Inglourious Basterds

Film

War films

Ingl.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong>2/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Tue Aug 18 2009

You’ve got to admire the sheer, infectious force of Quentin Tarantino’s personality. Is there any other popular American director, who, like Tarantino, is constantly ranting and raving about cinema’s glorious past and giving young filmgoers reason to extend their DVD library back beyond ‘Star Wars’? Even the name of his new film is fondly stolen from a little known Italian movie of the 1970s. It’s only when you turn to Tarantino’s own films that things get more tricky. For the sad truth is that Tarantino, like cheap wine, just isn’t improving with age.

Which is an awkward reality because Tarantino obviously wants to put away childish things with this new film. Not only does Brad Pitt close the film with the self-regarding line ‘This may well be my masterpiece’, but ‘Inglourious Basterds’ is a little more restrained and a little more quiet than films like ‘Death Proof’ and ‘Kill Bill’.

I say ‘a little’ because much of the film is not quiet at all: when the music comes, it’s loud; when the deaths occur, they’re gruesome, even sadistic; and when the plot kicks in, it’s pure, wild fantasy.

The film moves liberally between French, German and English dialogue and takes us through five chapters. First, in 1941, we see a Nazi, Colonel Hans Landa (played by Austrian Christoph Waltz), known as ‘The Jew Hunter’, discover and kill a Jewish family in France; only the youngest daughter gets away.

Then we’re introduced to the ‘basterds’, a gang of eight Jewish-American soldiers who, while deep undercover, roam Nazi-occupied France, murdering German soldiers and collecting their scalps. They’re led by a Tennessee goodtime boy, played by Pitt, but oddly they’re not on screen much. Pitt is lively but he disappears for a long time and is upstaged by Waltz, who gives a teasing turn of sly comedy and cruel charm. His scenes are the film’s best.

For the film’s final chapters, we leap to Paris in 1944, where the two stories collide. The girl who fled the Nazis, Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) is now running a cinema (of course) which plays films by Riefenstahl and Pabst. A Nazi private, Frederick (Daniel Brühl), takes a shine to her. It turns out that his gun-toting heroics are being immortalised in a film produced by Goebbels, who decides that Shosanna’s cinema is perfect for the premiere. Shosanna and the ‘basterds’ decide that the screening is their chance to strike.

This might be a period movie, but still we clock Tarantino’s signature style – the extended, know-it-all dialogue, the tricky gunplay, the pop-cultural nods. There’s even a Mexican stand-off à la ‘Reservoir Dogs’ and the obligatory ‘nigger’ reference, this time in French. But this lacks the stylistic pizzazz of Tarantino’s best, and by putting more emphasis than usual on the chatter it makes it more obvious that the talk often lacks wit and verve.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Tarantino takes the history of cinema more seriously than the history of Europe. References to films abound: Michael Fassbender’s British spy (who has an amusing, if silly, ‘Dr Strangelove’-like scene with a superior played by Mike Myers) used to be a critic and regurgitates what sounds like a Wikipedia entry on German film, while another character wonders whether he prefers Chaplin or the French silent actor Max Linder.

What’s not clear is what Tarantino wants to achieve: ‘Inglourious Basterds’ is an immature work that doesn’t know whether it’s a pastiche, a spoof, a counterfactual drama, a revenge tragedy or a character comedy. How can we, within a space of minutes, feel adult sympathy for a hunted Jewish family and then childish glee when a Nazi’s skull is crushed with a baseball bat? The one cancels out the other.

But perhaps the biggest faux pas is introducing real historical characters. Tarantino’s inventions are big enough – not least Waltz’s terrific ‘movie’ Nazi – so why does he have to court implausibility by dragging in a loony Hitler (Martin Wuttke, nothing special) and introducing Goebbels? You might imagine, too, that this film was written in the ’60s: Tarantino seems blithely uninterested in more than 60 years of slow reconciliation between Europe and its past.

‘Subtle’ is not a word in Tarantino's lexicon. At the film’s heart is a fatal attempt to conflate fact with fiction and a celebration of vengeance that’s misplaced and embarrassing. Loyal fans expecting a familiar patchwork of Tarantino tics and quirks – ‘Pulp History’ or ‘Kill Hitler’ – might not be disappointed. Those expecting anything approaching progress, cinematically or ideologically, probably will be.

Cinemas showing Inglourious Basterds

Filter
  1. Filter

Prince Charles Cinema

7 Leicester Place, London, WC2H 7BP Show map/details

  • Address:

    Prince Charles Cinema 7 Leicester Place
    London
    WC2H 7BP

Map
  • Mon May 27:

    • 17:20
Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 3/5 (61 ratings)
  • tentang koment kalian smua tolong hargai karya orang.... belum tentu kalian biasa berbuat seperti itu... jgn cuma pandai komen n kritik...tunjukan kalo kalian lebih baik

    rebbellss Sat Jul 2 2011
    Report
  • This movie is like that brainwashing montage from "Parallax View" taken for granted and made into a movie.

