It’s getting more and more likely we’ll never get another “Pulp Fiction” from Quentin Tarantino.
The hyper-gifted auteur, who can embrace and implode genre conventions with ease, simply lacks the discipline to corral his out-sized talents.
“Inglourious Basterds,” oh, so loosely based on the 1977 Italian actioner, is merely the latest proof. It’s an alternately brilliant and baffling World War II fantasy marked by boilerplate Tarantino excess.
You’ll swear one scene in particular runs for at least a half hour, and how can any film’s dramatic momentum survive such a detour?
“Basterds” ostensibly follows a group of Jewish Nazi hunters led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt speaking in a southern fried twang).
But the movie opens with the sequence which puts all of Tarantino’s skills on technicolor display.
An SS officer (Christoph Waltz) is interrogating a dairy farmer to see if he’s hiding any Jews in his home. Waltz announces a star is born with his first few line readings, bringing a coiled ruthlessness to the role few actors could mimic. Tarantino does the rest, expertly building tension that’s almost too draining to endure.
Then we meet the Basterds, a group of vengeance-seeking Jews out to collect as many Nazi scalps – literally – as they can.
But that’s only part of the story Tarantino wants to tell. We also meet a Jewish theater owner (Melanie Laurent) planning to draw as many Nazis into her movie house as possible so she can bring it down around them.
Add a beautiful actress (Diane Kruger) also working for the Allied forces and you have a gaggle of intriguing characters within a fantastical Nazi setting.
Action junkies will be sorely tested by Tarantino’s inability to reign in his dialogue, much of it sharper than what he punished us with in “Death Proof.” Yes, some scalps get detached, but the bulk of “Basterds” involves Nazis trying to get our heroes to fess up about one plot or another.
It’s a device that quickly grows stale, even if it’s suffused with occasionally sharp dialogue. That means you’ll initially be drawn in and, soon after, yawning while glancing at your watch. It’s hard to remember why we should care about the various characters here when so much time goes by without them on screen.
Pitt’s first scene makes it feel as if he’s wiping the slate clean on every role he played before meeting Tarantino. Soon his southern tics become just that, an actorly card game fooling no one.
By the final scene he’s become a caricature of himself.
The film’s score isn’t a pastiche of priceless pop ditties but a puree of scores from past war movies. Naturally, the musical bed is one of the film’s strengths, and Tarantino’s ear has never been in question.
His reliance on pulpy elements, like having Samuel L. Jackson serve up some pointless narration and identifying specific Nazi leaders with on-screen shout outs, doesn’t fit the overall mood.
“Inglourious Basterds” clearly needs a thorough editing, an outside visionary who can distill Tarantino’s best instincts and bring some snap back to his narratives.
(Photo: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and Sgt. Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. Photo by: Francois Duhamel/ TWC 2009)
No related posts.
on 
on 
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve enjoyed all of Tarantino’s movies. I just wish he’d stop casting Eli Roth in them.
Roth shows promise as a horror film director … wish he’d get back behind the camera, Paula!
Well, as we discussed some months ago, Christian, this is one I’ll definitely see. Not sure when, exactly — probably not until next week. Sounds like it’s not as interminable as Death Proof, which can only be a good thing. Seems to me Tarantino has always been better at caricature than characters. Do you think that Tarantino’s reliance on the same people — namely, Sally Menke in the editor’s chair — is making him complacent, indulgent and lazy? Or is he a hopelessly postmodern director whose real talent is in creating sleek, bloody homages to older, better material?
Just read your interview with Bo Svenson. His quote at the end about contemporary filmmakers really jumped out at me: “They’re spectacular to look at yet are empty,” he says. “They’re philosophically empty.” He excludes Tarantino from that lot, but I think that describes him almost perfectly. The dialogue for which Tarantino is so famous is full of a lot of hooey. Remember Bill’s monologue about Superman? As empty as it gets.
Tarantino was on his way with “Dogs” and “Fiction,” but got sidetracked somewhere. Every other film has been a hat tip to genre’s he’s loved. Sergio Leone’s family should get a royalty check for “Kill Bill.”
Good points, all. I’ve never met Sally Menke, but I bet if you woke her up in the middle of the night she’d say, ‘Yes, Quentin, that looks great!”
Hit the nail on the head. Tarantino doesn’t make movies; he makes movies about other movies. It gets tiresome and it dilutes the impact not only of his own movies but perversely that of those he loves as well.
Tarantino, like many directors (and other artists — musicians, painters, you name it), was simply better when he was hungry for success and fame. Necessity isn’t just the mother of invention, but also of great art. Another (related) problem with great directors once they’ve become established — nobody has the power or the balls to edit them. Their work gets flabby and bloated, like Marlon Brando on a Haagen Dasz binge. And yes, for all his snappy dialogue and occasional lapses into philosophical pretense, Tarantino’s work is as deep as a projector screen.
Watching the trailers — both in the theater and on TV — I started to get sick of Brad Pitt’s “southern fried” affectation. “We’re in the Nazi-killin’ bidness.”
What is it about actors deciding to drag out the Southern accent every time they interpret their character as goofy, or mindlessly violent, or mindlessly goofy and violent? “Look here, Pa! We caught ourselves one of them Nazis in our possum trap!”
