All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1177. An easy way of seeing how…
Once upon a time in Nazi occupied France...
In Nazi-occupied France during World War II, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis. The Basterds, lead by Lt. Aldo Raine soon cross paths with a French-Jewish teenage girl who runs a movie theater in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers.
If there is one person who understands the power of language it is one Mr. Tarantino. He has already proven he is a master of dialogue and here he pushes himself even further and tries his hands at writing dialogue not only in a completely different time period but also in not one but three other languages than English.
And the thing that increases the insane amount of respect I already had for the man is the fact that he succeeds superbly in capturing the cadence and flair we've come to expect from him in all of them.
Tarantino is never one for the complicated plot, he is all about the narrative, both visual and lingual. Here, he perhaps finds…
Upon its original release I approached Inglourious Basterds with some trepidation having found Tarantino’s previous two films (Kill Bill vol. II and Death Proof) to be self-indulgent, overly long and poorly plotted. Therefore it came as quite a surprise that I absolutely loved this comic book revenge fantasy despite it suffering from exactly the same issues that dogged his previous films. So why the change of heart despite it featuring familiar complaints?
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, is that the film signalled a return to Tarantino’s great characters and dialogue. Death Proof was torturously boring for me because the film’s characters were just as dull (with the exception of the criminally underused Stuntman Mike) yet in Inglourious Basterds the film…
The last time I watched Inglourious Basterds was in a movie theater in 2009. Upon revisiting it last night I was surprised to find I liked it even more the second time around.
I was almost surprised at how often I found myself laughing at Brad Pitt's character's facial expressions, he was really great as Lt. Aldo Raine. Mélanie Laurent was also fantastic as the brave, intelligent and dedicated, escaped Jewish Frenchwoman named Shosanna who owns a little movie theater in Nazi occupied France. I loved her character even more when she was putting on her war paint to the tune of David Bowie's "Cat People" (Putting Out Fire). There is a scene where Shosanna is unwillingly and unexpectedly sitting…
Oh yes...this is fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. Let's just review some of the things I love about it:
1. The fact that this may seem like a remake from the title, but has pretty much no relevance whatsoever to the original.
2. Christoph Waltz...his line delivery is the best in the world (looks like he's perfecting it in Django Unchained!)
3. The spaghetti western under-tones. It's possibly the first WW2 western ever, and hopefully the last.
4. The size of Brad Pitt's bowie knife.
5. Michael Fassbender's terrible mistake in the bar.
6. Mike Myer's cameo.
7. Enzo G. Castellari's cameo.
8. The name of chapter 5 (Revenge of the Giant Face).
9. Tarantino's cameo as 'First scalped Nazi'.
“Au revior Shosanna!”
Isn't every film a big lie? Almost every film creates some characters and puts them in the middle of a dramatic situation and then pretends that it is showing us the truth. Movies take some facts and by dramatizing them they make something new, something that has never existed before. This may explain the significance of cinema, you can lie and then show this lie to other people and if you’re a good liar then people will enjoy what they’re watching , but people lie when they have something to fear, when they are ashamed of what has happened. So why not to change something as…
Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds has finally clicked with me. Simultaneously a masterful ode to the different flourishes and details of language as well as a fantastical revision of history; Tarantino's overindulgent WWII Western succeeds because of the staggering breadth of its screenplay and the spectacular bursts of the theatrical.
I guess my only defense is that the film was so jam-packed with information that it flew over my head, but honestly even that sounds like a cop out. Sooner or later, you have to bow down to Tarantino unreservedly, and I thought the extent of my adoration had been used up by Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained. Boy was I wrong.
3 of the 5 chapters are excellent: The opening the chapter at the French dairy farm, the third chapter - particularly the strudel scene, and the fourth chapter in the bar. All three are exercises in tension. The other 2, not so much, though there are some good stuff in there - particularly the scenes between Mélanie Laurent and Daniel Brühl.
QT's masterpiece. Plain and simple.
I'm in love with this movie and it might be Tarantino's masterpiece. The best combination of cinematic endeavors set out by the filmmaker throughout his body of work. The love story, though a little slight, is incredibly tragic and consistent. The love of film history is there. The action and quirkiness is there. Then it becomes a weird assassination film with the verve of great heist film. Every performer here is on point with the humor and tragedy at everyone's core- every beat and tone shift works as a result. It's hard to find any points of detraction as I watch it again, but it just is one of those films that hypnotizes itself immediately to favorite status. Maybe the…
There used to be this disused railway near where I grew up that ran under a little bridge where me and pals would get into mischief when we were young.
I only tell you this because there was some crude graffiti on one of the walls that read "IAN IS A BAZTURD", a spelling mistake as bad as Tarantino's bastardised 'basterds'.
Pair of bastards.
Watched for the first time with an audience and found myself continually circling back to how integral the idea of context is to the identity of this film. It's not only about what historical and regional context does to the individual (see: Shosanna and Zoller's impossible romance), but also fascinated by how it can elicit odd reactions from its audience merely by contextualizing images a certain way. For example, during the scene where Eli Roth (as the bear jew) beats the living shit out of an unarmed nazi soldier with a baseball bat, the entire auditorium was consumed with uproarious laughter. But is gruesome, merciless violence ever funny? Why are we insistent in making peace with violence by labeling individuals as "good" and "bad?" It's a devilishly complex scene. Tarantino forces his audience to dehumanize the nazi soldier the same way the nazis dehumanized the jews.
Oooh, that's a bingo
With this film, Tarantino proves he is a master of mixed narratives and characterisation. It is all the characters that make this film, how they bounce around and run into eachother, almost under the guise of pure chance. By working with and reclaiming WWII Tarantino cements himself as a 'God-like filmmaker' presenting an alternate reality where we are swayed by and trust in his penmanship.
Would not argue with Tarantino's self-congratulatory coda were the picture not markedly more vulgar than Pulp Fiction.
Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!
Combined the average ratings (Critic's & Users) from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Letterboxd, and then weighted and tweaked the results…