Why did I wait so long?

Rating: 9/10 (9 September 2010)

I only pulled this film off my "save to watch later" DVD rack yesterday, and I regret having waited so long to watch it. Rarely can a film have divided critical and public opinion so thoroughly, and I had heard many times in many ways that "Chapter 1 is great but the rest is poor". I had, however, managed to avoid reading any story lines or spoilers so when I sat down in a darkened room to watch IG yesterday I really wasn't sure what to expect...but I thought it might turn out to be very bad.
Many of QT's films divide opinion, and my own potted personal view of his oeuvre is that Reservoir Dogs is brilliant - bravura film making with some rough edges but almost Shakespearian in intensity; Pulp Fiction is great too, ground breaking and brilliant but for me it comes in second to "Dogs"; Jackie Browne is very much Curate's Egg and disappointed me - it seemed as if it was the work of any competent director rather than a unique talent. Then Kill Bill - well I just didn't really get all this kung-fu homage at all, and words fail me when it comes to Death Proof - just awful in every respect, and I wish I could "unsee" it.
But Inglourious Basterds was riveting (although a bit gruesome in parts) with some outstanding acting performances (Christoph Walz, Melanie Laurent, and Michael Fassbender are all brilliant.) Chapter 1 as everyone agrees is brilliantly handled and as good as anything Tarantino has put on film - most people seem to agree on that. Brad Pitt and his Basterds give the film its title but give us the weakest sections, and I am reminded of the technique (see Macbeth!) of inserting a comic interlude immediately after a scene of great tension or gruesome murder...except that the "comic interludes also include scenes of great tension or gruesome murder as well.
Surprisingly, and contrary to many other reviewers, I found the scenes with the guessing game in the basement bar, and the leisurely lunch with Goebbels both completely riveting where tension is mercilessly eased up, relaxed a little, then wound right up again. If you're watching and listening (like you're supposed to!) rather than eating popcorn or slurping a drink these "long and boring" scenes work very well indeed. I found myself right there sitting at the table (well, two different tables) simply not knowing how "we" were going to get out of this. Tarantino's boldness is in giving the time for the the tensions to build and fall in real time, until your own pulse rate seems synchronised with the protagonists. Utterly brilliant film making.
I watched some of the extended/deleted scenes immediately afterwards and if anything the extended version of the Goebbels lunch was even better than it is in the film. Towards the end of the scene (is it a spoiler if this describes a section of a scene that isn't in the film?) Goebbels loses his temper with Emmanuelle Mimieux (Melanie Laurent) and is transformed from deeply suspect suavity in a heartbeat, and just for a second or two, into a monster. When he bangs the table and shouts at her, Melanie Laurent jumps about a foot in the air - it's as if a chest bursting alien has sprung from Goebbels thorax. The shock is palpable: you suspect this apparently cultured and incredibly powerful politician is capable of anything, then he reveals that your suspicions are completely correct.
I'm going to need to see it again as soon as possible (before I give it the full ten stars) because, like Kubrick, Tarantino's films usually improve with age and number of viewings. Tarantino breaks all the rules and the comedic aspect of the ultra-violence (another nod to Kubrick there perhaps) is definitely unsettling to say the least, but this is a very good film which is excellent in parts. It is a must see (although my Mum wouldn't like it, and my wife wouldn't like it either) and is right up there with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.