is it me or does that pic of Shosanna above look like she's wearing Freddy Krueger's sweater and hat?

Even if it's relevant? My bad.

Willby come on, you're as bad as people who want to ban a film they haven't seen. This is a forum for people who have seen th tarantino e film and want to discuss its merits, Not people who want to make blind jabs in the dark at something that they assume is bad cinema. I'll admit, when i went into the theatre i had my doubts. Going on the trailer and what i had heard about the cannes screening i thought it would be an overlong exercise in self indulgence. But i was very pleasantly surprised.

Is it long? Yeah, but its never boring. Is it self indulgent, sure is, but I'll allow Tarantino any indulgence that is that entertaining. This is cinema at it's most fun, i was literally smiling ear to ear through out the whole thing. I am defiantly going back for a second viewing, and if you want to miss out on one of the best films so far this year, then thats your problem. But don't go around badmouthing something you haven't even seen, its just disrespectful.

I might go see it again tomorrow!

Well Willby, would you prefer the educated 'snobbery' (I'd label it arrogant enthusiasm, but ability justified the arrogance) shown onscreen with canny ability and an ear for dialogue exhibited by P.T. Anderson and Quentin Tarantino ... or the fratboy anti-intellectualism and visual spazzery of Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers and Paul W.S. Anderson.

I fail to understand how folks judge Tarantino by his 'rock-star' persona instead of watching his actual films. (Ditto on some folks with Roman Polanski's personal life verse his films).

It is curious how a new Tarantino film brings out the worst in film-lovers. A shame really, we should be so lucky to keep getting the interesting brand of movie-making from Tarantino (and P.T Anderson and The Coens for that matter, all because they bring a modern sense to their own film love with a bit of showy cinema flair.

It is curious how a new Tarantino film brings out the worst in film-lovers.

Agreed.

Tarantino’s three latest movies have the right to exist

Hello, perfect example!

I love that the only people bashing QT or the movie have admitted that they haven't seen it and don't intend to. Every person on this thread who has said they've seen the movie has given is a positive review. I wish I could've gone to see it again today, but I went for Ponyo instead because of time constraints.

As long as he loves swimming in the genre pool I wouldn't mind seeing him do a full on classic noir film.
I know he worked on Sin City a bit but as fun as that film is it's more comic or cartoon noir. As an opportunity to do striking compositions, strong dialogue and bursts of violence a classic style noir could be cool.

Not so very many hours ago, I was a hater, which is to say Inglorious was a Tarantino film and not a film I was in any real hurry to see. But after having spent the day working on a short film of my own, my defenses were down when one of the actors volunteering there time suggested we go. So we went. 2 and a half hours flew bye, and as the ending credits slowly rolled up the screen I could not help but feel that here was film of real quality. Which is to say that when people say that something is epic or classic many years after a piece of film has been created I think what they are really saying is that what they see in the work is quality, craftsmanship not just style but substance. Basically walking away from the film, I felt it truly was that, a film (as opposed to mass market entertainment) and Tarantino the master stylistic vampire had drunk enough of the blood of Ford, and Leoni and Peckinpah to no longer stand in there shadow but stand beside them having created something truly his own.

This film is a masterpiece and well worth the wait. It is a creature all its own. A rare and original piece of cinematic art that will be remembered for years to come. THIS IS WHY I GO TO THE MOVIES.

"Well I don’t remember seeing Uma running around in a yellow jump suit with a samurai sword in the version I watched but maybe that’s in the japanese version. You don’t live in Japan do you?"

No, but this movie has Eli Roth, and that equals ten Uma Thurmans in a yellow jumpsuit.

I'm torn - I'm a huge fan of QT. While I did enjoy the film, I really don't think it holds up well to his other work. I know, you can't really compare films to films like that, but really, I do think he's a huge talent, and for me I do hold his films to a higher standard. It think IB is the most "conventional" film in his body of work. The problem for me is that the fact that I can even use that term in describing this film is a letdown.

I respect QT as a filmmaker and I largely enjoy his body of work, best to worst (Pulp Fiction, True Romance screenplay, Natural Born Killers screenplay, Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill 2, Kill Bill 1, Inglorious Basterds, Death Proof cuz you gotta love Stuntman Mike). I think this was his second worst film to date, behind Death Proof. And this is my opinion why: *Spoilers Abound*

I think Quentin is good at writing dialogue but he has established a cadence to his writing that is completely predictable at this point in his career. I know how his characters are going to sound before they even speak and I know it's going to be about nothing and there will be verbal fencing until one character is backed into a corner and then something f'ed up happens. He has built his career on this and it is frankly getting a bit stale to me. The whole bar room scene for example, while having moments of brilliance largely surrounding the actor's abilities to deliver the lines rather than the lines themselves gave way to feelings of "get on with it" rather than suspense. I knew the second they walked into the basement that this scenario was coming just because it was QT directing, had it been another director I would’ve been more intrigued. Now what does that say?

