The key to the success of Pulp Fiction was that you could still enjoy the characters, the dialogue and the black humor without "getting" ANY SINGLE pop culture reference in the movie. Not so with Tarantino's subsequent films.

QT seems to have gone from self-referential to completely self-serving, his films are made with an audience of 1 in mind: himself.



It seems clear that QT basically crawled up his own posterior when he made 'Death Proof'...now he's just rearranging the furniture! I fear that he has settled in quite comfortably up there, and on the strenght of recent output, he may remain there for some time. Alas!

I thought Inglourious Basterds was great. A vast improvement on Tarantino's recent cinematic endeavours. That said, I do wish he'd return to producing the likes of Reservoir Dogs. Very much doubt that this will ever happen. Then again, at least his scriptwriting and plucking of celluloid history is being used in a creative way to bring some originality to our screens. At least he's not turned into some remake conveyor belt hack.

Mark is pretty much spot on. I think I enjoyed the film more than he seemed to, but it is difficult to fault his criticisms.



There are some very good performances, there is some very good writing. It is indulgent. The film occassionally films more like an essay or a piece of film criticism, but, hey - in a world that is sequels, remakes and Michael Bay, I'll take this.



... Of course, Mark is also right that Jackie Brown is Quentin's best film.

I was very pleased overall with Inglourious Basterds! Never saw Grindhouse as it was meant to be at the cinema so can't comment on that one....( when is the dvd of that gonna be available in somewhere else but Japan ).....but it stands up well to his other work. Some excellent set pieces as you mention, especially those involving Christoph Waltz. Tarantino does these so well as you mention but i do think that he has shown with Kill Bill that he can do a bit of action too and this is for me what Inglourios Basterds could do with more of. Overall we don't spend much time with the Basterds as a fighting unit and possibly a scene or two of them in action in an ambush against the Germans from begining, middle and not just the aftermath would have added more to the film as opposed to the silly cameo by Mike Myers.

Maybe he is allowed to do whatever he likes but a Tarantino movie is still a great cinema experience. Highly recommended!!

i had low hopes for this but found it to be very good really entertaining a tad too long but i could deal with that as it was a preview therefore no adverts



melanie laurant and christoph waltz were great and the rest of the cast were entertaining



tarantino's soundtrack was superb



of course the ending was over the top but overall a return to form

the film couldn't decide whether it was being serious or comical.



also is that guy in the background Hurley from Lost?

Tarantino seems to want to melch all his ideas with his b-movie/exploitation/spaghetti-western/scorcese/depalma influences to create his films/ I mean, if you look at the various 'high pastiche' throughout his films, the above is all too evident, and tarantino even admits it. But Tarantino goes overboard with this pastiche and adds actual tracks from films in some kind of overzealous nostaligia mode, and seems to want to add 'b-movie' elements to the films, so we get a Tarantino movie with great dialogue scenes, his own personal ode and soundtrack, definate and tracable de palma et al influence in scenes, and b-movie 'hokey' acting appearing from nowhere e.g. Mike Myers, Eli Roth in Inglourious Basterds.

Seeing it again in little while, but on first viewing, I think it may well be his masterpiece. His flawed masterpiece, but nevertheless his masterpiece. And I don't think I'd be saying so had I not seen The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - Tarantino's favourite film - recently.



As much as I love Jackie Brown, it seems t'me Tarantino clearly prefers to make MOVIES, whereas for the purposes of this Jackie Brown is a FILM.



Good/Bad/Ugly is all about what's in the frame, projected onto the screen. Not that Good/Bad/Ugly is entirely superficial and doesn't make moral and political points, but there's no extended story, no lifelong character arcs, no "Jackie-Brown-maturity"; it's about the ride of enjoying interesting characters in a thrilling environment, it's excitingly written, stylishly directed and VERY well-performed. And a complete and utter artifice.



The moment when Angel Eyes makes his "sneak" attack on Blondie and Tuco - in the middle of a FLAT, LIFELESS DESERT - is heralded by his entering the side of frame with a shovel. So while all rational thought says they'd see him coming literally a mile away, it's when he enters their shot that they're rumbled.



This is what Tarantino wants t'do. Mirroring Good/Bad/Ugly, Inglourious Basterds is not a completely disposable treat - it's VERY much about cinema and Tarantino's belief in the power of film - but while showing us this, it's a hugely gripping ride to the finish.



The characters are interesting, well-performed, well-written, and very well-performed (forget Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender needs his due).



