Today’s IMDB Top 250 Guest Review comes from Josh of JJames Reviews. He’s already done a review of Apocalypse Now (which you can read HERE). Thanks so much for joining in, Josh! Now let’s see what he has to say about Inglourious Basterds, IMDB rank 113 out of 250…
There are still some movies up for grabs if anyone wants to do a guest IMDB Top 250 review. You can find the list HERE. See the full list & links to all the films that have been reviewed HERE.
Inglorious Basterds (2009)
Written and Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
Running Time: 2 hours 33 minutes
In an alternate history mash up, two different groups of assassins plot the murders of important Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler (Martin Wuttke) and Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth). Meanwhile, Hitler, Goebbels and Nazi detective, Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) hunt The Basterds, a group of special forces assassins led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt).
Inglorious Basterds bears Quentin Tarantino’s trademarks, mostly in good ways. Using at least three storylines and an episodic chapter structure, it is always fun and suspenseful. Soshanna Dreyfuss (Melanie Laurent), Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) take turns as the film’s protagonist, and each proves capable of carrying the movie, in no small part because all three of the actors are spectacular. Waltz won an Oscar for Inglorious Basterds, and it is easy to understand why, but his is not the only award-worthy performance. This might be Pitt’s best acting since 12 Monkeys (1995) and Laurent shines, as well, especially when she’s opposite Waltz or Daniel Bruhl (Frederick Zoller).
Even still, the performances are not Inglorious Basterds’ greatest strength. Editing is. Tarantino and Oscar-nominated editor Sally Menke piece together the separate storylines sparklingly well, cutting away from each at exactly the right moments. Even more impressively, they time many takes and shots a heartbeat or two longer than we subconsciously expect, a decision that creates tension and heightens our anxiety. Consider the movie’s opening scene, when Landa arrives at Pierre LaPadite’s (Denis Menochet) home in search of hidden Jews. When the former first meets the latter’s daughters, he politely compliments their beauty, at which point Menke and Tarantino use a wide-angle shot from behind the young women, one that frames Landa’s face with the female’s bodies, thereby ensuring we see the intimidating glare the Colonel gives them. At that point, we expect Menke and Tarantino to cut away from the shot, probably to a close up of Landa, or perhaps LaPadite, but they don’t. Instead, they hold it an extra moment, just long enough to make us feel Landa’s threat. Later in the same scene, the Nazi is centered in the frame as he drinks a glass of milk. While he’s drinking it, we expect the director and editor to show us a reaction shot of LaPadite or one of his daughters. They don’t. Instead, they hold the shot of Landa until the milk is gone, a decision that once again increases our anxiety. Why? Because now we know that Landa can and will do anything he wants, that the LaPadite family is powerless to stop him, and that soon all of them might be dead.
Such brilliant editing continues throughout the movie. Menke lost the Oscar to The Hurt Locker, but she unquestionably deserved her nomination and would have been a fitting victor.
Tarantino makes other standout directorial decisions. Inglorious Basterds is visually striking, and the sound design is very good. So too are all of the director’s casting decisions. Daniel Bruhl is excellent as the flirtatious but frightening Frederick Zoller, and Michael Fassbender is scene-stealingly good as British soldier Lt. Archie Hicox. Diane Kruger (Bridgit von Hammersmark), Jacky Ido (Marcel) and Sylvester Groth (Joseph Goebbels) all give memorable supporting performances, as well.
With excellent acting, near impeccable direction and some standout technical elements, Inglorius Basterds has potential for perfection. Unfortunately, Tarantino’s screenplay is uneven. Yes his dialogue is witty and sometimes funny, as it is in everything he writes, but the way he tells this story fundamentally prevents emotional attachment to the characters, something that is all the more disappointing given each of the protagonists’ potential to be memorable. Shoshana is a tragic anti-hero if ever there was one. Raine could be, too. And Landa could be a complex opportunist, whom we never completely understand and therefore whose actions we cannot predict.
But instead, Tarantino chooses to gloss over his three lead characters, assigning each of them one or two traits, and never further developing them. Then, he introduces a bevy of minor characters, some of them historical figures and others not. He gives these secondary players as many traits as the leads, which guarantees that no one is well developed. That, in turn, means we do not care about any of the characters.
And so we do not extrapolate important life lessons from their experiences.
Conclusion: Inglorious Basterds, then, is a prime example of style over substance. It is entertaining and darkly comedic, just as it is incredibly well made. But, thanks to underdeveloped characters, it is not thematically resonant. Though we can enjoy it, we are not inspired by it.
