Inglorious indeed

Rating: 3/10 (21 August 2009)

I have never gone to a Tarentino movie expecting great things. Matter of fact, the only Tarentino directed movie I enjoyed was Reservoir Dogs. That movie was solid all the way through. Except for a few scenes, everything was connected. Basterds, is the first one that I had hopes for. So much for hopes and dreams.
I didn't get enough of Pitt. He had the best "interesting" character that anyone could stay attached to. Christoph Waltz's Colonel Landa was definitely interesting and scary at first but soon lost my interest when he became inconsistent and clownish - not something you want from the lead baddie who, at first, appeared devious, evil, and unpredictable. Everyone else had their 15 seconds of fame and then wiped themselves off my memory.
The movie had too much talk(is there such a thing as gratuitous boring talk?). A true Tarentino obsession. I got bored during most of the conversations. It seemed intentional. Was that to distract from the occasional blood-lust? Yeah, it was bloody, and I got the dark humor in it, but it was clumsy. The best scene was near the end which occurred at a theater and affected the audience in a dark and disturbing way.
The best the movie had to offer was some great imagery and choreography but nothing that should earn anyone any awards. What killed that was the lack of emotional attachment. Really, when I think about it, this movie came across more as a study of Coen brother movie-making and failing to achieve anywhere near that level. Is Tarentino trying to imitate them? There is no way to talk anyone out of seeing this movie so I won't try. However, it is doubtful I will ever consider seeing another Tarentino film.
3/10