I never got all the praise for it. I was reading reviews saying it's Tarantino's greatest movie ever. Really? Better than Pulp Fiction? It was okay, but it wasn't that great. It was definitely disappointing that most of the movie didn't really center around the Basterds. Mike Myers' cameo was just weird. Every time he said 'basterd' I could only close my eyes and hear Austin Powers talking about Fat Bastard. I doubt Quentin's ever going to make a movie as good as Pulp Fiction (or any of his 90s work for that matter) again.

I disagree with pretty much this entire review but I will only comment on your views of the violence. OK, first up why aren't you cheering at the death of Nazi's? They're Nazis man. They killed a lot of people for really dumb reasons. They are the people almost EVERYONE hates.
Secondly, maybe the brutal killings were kind of an experiment on the audience. You know, we cheer the death of Nazis but then it shows Hitler laughing/cheering the deaths of Allied soldiers in the propaganda film.

Because they are still people. Not everyone who was in the Nazi military were bad people, they just didn't really have much of a choice. Yes, the massive majority of their leaders were terrible people, but the common soldiers were just doing the only thing they could do to survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel is an example of a Nazi officer that was actually a good person.

You gave Transformers 2 a better review than Inglourious Basterds??? I gotta say, our tastes are completely different now. In no way is Transformers 2 better than this.

Actually, I found his attempt at a Southern accent to be side-splittingly hilarious. There was a tinge of unintentional hilarity, but I still found it funny.

And I actually really liked Inglourious Basterds, and that's coming from a guy who had never seen a Tarantino movie before. I was a little annoyed by that 30-40 minute long bar scene, but it was entertaining to watch (also, it had that King Kong reference for massive win). Plus, there's something gratifying about watching Hitler getting shot multiple times in the face with a machine gun.

Funny you'd comment about how boring the tavern scene seemed in comparison to the opening scene, as the person I saw the film with had the exact opposite impression: that the first scene was nearly enough to walk out based on and that the tavern scene was riveting. Neither has more of an objective to fulfill in the overall plot: they both introduce us slightly further to the characters and inconsequentially alter the plot(Shoshanna sees Landa, the Bastards must act with the odds stacked against them, situations that could've been brought on by scenes of a few minutes apiece, probaby). Sure, Christoph Waltz doesn't participate in the second one, but the stakes were so much higher in it than in the first, that the tension was greater, even if it involved inferior characters. How is one superior to the other othet than subjectively?I'll admit it's a hugely unbalanced film, with most of the movie used for dialogue and setting up tension, but I found both to be satisfactory, so that when violence came along, it was as the perfect climax, not gratuitous(in it's nature, it is;in it's contribution to the film, it isn't), prolongued or unwaranted by the victims(this is partly a Jewish revenge fantasy, as the hilariously bloodthirsty Nazis show.Eye for an eye, clobering for a clobering, scarification for a scarification, the methods of the protagonists are only as brutal as some real life Nazis were)as featured in the Nazi propaganda film, which I doubt Tarantino does not acknowledge as the counterpart to his film, had the Allies been the evil side.To return and close my statement on the dialogue, isn't the fact that it's often mundane countered by how well the actors keep the tension high throughout?
Still, I respect your opinion, especially your qualms with some characters. Take Eli Roth, who's character I nethertheless saw as shallow and acting as one note in a good way. This character was nothing more than a psycho, and I felt that the number of characters in the film hugely compensated for the fact that most of them were likeable, but barely had one defining characteristic each. It's my subjective feeling on the movie, but I see how having a film with many hollow, underfeatured characters can seem annoying when accompanied by an overabundance of storywise irrelevant dialogue(regardless of it's quality). It didn't to me.

I think you have a chip on your shoulder because of Quentin's calling this movie his masterpiece. While it's not perfect it sure beats the shit out of Transformers 2. Michael Bay!? Really!? Ugh... Overall it doesn't have the cohesiveness of Pulp Fiction but the concept and execution in some of the scenes is amazing. That opening scene is one of the best I can remember.

Inglourious Besterds, like most of QT's, is a series of vignettes (some better than others) whose stories intertwined. I enjoyed it alot.

