Movie and Film Reviews (MFR) Action,Drama Inglourious Basterds Review

Inglourious Basterds Review

Inglorious Basterds Review

Quentin Tarantino has unveiled to the world his next work of art. He’s been working on it for ten years and it is looking good!

This layered film contains separate stories which intertwine at the end to form a harrowing conclusion. Normally I would sigh when a film has more than one story line, (Babel),  but in this case I smiled.

The movie is set in Nazi-occupied France, during World War II, and the opening scene consists of a very serious and dramatic interrogation scene, were Col. Hans Landa, (Christoph Waltz), is trying to uncovered some hidden jews on a French dairy farm. As the story progresses one of the Jews who escaped that farm during the Nazi raid ended up owning a cinema a few years later. A German war hero/actor approaches her and seems to be attracted to her. His movie is coming out titled “A Nations Pride” and he wants to change its initial location to her cinema. She meets up with Brad Pitts character, Lt. Aldo Raine. and the rest of the Basterds, (a group of Jewish-American guerilla soldiers), and decides to mess up the premiere of the movie, where all the highest ranking German officials will be attending, by blowing up the theatre, and pretty much barbecuing everyone inside. I won’t reveal any more details but the plot of this movie is brilliant, ill leave it at that.

The movie itself is not overly confusing, metaphoric, or symbolic, although it has enough of these qualities as not to make them overpowering. The cast is brilliantly selected from top to bottom featuring great performances from Daniel Bruhl as Pvt. Fredrick Zoller, Melanie Laruent (Shosanna Dreyfus), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny Donowitz), Christoph Waltz (Col. Hans Landa), Diane Kruger (Bridget on Hammersmark), and Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo Raine). An all-star line-up whose performance outshines their respective cinema resumes.

The storyline is on the border between intricate and simple, enabling it to capture your every intrigue.

The sound was really well done, utilizing classical scores to build tension and suspense, brining the viewer to the edge of his seat, (assuming you have a good quality sound system playing the audio). The effects in the movie where alright, but that was not the main focus of this feature film. The effects are not something you should be going to this movie looking forwards too, though. The screenplay and plot progression are easily what drive this movie. The great acting is a plus.

I was happily and unhappily surprised in this movie though. I was impressed at the shockingly amazing acting of the french dairy farmer Pierre Lapadite,(played by Denis Menochet), at the beginning of the movie. He got about twenty minutes of screen-time, in this plot building scene, mainly used to establish setting, plot context for Shosanna Dreyfus, and character background for Col. Hans Landa, but what hits you first is the extremely convincing and compelling performance on the part of Denis Menochet. What I thought the movie could have have used more of was Mike Myers role, as Gen. Ed Fenech. This may have been a good strategic move though, on the director’s part as he may have reasoned that anymore of Myers would take away from the story’s seriousness and the shock-value of the ending, (hope I haven’t divulged too much with that one).

The one thing I could legitimately say it does not have is characterization. Col. Landa and Pvt. Fredrick Zoller develop more than any other characters. This is up to the director though. Tarantino has created very complex and deep characters for us in the past. If these ones didn’t develop much, that was intended by him to fulfill whatever view the movie was supposed to fulfill, in his mind.

If you end up watching it though, I’m warning you in advance to prepare about 3x the normal ticket fare, because that is how many times you will need (and want) to see this movie, to understand absolutely everything that went on. A must-see movie overall, and definitely worth buying on DVD.

6 thoughts on “Inglourious Basterds Review”

  1. If there were some aspects of this movie that you didn’t like, why did you give it 5 stars?

    I disagree that this is a complicated movie at all. Its filled to the brim with mind-numbing details, but rather than adding layers, these detail just water it down. Real themes and meaning are all but absent, and the only complicated character is Waltz’s because either we know nothing about anyone else or they get killed off right when they show some sort of multi-dimensional thinking.

  2. I don’t know why the 5 stars disappeared, I believe that the movie deserves its five stars. After reading the review again, there is nothing I explicitly said I “did not like.” I said the movie could’ve used more of this, but always followed with “but the director probably had a reason for not adding this in.” The only thing that I said was lacking was characterization, and I stated the only complicated characters where Col. Landa and Pvt. Zoller. I never claimed the movie to have complicated characters in it, but what you have to understand is that not every piece of work necessarily needs to have complex detailed characters to make it a five star piece. Real themes and meaning are absolutely not all but absent. First of all the director, Quentin Tarantino has made a career from meaningful and highly impacting movies (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Sin City, Kill Bill Vol1 and Vol2). That fact alone should have made you rethink your statement. Secondly, the movie shines with ideas of reinforcing stereotypes and themes of antisemitism and wartime perspectives from different people groups and race’s viewpoints. Lastly, the movie’s characters have multi-dimensional thinking right from the start, with Pierre Lapadite and his gruelingly difficult decision to either protect his family and give up the Jews he was protecting, or to keep the Jews at his place a secret, and risk further harrasment to his family. The multi-dimensional thought was very evident in this character right from the get-go, and that is why I even included it in my review as a pleasant surprise. In fact the movie has meaning right from the title. Tarantino purposely misspelt “Bastards” and wrote it as “Basterds.” When he was questioned about this he replied, (a bit frustrated I imagine), and I quote, “Here’s the thing. I’m never going to explain that. You do an artistic flourish like that, and to explain it would just take the piss out of it and invalidate the whole stroke in the first place.” There’s your meaning right there.
    Thanks for the comment, and your opinion was interesting too, but I think it would help if you watched the film more than twice, and thought about it a little bit more.


  3. Doesn’t that raise a flag though if Tarantino won’t even tell you why he did something? As far as we know he misspelled the title just to mess with people and from his history of childish behavior, I’m sure this is not far from the truth. You can’t just pass off faults in the movie as “directorial choices”. That’s like saying an undercooked burger was the chef’s artistic spin or something. Either it works for you and you like it or it doesn’t work for you and you don’t like it. Key word here is the “you”.

  4. Yeah but film is not under some sort of mandatory criteria. It’s art, and he’s an artist involved. As far as we know he misspelled the title for no reason? Man, you have to understand this guy is an Oscar-award winning writer and an Oscar nominated director. To win an Oscar your work goes under extreme scrutiny by very qualified and experienced people, its not just a give-away trophy. This guy knows what he’s doing. And you cannot compare an under-cooked burger to a movie, because an undercooked burger may kill you, and a chef is not legally allowed to serve that. Tarantino has done nothing illegal. A correct analogy would’ve been a chef adding a colorful side dish to compliment the main course, or cutting your steak into various shapes to prove an artistic point. Those would be artistic flourishes. You’re right though, you’re not far from the truth…you’re very far. With your key-word here is “you” comment I agree. If you hate Quentin Tarantino for who he is, you hate his work, and his directing job in this movie, as well as the movie in and of itself, then there is almost nothing I can do that I have not already tried to do to change your opinion, (without this discussion getting slightly agitated and turning into an argument). Again, thanks for your opinion, and contributing to this review. I now know where you stand in regards to Inglourious Basterds. Maybe give a rating at the top about what you think?

  5. My opinion about this movie is that it needed to get the whole story straight because in most of this story is just ficitonal even we all knew what really happen to Hilter. Of course, the director Quentin Tarantino never made any non-fictional movies which I cannot blame on but others than that, this movie has provided enough action-packed that entertains us as well. Brad Pitt did his performance as well but unlikely as he did in ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith.’ Therefore, I will give this rating 3.5/5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post


Science Fiction films will inevitably fade from our movie theatres in the exact same fashion as the Western has. It saddens me greatly to admit this. Some of my absolute