Inglourious Basterds

Just got back from seeing this movie. Here's my review:



Plot Synopsis:

“Inglourious Basterds begins in German-occupied France, where Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris, where she forges a new identity as the owner and operator of a cinema. Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish soldiers to engage in targeted acts of retribution. Known to their enemy as ‘The Basterds,’ Raine’s squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of The Third Reich.”

As an enormous fan of Quentin Tarantino’s work (with Pulp Fiction, specifically, being my second favorite movie of all time), I’d been looking forward to Inglourious Basterds quite a bit. Somewhat apprehensive, given the premise of the film, but for the most part, I went in expecting to have a pretty good time. Now, as the end credits started to roll, all I could say was “Damn.”



First of all, it should be noted that the trailers for Basterds are very misleading. Watching them, I expected an almost action comedy primarily about this group of soldiers going around, killing Nazis. And while there is some of that (along with its fair share of hilarious moments), that really isn’t the focus of the movie. In fact, the Basterds themselves only take up about a quarter of the film (if not less). The real heart of this movie lies in Shosanna, as she’s virtually the only character who’s given any backstory. As a result, about 80% of the dialogue in this movie is subtitled. With that being said, it all plays out extraordinarily well, and I greatly respect Tarantino’s choice to include said subtitles. Also, the more that I think about it, the more I appreciate the less-than-expected number of brutal moments in this film. They’re so sudden, so few and far between, that when they actually do happen, you find them all the more enjoyable.

The acting in this film is superb all across the board. With his thick Tennessee accent, Brad Pitt is gut-bustingly hilarious as Aldo Raine, and contrary to what post people have said, I highly enjoyed Eli Roth’s portrayal of Raine’s fellow Basterd, Donny. Mélanie Laurent is surprisingly exceptional as Shosanna, delivering that sense of both innocence and toughness. Even Mike Myers, who I wrote off as an actor years ago, is solid during his cameo appearance. However, the real show-stealer here is Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa. On top of being able to act well in several different languages, he manages to do what almost every great, classic villain manages to do, and that is to accomplish being both charming and menacing at once. Personally, I believe that he should, at the very least, get an Oscar nomination for his performance.

The movie is extremely dialogue-heavy, and again, without much action to speak of. Also, the majority of characters came across as somewhat cartoonish to me (especially Pitt’s). So, I can understand why this film may not be for everybody, and even partially why some may feel “cheated”, given the way in which it was advertised. That being said, I thought that the dialogue was heated and clever, and found that the “cartoonishness” of the characters added to the film’s needed sense of humor.

For me to give a film a perfect score is rare enough as it is, but this is the first time I’ve given one to two films in a row (having seen District 9 last weekend). It’s been a damn good year for films so far, with Coraline, Up, and the aforementioned District 9 ranking somewhere in my all-time Top 15. And while I’ll have to see it a few more times to say for sure, Inglourious Basterds is perhaps my fifth favorite movie of all time. Aside from last year’s Bolt, never has a movie surpassed my expectations by such a great amount. Go see it, right now.

10/10

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm definately planning to. I'm a huge Brad Pitt fan, so this is a must-see for me!

I agree with you 110% it was a great movie saw it yesterday.

Awesome! So i can expect a quality film here, eh? I hope to see it tomorrow!

"we in da natzee killin' bizniss"

hehe. So good.

I really want to see this. I read an interview with Eli Roth where he referred to it as "Kosher Porn," in that it would be a guilty little pleasure movie for a lot of Jewish people. I happen to really like revenge-themed movies for some reason, and being someone who lost more than a few members of my family to the Nazi's, I would love even watching make-pretend violence being inflicted on them.

Plus, Brad Pitt's role looks deliciously hammy.

I probably won't end up seeing it in theatres, sadly, but I'm going to try.

This film was epic.

I would say more about it but LordZero and I have already hashed out a decent amount of discussion about the film. (if you read our VM's beware of spoilers.)