Seriously Film Brain there is so much more fodder for Bad Movie Beatdown than this. Unless you are pulling an Armond White...

For me, this was really the best movie of a mediocre/poor summer and it's probably Tarantino's best movie of this decade. I might have preferred this to Pulp Fiction, i'm not sure, but it's not quite Reservoir Dogs.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I knew going into this movie that there was going to be acres and acres of mindless exposition. After all, it's what Tarantino is known for. The bar scene was also the last straw for me. I've had arguments with my friends over this. They are both film graduates and loved the film. I might not be the most sophisticated of moviegoers, but I know when too much is too much. And my God this was too much.

I'm not sure Tarantino's intention was for us to cheer wildly whenever the Basterds were tearing people apart; that was certainly not what I thought, or what I took away from the movie. I thought it was an interesting look at fighting fire with fire, and how those who fight monsters often end up becoming monsters themselves.

Of course, I don't know what Tarantino intended; I haven't researched it. Maybe you have.

Regardless, this review comes across as incredibly harsh and unfair, especially considering how that you've been rather "generous" with your ratings to certain other films in the past.

Before I say anything, I'll give credit where credit is due. Your ability to articulate your opinion of a movie is very fine tuned and it is nice to see reviewers who can opine without resorting to ad hominem attacks. However, I have to agree Justin Vasquez and Storage and Disposal on this one: Transformers 2 better than Inglorious Basterds? Dude, WTF? At the very least Tarantino is trying to say something about the line that separates humanity and inhumanity and the notion of film as a weapon with his venture. Bay's 2.5 hour, $200 million excursion into film excess was so painful to behold that once I left the theater I was so pissed off I had to scream once I'd gotten to my car. As I said before, I do respect your opinion and Bad Movie Beatdown happens to be one of my favorite additions to this site (although I thought Equilibrium was merely okay; not good, just not shit) but this is something that I just can't stand in agreement on you with. Transformers 2 simply doesn't belong on the same tier as Basterds. Also, the whole "masterpiece" quote is something I don't necessarily agree with, but I can still stand behind because I can at least see where he's going with it. All of Tarantino's movies have for the most part been about the films themselves as a general underlying subtext, but in Basterds that subtext finally comes out in the main context of the movie. It feels a lot like a hybrid of his previous movies with the general conventions of 40's-50's WWII movies, 60's spaghetti westerns and 70's-80's exploitation. This movie juggles a lot at once and manages to pull it off very well as far as I can see it. It's not his best by a long shot (Pulp Fiction is still the greatest movie EVAR) but it's still a solid flick that I'm sure he's very proud of. Oh, and as far as the Basterd's themselves are concerned, I don't think we're supposed to know that much about them because if we did it would lessen their legend. Tarantino always has larger than life characters in situations that are still realistic without too much backstory or explanation as to who they are. The only one who actually needed any backstory (aside from Aldo) was Sgt. Stiglitz because he wasn't technically employed by them and had a history of Nazi killing before meeting them. This gives him a special status when it comes to spreading fear amongst the Third Reich and had we not gotten that backstory it wouldn't be nearly as cool (plus his introduction was nothing short of epic, admit it).

I couldn't agree more with your film brain.
And it's even more shocking to know that the bar scene is a conclusion to a 20 minutes introduction to a character that bring absolutly nothing to the movie,and that die in that same bar scene (the english undercover agent)
20 minutes to say: "he's the best in what we need and blah blah"
then a 38 minutes scene in a bar,with very very few connection to the plot,to see the guy die and the basterd doing the mission anyway???
yay that's 58 minutes full of nothing.

You should be proud film brain. this is officially your
"Roger Ebert star trek review"
a review that almost everyone will disagree you on and totally blow it out of proportions. even though i personally loved the film i can see where you are coming from

Well.. for me this was kinda the point, and once the dust settled, I loved it.

