Credit: Francois Duhamel

Hyped by its creator as a spaghetti western cast with World War II
iconography and the career-defining masterwork that his recent
“lightweight” films empowered him to make, Quentin Tarantino’s
Inglourious Basterds finds the pulpy auteur setting up shop in
Nazi-occupied France. Here he follows, in an unusually straightforward
manner, a pair of story lines: a crew of Jewish-American soldiers
carrying out their mission to kill as many Nazis as possible (bringing
home scalps as trophies) and a young Jewish woman masterminding revenge
against the Nazis who murdered her family.

Leading the Nazi-scalpers is Aldo the Apache, a fast-talking cartoon
of a man played by Brad Pitt, in a brash performance that recalls both
his star-making turn as Thelma & Louise‘s malevolent charmer
and his ridiculously funny work in the Coen brothers’ Burn After
Reading. Whatever spaghetti-western-ness the film boasts comes from
this Nazi-scalping story line, as Pitt’s good, bad, and ugly band of
murderers carry out their Sergio Leone–style mission in
classically voluble Tarantino fashion.

The young Jewish woman’s story line, however, is pure comic
book—good comic book—with Tarantino working in a
restrained yet still-bright style rich with melodrama and Hitchcockian
tension-building exercises. When the two plots eventually converge, the
story lines mesh thrillingly, but their styles remain distinct. It’s
this lack of stylistic gestalt that grounds Inglourious Basterds among the ranks of good strong movies that are in no way masterworks.
Everything you love and hate about Tarantino films finds a home in
Inglourious Basterds: the colorful prattle, the insistent
thrills, the horrifying violence, and the long, boring conversations
you’re manipulated into paying close attention to because AT ANY MOMENT
SOMEBODY MIGHT BLOW SOMEBODY ELSE’S FACE OFF. Most interesting is how
the film beckons to Tarantino’s detractors: If anything is likely to
lure those repulsed by the violence of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction,
Kill Bill, and Death Proof into an even fleeting hunger for
blood, it’s the possibility of watching Hitler and his minions get
theirs. recommended

David Schmader—former weed columnist and Stranger associate editor—is the author of the solo plays Straight and Letter to Axl, which he’s performed in Seattle and across the US. His latest...

24 replies on “<i>Inglourious Basterds</i>: Tarantino’s Spaghetti-Western War Flick”

  1. I always credit Tarantino with helping me understand that I really enjoyed entertainment, of a sort and a flavor that mainstream entertainment of the ’90s had stopped delivering (which is why I retreated into dour artiness, an affect which has brought some rewards, but which also taints my capacity to appreciate things it might behoove me to appreciate). At the time, that made him seem like an auteur, even a master, but then, I was in my early 20s at the time. Anyone who thinks that appreciation or enjoyment of his ouevre requires faith in his being an “important” filmmaker are confused; by making romanticism out of his own media-saturated cynicism, he’s sort of a Spielberg of high-priced, lowbrow pulp. Which, I think, is all he ever aspired to be.

    I’m kinda excited to see it. And I have to confess, I like the “long, boring conversations,” mostly because they sound eerily like the conversations in which I participate on a near daily basis.

  5. just saw it today and it was great. you feel like you just a fantastic book with strong characters. Til Schweigl steals the show as Hugo Stiglitz, but Christoph Waltz is the best. a best supporting actor Oscar for sure.

  7. yeah, Jews are finally getting the Germans back real down there in Palestine. That will teach ’em!

    Stick to the movie please–politics just ain’t fun to read in a movie review.

  8. I applied for jobs as a projectionist, days past – there are no longer any Projectionist’s Union movie houses in Seattle, so that course of self-study didn’t pan out.

    I infer that I view films with a more complete and critical eye. This masterwork left me about as entertained as a human being can be. After seeing ‘Blue Velvet’, I didn’t speak for three days – after seeing ‘Inglorious Basterds’ last night, the red glow lingers. Few films have that sort of effect anymore.

    I can see Tarantino taking aim at contemporary Hollywood from the shrine of a Paris theatre; all things forbidden (subtitles, lingering long shots, mawkish music, concomitant terror / comedy, magnificent cinematography for the simple sake of it, the gorgeous economy of classic cinematic visual grammar) Quentin splurges with relish.