    Sozo Sat Apr 16 2011
    Report
  • now we know what americas wet dream is

    g.t Fri Apr 1 2011
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • I finally got round to seeing the film last night. I spent today reading critics reviews, all of which were bad. Never take a critics opinion seriously. I found the film gripping from start to finish. I was not the only one. Nearly every person I have spoken to who has seen it gives it 5 stars. What do critics know ? most of them are so far up their own arse they have trouble seeing the cinema screen.

    Jock Tue Aug 31 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • Okay, so here's the thing. Sure, pretty much everybody is going to complain about the historical innacuracy. But really kids. Just sit back and watch the movie and base your opinion of the movie on the movie, not the history. And second of all, the people complaining about showing these murderous Ally soldiers, just please, be quiet. Because I know that you wouldn't be complaining if he were showing the Nazis like that(And you aren't, because he did indeed show that). In the end, a movie is a movie, and as for the film itself, Tarantino pulls off some really neat shots. The scene in the bar is fantastic, and found myself going back to see exactly who shot who. The scene is most definitely not realistic, but it is put together very, very well. And like Tarantino said, isn't really a film about war, it's a film about films.

    Sean Mon May 17 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • Tarantino's 4th female revenge movie in a row (if you count the two Bills as one movie) and his finest work since Pulp Fiction. Its far from the Dirty Dozen style ‘mission movie’ he promised. As appetising as that may have sounded, what Tarantino has given us is far more interesting, or deliberately perverse depending on your point of view: an action movie with scant action, an American movie where most of the dialogue is not in English, an historical movie which wilfully ignores historical fact, a film where the eponymous Basterds are subsidiary to the plot. Inglourious Basterds is a ferociously personal cinematic vision which more than any film in the director’s oeuvre, nimbly treads that hitherto undetected fine line between Hollywood movie classicism, bold art house aesthetic and bloody grind house. Like Pulp Fiction all those years ago, the beauty lies in the structure. As with most of Tarantino’s movies the plot moves through long stately scenes, much like Kubrick or his more obvious model, Leone. In this movie there really are many fewer scenes than any standard Hollywood film. In fact two of the scenes (the two best scenes) add up to about a third of the film’s entire running time. In Pulp Fiction these long scenes were about giving the dialogue and characters room to breathe. Here they are assembled carefully like very large building blocks, cumulatively adding weight to the story, building momentum and forwarding plot, piece by well placed piece. The most triumphant scene in the movie is the one that takes place in a German beer cellar somewhere past the halfway mark. It’s very long and features a cast of a size which would normally populate a modest film. It on the whole moves the larger plot along. It also contains a small plot of it’s own (can Michael Fessbender’s stiff upper lip Lt Archie Hickox, undercover as a Nazi officer, fool an SS officer?). It features a subplot about a young German soldier drunkenly celebrating the birth of his first son. If that’s not enough we also have an investigation in to identity and language, a clever critique of the meaning of King Kong, and to top it all a Mexican standoff. It may be the best scene Tarantino has have crafted.

    mrmustard Sun Apr 25 2010
    Report
  • The fictional portrayl of the War dumbed down the reality of war and left us with a gang of inglorious b***erds who chirpily travelled around France incognito, thumping Nazis to death with baseball bats and scalping those they shot. The fiction continued when a plan to end the war was hatched by the feckless gang over a drink with an actress. The war was finally ended by the burning down of a cinema containing high ranking members of the Third Reich over which a soundtrack was played of a Jewish woman laughing. I was left at the end of the film feeling that the depiction that soldiers in WW2 enjoyed killing was tasteless given that the majority of soldiers experience of warfare is gut wrenching. WW2 was not won by those who took glee in scalping and killing the enemy with baseball bats and it is insulting to those who endured the suffering of war on our behalf to buy the freedom that permits us to “enjoyâ€� this film today and makes uncomfortable viewing. Its lack of a real sense of humour or purpose made the pick and mix variety of fact and insulting portrayl of fiction difficult to comprehend and swallow. It is brave to make a film about World War 2 when many have experienced its suffering first hand, to change the ending, and to suggest that violence was enjoyed by those who fought for freedom. Is this entertainment? At best I think this is tasteless entertainment.

    r m Fri Feb 19 2010
    Report
  • Time Out London reviewer got this right whereas so many other reviews were positive. I don't understand how any one who has any sense of history could glean anything from this contrived violent movie. The ending is absurd and ridiculous. How anyone could fall for this contrivance is beyond me. I'm offended by the low threshold. Just awful.

    Rico Fri Feb 12 2010
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • Film critics are nothing more than failed actors and directors.

    Steve Mon Jan 25 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • For a Tarantino movie...utterly disappointing. I dont know what film these Tarantino lovers watched that touted it as his best picture since Pulp Fiction - I myself as a Tarantino lover thought it was his worst. The dialogue is weak, the story is weak, the fantasy history is just going to dumb a younger audience down...the cast was weak with the only standout being "The Jewhunter" Nazi. WEAK WEAK WEAK!!! Doesn't compare to any of his previous films. Even Death Proof was better, and thats saying alot. I can tell how tastes and culture are definitely deteriorating in America by the rave reviews this movie has gotten and is getting on these comments. Basterds is just not good.

    Gregg Sat Jan 16 2010
    Rated as: 2/5
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star