Once upon a time in Tarantino's envisioned Nazi occupied France...

Rating: 5/10 (23 September 2009)

Inglorious Basterds, the latest film written/directed by Quentin Tarantino, the surrealistic phantasmagoria set during the World War II was a big disappointment for me. I found it irritating, boring, and full of Tarantino who did not make a movie about WWII but about his love for movies, this time for spaghetti westerns and his interest in the German movies of the Third Reich period. All his movies are about himself and often it works. I absolutely love Pulp Fiction and believe it is his glorious achievement. I like a lot Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown and both volumes of Kill Bill. I said more than once that Tarantino does not make profound statements or ask eternal questions, but what he does do is entertain, and he does it marvelously - with style, class, irony, wit, and talent. Deathproof was the first alarming signal that more than anything Tarantino loves to talk and talk he does to the point that the viewer gets bored and frustrated even while watching supposedly fast and violent movie. It only got worse in Inglorious Basterds. Something is terribly missing in QT's vision of the important and tragic period of European and World history. Oh, his movie looks splendid, art direction is the best ever in any QT's films. The soundtrack is killer as always, and I'll make sure to have it. The first Chapter of the film is perfection. Pure and simple, the masterwork of setting, writing and acting. If anything, the opening introduces Christoph Waltz and Denis Menochet in the star making performances. But you know what? I am really surprised that Waltz's work has been proclaimed something of revelation by the critics while Malcolm McDowell who played the same type with relish in The Passage (1979) had been but crucified by the critics. Back to Basterds, it all goes rapidly downhill after the opening scene. It seems to me that Tarantino was under the spell of his own self- importance. He could not force himself to make some or should I say many scenes shorter. Some scenes only exist because Tarantino had to make the participants speak out his witty remarks and be the part of the snappy dialogs, his trade mark, even if and when the scenes did not make any sense and just went on and on. I think that in his last movie, Tarantino lost the sense of rhythm, and the film stuck more than once. I won't say that Inglorious Basterds is a total failure but it is so pointless, self-adoring, and often empty that sadly the brilliance can't always shine through inglorious and pompous stupidity, emptiness, and juvenile arrogance.
I don't think the movie problem was total lack of historical accuracy. It is not the first time, the film makers or the writers take liberty with history to create their own interpretation and vision of the epoch and the events that influenced it. One of my favorite writers since my young days, French Alexander Dumas, famous for the highly successful historical-adventure novels, had said about his works, "Sometimes I have to lift up the skirts of history to make Her good sons." The father of The Three Musketeers (1844) and The Count of Monte Cristo could be justly proud of his creations. As the result, Tarantino's violation of history has produced just that - inglorious basterds.
My rating is 5/10 - for art direction, soundtrack, Chapter one, and introduction of Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent, and Denis Menochet. Another point goes for using different languages throughout the film.