    Appropriated characters get new, amped life. Tarantino takes history apart reassembling his megalomaniac vision with perverse joy… but how to work in a contemporary song? You’ll never guess, but it works with breathtaking style. Scenery is chewed, gnawed to the bone – over-the-top teasing cat-and-mouse- banter is punctuated with characteristic shock, literal bloodbaths. The film takes you up while going down, mocks your gullibility, preys on willingness to suspend reality then slaps your face when you least expect, eliciting laughter as you gasp. It hits on all cylinders.

    Light is captured with great technical care and attention. Every detail so literate: Mike Meyers suggests Chaplin’s little dictator, Diane Kruger gives Tallulah Bankhead a run for the money, Pitt brings surprising depth, deft comedy and incredulous diphthong displacement to his bitten, biting character. Red has never so sumptuously or bi-lingualy been worn as by the luminous Melaine Laurent. Comedy, fear, wit, irony, intelligence flood from the screen. I can’t wait to see it again. This film alone could be a degree course in filmmaking at UCLA.

    And then there is Christopher Waltz. Wow. Watching this guy work is captivating – he’s giving it everything he’s got and having a ball doing it. Best supporting nom, effortless.

    Did I mention that I liked it? No – I loved it. I must own a copy. Five reels of cinematic glory, perfectly cut for the big screen. Thank you QT!

  9. Finally saw the film – I thought it was pretty mediocre. Proably a million times more interesting than GI Joe, but it wasn’t anything that I expected. All my friends are raving about it though..

  11. @ #10: That has to be the single-most moronic statement I have read in months. Do you have any recommendations for restaurants you’ve never dined at? How about vacation spots you’ve never visited?

  14. Saw it over the weekend and it’s a damn fine movie. Heard an interview with Christoph Waltz, the guy who played Nazi Hans Landa, on Adam Carolla’s podcast this morning. Brad Pitt was good, but that guy was the star of the movie in my mind. Heck, just the fact that he spoke 4 languages (English, German, French, and Italian) was impressive. Great performance. Hope he gets the recognition he deserves.

  15. It was pretty much as I expected- a somewhat over the top graphic novel come to life- but largely enjoyable, with some nice European locales. I agree with number 5- Christoph Waltz deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination for sure.

    I won’t give away the ending, but I was pleasently surprised.

  17. I think Brad Pitt is a terrible, terrible actor. I don’t want to though. I also want to believe this film will be good but fear it is as bad as Public Enemies or worse … Benjamin Button. And if it is that bad then I will hold this review accountable for selling it to me like those other two.

    Lots of movies intend to be good and go the lengths to put lipstick on a pig by hiring Depp or Pitt and a decent cinematographer. But story is everything. I think Decaprio & Winslet know that & Depp did too once upon a time, Pitt … well I guess he’s just lucky sometimes. I hope this is one of those times.

    I’m in the mood for a clever, off beat period film with some style (& a plot line w/ charectar development, will it deliver?)

  18. Why did everyone make such a big deal about Abu Graib? Just put it to music, dude. It’s sooo cool. Torture, fuck yeah!

    I honestly couldn’t see any real difference between the Nazis and the Americans in this flick. The Germans enjoyed killing Jews, and the Americans enjoyed killing Nazis. All I see is a bunch of people who enjoy killing, and that’s pretty sick. Sure there’s a drama and suspense and clever wit and shit, but in the end the payoffs in the film are all scenes of killing. I can’t enjoy it anymore. I wish I could.

  20. One thing that I have not seen said nearly enough that I found to be true is how hilarious this movie is. I’m not talking about the jokes or the real attempts at humor either. When I wasn’t wincing and groaning (in a good way) I was chuckling. There is something inherently funny about the premise, the composition of each shot and the very mood of the movie.
    Needless to say I

  21. Just came back from Inglorious Basterds… One thing Tarantino REALLY knows how to do is build up suspense in a scene. Once again, I was on the edge of my seat, waiting for what’s going to happen next. And yes, watching swastikas being carved into Nazis foreheads AND seeing Hitler riddled with bullets was deeply satisfying, however childish that might be 🙂 Mélanie Laurent is definitely an actress to watch.

  23. Is anyone else getting tired of wise-ass main characters (Brad Pitt in this case) who stare in the face of evil and rattle off lame, smart-mouthed, bullshit one-liners for the amusement of testosterone addled twenty-somethings?

    And that Tennessee accent was quite simply egregious.

Comments are closed.