none of them really said anything, so I actually thought this was a really good movie although a bit drawn out. The film is artfully done beautifully shot and extremely well acted.

Now here's why you may not like this quite as much as I did and why my wife absolutely HATED it.

What most expected from this movie:
1- Gore, action, and more gore and more action
2- A story that follows the Basterds as they wreak havoc on Hitler's army
3- Maybe a few subtitles as the film does take place in France after all
4- Classic Quentin Tarantino comedic dialogue

What the film actually is:
1- A character driven story HEAVY on dialogue and other than the last 20 minutes extremely light on action with a couple pretty graphic gory bits tossed in. The last 20 minutes is extremely graphic and violent.
2- The story largely follows the young Jewish girl/woman who escapes the opening scene. The Basterds are just kind of there as an afterthought because they are planning to blow up the same theater.
3- This film is conservatively speaking about 80% subtitled and spoken either in German or French.
4- The only part that is really funny (and it is hilarious) is Brad Pitt "speaking" Italian so poorly that Helen Keller could have picked him out as the American in the crowd.

I've read negative reviews about how this film is "war porn" and diminishes U.S. veterans in some way, but this couldn't be further from the truth. First of all this film is pure fiction that just happens to take place during WWII in France. Nothing depicted in this film is based in any way on fact. It is a complete fantasy of what could have possibly happened if Hitler and all the Nazi upper echelon had all decided to go to a jewish owned movie theater to watch a propaganda film.

Overall it is an extremely well made film that does just about everything well. It is a little bit drawn out at over 2.5 hours but like I said it is very well done and the acting is superb. 4.5 stars. I'd recommend it but be sure to have an open mind.

***Update***
My wife wants to watch it again. She thinks that maybe due to the fact that we started this at about 2:00 am might have had an effect on her opinion. We'll see. For me personally after a second viewing I like it even more.

At the end of the film, Pitt states "I think this may be my masterpiece" (or something to that nature) and in regards to Tarantino and his directorial efforts, I think that statement may apply here (however, not in regards to Brad Pitt who, sadly, is that acting `weak link' in this film). Yes, Tarantino will have legions of fans bickering in rabid fashion over which gargantuan cult classic is the best (most will cheer for `Pulp Fiction', some `Kill Bill' and, until I saw this film, I was all about `Reservoir Dogs') but at the end of the day, when you stack everything back to back to back, his latest effort makes it very clear that he has learned and certainly grown as a director over the course of his career.

This film is nearly perfect.

I could go on all day dissecting this film and layer my review with countless praise-littered sentiments, but I'm going to try and refrain, just a little.

I'm often told I'm a tad longwinded.

The story itself is a fabricated fantasy piece set in the times of the Nazi regime where Tarantino has a group of violence-fascinated `Nazi Killers' waging war with a `Jew Hunter' and his reign of terror. They aren't alone in their mission of hate-filled executions though. At the films outset we are introduced to Landa, the `Jew Hunter', as he slaughters a Jewish family taking refuge in another man's home. One of the family members, a young girl, escapes. She in turn, years later, is presented with a rare opportunity that she cannot let slip through her fingers; revenge.

The film never once appears lacking in rich Tarantino style, but it also carries with it a layer of sophistication that is not found in most of his work. It is more polished; crisper if you will. While some will balk at my statement and point out that `Pulp Fiction' itself is `sophisticated' (an assessment I will stand behind), I feel compelled to point out that while I love both films, this latest entry in the Tarantino roster surely shows much maturing since Tarantino's 90's heyday. The narrative flow feels far less like a gimmick (yes, that is an accusation made against `Pulp Fiction', and one that bares some truth) and more like a fully fleshed out plot piece. And while Tarantino has shown great visual flare in many of his films, especially his `Kill Bill' epic, he has never exuded so much class into his visual opuses as he does here. Just look at the opening sequence. It is breathtakingly staged, brilliantly acted and flawlessly captured. The visual is fresh, rich and certainly eye-catching, but it isn't over-the-top. The spectacle of it all doesn't take away from the seriousness of it all. There is the tension, the dread, the emotional gut punch; not to mention the perfectly times flares of humor that take the scene to a whole new level. In fact, that opening sequence should be preserved in a room for all struggling artists to venture when needing inspiration (that and the opening sequence to Fincher's `The Social Network'). It is a brilliant and inspired way to open a film, setting the tone effortlessly and inviting us (or should I say CONVINCING US) to walk right alongside Tarantino for the entire journey.