The chaptered structure, historical ambiguity, intertitles, subtitles introducing characters in-frame, narrator, and anachronistic music (such a bête noire for some in Cannes) are Tarantino's artifice, and all add to the CINEMA experience.



It's his masterpiece because it's Tarantino's most thrilling CINEMA. He clearly takes pride in his best dialogue; this has terrific dialogue.

As Mark said, he can execute a wonderful conversational set-piece.

He can contruct a shot, and run of shots, as enjoyable t'look at as any from a classic Leone.



At his best, he can pass his love of film onto the audience, and IB does this.



(Unlike say, the scene in Death Proof in which Stuntman Mike lists a series of unknown, cult TV shows he's performed in to stony-faced young women. And it just feels like Quentin showing off his knowledge of things WE'VE not heard of. Just a quick slagging off of Death Proof there...)



It's not an immature film, this is CINEMA from someone who's trying to regain the sense of a no-consequence-thrill from a film. Y'don't have to think about the morals of the characters until your head hurts, y'just enjoy them going about their business and coming across one another.



Fin. I think.



I don't know if that's at all clear, it really rambles.



Incidentally, if y'look at what is - or WAS - the Wikipedia synopsis of the film, it's clearly based on the leaked script, as it mentions several incidental scenes not in the theatrical cut. These all sounded promising t'me, and I'm sure they'd help those looking for the complete, mature, Jackie-Brown-esque film arc - such as Mark, and in a way myself. They tie characters together more, and seal up some of the cracks which the intertitles simply tile over. The film would be near 3-hours in total, but I'd happily see it.



Who knows if we'll ever see it...



But anyway, I've rambled my piece. Enjoy.



PS - Is Mark seeing the preview of Avatar this Friday? Or should I say, this AVATAR DAY?! I managed t'get a ticket and was just curious if Mark was going to see it and be as converted as so many respected filmmakers; most impactful for me was Ridley Scott having said it's "phenomenal", this being a guy who builds universes for a living.



Anyway, over and out.

Just saw it a second time and it was actually better. And it's Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger who should certainly be getting more praise. And one point reminded me of There Will Be Blood, which isn't a bad thing, t'put it mildly.



And as a PS to the above comment: Mark can obviously have whatever opinion he wants about the film, but he failed to praise it on one important point; in the year of Valkyrie, The Reader, and Defiance, he should be lavishing praise on Inglourious Basterds for flawlessly blending at least four languages and several accents of those, and proving that a film can be just as effective in Foreign as in English...(Save, possibly, for the Canadian-Brief-Encounter tones of Mike Myers, who I still thought was alright). And I'm also guessing the film will make enough money to prove that audiences can live with this blend of tongues.

In case you didn't notice, Kermode, "Cabin Fever" sucked, Tarantino or no Tarantino. "Inglourious Basterds" WORKED; yet again you fail in this very basic assessment. Remember when you wondered why Stephen King adaptation "The Mist" failed to do well at the box office? You didn't question whether or not it was an effective movie. Oh, and for your complaints about the name "change" concerning "Basterds," obviously the name was censored. At least Tarantino went ahead and spoke the title on live television, whereas you were too much of a pussy to do so.

i loved it. it's not as good as dogs/pulp/jackie brown, but it's in the same league. it's got nowhere near as much filmic masturbation as kill bill, and is considerably better written and pieced together than death proof. to those who say that they wish tarantino would go back to the likes of reservoir dogs, i think it's a really naive wish, the reason tarantino was so disciplined with that film is because he didn't have the means to be any other way, and that's why it will always be, in my eyes, tarantino's finest work.



i think that dr. k was being a bit too hard on this because it's tarantino. the comments he made (can't quote any right now because it's not working), generally seem to imply that he was far more impressed with this film than he was kill bill or death proof, but the general gist was still extremely negative.

illustrious jonsey-whenever mark has mentioned 'the mist' he always brings up the story that the studio offered frank darabont a bigger budget to change the ending but to his credit he refused



fair plays to mr darabont he produced/directed a fantastic film which has the most downbeat ending to a film(and that includes the original 'the vanishing')



i also think 'cabin fever' was terrific despite the hostel films although i find the first one funny

i thought the mist, pretty much in its entirity but especially the ending, was a really stupid film. the green mile and the majestic are pretty dumb and worse, overly sentimental, as well. i just don't think frank darabont is a great filmmaker, he just lucked out with shawshank.

