Yes, that's right you die-hard nut-jobs jacking off to anything with Quentin's name on it; it sucked.
Apparently, Quentin's love of his own insights is what makes a Quentin Tarantino movie a "Quentin Tarantino Movie." Quentin Tarantino loves "Quentin Tarantino" movies. Even a friend of a friend who loves "Quentin Tarantino Movies" thought it sucked so I feel completely validated.
The movie starts off well enough (I actually really enjoyed the beginning of it as it was quite touching). As for the rest of it I could hear or just picture Tarantino running off his own ideas -- seriously -- to himself or a friend while he's smoking a high-quality joint. It was almost as if I were over-hearing a conversation that a young university student was having whilst drinking his beer, drunk, and staring at the sexy-nerd's tits in the hopes that he'd get a blow-job for his insights on anti-semitism. (See in the movie: the conversation at the beginning, the conversation in the bar.)
Yet, don't fret; there are some positives in this movie: it's beautifully shot, with a beautiful beginning and a beautiful ending. The middle is like the parts of an essay you don't really need. There really isn't any character development because you know who and what everyone stands for from the beginning. There are no complexities, no tricks, no nuances in character development; they are one-dimensional - just the good, the bad and the ugly here folks. No backstory to any characters except for the Jewish chick. And, no, people, I'm not advocating for Quentin to be giving a sympathetic lens to any Nazi in the film. The highlight is definitely Christoph Waltz, who plays Colonel Hans Landa. Watch him. You love to hate him right from the start -- he's a fantastic actor with a really great part. Eli Roth is pretty neat to watch, too. As for Brad Pitt, I just saw Brad Pitt the actor. He fumbled like a high school student with too big a part. Another actor could've been better cast in the part of Lieutenant Aldo Raine and the movie wouldn't have been worse for it.
Characters in the movie that you wish would say more, like Sargent Hugo Stiglitz, say shit and do shit. Other characters are introduced and the introduction is drawn out and pointless in the end. Their conversations are pointless -- great dialogue, yes, but completely pointless to the film's story. It's a little odd. I mean, what happened to continuity and depth? I appreciate a great script as much as the next person, but I felt that the medium for Inglorious Basterds was all wrong: it would've been fabulous as a play or a book. I guess that the lack of the point to the movie may be the point of this movie: it's simply about killing Nazi's and nothing else.
|von Trier Again|
|“This is us testing the waters.” -- Neill Blomkamp|
|Reasons Why TV Sucks, and Movie Recommendations|
|Hell Boy and its Big Let Down|
|“A company headquartered in Toronto runs a successful affordable mobile phone service in the US.”|
|“Civilisation is a movement, and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbour.”|
|Japanese Robot Serves Ice Cream From Inside a Vending Machine|
|“Lighter, more affordable, personal rapid transit: self-driving bikes.”|
|Somebody Needs to Build a New Facebook Stat|
|CaptchaTweet: Write Tweets in Captcha Form|
|Why, Typewriters Are Alive and Well, Thank you|
|The (Very Scary) People of Public Transit|
|Bizarre Record Covers|
|Facebook, Twitter Users Could Face Insurance Hikes|
|“Artificial intelligence can detect your sexuality and politics just by looking at your face.”|