I've never heard more applause in a movie than seeing this opening day at midnight.

There were at least 4 or 5 scenes that received thunderous applause from the audience, and scattered applause elsewhere.

Probably the best time I've had at the movies in a long long time.

And the opening scene gave me chills and goosebumps all over (and that was after half my flask of Vodka had been drank, so that's saying something.)

I wouldn't give it a perfect score on good film-making per say, but I would definitely give it a 10 on entertainment value. Probalby would give it an 8 as to how well the movie was done by "traditional standards", although this movie is anything BUT traditional.

Go see it asap. You won't regret it.

So, yet another Quentin Tarantino film. I genuinely enjoyed Reservoir Dogs, as did I enjoy Pulp Fiction although not quite as much. Jackie Brown I recognise is rather well-written even if I didn't enjoy it as much as the first two, and I've not seen Kill Bill vol 1, but I have seen vol 2 and only remember one thing about it - that excellent monologue from Bill about Superman. Death Proof I also enjoyed, even despite the fact that in the last half-hour he completely forgets that it was supposed to be a Grindhouse movie, if only because every woman in it talks exactly like him, and Kurt Russel's character was pretty interesting even despite his psychosis, but I acknowledged that it was nowhere near as good as his earliest works, and consider it a guilty pleasure more than something I declare as good. Just so you know where I stand on his work.

Inglourious Basterds was marketed and described by Tarantino himself as a Spaghetti Western-style film set in Nazi-occupied France, as well as a "Macaroni Combat" film such as an old rip-off of the Dirty Dozen called "Inglorious Bastards" (spelled correctly and completely unrelated to Tarantino's creation), so I was rather keen to see this. Seeing promotional material for it formed images in my head of what it would be like, and fuelled the fires of what could be termed excitement.

Warning: Spoilers beyond this point.

The first scene of the film did not disappoint. It could not have been more Spaghetti Western if Sergio Leone had directed it himself, and reminded me a lot of films such as Death Rides A Horse, where a main character witnesses or is the victim of a horrifying and traumatising event to set up a story of revenge for them. Even the subtitles were distinctly ripped from a Spaghetti Western film. Hans Landa, the "Jew Hunter", was a genuinely interesting yet sinister character to me. At first we see him going through the procedure of a police-like interview, simply questioning LaPadite on the whereabouts of the Dreyfus, and LaPadite predictably denying all knowledge of the Jews in question (although the viewer doesn't know at this point whether or not he's telling the truth). Within minutes however Landa has, purely by boasting about his detective skills, driven the dairy farmer to reveal all in a genuinely emotional confession, made all the more poignant with the knowledge possessed by both he and the audience that even if he tried, there'd be nothing he could do to protect the refugees hiding under his floorboards from Landa's detection. They are ruthlessly executed, save for one - Shosanna Dreyfus. She runs off into the distance, practically allowed to leave by Landa, who screams "Farewell, Shosanna!" And thus ends the best scene in the film, if not the best scene Tarantino has ever written or directed. At this point, I was almost on the verge of tears by the scene's beautiful demonstration of a man's futility, and in my head I was thinking "Quentin my man, you've outdone yourself at last".

Then comes the introduction of the titular "Basterds" - a unit of Jewish-born soldiers in the Allied army whose sole reason for existence is the causing of fear behind enemy lines by committing unspeakably vile and ruthless acts against Nazi soldiers. Their commanding officer, Aldo Raine (played by Brad Pitt) is not a Jew, but a man of native-American origin who doesn't know the meaning of mercy. He says without shame or irony "We're not here to give the Nazis a lesson on humanity. A Nazi ain't got no humanity." Shortly after follows a scene that a friend of mine pointed out was reminiscent of an Al Qaeda video, showing Eli Roth's Donny the "Bear Jew" beating a Nazi to death with a baseball bat for refusing to divulge the location of a nearby patrol, and Raine carving a swastika into the head of another before letting him go, despite unhesitantly helping them, because after the war is over he might take his uniform off, and "the Apache" wants everyone to know that these soldiers were Nazis even when they leave the army. Immediately in my mind, I saw him as a character who might get his come-uppance, or at least a demonstration that not every single soldier in the Nazi army was a vile minority-hating scumbag who followed orders because he genuinely wanted to see them carried out.