I don't see why The Green Mile gets slagged off so much. No, it's not the GREATEST FILM EVER like Shawshank, but it's a hugely rewarding watch.



It also should've had people expecting a film as Godless as The Mist; (and just incidentally, there are two hours before that ending, and they're JUST as nihilistic). The Green Mile is just as downbeat as The Mist, but it's packaged in a different box, one clearly more palatable to a mainstrem audience. Both films are hugely nihilistic come the finish, and in a smart move, rather than having equal-opportunities when it comes to life being meaningless, Darabont has karma fall on the "Good guy" and utterly spoil him.



It's almost as if The Green Mile was a dry run for The Mist, because the end blends the hopelessness of The Mist with the Shawshank aesthetic. Only when he went full-horror did people notice the chaos.

I think that The Green Mile is better than Shawshank. It's truer to Stephen King's original story, and sticks to its dark-and-yet-hopeful credentials, rather than resorting to a sentimental twist at the ending. Plus it's Tom Hanks best performance

junkiecosmonaut - yes, the director was offered money to change the ending, but in what way does his refusal enhance "The Mist"'s effectiveness as horror, or help extend the overall product beyond its own limitations? The crowd at the viewing I went to, all of them, laughed at this ending; it was farcical, something that seemed so ridiculous as to be the intention of the director (how could it be otherwise, we thought?). The same goes for the whole film, switching between scares and (unintentional) laughs within the same few seconds. As for "Cabin Fever" and the "Hostel" films (the first at least), as no fan of either, I refute that the former is an achievement over the latter. In regards to Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantion, Kermode's "wanton abandon" remark is far more apt to the movie "Cabin Fever," which he has been harping on about for years now, than it is to "Inglorious Basterds," which was tied together much more coherently even though divided through chapters. Tarantino admires genre and pop-culture movies because he can develop his own ideas out of the details that he prides himself on (in reference to other films), but that's what makes him original, not what makes him a thief.

Good to see that Brad Pitt had got over that reverse aging problem and managed to stay middle-aged for the whole 150 minutes. I was also glad that Tarantino resisted the temptation to make the "Basterds" into ninjas so we didnt have to suffer the usual martial arts BS that he so loves. Of course it would be too much to expect him to have a musical sound track that was contemporaneous with the story and was one part of the film that did not work at all for me.



Apart from that, I found myself glued to the screen for it's whole running time. And yes, that is the right way to do subtitles; choose a solid non-white colour that stands out no matter what the background.

However, it did cause me to relocate from the front of the cinema to much further back so I didnt have to pan across the screen during Hitler's first rant scene.



I didn't have a problem with Mike Myers appearance (except for the bit where he went on about the sharks and the laser beams) but I couldn't help imagining the scene being done better by Eddie Izzard.



Now there is the small matter of re-writing the history of the second world war including presumably ending the war a year or so earlier and having a very differently partitioned post-war Europe.

Well, I thought it was very widely known that Hitler only visited Paris once during it's occupation and that was shortly after it fell, so what were you thinking, Quentin? Nonetheless, an enjoyable piece of nonsense. 8/10

Doh, it's "its", not "it's" (X2)

just heard something on bbc4s film noir documentary



'they let the director do anything except spend money'



perhaps this is the key for tarantino?

i don't see the problem with changing the way world war 2 ends. we've all heard the world war 2 story a thousand million times, i loved the audacity of presenting a film that basically says 'wouldn't world war 2 be a lot more fun if it had happened like this?'



on a similar note, i don't see how the green mile being closer to the book makes it better either - if you compare v for vendetta with watchmen, v is clearly the better film, even though it totally rearranged the graphic novel and added bits and took bits away. also, if you've ever read the book of 'wild at heart', the whole thing about marcelos santos hunting them down flat out isn't in the book, but that doesn't mean that the film suffered for it. films and books are totally different entities and they don't have to match page for scene.



as for the mist and darabont, i respect him for not compromising for a paycheck, but that doesn't mean that the ending for the mist isn't rubbish and totally unbelievable.

There is a 1978 film called Inglorious Bastards, starring Bo Svensson, who also has a role in Tarantinos basterds:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076584/



Just thought i'd share. Might just be me, not being in the tarantino-loop.

" just heard something on bbc4s film noir documentary



'they let the director do anything except spend money'



perhaps this is the key for tarantino?"



