Anyone else see it yet? Here's the non-spoiler part of my post: I think Ebert nailed it with that review. The criticisms that it is too long are kind of ridiculous as I left the theater feeling that the movie was missing a lot of closure with many characters. Obviously since its a Tarantino movie there was tons of dialogue which may or may not have been completely necessary. If anything I was a little disappointed and left wondering wtf happened with several characters. Like Ebert said- as with any Tarantino movie- I've gotta see it again to get the full feel of it. My first impression is that its a really good movie though not great. But Ebert is totally right that Tarantino movies always grow on you. I was not into either Kill Bill for a while but after seeing them over and over on TV I've come to really love them. Always liked Pulp Fiction but didn't absolutely love it till I saw it 5+ times. Inglorious Basterds was a pretty damn solid flick on the first impression but I think I won't be able to really appreciate it until I can see it again. Now for some spoiler type discussion: I was disappointed with the lack of Inglorious Basterd action. By that I mean besides the initial introduction to their crew where Bear Jew beats the Nazi dude's head in we don't see the Basterds do anything else as an entire group. I really thought we'd see a few more badass scenes of them wreaking havoc in the field. Like I mentioned above pretty much everything in the movie seemed like necessary pieces to the plot so there really was no more room for scenes like these. I think one or two more scenes like this would have added a great deal to the pace and fulfillment of the movie though. I also thought QT introduced and developed some of the Basterd characters very poorly. When we're first introduced to the Basterds, Pitt and Eli Roth's (Jew Bear) characters are clearly the leading/most important to the film. But the next most important guy seems to be the character played by Sam Levine (Hirschberg) who is on the ground in the ravine with the other two "main" basterds, shoots one of the guys dead, gets a line or two of dialogue and Pitt even yells his name. Then he just disappears never to be heard from or seen in any relevant way again. What I don't get is why they later introduced BJ Novak's character out of nowhere as "little man" or whatever the hell his Nazi nickname was. Why not just use Sam Levine's character there since Sam Levine is ACTUALLY REALLY TINY in real life plus hes introduced to us as a more key member of the Basterds and thus would get such a nickname? By using Levine's character at the beginning then Novak later we come away with two undeveloped characters- one who appears early and seems like he'll have a role later but does nothing. And one who appears out of nowhere at an integral part of the movie. And yet it seems like they could have perfectly fit as a single character that would have made sense- after Levine's intro we finally do see him play a role later in Novak's place as that character like we were expecting. Boom, works just fine IMO. Aside from that, there's also the guy who goes with Pitt and Eli Roth to the movie premier. I don't recall any introduction to him before that so I could be wrong but, again, seemed like a random intro to a character we're unfamiliar with. This was less egregious and generally wouldn't be a really noticeable if QT didn't under-develop so many of the other Basterd characters. With Lt. Raine, Jew Bear, and Stiglitz I was generally satisfied with their character development. It would have been nice to get more but we got what we needed from them. This, again, goes back to how QT basically put everything that was necessary of the story into the 2 hr and 34 minute movie so there was no more room for excess Basterd scenes. Once more, I'd really like to know what the hell happened to the rest of the Basterds. You see the whole crew at their introduction but after that you only see them in bits and pieces. That's what I was left most wondering coming out of the theater. All in all a pretty damn solid movie though. QT didn't really have time to satisfy most of my aforementioned gripes so I'll say he did a pretty good job of giving what we needed to include all aspects of the plot. Here's to hoping for a super extended version of the DVD!
watched it last night with some friends- and we all agreed that its tarantino's best work and this is mighty praise considering his well celebrated work
I agree with most of this, the girl was interesting but took up way too much of the movie. People are acting like this movie is better than Pulp Fiction. I loved Pulp Fiction from the first viewing myself, and so did millions of others. This movie is far superior to the recent crap he has made, but not anywhere near as memorable as Pulp Fiction.
Word. I saw it again. Its really good but its not better than PF. But I don't expect Tarantino to top PF, that's pretty much impossible.
Not impossible but damn near. He doesn't need to try, in fact I think he maybe tries too much. The Death Proof stuff was kind of a neat idea but not so great in reality.
