Nice try, Quentin, but absolutely no cigar!

Rating: 5/10 (15 December 2009)

Immediately, a lot of moviegoers claim INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) to be Tarantino's best work. I beg to differ.Now that the 00s is coming to a close, he has made 4 films this decade: KILL BILL VOL1 (2003), KILL BILL VOL2 (2004), DEATH PROOF, and this film. DP is self-indulgence defined and a true turd of a film and somehow, just based on Tarantino's fame (or infamy) has a 7+ rating here on IMDb! That alone is reason enough to suspect IB's 8+ rating so far.
I believe that KB1 is a contender for best film of the decade because it is the ONE Tarantino film that cuts to the chase and perfectly fuses elements of the genre it pays homage to, while modernizing it WITHOUT seeming self-important. It came together as a flawless film, but due to it's minimal dialogue, extremely high body count, and lack of "plot", it won't be considered to be his best of 00s or even his best film (but it should be because it is!). KB2 is really just more of the same talky drivel that you've seen before in most Tarantino films, but loads better than DP, not really saying much as, again, DP is crap! So, in the 00s, Tarantino can claim one certified masterpiece (KB1), a so-so sequel (KB2), a crapfest (DP), and now this film IB.
Loaded with dialogue (English, German, French), while a lot of it interesting, what's the point? Many times I felt Tarantino's string-pulling behind the actors. The characters don't seem authentic simply due to the overemphasis on dialogue. The film has a couple of tense, solidly acted scenes early on, but again, even they come off as very predictable. The film really goes downhill after the first couple of chapters degenerating into a weak climax and confusing ending.
Tarantino, more often than not, suckers audiences with pretentious, self-congratulatory nonsense. PF is an example of his best use of dialogue. DP his worst. IB falls somewhere in between and I put it closer to DP simply b/c I think the dialogue in this movie is almost as tedious to listen to as DP, with the addition that in IB, everything feels staged. Tarantino literally stalls the plot so much with his chapter divisions, unnecessary narrations, and untimely use of violence and humor that the film ends up being a frustrating exercise in patience.
The most obvious best part of IB is the character of Colonel Hans Landa (played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz, who won Best Supporting Actor of 2009). This is a prime example of a truly great performance that is the standout in a mediocre film. But no other major character is even in the atmosphere of Waltz, although Melanie Laurent (the female lead Shosanna, a French-Jewish escapee of Landa's opening scene massacre of her family) is exceptional early in the film doing a great job of non-verbally acting, but after the Landa restaurant scene, Tarantino really lets her character down as he sporadically shows her anymore and gives her very little to work with emotionally, and this is not good as hers is perhaps the most key character of the film. Next to Waltz, the best performance is by Diane Kruger (as German double-agent Bridget von Hammersmark), who leaves a real impression as she effortlessly relays her character's duplicitous nature. Nominal star Brad Pitt (as Lt. Raine, head of the Nazi-killing Allied unit) is pretty good and fairly humorous, but you never get any sense of who he is as Tarantino has Pitt play him a bit too comical and cartoonish. But really most of the characters (except Landa) are hampered with inane dialogue. Landa comes out the winner simply b/c he's the only one that seems "real".
Also, was the purpose of this film for the viewer to hate the Nazi characters? Because if it was, he failed miserably! If anything, he managed to most of German officers and Nazis (even Hitler himself!) sympathetic characters. Now THAT is blasphemy!
Tarantino noticeably uses music in some form from all his previous films in IB and this is a big no-no for me! I don't want to be reminded of PF, JACKIE BROWN, and KB when I watch INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS! I want the film to have it's own identity. Borrowing from other, much older films and creating uniqueness out of that is one thing, but borrowing from your own films within the last 10 years is just plain egotistical! Most of the music is strangely weak and misplaced.
Most of the characters don't feel individualistic, just like Tarantino-quoting pupils. There is one very noticeable casting gimmick that just plain doesn't work and really underscores the uneasy comedy-drama mix in the film. But the one word that describes this film...PREDICTABLE! Pretty much at the start of every big scene, the viewer knows what's coming just based on the way Tarantino sets things up. There was nothing predictable about PF or the KB films, or even the insipid DP. But in IB, you can see the finish line from a mile away.
In reality, IB is just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. And in that regard, it's not a good film, no matter how good the editing, art and costume design are. Deep down, there's nothing there. Just more of Tarantino's splicing and patchwork disguised as a film.