Was that the one with Matthew Sweet? It seemed to take a very narrow view of Film Noir and only acknowledged what seems like classic noir. They said that all Film Noir was made in black and white. Two of the most vivid colour films I have ever seen were "Niagara" and "Leave her to Heaven" (try to see either of these at a cinema in their original format and you will see what I mean). But also, if you consider "Chinatown" as Film Noir (and what else could it be?), that has beautiful colurs but not as deep as the ones I mentioned. Also the films of Hitchcock like Vertigo are very much in the noir style and mostly in colour.



They also said that the end of Film Noir was in 1958 with Touch of Evil. But it never really went away altogether even if we have to refer to it now as neo-noir or post-noir but Cape Fear(1962), just as one example, seems like classic noir to me.

"i don't see the problem with changing the way world war 2 ends. we've all heard the world war 2 story a thousand million times, i loved the audacity of presenting a film that basically says 'wouldn't world war 2 be a lot more fun if it had happened like this?'"



It's not really a problem for me. But if you are going to do it try to base it on an event that could have taken place, not one that we know did not (i.e. Hitler never went to Paris after 1940).



There have been instances of this before like Robert Harris book and film "Fatherland" but in that case he starts out with the premise of the whole of history being different, it's not something that gets thrown in at the end like in IB where QT pulls the rug from under the audience's feet. Jack Higgins did not have the cajones to have Churchill kidnapped or killed in "The Eagle has Landed", and although we might feel tension when watching/reading the story we all know that Churchill isn't going to be killed, because... Well, because that would have changed the whole of history and that would be breaking the rules. It's something you are only very rarely allowed to do. It's like when Gert Frobe says to Sean Connery in Goldfinger "No Mr. Bond, I don't expect you to talk, I expect you to die!" and turns away disinterested just as the laser beam is about to incinerate 007's gonads. Well, we all know THAT's not going to happen.



In IB it also leads to a "Dumbledore" moment where Christopher Waltz calls up Harvey Keitel on the phone to negotiate terms [trying to do this without a need for a Spoiler warning] and you think, well maybe the "Basterds" could have succeeded in their mission, but THAT wouldn't have happened. And on the subject of spoilers, some film critics/commentators (and i don't mean Mark because he was not the first) seemed to think it was perfectly alright to warn you that, er, well this isn't your normal WWII story where things follow the normal path of history. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Gee! Thanks very much! Now I will never know how I would have reacted if I had seen this without the tip-off.



But on the subject of revising history in film, I really wish somebody would make a version of the Titanic with a different outcome. Watching any of the versions (and I am sure there will be more) is like watching Groundhog day all over again.

to antimode



yes the one with matthew sweet, i won't pretend to be a film noir expert, although i did enjoy the programme. you could well be right. it just seemed to me the charm of the films was partly the seedy look, which tarantino has lost as he has been given more money to make films (although this may be because i have reservoir dogs and pulp fiction on video and have only seen the recent ones on dvd). am i right in thinking tarantino has been influenced by film noir? x

@smfarrow



I think the documentary gave a flavour of Film Noir but didn't seem to explore the boundaries (although I was half asleep when I watched it so I may have missed something important). By the way, I recommend both the colour films I mentioned in their own right as well as for the astounding colours and for anybody that thinks film noir has to be in black and white by definition. Niagara was made before Vertigo and you will see where Hitchcock got some of his ideas for that movie.



I don't know much about QT's influences but they seem to be multiple. I think IB had more of a spaghetti western feel to it than film noir. In fact, the Enio Moricone segments of the sound track did seem to fit better than the other stuff.



Now I just want to say a couple of other things about IB and I'll be quiet.



ACHTUNG! SPOILERS!



I liked the way QT handled the multiple languages in the film which were very frequent and sometimes quite prolonged and yet the audience seemed to be paying more attention than to most of the films I go to (maybe because they had to read!). I liked the fact that not all foreign language segments were translated. For example, the Dreyfus girl could not understand why Germans were coming up and congratulating the German officer who was pestering her, so the German dialogue at that point was left un-subtitled so we would be in the same boat as she. However, when she was sitting with Goebels and his French translator and the German war hero in the cafe, both French and German dialogue was translated. Not a big problem, it still worked.



Now at the opening (Chapter One) we have the scene where Colonel Landa is interviewing the French farmer about the Jewish farmers that used to live in the area. After some pleasantries Landa says that he has exhausted his French and asks to continue the conversation in English.