QT appeared to be making fun of the very audience that came to see this flick (or at least part of the audience), and the brilliance was that this part of the audience he was making fun of would never be able to percieve it. Explanation: In the beginning of the movie there are more then a few people laughing and cheering when the Basterdz perform their attrocities over the Nazi platoon - even though the Nazis in that scene are depicted pretty uncharacteristically; they are not some faceless figures, instead you have a brave and rather heroic sergeant and a bunch of scared-to-death drafties. But hey, it's ok to laugh and cheer them being tortured and executed since they wear the Nazi uniform and that's Brad Pitt up there doing the killing, right?

Then, nearly two hours later, you are shown a horrifyingly primitive movie-within-a-movie consisting of scene after scene of a Nazi killing American soldiers one by one ad nauseam.. which is met with cheer and laughter from the Nazis in the audience.

Basically, QT made a movie for two types of audiences - one which will enjoy the attrocities and cheer the "good guys" no matter what (and for which all the Basterdz scenes are custom-tailored) and the other which will realize that violence is always horrible no matter who is on the giving and who on the receiving, but that there will always be people blissfully unaware of this fact for whatever reasons. And I've found this approach - kind of a meta-screwage with movie's audience - rather elegant and refreshing.

In my Opinion Film Brain still makes this Film better than it actually is.

The main Problem is the absolutly Pointless Script.
I'll never understand how they can build a Character like this Hugo Stiglitz, just to have him sit in the Bar Scene with bad mood and to have him killed then.

And I could have liked this Bar-scene if it had ANY Point, any Scense for this Movie, but is abolutley has not.

Just like getting Hitler killed in the End (im mean... ist has not to be THAT historical correct, but Hitler killed?? What the fuck?) without ANY sense.

And here in Germany ist even worst, they had the French and Italien subtitled, but synchronised the English parts to German, so you cant say if they speak English or German in the Scenes.

I already didn't like Kill Bill but now I think Terrentino should stop making Films, this Film was already 2 levels und Uwe Bolls worst Movie...

(sorry for the bad English)

I think English is the least of your concerns if you are comparing Uwe Boll to Quentin Tarantino. Art is subjective to a point but Uwe Boll>Michael Bay>Quentin Tarantino?!

Well... Uwe Boll-Films are mostly VERY bad but a few of them are at last A LITTLE entertaining.
And those who are not do not take 3 hours of my live.
This film is one of the worst I have ever seen and if a director makes a movie that bad i think I can compare him with ansother director who makes such bad movies.

I'd like to clear one thing up: Transformers 2 hasn't been a 3.5 rating for at least two months now. I wrote that review in the pits of a depression - it's more likely a 2. I was erring on the side of 3 for this review, but strongly considering to walk out tipped it into the below-par zone. As I said, there were bits I really liked. But I just didn't enjoy it as a whole.

I don't believe my opinion represents everyones, and I did try to keep it balanced, but I found that it would be far better as a much shorter movie. Stiglitz is a prime example of this. Why bother to have him in the movie at all when you do nothing with him? Its the same for the majority of the characters.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder for Tarantino calling his own movie a masterpiece - I find it a bit egotistical.

And I'm not the only one with this opinion on Tarantino, either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/08/tarantino_100809.html

Mat, at the end of the day, you write your reviews and have them posted. You were picked up BECAUSE you're a good writer, a good reviewer and you know what you like and know what you're talking about. You do NOT need to justify your actions to people just because they kick up a stink because you say something they dont like. People who do that wont last a day in the real world because people will do things they dont like all the time...usually their bosses...which means they have to sit on their asses and grind their teeth. People who disagree are more than welcome too, but giving you a roasting is the behaviour of a troll, not a mature adult and Mat, you're far beyond the shit of the trolls. They're a pathetic race that get off on kicking up a stink.

Hear hear.

wow, thought spoonyone was the only one this good at reviewing something, and he ven liked this one.

though, this wouldnt actually be that bad, compared to death proof. I love quinten, but i can see what your talking about. The only thing i really liked out of this decade, was the first kill bill, but the was mostly for the one action scene....yeah, basically one action scene with all those....what were they, ninjas? I sure hope he dosent make an etension of the anime segment, that would be frieghtning.