I also cite the farmhouse scene opening everyone loves to rave about as it emotes similar feelings in me. Whilst I applaud Christoph's performance as Hans Landa and agree he is well written, his character came off as more of a “tax collector” or “book-keeper” than anything sinister to me. He was precise and analytical and followed the numbers and I found him to be grating to the nerves but for the wrong reasons. He was never threatening to me, I just wanted him out of my house because he gave me the feeling he was trying to test me like a census taker might. I wanted to eat his liver with some favre beans and a nice Chianti. Not the intended effect I believe. Also, it made no sense to me why he let the girl go in the opening scene, he was a thorough and precise tracker of Jew’s, why would he let this one go if only to facilitate the scripts need for a heroine to orchestrate the doom of the Reich in the last act? I didn’t believe it followed Hans’ character as established to that point but then again, QT can rely on his quirky characters to explain away any decision that may ring false to a viewer.

And that brings me to the Basterd’s, the characters claimed to be central to this story. To those who push for viewers to not enter the theater thinking they are getting a WW2 small army killing machine type of film and instead are getting something completely different, I say this, why was it then marketed as such? I understand most studios will twist a film’s overall intentions in order to get butt’s in the seats but isn’t QT a director who is above all the pretention? All the marketing foils and smokescreen? Why was I sold one movie and given another? Not to mention the fact that I had 0 involvement with any one of the Basterd’s and that includes the poorly written Aldo. Giving him an accent and a silly scar on his neck is not enough for me to be interested and that’s all we get. Whatever happened to Jules? Talk about foot massages and quarter pounders and conversations that seemed like they were about nothing but simultaneously revealed so much about the character. Everything Brad Pitt’s character utters is a simple man, southern boy, type of retort that only served to reinforce my utter disbelief that neither he, nor any other member of the Basterd’s deserved their nomenclature. They seemed to be a bunch of low brow, unsophisticated, physically unimposing, and strategically impotent soldiers. I have to give some credit to QT for the “Bear Jew” story, the Jewish Golem of revenge coming for Nazi souls was a great way to build that character, and then Eli Roth walks into those shoes and completely destroys everything that had been built it. He looked scared to be there, it was a wash.

At this point I’m just grabbing at things that never made sense to me, why does Aldo stand in the lobby of the theater and not help the actress who is being strangled by Landa? Why would the remaining Basterd’s destroy themselves in order to blow up the theater? Can they not think of another plan? When was suicide bombing a first resort? For that matter, what happened to the remaining Basterd’s, they just seemed to disappear one by one because someone forgot to write them in. When Shosanna and Fredrick shoot each other I nearly started laughing, it was cliché and ridiculous that she would reach for him in that moment when she was already headed to her destiny and it made no sense to me whatsoever. Again, most of these concerns could be handled by changing the titles and totally re editing the trailers out there to include the other, more prevalent characters of the film but that wouldn’t be as appealing to the masses to be sure. Also, what was this story about? Was it simply a revenge story? A piece of revisionist history in which Hitler is destroyed by a few backwater good ole boys instead of committing suicide alone in his bunker? Point is, I figured out the intent from the trailers, and not only was I not given what I feel I was promised, I feel I was given nothing more. I ended the film with only a hollow sense of bewilderment when the “curtain rose”. What do I take from this if I could not even be successfully entertained? It’s been three days now and I still have nothing.

In summary, I really tried to like this film, I like having fun at the movies and I enjoy director’s who take risks. I believe QT’s issue is this, he is in love with his own ability to write dialogue and he has free reign to play with his toys. He writes 2 or 3 “good” scenes and the rest is just fluff characters written in to join the scenes together and bam! There’s a movie. He is obviously having more fun making this movie than I am watching. While dialogue is great, I believe it is this coupled with a character’s actions and choices that truly define them and maybe he should focus more on the action in coming pictures. I believe he may have forgotten his audience and would have better luck winning me back as a fan if he returned to something a bit less “zany” and with a bit more substance. That and enough with the homage to exploitation films and enough with the regurgitation of film styles. I say this only because I believe he has a lot more talent to show and it’s obvious to me that the more he focuses on his “style”, the less substance we are getting. My two cents and to each their own. Have fun at the movies!

FYI, there is nearly 90 minutes of *SPOILERIFIC* Basterds talk on the latest RowThree Cinecast -> http://www.rowthree.com/2009/08/25/cinecast-episode-136-we-have-a-bingo/