It is probably extremely unlikely that a rural dairy farmer in 1940 France would speak excellent English, but setting that aside, this appeared to be an obvious device which would allow the dialogue to switch into English so we could dispense with the subtitles. This made the audience at my screening start to laugh. I am pretty sure this happens before it is revealed that the Farmer is harbouring the French family in the cellar under the floorboards who can hear and partially see what is happening. So then you think, Landa is being wiley and changed language because he thinks the conversation might be being overheard and doesn't want to alert anybody else and maybe QT wasn't being a git after all. So from this, I concluded that the Jewish family including Shoshanna do not speak English (and we learn later that she does not speak German, either). Well, OK but later in the movie when footage she has filmed and spliced into the propaganda film starts to play it reveals her speaking in ... English. Huh? Given that she didn't speak German and she was addressing Germans in occupied France, even if she did speak English which seems highly questionable, wouldn't she have done it in French and QT could just roll the subtitles one more time?



OK, last point. In order to have a credible end to the war by killing enough key personnel we are told we have to kill Hitler, Goebbels, Goering and Bormann, simultaneously. Well at least one name is missing. If you remember, in Valkyrie (and it has only been a matter of months) Tom Cruise aborts the first assassination attempt because Himmler was not present. In the real world Himmler actually tried to negotiate peace shortly before the end of the war in Europe, for which he was denounced as a traitor by Hitler, so although Himmler would have been no block to ending the war, the allies would not have known this if they had planned an operation like "Operation Kino". Himmler was very important and would have had to be present.

Just one more :-)



Isn't the German form of "Bridget", "Birgit"?



Diane Kruger signs her autograph as Bridget von Hammersmark on the napkin.



You may think these are all trifling points. But you never know, it could end up as being as important as the difference between the symbols for "three" in German and English ;-)



Still liked the film

I thought the film was a mess - it wasn't funny enough to work as a comedy, it wasn't exciting enough to work as an adventure, and it was too dumb to work as drama.



The opening "chapter" was well shot and acted, for sure, but it was a horrible cliche with a predictable ending. But Tarantino really lost me with the second chapter, where (I presume) he expects us to cheer along with murder and mutilation of prisoners of war. (I didn't.) In fact, the most human, rounded and sympathetic characters in the whole piece seemed to be ordinary German soldiers - the two in this scene, and the new father in the bar scene. Now, maybe this is a cliche from the genre movies Tarantino loves, but it just served to alienate me from just about every other character in the movie.



I didn't actually have a problem with the big deviation from history, but I did find it quite ludicrous that the German high command would all congregate in one place, and not even leave any guards outside the cinema. I know he's billed it as a "Jewish revenge fantasy", but machine-gunning Hitler is actually a rather banal fantasy, and crucially, isn't an entertaining one. And saying it's "fantasy" doesn't excuse ridiculous plot contrivances. (How did she get to own a cinema, really?)



But the central problem for me, I think, is that Tarantino regards the Second World War not as a historical event, but as a genre. His other films all exist in a fantasy land, and I've enjoyed them very much (even Death Proof!), but because this one, superficially at least, has a real historical context, then it trivialises the actual historical events - in what turns out to be a surprisingly crass and offensive manner.

After watching the film, having read that it was a return to form in every review going, and that it's daring and whatnot, I too was annoyed when I got out of the screening and also slightly puzzled over the whole experience.

There's chapters in a Tarantino-novelistic way and yet somehow these chapters don't mesh together to actually complete a whole movie - unlike Pulp Fiction. Tarantino seems to egotistically and self indulgently race through genre after genre - spaghetti western, grindhouse/exploitation, classic 1960s Dirty Dozen war film era, and even 1930s gangster films. I think this is a testament to Tarantino's growing ego as he has surrounded himself with people who are as fanboy-ish as he is (like the good Doc says), and Tarantino even pays homage to his own films, with a whole scene that mimics the pulp fiction diner scene.

In a past blog on here I commented that Tarantino may exist in the realm of what I called 'high pastiche' with the likes of de Palma, but most of Inglourious... was lifted straight from other films (including the soundtrack), if not Tarantino's own films.

Another thing that left me annoyed was the terrible casting - a surprise as Tarantino has casted so well in the past. Aside from superb performances from Melanie Laurent, Denis Menochet (who Tarantino should definately use again!), and Christoph Waltz; the casting and acting is remarkably poor! Michael Fassbender plays his role well, although the role is far too stunted - which can also be said for Til Schweiger's role. Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger are inconsistant throughout the film, and Pitt's Aldo Raine (as well as Kruger's German accent) became so non-affective they slipped into comic relief. Finally; Mike Myers, Eli Roth (screeching like a girl as the so called 'bear jew') and other anonymous basterds were terrible (espeically 'little man').