But no, not once in this film is his stance ever contradicted, the major flaw in his view highlighted, other than in the mind of the observant viewer. During that scene is a cut to the narrated background of one of the kill-team's members, Hugo Stiglitz, who was formerly a German officer but came to hate the Nazis so much that he brutally murdered many of them before being arrested, and was broken out by the Basterds for his "talent" before he could be punished. There is a blatant contradiction in Aldo's insistence that not a single Nazi could be anything but a soulless monster and should be marked as such, even the average drafted footsoldier, and his wilful seeking out of such a Nazi to take under his wing. This was another interesting idea - we were expecting to see similar backstory flashbacks for each of the Basterds, but Aldo "the Apache" and Hugo Stiglitz are the only ones who are given any characterization out of a group of around ten people. If we count Donny the "Bear Jew" and the fact that he has a reputation amongst the Nazis (whom I will again emphasise was played by Eli Roth, who may be Jewish but is far from anything resembling a bear or even a "golem" as his character is said to be at one point), that's three. Is this not a staple of the combat movie that Tarantino also claimed to be homaging in some interviews? A team of men who each have their story to tell fighting together for the same cause, experiencing the same experiences, and coming out with a shared experience of male bonding under such harsh conditions?

We then return to Shosanna Dreyfus a few years later, now "Emmanuelle Mimieux", a cinema-owner in a small French town who meets a young German soldier, Zoller, who is revealed to not only be considered a war-hero by the Nazis (seemingly to his chagrin) but a star in a film about his exploits directed by none other than the propaganda minister of the Third Reich, Goebbels himself. And he constantly uses this influence to practically drag Shosanna into his life, enterring stalker territory (and thankfully the film seems aware of this, since Shosanna herself is disturbed by these overbearing advances). When he has her brought to a meeting with Goebbels and himself, she also once again comes face to face with Hans Landa, who does not recognise her, but she certainly recognises him. We can almost see the plot for revenge assembling itself in her head, and she agrees to allow her cinema to be used, shortly revealing to her boyfriend and projectionist that she plans to burn it down with the Nazi high command locked within the auditorium, and to film a final message to add into the propaganda film's climax.

In the next act, a British soldier is introduced before a military strategist and Winston Churchill himself (who our British friend ignores), as a fluent German speaker and a film critic which somehow makes him a perfect candidate for a spy mission to assassinate the Nazi high command at the aforementioned premier, and we see where the two plots may link together. But after he meets a German actress who's a spy for the Allies, some rather plot-irrelevant conversation in a basement bar, and a horribly tasteless joke concerning the similarities between the story of King Kong and the story of African slaves brought to America, this British agent, Hugo Stiglitz, another of the Basterds, and a variety of German soldiers are shot dead after an admittedly clever cultural mistake made while indicating the number three, resulting in the original plan going awry, and in the remaining few Basterds and the actress having to carry out the rest of the plan themselves.

Here's where the two plots coincide. I'd like to say this is where the two plots intertwine, but at no point does either story actually combine into one. Shosanna initiates her plan (burning down the cinema with the Nazis locked inside including Hitler himself), and the Basterds carry out theirs (suicide-bombing the cinema while sitting in the middle of the audience). Another reviewer I read rather accurately stated that the two plans "cancel each other out", since you realise that there's no real reason from the perspective of the plot to have both plans going on at once. The two stories curve towards each other, but are quickly deflected while never meeting or crossing. Tarantino doesn't seem to have thought very much about this, yet he has allegedly been working at it for ten years. I'm honestly wondering where all that work went.