Oh lord; I am getting longwinded, aren't I?

I wanted to touch upon the acting, because as an ensemble it really does shine (and Christoph Waltz's Oscar win was VERY deserved). Yes, Pitt is here and he is decent but he is also a tad overdone and certainly the films weakest performance. In fact, Fassbender has a VERY short scene and yet he acts circles around anything Pitt does, adding an entire back-story to his devilishly charming grin. That said; Waltz is just phenomenal, layering Landa with so much unintentional wit that you can't help but totally `get this guy'. Sure, he's a creep, but you want him around. Besides, Waltz really understood how to work with his fellow actors. He plays off of them in each and every scene, and it actually boosts the performances of the entire cast. In fact, some of the best moments come from other actors working off of Waltz's presence. The other GIGANTIC standout here is Melanie Laurent. She is mesmerizing here, and totally nails the inner tension that presents itself in her character. She is not only stunning (seriously, gorgeous to look at) but she embodies the films moral core (yes, it has one) and exudes a sense of profound entitlement that I think is necessary to accepting the film as more than torture-porn.

There is a method to Tarantino's madness, and Laurent holds the key.

In the end I'm totally in this films corner. It really should have swept at the Oscars (at least when you consider the films it was nominated against). This film is far more entertaining, creative, stylistic, memorable and profound than James Cameron's opus of gigantic smurf people and their protests to `save the planet'.

The DVD arrived with a Digital Copy as advertised, but missing the insert with the activation code. Without the code you can't make a digital copy. I returned the discs and received a replacement, but that too was missing the insert! I just spoke to Amazon customer service and was informed that the digital copy capability expired in 2010. That would have been nice to know before I purchased the DVD! But there is no indication of this on the product page which still advertises a 2 disc special edition!

Well, I think other reviewers have already done a terrific job discussing the story and numerous movie references in Quentin Tarantino's latest film "Inglourious Basterds," so I will make my review brief. The real star of "Inglourious Basterds" is neither Brad Pitt nor Diane Kruger. It is Christoph Waltz as COL. Hans Landa, whose great performance deserves its own film.

From the moment he steps into a farmer's house in occupied France (very intense Chapter 1, the best part of the film), we know Tarantino made a right choice. When the film is not boring, his character - smooth-talking, cunning and chilling - is always there. (Almost equally great is Michael Fassbender and the gripping basement scene involving his LT. Archie Hicox should not be missed.)

Probably those who have seen his "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" must know what is coming in Tarantino's take of a WWII-revenge story set in alternate Europe. Lots of violence have become a kind of trademark of the director (and I personally don't think it is a bad thing for any director), but the violence in his previous movies has never been tasteless like this. Scalping? Hitting a defenseless man with a bat? Surely cinema wins the war, but in a very inglourious way.

This brings me back to where I started: Christoph Waltz. I can forget the tedious dialogues, pointless movie references (Brad Pitt as Aldo "Raine"?) and the presence of wooden Eli Roth, but not the ending which I strongly disagree with. See what happens to the best (and obviously cleverest) character in the film, and you know what I mean. But after all, this is a Brad Pitt film.

