Monday, April 09, 2012

"Inglorious Basterds" - a review..

..don't bother...
...it's windy, it's raining, the boat went into the water on Saturday, and what better than an afternoon in the loftwaffe catching up on some wargaming activity with the assistance of a little DVD action following weekends of boat maintenance ....?


Some time ago I managed to get a copy of Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds", which for one reason or another I had not yet seen, so it seemed opportune...


...wished I hadn't bothered - what a deeply unpleasant film - straight in the waste paper bin....formulaic, pointlessly violent, pastiche characters...  yuckkk....


...Steve the Wargamer gives it a solid 0 out of 10.. 


...now where's my copy of "Ice Cold in Alex"!? 

18 comments:

  1. Wot!?! 0 out of 10??? I think its a great film, its a very violent, tongue in cheek bit of popcorn!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmmm. Not a lot of agreement with the general public, plus critics. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inglourious_basterds/ I agree, a "0" rating makes me think you did not get the humor. Christopher Waltz's performance was outstanding, and stole the show. If you had given Brad Pitt a "0", I would have understood ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry chaps - really not getting it - in what way is a prisoner having his brains bashed out with a baseball bat entertaining....???

    I'll give it a miss thanks..

    ReplyDelete
  4. I watched a good part of it on TV a while back . . . and have to agree. I ended up switching channels and wished that I hadn't wasted my time on it.


    -- Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  5. I usually like Taratino movies but this left me with a disturbing feeling that he was exercising some deeply troubled demons. This movie was wrong on a number of levels.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Totally agree with you Steve. His violence for the sake of violence approach to film making leaves me cold. .. Terrible film.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Was a significant part of the film's violence not aimed at criticising the typical audience fo action films? Way before I watched it I saw a review that made that very point. On the one hand, one has Hitler and his cronies watching the fictitious propaganda film, laughing merrily at the Americans that the German sniper is gunning down. On the other hand there is the stereotypical viewer of violent films, revelling in the violence. I know a chap who was shocked to see that when he saw the film very few of his fellow viewers got that important point: they were haw-hawing away as Hitler was gunned down and the Nazi hierarchy burned alive.

    Part of the problem is perhaps that Tarantino's films can be enjoyed on more than one level by different people. I recall when Verhoeven's Starship Troopers came out there were people decrying it for its violence while others praised it for the same, but Verhoeven's main aim was to underline the dangers and seductions of fascism. His aim was not always clear, and I think that's also something of a problem with this garbled film title of Tarantino's.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction and then lost interest in his films after half watching one with Kurt Russel (cannot even remember the name) and have never bothered since. I think the name put me off this one - shock for the sake of shock?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I had such high expectations, and was disappointed as well. It just never "clicked" with me. I liked Brad Pitt's character, but it didn't really focus on him as much as I thought it would. I found many of the other characters forgettable.

    But, to each his own.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've no idea what Tarantino was trying to achieve, either. Another 0 out of 10 from me (although I'd go negative if that was an option!).

    ReplyDelete
  11. well i saw it too the premise was a bit off especially the part mid way through the movie when they get gunned down in the tavern - As far as the rest - well given the "horror" of what Hitler and his minions perpertuated like Adolf Eichmann perhaps the humor of jewish commandos mucking with Nazis seems a pure tongue in cheek affair. perhaps some forget that circumcision was practiced to the best of my knowledge only on jewish men so they would be easily identified if captured by the SS. true i would scored it a 4 out of 10 for the violent content, but then its not a terminator or horror flick or Van Helsing hunting Dracula.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For a truly great war film I would suggest Kellys Heros, MASH, or Saving Private Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  13. Agreed. That movie is utter rubbish

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bought the DVD for £5.

    Watched it.

    Some good stuff but I won't be popping it back in the DVD player any time soon.

    3/10

    ReplyDelete
  15. Spot on. I was equally unimpressed.

    I get its a spaghetti western for WW2, I just don't think that its a very good one.

    I thought the gestapo officer's performance was hugely over rated. Stilted and artificial come to mind. Compare with Henry Fonda in Once upon a Time in the West.

    Two hours of sadism, with a smug message about subverting the genre,--please!

    Still, each to their own my view is no more valid than anyone elses.

    John

    ReplyDelete
  16. For me Tarantino is Emperor's New Clothes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was very dissappinted- I might bump it to a 1 but overall heartily agree with you

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah I'd agree, I got part way into watching this, but gave up, when the 'action' shifted to faffing around in some theatre in Paris or where-ever...

    ReplyDelete