Shosanna ends up shooting the soldier-star who has been making advances on her throughout the film while she's projecting, and he kills her as he lays there bleeding to death. So she doesn't even live to see her plan come to fruition, destroying a possible moment of satisfying closure. Meanwhile, the actress has been strangled, discovered by Hans Landa to be a traitor, and Raine and another of the Basterds has been caught by him, confusingly having left two of the Basterds in the auditorium, but with an explanation - he plans to allow the war to come to an end in return for a variety of favours from the Allied command, and so strikes a deal with Raine and the Allies to secure his safety - Landa will pretend that he captured Raine and "the Little Man" (as the other Basterd is hilariously nicknamed), and is transporting them from the country, before turning over control of the vehicle to the Basterds for the rest of the journey into friendly territory. Note that as this is being planned, Hans Landa is not in the cinema, and thus is not a victim of the massacre to come.

Shosanna's boyfriend waits behind the screen for the moment of the movie that she's replaced with her own footage, her maniacal message to the Nazis in that room that they are all going to die at the hands of "Jewish vengeance", and as the screen burns down her laughing face is projected over the clouds. The remaining two Basterds have discovered Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels' location in the opera boxes, and burst in as the fire rages, filling them both with hot lead before continuing on to the rest of the crowd below. Hitler's face can be seen tearing away as Donny empties a machine-gun into it, demonstrating that this film rather frustratingly takes place in an alternate history, regardless of its previous blatant and unashamed historical inaccuracies. I say "frustratingly" because I see no reason to have the film deviate from the general course of history unless it's going to be used in some way to show exactly how Tarantino believes history would be different if such an event had occurred. Nothing really comes of it, and he could have achieved pretty much the same results had he somehow written in that Adolf and Goebbels had been called away at the last minute or something. As I've also mentioned, this just adds to the annoying fact that Hans Landa, the killer of Shosanna's family and the man responsible for the deaths of many other Jews, does not get his come-uppance by the ministrations of Shosanna herself.

Closing the film, we're shown the part in Landa's plan where he turns over control to Lt. Raine, and the Apache shoots the German driver, satisfied that he wasn't part of the bargain, before turning to Landa and remarking that he supposes the Nazi will be taking his uniform off once he goes to live at the island promised to him. Cue yet another Swastika scar-branding. Though Hans Landa did deserve a come-uppance, he certainly didn't deserve it at the hands of an individual even more twisted than he is. Yes, I am not ashamed to say, Aldo the Apache is a perfect example of how an Allied soldier can be portrayed as just as nasty if not worse than a Nazi.

Spoilers end here.

Maybe this would have been better off as two different films altogether - one a Spaghetti Western-style movie which follows the story of Shosanna and her revenge against the officers that wronged her, and the other a combat movie following the Basterds, their stories, and their plot to take out Nazi officials and end the war in one fell swoop. Tarantino went for two things, and achieved neither.

Some have called this film "Kosher Porn", that it was made as a kind of satisfying vengeance flick for the benefit of Jewish people and other haters of Nazi-kind. But there's no real vengeance depicted, only a string of brutalities, and the fact that it depicts a fictionalized version of events only serves to highlight the fact that in reality no such revenge was ever attained, no such Justice done. This might be what people wish had happened, but in trying to make that wish come to life, it just reminds us that it didn't. And to be honest, I'm glad individuals such as Aldo Raine didn't exist to be glorified by our world. This is not the sort of man we should be calling a hero. If Shosanna had received her revenge, it would not have been a case of "Jewish vengeance" unless one chose to attribute an ethnic meaning behind it. Sure, Landa killed her family for being Jews, but she would have killed him not necessarily because he persecuted Jews as a Nazi, but because he did so at the cost of her family and many other innocents people. It would have been an act of personal satisfaction, not an act of general liberation.