Quentin Tarantino is all about the gimmick now. While PULP FICTION was an original, mazelike movie with memorable characters and KILL BILL VOL.1 was the perfect grindhouse kung fu revenge film (modernized for today's audience), everything else he's done feels either half-baked, self-congratulatory, incomplete, or all of the above. I think that in most of his dialogue-driven films (JACKIE BROWN, KILL BILL VOL. 2, DEATH PROOF, and this film INGLORIOUS BASTERDS), Tarantino THINKS he knows how certain people talk. I know that it's supposed to be "his vision" and "just a movie", but there still has to be something for the audience to connect to as it's going on. In most of his films, I feel no connection. And that is definitely true of this film INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS gets off to a promising start introducing us to the despicable Jew Hunter Colonel Hans Landa (played brilliantly by Oscar frontrunner Christoph Waltz) and his interrogation of a French farmer. This tense scene effectively touches upon the evil that was Nazism, especially it's conclusion. Then, the movie falls apart immediately with, ironically, the introduction of the title characters! The Basterd unit, led by Brad Pitt (in a seriocomic role playing Sgt. Aldo Raine) are too distant to the viewer and we get absolutely no handle on what any of them is about, except for perhaps Hugo Stiglitz, but even his intro and backstory is muzzled by Tarantino's self-congratulation by using out-of-place elements from his other films (odd 70s-style subtitles and narration).

There's been a lot of buzz about a second scene in a basement of a Paris bar where a showdown between some of the Basterds and German soldiers occurs. It's a well executed scene, but drags on for way too long and is really devoid of any of the depth or provocation that Tarantino displayed in similarly long scenes in PULP FICTION. The whole time this scene was going on, I was like, "What's the point?!" And after the climax of the scene, we are left with one surviving character (the most annoying of the scene) that we are supposed to empathize with, but all his droning and whining just makes me glad of what actually happened to him. I wish more characters in this were treated to a fitting end to get them out of this mess of a film.

The most interesting characters are the two main females French-Jewish refugee Shosanna Dreyfuss (heartbreaking Melainie Laurent, whose character is the core of the film) and crafty double-agent German actress Bridget von Hammersmark (sexy Diane Kruger, the second best character in the film behind Hans Landa). While INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS certainly has some good characters in it in addition to the aforementioned ones, they are all trapped in a rather messy film with too much dialogue and in scenes that go absolutely nowhere. Tarantino really lets loose with his histrionics and weirdness in the painfully dull, long, tedious final act.

While the odd, over-the-top final act (with a tacked-on ending) is my biggest complaint with the film, the film overall feels very disconnected and incomplete; the viewer can't connect with the characters due to the overemphasis on talking; they all feel like set pieces, rather than real people. Tarantino has good ideas and executes SOME of them well (esp. the opening scene, which actually has some depth and believability), but steps on his own toes so much that he ends up screwing up his own film. With 70s title threads, jive-talking narrators, music stolen from his previous films (which he already stole from other films!), an idiotic interpretation of Hitler and his falling regime, and even the equivalent of an 80s music video, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS plays like one of Tarantino's dreams (or nightmares if you prefer).

I will give a 'reading' of this film as briefly as I can. I can't believe I'll spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but maybe at least some who have seen it will re-consider their assessment. I found Inglourious Basterds to be one long cinematic joke--an ironic joke. Nothing in this movie should be interpreted without considering that Tarantino wants you to understand you're watching a movie. The problem is that many people who watch movies don't think about the fact they're watching one, or forget they're watching one. Tarantino wants you to be aware of this--what better way than to create some very "bad" cinematic moments? IN other words, this movie is a satire of movie convention. I think that is why there are a number of 'sitting around the table' scenes that are are very long and tedious. They are not meant to be believable as cinematic art because if they were they would be defeating the purpose of the film. They're artifice and the best way to demonstrate artifice is to point it out directly. Goddard did this when he filmed light cables that threaded their way through a mise en scene right where the actors were performing. Tarantino does it here by creating both utter cliches and utterly 'bad' filmmaking. That a German officer would speak perfect French to a French farmer, then stops, says he has limited French-speaking abilities, and then speaks in English to the French farmer who happens to speak English is pretty goofy, and it's boring. But It's meant to be. When a Nazi hunter doesn't order his men who are sitting around a jeep to run down and kill a Jewish girl while she is running through the countryside--and instead had a grin on his face is equally absurd--the suggestion is that they will meet again one day. How does he know this? Because it's a movie.