I still want to see this movie, but I haven’t seen the script … but how many Jews with peerless assassin skills in the 1940s talked like a slightly less retarded Slingblade? Can that possibly be in the script?
I really enjoyed this. It’s wonderfully shot and brilliantly acted, with that sort of crackling pop dialogue deftly fitted into a WW2 context. It’s certainly imperfect, but it’s the kind of imperfect that’s so idiosyncratic and energetic that I enjoy it more than a work which is more conventionally accomplished.
I was also pleasantly surprised that it really wasn’t a war film at all, but more of a (very talky) action fantasy. Tarantino hasn’t really done a “straight” film since “Reservoir Dogs,” and since all but one (“Death Proof”) of his films have been good, it was a relief for me to see he didn’t allow any sort of temptation to conform to genre bother him.
Especially pertinent for me was the film’s treatment of film. It’s often pointed out that Tarantino relentlessly cribs from other directors (even though his assembly is unique), so it was cool to see characters who were cinephiles and a plot set in motion by a film, be it a nod to his own roots, an indulgence of his own interests, or both, it coalesced with so much verve and ingenuity.
One thing I don’t see noted very often: this film is suspenseful. During scenes such as the Colonel’s opening discussion with the farmer and the meeting at the French bar, I found my heart racing long before the payoff. You and others find it a bit tiresome, but it just wound up me up even more, making the Bang! feel earned.
I’d heard about the ending, but avoided everything else, and am glad I did. That’s about it for my rave!
admittedly, i am a huge fan of tarantino’s other movies. This one was completely pointless, but amazing. Don’t go in expecting any kind of theme, and you will come away satisfied.
Tarantino’s films have all had the same theme: the exhilarating joy of pop movie making. And with the exception of “Death Proof,” he has always done it right.
As I left the theater yesterday I had to admit that I really liked this movie. Was it great? No. It could have been cut down a bit. But the opening scene reflects a maturity in Tarantino’s work that was clearly lacking in the horrible Death Proof. I was squirming from the get go. Christoph Waltz is a major talent. If you’re running to see this because of Brad Pitt, slow down. This is not a star driven film. But worth the price of admission.
A couple of random thoughts. B.J. Novak seemed miscast, as did Eli Roth. There was a mention of ‘terrorism’ that seemed to be crammed in there for no reason. Did that term even exist in the 1040’s? The farmer in the opening season was wonderful. And as you might expect, the dialogue was over the top and at times momentum breaking.
If I got paid for this, and posting on this site is payment enough, I’d give it 3 out of 4 starts.
Tarantino did this film about Jews hunting Nazis so the money would continue to flow for him. Tarantino has not made a good film since Pulp Fiction. If Hollywood was not producing so much “straight to Blu-Ray”, this film would be as irrelevant as ‘Death Proof’. A film about angry Jews collecting Nazi scalps? This is a blatant attempt to raise favour with Hollywood.
I’m sorry to say this, but this is a terribly written review. I’ll hold back my opinion of the film based on my comments, but you have to do better. My god, you’re writing about an art form, you have to actually go home and take it into consideration, think about it and critically analyze the form, what it means to you and somehow intelligently communicate those feelings. You have done not of that. And the worst thing is… there are many critics out there doing a far worse job. Think about the film. Use your mind. You sound like a high school student checking their cell phone for texts during the inconvenience of the film you’re supposed to be reviewing. Stop being lazy.
Jon F. – I appreciate your thoughts – and for keeping your comments clean!
I wish you could give me specific examples where you feel the review lacked … whatever you feel it lacked.
My style isn’t for intellectuals or academics. It’s for movie lovers – and that’s the approach I take.
I read it over a few more times and I think the review as written is clear and concise. It’s a bit shorter than some reviews, but this is the web and attention spans tend to be spare.
I recently saw “Inglourious Basterds”, and I could say I’m a “Tarantino fan” of sorts, given the fact that I loved “Pulp Fiction” but haven’t seen “Reservoir Dogs”. I’ve seen a few other Tarantino flicks, and I surmise that his true “signature style” is weaving an interesting, rarely-seen tail with lots of violence in an RIDICULOUSLY LONG length of time. I, too, found myself looking at my watch during the film, but despite is 150 minute run, I didn’t feel as if all that time was completely wasted as I have at other 2.5 hour cinematic venues I’ve attended. Overall, I think it was a good movie, despite the fact that Brad Pitt’s fake accent gave me a headache! Thus, I’m not yet ready to accept IB as “Genius Deferred”. I think it’s still GENIUS, but people just haven’t learned to truly appreciate it yet. Give it a bit more time, and I think we’ll see another cult-classic type of film emerging here.
First of all, I disagree with Jon F. I personally have a VERY hard time reading an article on the web all the way through but this one kept my attention. AND I was impressed by your rhetoric
I must, however, disagree with your assessment of the movie. I loved it! I was thoroughly entertained and grossed out in a way that only Tarantino can do to me. You may wonder why I’m writing this 9 months after your original article. It’s because I just saw it this weekend and wondered…WWT think?