Speaking of Landa, he was easily the most interesting character in the film, and Tarantino has quite accurately stated that this may very well be the best character he's ever written. He doesn't seem to have a personal dislike of Jews himself, yet he considers his unofficial title "the Jew Hunter" an honour because he's earned it by his skill. He takes the typical Nazi comparison of a Jew to a rat, which depicts them as a "plague on society", and says he doesn't consider it a bad thing but simply an accurate statement, providing his own twist on the comparison - people irrationally hate rats and treat them with disgust, and the same could be said of the Nazi reaction to the German Jew. He maintains a pleasant and flattering facade to everyone he meets before he turns on them, and is rarely seen to drop this mask, only momentarily allowing the beast within to slip through when it happens. He misleads them, he tries to draw out the futility of their lies before finally dropping the guillotine on the necks that he's exposed long before the victim has even realised it, like some kind of Nazi Columbo. He tries to think like his prey, and this is why he considers himself superior to his underlings - a normal soldier would just look in places they'd hide, whereas he tries to think about where any person would hide if they genuinely did not want to get caught, once they "abandon dignity". He does what he does, detecting and stamping out those the Nazis want dead, simply because he's good at doing it, and he gets paid for it. He's a professional, and nothing further. While he is not a good person by any moral standard, he is definitely a good character.

Tarantino can also be praised for his portrayal of women in pretty much any of his films, and this is no different - they're not just squeeze, they're not just eye-candy, they're not your "typical woman", they're actual human beings that don't fit into any immediate heroine archetype. While that is not to say they are unattractive, or indeed that a woman has to be unattractive before they become fleshed out, this isn't the first thing that makes you take notice of them and it isn't the defining aspect of their character, which makes them different to many female characters in films these days. Shosanna doesn't have this plasticky, flawless nature to her - she genuinely looks like an ordinary woman, and is more attractive to me for her sheer real-ness in the face of all these lifeless dolls that we see in films today. When she does put on makeup, it's almost to exaggerate how fake makeup makes a woman looks when she's really trying, and highlights the silliness in women tarting themselves up for formalities. The actress, Bridget von Hammersmark, does have that kind of 30s/40s charm and the look that we expect of a Marylin Monroe-esque figure, but her behaviour, her personality, and when she's injured even her looks, show us the woman beneath the celebrity.

In summary then, the overall narrative of the film rapidly dissolves after the opening scene, and ultimately implodes when we reach the pointless and unsatisfying finale.

tl;dr Inglourious Basterds consisted of one fantastic scene followed by two hours of pure, undiluted suck, and stands as the perfect example of why the only difference between a professional film critic's opinion and that of an ordinary member of the public is the fact that a critic is paid for his verbal diorrhea.

Rating: 10/10 for the first scene, 3/10 for the rest.

I'll probably watch this, if only to see Brad Pitt with a silly moustache.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

tl;dr Inglourious Basterds consisted of one fantastic scene followed by two hours of pure, undiluted suck, and stands as the perfect example of why the only difference between a professional film critic's opinion and that of an ordinary member of the public is the fact that a critic is paid for his verbal diorrhea.

Rating: 10/10 for the first scene, 3/10 for the rest.

Oh, you.

Originally Posted by Rare Addict

However, the real show-stealer here is Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa. On top of being able to act well in several different languages, he manages to do what almost every great, classic villain manages to do, and that is to accomplish being both charming and menacing at once. Personally, I believe that he should, at the very least, get an Oscar nomination for his performance.

While I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post (since you seem to focus far too much on the acting and dialogue which I agree was excellent but not enough on what it contributes towards), I will point out that Christoph Waltz did win an award at Cannes as Best Actor for his role as Hans Landa, and rightly so, his performance was marvellous. If he gets anything remotely resembling an Oscar it will be well deserved. It's possible to have excellent performances in otherwise terrible films however - Malcolm MacDowell in Caligula had an excellent performance as Caligula but I dare not discuss that film for fear I might unleash the hounds of Hell upon the world.

