Inglorious Basterds
FTF Boo Rating
User boos
Remember, 5 boos means you think it's the worst film you've ever seen.
Friend: Hey Matt, fancy coming to see the new Quentin Tarantino film by Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino did it?
Me: Yes please person who claims to be my friend, I’d love to see the new Quentin Tarantino film by Quentin Tarantino. I hear Quentin Tarantino did it.
Friend: Fantastic! Well what are we waiting for, let’s go and see the new Quentin Tarantino film by Quentin Tarantino, Quentin Tarantino definitely did it.
Me: Oh no wait, Quentin Tarantino, I’m sorry, I thought you said it was made by anyone other than Quentin Tarantino, my mistake. No, no I definitely do not want to see the new Quentin Tarantino film by Quentin Tarantino.
Friend: Why not!?
Matt: Quentin Tarantino did it.
Alas, this wasn’t the conversation I had. The conversation I had was shorter, two lines of script shorter. Unfortunately short scripting was not a problem that arose during the unbearable bastard of an experience that was inglorious basterds. Instead I was subjected to the longest shittest most boring script since the last time Tarantino decided to make a shit film that I was stupid enough to go and see.
Quentin Tarantino is an unspeakable cunt, I hate him all the way from his lumpy face to Uma Thurman’s man feet, but for the purposes of this review I’m going to try to ignore that fact and review this film as if it wasn’t made by that podophilic cunt hammer. Here are my problems:
- The film shouldn’t have been called “Inglorious Basterds” as the Inglorious Basterds weren’t actually in it. It should instead have been called “Cinema Film” as it was almost entirely about a cinema. I don’t really like the cinema, ideally I like the film I watch there to distract me from the fact I’m in one, so having the film I’m watching in the cinema being about a cinema was, and still is, shit.
- When people talk, people generally say things. That’s what talking is. The dialog in this film is barely equal in value to quacking or barking. You could have removed 80% of the dialog and it wouldn’t have affected the story at all.
- If you decide to make a self indulgent narcissistic shit festival of movie, you should make it short. I’m not saying don’t make it, I’m just saying make it short. It’s a fucking compromise is what it is. This film was 18 hours long. At one stage there was a scene that was so unbearably boring and long that I simply had to get away from it, so I went to get more popcorn (which I didn’t want), have a cigarette (I don’t even smoke), talk to some of the people who walked out (of which there were 23) and play a game of monopoly (which I won). On my return, the scene had thankfully almost ended.
- It had one good character in it. Brad Pitt was good, engaging, played his role well….and was hardly in the film.
I’m not going to list the rest of my problems, as I feel I’ve got my message across. And unlike that foot-jizzing hasbeen I know when to call it a fucking day.
—
Also, said Luc;
I’m sick and tired of Tarentino making his movies look like shit. I’m not talking cinematography, or lighting, but pre-school marketing techniques that a retarded rhesus monkey could follow, even after the experimentation. When your marketing department comes up with, and uses all over the adverts for the film, some wonderful typography, style and posters (that could, if the film hadn’t fucking stunk, been classics, hung on the walls of film school poseurs with no friends), how about you actually fucking use them?
There was a trick missed that even the most dried up of street hooker could have spotted, by not using the fonts and bold red paint strokes in the intro and credits (not that I stayed that long, Usain Bolt wouldn’t have beat me out of the cinema on that night) Tarentino immediately cheapens the experience. There’s a reason we don’t use 19 different fonts in 4 different colours in the credits – it’s called progress – they did it that way in the 70’s because no-one knew better. WE DO NOW YOU FUCKING HALFWIT.
I’m sure Tarentino has some good core ideas, but unless someone tells him to shut the fuck up after the first 30 seconds of his pitch, we’re constantly going to get over-hyped, tedious, drawn-out, self-aggrandising, masterbatory wish-fulfillment crap from a 12 year old with too much money and no-one around him with any fucking spine.
Comments
Many seemed impressed by the opening scene. I thought the “borrowing” directly from Leone/Moricone for scenery and music and mashing Moricone’s music with moonlight sonata(?) was below someone with Tarantino’s time in the director’s seat. It clumsy, obvious and uninspired, the scene following was solid but that was the only one in the whole film I can remember with any fondness or detail…
My fault with the marketing is presenting this as some homage to The Dirty Dozen. This film had no actors with any of the screen presence of the actors from that film – except maybe Jim Brown who is just HUGE. There were no Savalas, Bronsons, Marvins or Sutherlands in this production. The two stand outs were Pitt and Waltz and these still has none of the personality that character of those in the Dirty Dozen… Does this matter? I don’t know par for the course of modern filmmaking I guess…
The Jew bear, after a minutes build up to the anticlimax of the year, appears… he is neither huge, scary (was it being ironic?). I felt that if the Cohens had done this he would have been a giant or a midget, extreme or extremely ironic… Instead we just get Tarantino’s rentboy Eli Roach. Wow.
The bar scene is Tarantino trying to reproduce the shock value of the car crash climax half way through Deathproof. Except that he had really dull characters talk for too damn long before the inevitable flurry of violence occured. By which point the violence was just relief fromt he tedium of the film as it was – rather than a surprise or a climax…
It fails and I don’t care how clever critics think he was mashing Euro art film with action/Western/wateverer.
Most are just too scared to suggest the “genius” “enfant terrible” of pooping his drawers and asking Joe Public to pay to see it.
I’m a Tarantino fan less with each movie. Too much subtitled dialogue not enough nazi killing combat action. Great ending but fairly boring lead up.
Q.T is a cunt, i like some of his other movies but this i just couldn’t watch, 1 brad pitt was in it he can not act (what i think anyways) 2 i know its not supposed to be serious but their are so many damn WWII movies and to make a comedy out of such a piece of history were many people died jews and Germans, yes i am German and Native American i wasnt “offended” by the movie i just fucking hate brad pitts “acting” it makes me want to pay a Irish midget to kick me in the sack
This film was just so bullshit! Hitler only having two guards?!? A David Bowie song in a WW2 movie? That’s just two things that were plain ridiculous in this movie. Now I come to the Basterds. They were just that. They didn’t feel heroic or good at all. In fact in all honesty the Basterds made me feel sympathetic towards the Nazis. Imagine that!
Overall the movie had a poor plot, poor acting, and just a poor premise in general. I have no idea how this can be rated so highly among critics, and the fact it is one of the greatest movies of all time according to imdb is just saddening. I’ve never liked Tarentino. His movies have stupid unbelievable stories and they are always extremely overhyped. Unfortunately many of us get sucked in time and time again and regrettably and unhelpingly squander a good hour or two of our lives.
This is how the movie should have gone:
- Keep the first scene.
- Include massive gun battle where the basterds ambush germans.
- Keep the next scene where Pitt interrogates the Nazis.
- Make the rest of the movie about the basterds killing and torturing Nazis.
-The end.