Inglourious Basterds

Review by Loc

I’m surprised this didn’t get released as The 5th Film From Quentin Tarantino. Seriously, when Kill Bill was released, that was the big tagline. And strangely, or no so strangely, Tarantino stood by that tagline with boastful pride. He said it reflected his growth as a filmmaker and it made sense to tout his fourth outing as a director...I guess? I mean, four films, is that a lot? Is that something to hang your hat on? I guess quality over quantity, huh? So, what does that make the 5th film? Quick hit: actually, it makes it a damn good flick.

Inglourious Basterds sticks to a couple Tarantino staples: seemingly unconnected stories and characters intertwining in eventual payoff story threads, and a film literally broken up by chapter breaks and titles. For a basic summary, let’s just say there are lots of people out to even the score against WWII Germany. However, seeing as how Germany was powerful enough to occupy France and aim for world domination, just because one wants to get even doesn’t mean they can get even.

A little more detail? One subplot involves Brad Pitt as Aldo Raine, the hick from Tennessee who’s out to invoke harmful damage to the enemy. He puts together a “band of brothers” and their mission is simple: hunt, kill, and scalp until the Germans bow in fear and terror. A second subplot actually opens the film, as family of Jews hides from the infamous Colonel Hans Landa. And if one survives the hunting German, where does that leave them four years later?

Ah, but what ties the story together is the aforementioned Landa, played by Christopher Waltz. In the most chillingly dynamic performance of the year, Waltz is the absolute embodiment of vile charm possible. He’s an educated linguist, he’s a brilliant tactician, and he’s an intimidating interrogator. There isn’t a scene he doesn’t steal and it’s because of him that you’re drawn to this flick over the course of two-and-a-half hours. Without him, and Tarantino has said as much, this flick doesn’t even exist.

Beyond that, Tarantino surprises with his self-proclaimed opus. And yet, that’s not boastful rapping about his newest project. Tarantino worked over a decade to develop this film, committed, backed out, recommitted, held off on pushing forward until he found the perfect Landa, and delivered his most entertaining film yet. Yes, more enjoyable than even Pulp Fiction. Tarantino’s legend was built largely off of Pulp Fiction, and while every one of his films has distinct voices, they all speak in the same tongue: Tarantino-laced dialogue, over-the-top violence, and self-referential to the point where it sometimes crosses the line of “I’m cool cause I know I’m trying to be cool and I know you know that I’m trying to be cool.” Inglourious Basterds actually exhibits none of the last point, which is extremely refreshing for a Tarantino film. The violence is there, but it’s not “I’m gonna shock you into thinking this is awesome”. And the dialogue, while very good, doesn’t stray too far into “I’m a great writer, see watch this” territory.

In fact, this is Tarantino’s homage to a couple different genres and he doesn’t weigh it down in excess. This is the band of rebel misfits out on death missions flick. This is the Casablanca-we’re in the middle of a war and making movies to lift the spirits of our country flick. This is caper-esque-we’re doing the impossible and it’ll take all of us to do it flick, if less so than the others. Yes, this is all that, rolled into one nice, albeit long, package.

Overall, Tarantino delivers his first general audience flick. Meaning, you don’t have to be a fan of his style to “appreciate” the nuances of the filmmaking. Nope, this is your whoop ass, lets riff on the WWII backdrop while offering some over-the-top action. In short, this is the opus he was hoping to deliver. Out of 100 enemy scalps, Inglourious Basterds takes no prisoners with 80. It’s a violent, but enjoyable ride the whole way through.