What was also a wierd experience was the audience around me laughing at every single shred of violence that occurred onscreen. I kept on looking around and thinking, 'what the hell are they laughing for? Of course there were obvious cues to laugh, but it's as if the audience felt obligated to laugh at the violence because it was a Tarantino film. Ironically of course, the nazi's are watching a film that consists of violence with little content in 'nation's pride' at the end of the film, perfectly reflecting the audience's reaction to Inglourious...

To call this Tarantino's 'return to form' and 'daring' is ridiculous! And this pains me to say because I'm a huge fan of his early films, and Kill Bill Vol. 2. Perhaps he over wrote, and overly edited the chapters, but Inglourious... did not reflect the 10 years it took Tarantino to write!

Just saw this film and was very impressed.



As for there being no arc - I think people are misled by the title; the arc isn't about the soldiers, the arc is the buildup of all the disparate storylines to the big finish. That is, I think people wouldn't see the film as uneven or disjointed if it was called 'Operation Kino' or something similar that refers to the action as a whole rather than specific characters.



I also think that people are missing the point if they criticize the silliness of the plot/action/accents - Tarantino clearly made this movie consciously as a movie. That is, its value lies in the viewing experience, rather than any real-life observations one may extract after the fact.

Agree largely with the review, did enjoy the film though but thats not why I'm posting.



Has anyone else noticed Hurley from Lost lurking around in the background of this video?

I have to be honest I don't get the big deal about Quentin Tarantino. I did enjoy Jackie Brown but there is always something studied or mannered about his films and I never find myself fully drawn in. The comments about the film have been interesting enough to make me want to see it but I'll probably wait for the DVD.

Lets be clear here!



Inglourious is like a big budget student film. Take Brad Pitt's monologue; its forced and falls short of the the expectation Tarantino would have had at the script stage - "this would be so cool if Brad said..."



And like a student film, you can tell the chappy behind the camera is trying to be rather than actually being effortlessly on top of his material!



Tarantino says that when it comes to dialogue he: "is God" - well that is a load of crap. YES he writes entertaining stuff but he still has far to go before he can declare himself "God".



His best movie was Pulp Fiction, he showed what he was made of, what he was inspired by and his singular brand of filmmaking. Then he went into meltdown after Jackie Brown was not as well-received as he had hoped. Instead of fighting back with a return to form he pleaded ignorance and simply tried to recycle all his favourite movie set pieces in one - Kill Bill (volume 1&2). He failed and the movies seemed so unnecessary not to mention Uma Thurman playing out Tarantino's fantasy rather than a rounded character.



Tarantino needs to take a year off, stay away from Eli Roth, find a good book and adapt it to his mantle (perhaps with the author) and just try and tell a story without his movie geek hat on.

Personally I think Inglourious Basterds is his best film. I thought it was excellent. I really enjoyed the dialogue which slowly increased the tention which was followed by some serious toe curling violence. I loved the way so many main characters died and in away it reminds me of Segio Cobuchis Django and the Great Silence. The music was amazing espcecially for me as I am a huge Morricone fan and collector. And of course Christoph Waltz was amazing and I would say deserves an Oscar.



Some of the comments on here are a bit stupid I think.



@ Surinderism66



Tarantino without his geek hat on wouldn't be Tarantino. Without it you would have never got any of is movies as they are including Pulp Fuction.



@martian_pyramid



Talk about missing the point. The point was to make a fun movie not to make a dull world war 2 docu-drama.



@Harmonica-Bronson



Why were people laughing at the violence? Because a lot of it was outragous and made people feel a little uncomfortable. And the casting was bad ? I think maybe Brad Pitt wasn't a good choice as he is too well known but the rest were great and Christoph Waltz wow amazing. That character was so creepy.

He completetly contradicts himself here. He critisizes the fact that QT doesn't understand the concept of relationships in the film industry, but then he bitches about the way he uses Eli Roth in a lot his of roles. I know his reviews are his opinions, but I think generally he critisizes films too much for small things.

IB was a HUGE disappointment..I love QT and have relished every one of his movies, but halfway through IB I started shuffling in my seat and got very, very bored. This NEVER happens to me, I adore cinema and have never left a screening in my life, but I very nearly did on this.

Self-indulgent twaddle just about wraps it up..I had to watch Kill Bill and True Romance to make my eyeballs feel happy again...