But that's OK, because we're not seeing an attempt to create a cinematic version or interpretation of historical events because all such movies are fabrications. All movies are fabrications, of course, and Tarantino is trying to remind the viewers of the fact. We are seeing an exercise in how a filmmaker controls what goes into the art. If Tarantino wants to create a bad scene, then he does so. It's as if he were saying, "I'm so in command of the grammar of cinema that I I'll make this scene too long, contrived, cliched, dull, etc., just to show I know the good and bad aspects of cinema.

He even has one actor, Mike Myers, play a cliched version of his own cliched actor's persona. He's not portraying a British officer. He's portraying Mike Myers. The range of jokes in the film go from the sublime to the ridiculous, the latter evident when Brad Pitt tries to fake an Italian accent at a gathering of SS officers. That is straight out of The Three Stooges or Mel Brooks. Additionally, the alteration of the Nazi sniper spy movie and the subsequent flames leaping around the movie screen have all the production values of an Ed Wood movie. You don't see "Plan 9 from Outer Space" because it's a good movie. You see it because it's a bad movie, although you might say it's so bad that it's good.

I'm not suggesting that I'm a Tarantino fan. I really don't care what movies he makes or why. I haven't seen "Kill Bill" which I believe he directed. This stuff isn't rocket science, so I wouldn't use such words as 'genuis' or 'brilliant.' But at least it's a change of pace from the usual Hollywood garbage.

You could take every scene and shot, and about every line of dialogue from this film and find a meta-communicative aspect. That's why it would be way too tedious to truly critique the film. It would take a thousand pages or so. But you get the idea. Now go find a few 'bad jokes' of your own if you have the inclination. BTW, what better way to show the artifice of film titles, and in particular, the way titles of films are used to stand out as a form of a film's PR than to misspell one?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....so they say! I guess this applies to movies as well. While many may claim this is a great movie I digress otherwise. It's slow paced, poorly acted, and comes across as being somewhat pretentious. The only part of this movie that I did enjoy was the part played by Diane Kruger (Troy)and the twist of her character's appearance. Other than that this movie is one that should be placed on life support. Tarantino's only GOOD movie was "Pulp Fiction" which is a classic. This stinker is no where close to being a good movie let alone a classic.

Inglorious Bastards does a lot right. The scene work, character, and dialog are all top notch. The main problem is that there are at least 3 distinct stories being told, all loosely tied together that don't come together in any meaningful way.

The single disc DVD release is very disappointing. Almost NO special features. Boo! Rent it, don't buy it if you're into special features on DVDs.

Caution: Might Be A Spoiler Review.

Movie Cons:
1) If you don't like really violent scenes, I'd suggest fast-forwarding through them. They're a bit much, in my opinion. I get that it's a Q.T. film but it's always just above and beyond gross.
2) If you go cross-eyes reading subtitles, this may be really challenging.
3) If you have issues with violence towards women, this may bother you.
4) Man, does it twist with WW2 history. Big time. And it is so off with the time-line of early June 1944.
5) A major plot development is never fully explained. How DOES she end up with that movie theater anyway?

Pros:
1)Those caveats aside, this is a really well done film, beautifully shot. Lighting and scenes, set dressing, costumes etc. are really outstanding. I believe they may have made one mistake with the British officer's uniform but that's a small detail. I liked the pacing of the film especially. It really is a character study with adventure and gore thrown in.

2) Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa is simply amazing!! He is so charmingly creepy that I felt like I was being ensnared, undressed and hung out to dry in a slime pit. The first scene is so taut that I had to stop the DVD and breath a bit. You know it's NOT going to end nicely but still, I was riveted. It wasn't over-paced either. Perfect. Funny thing is, I felt watching Mr. Waltz' performance that he probably is a great guy in "real" life. I'd put him down as one of the great film villains!

3) Brad Pitt is handsome and wise-cracking with an accent you could cut concrete with. I'm not a fan of his but he was great!

4) The two lead females are talented and gorgeous. If you wonder why Diane Kruger looks familiar, she was in the National Treasure movies. And she must speak a bunch of languages because her accents (to me) were excellent!

5) If you're multi-lingual and want to brush up on your French, German and Italian, it's great practice!

6) The casting is brilliant, well-done!

I would recommend this movie highly, but if you're squeamish at all, fast forward when the knives, guns and baseball bats come out.