Who does Quentin Tarantino think he is?

Did he really make this film?

It’s been one week since I saw INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.  If you haven’t seen this film yet, you clearly don’t understand what you've been missing. Quentin Tarantino has never given two shits about what anyone thinks about his movies.

Thank God.

Because of QT’s selfishness, arrogance, and insanity, our world has access to some of the most ridiculously offbeat, genre defying, humorously violent, dialogue driven, classic-cinema cut and pasted monstrosities of exploitative film making that one could argue posses no real cinematic value at all. But they would be wrong. Very wrong. I can’t stand how the opinions of all die hard admirers of QT (I myself being placed into this category) are immediately dismissed due to the  “fanboy” label.  Its as if I would willingly jump on the bandwagon of any film Tarantino happened to breathe on.

Look, the dude makes really smart, really funny, and really entertaining films that have never let me, or any of his other “fanboys” down.

Hey, I’m sorry if you mess with M Night Shyamalan and/or George Lucas. Come find me when QT drops something even remotely close in awfulness to the self-respect killing wunderfilms like THE PHANTOM MENACE or THE VILLAGE. With INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, Tarantino’s sixth and most intriguing film to date, QT takes everything you have ever been taught about World War 2 and throws it all out the open hatch of a B-52 bomber patrolling the European skyline. When your knowledge ends its free fall, shitting its pants, it hits the earth and somehow catches that rare, “jackpot” type of lucky break by falling into a large haystack, which keeps it alive… but only long enough so it have that brief moment of clarity when miracles are recognized, then the payload of bombs catch up. Boom.

My terribly inarticulate point is that INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is set in a World War 2 universe that is completely (removing the cinematic influences which QT pays homage to) envisioned by the mind of one man, Quentin Tarantino. If you failed to enjoy KILL BILL, DEATH PROOF, or PULP FICTION, well, first of all I don’t like you very much, but to be honest, I think that even the biggest critics of Quentin Tarantino will most likely love the shit out of the majority of this film.  Real talk.

The few critics who have taken aim at IB have essentially called Tarantino out for his intentional abuses of the historical record and the lack of empirical truths that manifest from his films ending. The only question that I have is, why? Why should anyone care about the historical validity within the framework that QT has established for this particular film?

Isn’t the premise of Nazi-hunting/scalping Jewish soldiers behind enemy lines or Brad Pitt’s ridiculous accent enough to tip viewers off that this film might not be attempting to tread in the same cinematic waters alongside Stephen Spielberg?

But while I’m on the subject, Did it seem like Michael Bay truly gave a shit about historical facts when he made PEARL HARBOR, a WWII movie titled and based upon one of the most significant tragedies in American history?

I mean, has any WWII film ever released been completely authentic with the historical facts upon which it was based off of?

No.

Don’t forget, this is Hollywood. QT created the BASTERDS in order to tell tales that QT has envisioned for this era. Despite this subjective approach to film making, in my mind, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS has features that actually make it MORE authentic than most generic WW2 dramas: The characters speak in their native tongues! (be easy all you Clint Eastwood fanboys)

Yes, much of the film is subtitled, but please don’t let that deter you from going to see it. I actually heard someone utter this statement when I was leaving:

I didn’t know I was going to have to read that much.

If that’s the first thing that comes out of your mouth when this movie is over, then you misread your ticket stub.  SHORTS: ADVENTURES OF THE WISHING ROCK was in theater 2.

Why don’t you discuss the brilliant dialogue that carries long, tense scenes without ever becoming stale or unintentionally awkward?

Why don’t you discuss the ridiculously complicated and multi-layered characters, chiefly the films main villain, Col. Landa (in a performance that’s worthy of an Academy award)?

Why don’t you discuss the connections and tropes that are prevalent in all QT films?

Why don’t you contemplate and analyze the films ending in all of its glory, thinking about what-ifs, could have beens, and should haves that it asserts?

Despite its tongue in cheek title, this film is a glorious entry from Tarantino.

The Final Exam

How does the movie compare to other films from the director?

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is on par, if not better, than anything that QT has ever created. His enthusiasm and love for the characters that he illustrates is highly evident in the film. Its got all of the trademarks of a QT film but at the same time, I think IB stands alone in some way. While I have yet to put my finger on what I mean exactly,  there is something remarkably original about this movie when comparing it to Tarantino's previous 5 films.

Is the movie effective?

The answer to this question will vary from person to person. I think everyone will react differently to the content of IB, which is in its own way, amazingly effective. The horrors of the German occupation of Europe during the mid 20th century is a widely known facet of world history. QT never abuses or bombards the viewer with clichéd images of Nazi terror. The film is effective because it will make you grin, laugh, and root/cheer for individual characters making their way through the WW2 landscape that QT evolved. Its fascinating to watch. Effective is an understatement.

Would I watch the film again?

Yes, this is one of those rare films that will seemingly never lose its appeal. There is so much going on in such a short span of time. Watch closely. Every little detail in this film can be analyzed.

Best aspect of the film?

The dialogue is crafted so amazingly well that the characters, as fictitious as they might be, become memorable, individual pieces of a larger universe that QT has clearly spent countless hours crafting. The acting is phenomenal; a tip of my cap goes to the excellent casting choices that allowed lesser known, equally gifted actors shine in a "fake" WW2 universe that feels real somehow in its own way. It’s been said many times before, but Christopher Waltz’s performance is astounding. I’ve never seen a villain quite like Col. Landa.

Worst aspect of the film?

There are a few edits that intentionally remind the viewer that Tarantino is making the film.  Unfortunately, they are quite jarring and feel out of place. Most viewers should recognize QT's wit in the sharp and hilarious dialogue. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS doesn’t need voice overs, vintage cuts, wipes, and fonts from the 1970’s to cue to the audience that it’s a Tarantino film. The Basterds do just fine with that assignment

 

Final Grade + Viewing Suggestion?

94/100 “A“

The ending of this film left me overwhelmingly satisfied and yet, I never wanted it to end. This is a remarkably bizarre film, but its fucking badass and when it goes off into territory where most filmmakers would fail miserably, it excels at levels that only QT could manage. Fanboys unite!

This movie is better than 9 out of 10 WW2 movies that rely on the clichéd emotional responses to images of War in order to make a statement on the human condition. Everyone knows war is an awful thing when the camera is removed. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS achieves its greatest successes by reminding us that War, much like human beings, has a broader spectrum of feelings, thoughts, emotions, and consequences and most notably, a good sense of humor.