I suppose every director has their decade. John carpenter had the 80's, Quintin had the 90's. Will filmakers ever look at these, and think, 'hmmm, how was my movie so bad?'
Believe me, i am a little scared this will happen if i ever make films.

I can see where you're coming from, but I still enjoyed the movie while I watched it. I found the movie extremely entertaining from beginning to end, yet when I got out of the theater I kept thinking about it and thinking about how stupid it really was. I THINK part of the movie's message was that America wasn't the main heroes of world war 2 and not all Germans were Nazis.

I haven't seen Transformers 2, so I can't argue against it, although I probably will.

Maybe I just got a lot of excitement imagining Bear Jew as The Scout from TF2. BONK! XD

Could hardly disagree more. I LOVED this movie. Saw it twice. What's amazing is that this was a European film shot by an American director. Now, I am not a foreign films fan, but even I was gripped by this awesome movie. It had genuine humor, for one thing. The acting was AMAZING, the violence was very Tarentino-like. Yes, some scenes did drag on a little, but we all lived didnt we?

5/5

Hugo Stiglitz was added just to add tension to the bar scene and it worked, that bar scene was the most insanely tense scenes I have ever seen.

Film Brain is now officially a Nazi lover

Guys, stop getting all pissed off at him just because he thinks two movies are shit and he happens to have given this one a .5 or whatever less.

The numbers don't actually mean anything.

The points raised during the review and the type of entertainment provided by the subject under review is what should matter to you as a discerning buyer.

This comment is rated 1.41 out of 9.57.

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/2009/09/21/my-response-to-film-brains-review-of-inglourious-basterds/

Really, it just works so well I don't need to say anything else. Seriously man, what the fuck. I love BMB but... what the fuck.

Let this be a lesson to you Brain.. Number based ratings systems are stupid, and they lead to this same sort of complaining.

Sage dropped them once he exclusively started posting on TGWTG... to say "Inglorious Basterds is a better movie or worse movie then Transformers 2 because of this score" is a really stupid way to review anything...

Whenever I write reviews I usually go with the Screwattack Approach - "Buy It, Rent It, Fuck It"... is it worth seeing in the theater? is it worth waiting for it on DVD and renting it? or is it horrible?

that's pretty much all people want to know.

only a 2.5. Less than Transformers 2.

I went to see both and IGB >>> Transformers

Successful Troll is Successful.

You know, as much as I love his videos, I'm starting to lose respect for Spoony. Whoop-de-do, there are people who like stuff that he doesn't like. And anyone who likes those things is an idiot. Apparently, his opinion is superior.

And it's not just him, I see people like that in the comments around here all the time. Who cares if Film Brain liked a movie that was widely hated and hated a movie that was widely liked? It all comes down to personal taste, which is always different for everyone. Critics are not the holy grail of opinions.

To be fair, I think Spoony wasn't putting himself on the same levels as trolls; but more ribbing Matt for his ratings of the two movies. Then again, that's just assumption.

Matt: I have yet to see IGB, but I've tended to find QT's movies a bit long-winded, and up their own asses. I admit that Reservoir Dogs was a fairly decent movie; but I really can't find the "magic" in his works.

Honestly, maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but the real-life dialogues he crafts--albeit throughly designed, and clever--are a bit... too real?

To me, one of the finest signs of a true moviemaker is the ability to take fantasy, or surreality, and convince us of their plausibility. Making things as real as possible? I thought we went to movies to escape reality. Or at least visit a land/world we haven't been a part of yet.

Now, granted, exceptions can be made for movies based in factual events; but honestly, ugh. I really detested the Kill Bill movies. Jackie Brown was a fairly decent affair, but overall I just generally disliked QT's works.

The man can write a dialogue like nobody; but sometimes he'd be better off NOT writing one at all...

On the other hand: One'd have to be utterly INSANE and a gibbering MONKEY to equate QT to Uwe Boll; or even dare elevate Boll above QT. Boll is the scourge of moviemaking, gaming, and everything intelligent about humanity.

I'm also ashamed to say that my hometown (Bethlehem, PA) was used for the intro location to the Transformers 2 movie. I apologise, to all of you. I really do...