A war movie? More of a carefully schematic film with sharp plot

Rating: 10/10 (21 February 2010)

I'm led to believe that this has to be one of the finest articulations Quentin Tarantino dealt with every movie he made. I was surprised he had its story completed for almost a decade. Putting that aside it was more astonishing he had Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill vol. one and two, a collaboration with Robert Rodriguez for a fairly impressive Grindhouse performance, all in process while having this secretly furnished. Well it pays well, because he had the movie an utter success. Others may tell it isn't, but why bother messing with them anyway? The film likewise I've always felt with Quentin's atmospheric trademark always contain something erringly new. The path of the story proves this, but the tone of Quentin's quality is always there. You get into the tension, the excitement and chilling exposition. That I always had the fun for Tarantino's films, and Inglourious Basterds is a living proof for that. To start, the selection of the characters was marvelous. Some I knew (Brad Pitt of course, Daniel Buhrl, Diane Kruger and Eli Roth) while others the first time I saw (such as Melanie Laurent, surprisingly Christoph Waltz and Michael Fassbender who were all brilliant). There were more characters in the film whom I first saw and were entertainingly surprising for their performances. This lead me to Christoph Waltz whose character was so fascinating that you wouldn't wonder if he's acting which fine spaces of black and white. His character, though antagonistic in first impression was interestingly residing in gray area waiting to unfold his real motifs. No surprise he had an Oscar for a nomination, and it is yet to be revealed. This I was always amazed by how cunningly Tarantino embedded in his articulate scripts. It appears however that some viewers see Quentin's long, expressive script as tedious and arduous, fit for some of its part to be labeled as "unnecessary" and have it removed. One of my friends commented that the film was disgustingly good and detailed but he was bored by the long lines of dialogues. Well I assumed he wasn't the type of a typical movie commenter who sees the value of the story rather than the value of the movie to become mistakenly popular. Objectively, his long script is meant to build the air of the setting, the mood of the particular part of the film. And I believe he was always doing well on this. Inglourious Basterds is another living proof for this. Remarkably other characters that are unpopular or seemingly greenhorn for the role were also reasonably impressive. Take for example the role of Melanie Laurent, Michael Fassbender, August Deihl, Denis Menochet and rarely is Daniel Buhrl. They were convincingly successful in pulling of their role and managed to bring the air of thrill and excitement on screen. Melanie Laurent possessed the shaking fear of a hunted Jew and managed at the same time to entrench her vengeance after them. Michael Fassbender was eloquently entertaining for his role, but sadly I admit he got killed instantly in the film and I wish to see more of him. August Deihl's character as Major Hellstrom was also captivating. I even got to hate his character. A piece of Nazi officer who's rudeness backed by his fidelity of his country's goal had made well his character "hateable". Denis Menochet in the beginning also did well, it is implied or left to the viewers what fate awaits him and his family in the film after Colonel Hans Landa (Waltz) did his job there. And it was a long time since I saw Daniel Buhrl's short appearance in Bourne Ultimatum. But I was impressed by his character in a drama, thriller movie in 2006 entitle "Cargo". Almost every part of it was good. And I would definitely sit once more in my coarse couch to watch it once more (like I always did with a lot of Tarantino's film). If one put this film as a war movie I would prefer it as sharp, scheming well planted piece of success Quentin had effectively