A WWII movie, Tarantino's style

Rating: 7/10 (9 February 2011)

Another entertaining movie by Tarantino.
The strong powerful music, the use of 60s's-style typing and tempo, the visually explicit violence, and the "inspiration" in other people's movies are all Tarantino trademarks and, therefore, they're present in this movie.
The script is not as brilliant as Kill Bill, and reminded me more of Reservoir Dogs in its tone and style, but the film is truly entertaining, thrilling and captivating sometimes, obscure and pointless some others. It has, I think, the playful mood of a war movie that I like, the Great Escape. And that's great.
Most of the main actors are well in their respective roles. I especially liked the actor playing the Jews-Hunter Nazi (Christopher Waltz), the actor interpreting soldier Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), Diana Kruger, and Mike Myers in his little cameo. Brad Pitt is OK in his role, but too much facial gesticulation for my taste. Just the opposite happens to Melanie Laurent, too hieratic and emotionless in her role. Some of the secondary roles and actors are almost a caricature, as the movie oozes a cruel sort of humor, but the actors are not especially inspired.
A paradox. There are not good or bad people in this movie, all are nasty in different degrees. The "basterds" are extremely violent and inhuman, which somewhat dilutes their good intentions, fighting against inhuman people. If you are as cruel as the most cruel person, you are not better than that person, even if your principles and aims are very different. I think that is extremely well depicted in the role of Zeller, who shows to be a lovely soldier, who, despite killing 300 soldiers, was not that happy about that. Instead, the "basterds" were justifying their extreme random violence. The Jews/hunter is very clever and likable, more than any of the "basterds" who are less clever, more naive and idiotic than this man. This is a confusing message, although reflects very well the idea that in war everybody is inhuman, despite ones having more reason or principles than others. The film, moreover, exploits some stereotypes, too.
I consider an error the presence of Hitler at the end of the movie, and what happens to him. It can be understood as a projection of a Universal psyche, as most people in his senses would have liked him killed by his own body-ward, or, even better, by a Jew - He deserved it after all. However, that did not happen, and that fictional license rests credibility to the movie storyline, which is not bad.
In many scenes, the violence is justified, but in others is not. I know that this is quintessentially Tarantino, but I think that, by treating all moments with so much explicit violence, the tone and tempo of the movie somewhat gets diluted; if Tarantino had dosed the violence in the film, leaving to the dialogs some of it, the spectator would have been less overwhelmed visually.
Saying this, I really enjoyed the film, kept me entertained and wanting more.