I've never heard more applause in a movie than seeing this opening day at midnight.

I just saw it today and many people applauded it at the end. I was actually surprised for parts of the film did seem to drag a bit. However this film was brilliant. Since others have already gone into the more detailed explaination, i will not.
This is probably Tarantino's best work since Reservior Dogs and the latter has won a place of legend in my heart. I loved it. I loved the execution of this film, despite its historical inaccuracies near the end. Everyone was well acted, ESPECIALLY Christoph Waltz! He was pure genius! Shoshanna's calculating character was also very well done. Really all i can say is that i found it to be a work of cinematic art.

I just saw it yesterday and I have mixed feelings for it.
I enjoyed it immensely BUT picked out several flaws that lowered the quality of the film, leaving me annoyed knowing it could have been even better with just a few changes.

First of all I absolutely have to agree with Lord Zero that the first scene of the movie was the BEST by far of the entire film and set me up with very high hopes for the remainder. It was beautifully well made. If I were the type of person who cries during moving/sad films I would have had a tear in my eye.

However, the rest of the movie was just... so so. I mean, not that I didn't enjoy it. I absolutely enjoyed it. There were a few scenes that dragged on or that I found a wee bit unnecessary. But all in all it is very entertaining.
Caution: Some spoilers ahead

The reason why I say it is "so so" is because of the flaws here and there that annoyed me.
I really don't understand why he bothered having the special side-track scene explaining Stiglitz background if he was not going to do the same for at least a couple of the others in the group. I was expecting more cool intros like that, and was disappointed that I did not see those.
I also don't understand why we only really got to know a couple of the Basterds. The movie is called 'Inglourious Basterds' and the previews make it seem like the movie will revolve around them when it really didn't.

It also bothered me that everyone in the film was very human except for the Basterds(and a few other minor characters). It was almost like they were just jokes. They were so unfeeling and, with the exception of a couple, lacked personalities. I mean, who were they? Why did Tarantino leave them to be such impersonal characters? Everyone else, including the various minor character Nazis, were going through emotions and personal journeys/changes. We got to know them. I suppose that if it was Tarantino's intent to make them for comical relief and to just move the plot forward in places, then it makes sense. They just didn't seem to fit into the rest of the movie at all. I cannot say that any of them possessed a "hero's journey" role at all. I also did not care as they were killed off. I also noticed that at one point half of them just disappear with no explanation. Also, why in the world does B.J. Novak's character not come forward as a more important player until the end? We learned absolutely nothing about him until the last half hour of the film. And he is supposed to be Aldo's right hand man?

I was also expecting the two story lines to mix/entwine into one. I was surprised when this did not happen. Very nontraditional. I will not say that aspect of the movie annoyed me too much. Shoshana's story was so different. I probably just would have been more annoyed if Tarantino forced them to mix and tried to make it work, which it probably would not have. Shoshana is serious, whereas Aldo is a clown with no emotions. He would have demeaned her purpose and journey.

When it comes to Shoshana's journey, I enjoyed it. It showed a more realistic part of the effects of the war and of the Holocaust. Although her mysterious background after her family's killing and what she accomplished are by no means realistic. There were things that could have been improved, but for the most part I enjoyed her story.

Now, regarding the finale: I have to say that I really did like the climatic scene in the theater. The massacre was sweet. But at the same time, I was left with strange feelings. As I watched the scene, I was enjoying it. But then it hit me. I suddenly felt like a monster. I felt like a Nazi myself. The thing about that disgusting scene is that even though they are doing this to both try to end the war and seek revenge of the wrongs of the Nazis, I was not really satisfied. After it was over, as cool as it was, I was not like, "Ha! So there! Hell yes!". It was just so.... barbaric or something. It made the main "good" characters just as bad as the Nazis and Hitler.
But just looking at it as a massacre scene it was pretty sick. Very cool look to it. Almost beautiful, with Shoshana on the screen and the fire bleeding from it into the room and all. It reminded me a lot of the massacre scene in the original movie version of 'Carrie'.