My Rating: 7.5/10
Great write-up Josh. Basterds has some of Tarantino’s strongest scenes. The opening conversation with Landa and Lapadite and Fassbender trying to retain his cover as a Nazi officer. Two marvellous pieces that really stand out. Unfortunately, the tone of the film of the film does become uneven and strays a little too far towards comedy in the final third. Still, it’s a fantastic and very ambitious film.
I basically agree, Mark. Especially with the two scenes you highlight. They are terrific.
nicely done Josh! Glad to see you back again.
Mutant – did u get my email that I sent on Sunday?
I’m still hanging around. 🙂 Probably will for some time yet.
I liked this movie quite a bit but I did think it suffered from too much dialogue so it kind of got boring to me in parts. Oh, and Eli Roth is a fucking sucky actor.
I wasn’t bothered by Roth here, actually. I thought his character, like all the rest of them, underdeveloped and therefore not resonant. But he didn’t do anything I’d label as bad.
And I like the movie quite a bit, too, on balance. But if I’m grading it critically, I have to give it a lower score than I might if I’m only considering its entertainment value.
Lol. I still don’t know what you have against ‘talking’ in movies, Eric. ; ) Suppose you hated the intense opening scene with Christoph Waltz, then (which was freaking BRILLIANT!) : )
No – the opening scene was pure brilliance. I am talking about almost anything that came out anyone’s mouths after that. Except for Aldo.
Okay. We can stay friends. : )
Perfect review, Josh. Couldn’t agree more. “Stylistic more than thematically resonant”. Yep. I thought Christoph Waltz was brilliant.
Totally. Show-stealing wow terrific.
Style over substance is a charge that many level at Tarrantino for most of his work. Normally, I think his stuff more complicated than its given credit for being, but this one . . . not so much.
LOVE Christoph Waltz. He’s SO perfect in this. And then possibly even better in Django Unchained. : )
great summation. The first 20 minutes is, for me, perhaps the best 20 minutes of cinema that Tarantino has written and directed (and as you point out, the editing is an immense help). I found the rest of it less engaging, less interesting, too long, but well-acted. (i felt similarly about Django). It’s been obvious to me for years that Pitt is a better supporting/character actor than as a star, and this film only helps to support that argument. I agree that this is his best performance in years. I have rewatched Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction many times; I am less interested in rewatching Inglourious Basterds. I’m happy his latest script got leaked and then kyboshed: he needs to do less genre -homage crap and do something else. I wonder how many trips to the same well the man can make.
Amen on his genre homages. Much like Robert Rodriquez, I sometimes wish he’d try something new again, something closer to the innovation in his early work.
But I also still like many of his movies, including this one and Django. Though neither resonates with me either.
And agreed that the first twenty minutes here might be Tarrantino’s best movie-making ever.
A most excellent review! Perfectly articulated some of the big issues with this film – style over substance. But still, really enjoyable style.
Good review, Josh! I haven’t seen this one from beginning to end (I’ve just caught pieces on TV), but I have a feeling I would feel similar. In fact, I feel the “style over substance” thing at least a tiny bit in almost all of Tarantino’s stuff that I’ve seen.
It is a charge commonly leveled against him, and usually not without reason. I think many of his movies more complex than they’re given credit for being, usually, but this one . . . no so much.
Have you at least seen the opening scene of this, Cara? It’s brilliant. : )
Thanks for reviewing this, Josh! Sorry I’m so late in finally commenting on my blog! I did enjoy this one quite a bit but it’s not my favorite Tarantino. I just really love Waltz and the gorgeous Melanie Laurent. : )
Amen on all fronts. Cara, if you haven’t seen the opening scene, YouTube it.
Great review Josh! I must say I enjoyed this more than you did, but I can understand where you say it is amazing and where it suffers.
Thanks, Zoe. And don’t mistake me . . . I enjoyed this a lot. A ton a lot. From an “What is entertaining?” perspective, it’s an A+.
Analyzing it critically, though, I think, means it receives a considerably lower grade.
🙂 This was ridiculously entertaining. Hmmmm, I suppose that is just and fair!
It was at that. Entertaining, I mean. 🙂
Good review Josh! Great as always, too bad you didn’t give it a complete 10, but hey you always back up your numbers with well thought out reasons why. Great! I absolutely love this movie, only Tarantino can take such a horrific time in history and turn it into a bad ass cool sexy movie.
I agree the movie is fun and will lend itself to loads of rewatches. I wish there were a bit more substance to it, though.