I don't know what I would rate this movie. There were some parts that were way better than others. And I don't think any of it just plain-out sucked. Even with it's flaws it is still one of the best movies I've seen in a long while.
I truly recommend seeing this one. It is, if anything, at least very entertaining. That is, as long as you are able to look past some of the inconsistencies and the few detracting features of the film.

But it was a lot of fun nonetheless =D

I agree, Varda about the Stiglitz scene. I wanted to see more about the Bear Jew and other members of the Basterds as well. It seemed to me that Tarantino was gonna do that with other members but cut it short. Also the bar scene with the British officer did go on longer than it should have. (personally i think it was simply so they can execute that very clever and horrible remark involving King Kong)

(Spoilers below)
Yes, half of the bar scene was pointless. It didn't even really develop any of the more important characters in the scene(English officer, Stiglitz, etc). Mostly just the German officer who was just newly introduced in the bar, and did not matter to the rest of the film. And then they all just die anyway. It made me feel like all their conversation was a waste. Like you said, it was all probably just to make that joke.
Tarantino could have cut that scene shorter(or altogether) and filled the gap with something with more substance.
I suppose he just needed the actress(and thus the Basterds) to be discovered(via shoe left behind). That is the only point of the scene in my eyes.

Originally Posted by ValaVarda

It also bothered me that everyone in the film was very human except for the Basterds(and a few other minor characters). It was almost like they were just jokes. They were so unfeeling and, with the exception of a couple, lacked personalities. I mean, who were they? Why did Tarantino leave them to be such impersonal characters? Everyone else, including the various minor character Nazis, were going through emotions and personal journeys/changes. We got to know them. I suppose that if it was Tarantino's intent to make them for comical relief and to just move the plot forward in places, then it makes sense. They just didn't seem to fit into the rest of the movie at all. I cannot say that any of them possessed a "hero's journey" role at all. I also did not care as they were killed off. I also noticed that at one point half of them just disappear with no explanation. Also, why in the world does B.J. Novak's character not come forward as a more important player until the end? We learned absolutely nothing about him until the last half hour of the film. And he is supposed to be Aldo's right hand man?

I'd have to agree with this actually. Like I wrote, many of Tarantino's characters are praiseworthy due to their humanity, but the Basterds were paper-thin. They were Jewish and they were soldiers, that's pretty much all we know about them.

I don't care if this makes me seem like a cold hearted bastard, but the ending, I won't give away any spoilers, makes killing just seem right at that point in time. All I have to say is they got what they deserved.

Originally Posted by LightHawk

I don't care if this makes me seem like a cold hearted bastard, but the ending, I won't give away any spoilers, makes killing just seem right at that point in time. All I have to say is they got what they deserved.

Maybe in the film they got it, but that just harshly reminds us that in real life, no such just-desserts were served. It's effectively an insult to the memory of those who really did suffer under the Nazi regime to try and detract from the horror of what happened by trying to realise an almost comedic revenge fantasy.

So, I saw it last night. I was really looking forward to it since I've enjoyed other QT movies and I had heard a lot about it. However, I honestly don't know what to make of it. Sometimes it felt like the shock value kinda overrode whatever message there was (well, being bold is very Tarintino, I suppose, but it felt kinda forced at times), but other times some scenes seem to drag out for way too long. I didn't think Brad Pitt was anything special, either, and sometimes cringed at his supposed accent. I do admit I laughed at some of the dialogue. Loved the opening scene. Loved the villain. I wish there had been more focus on the members of the IB and their back stories, like they did for one or two of them. Acting was wonderful. Overall, I think it was okay. Not the best QT movie ever, but it was okay.