http://reason.com/archives/200.....us-basterd

i thought the movie was quite sickening and had no redeemable qualities at all. if violence lends itself to a great story, then so be it, but violence for the sake of violence, or to fulfill someone’s sadistic wet dream.. its deplorable. serial murderers act out their fantasies in real life, i guess they cant all be lucky enough to get funding for cinematic ventures. eli roth is garbage, i pray for his twisted soul.

Tarantino tries to pay homage to movies that have made a genre, and just as Kill Bill allowed him to pay homage to various aspects of great “kung fu” movies, so this effort allowed him to pay homage to various aspects of great WWII movies.

I saw Saving Private Ryan in a cinema in the US. At the opening scene, the battle on the landing beach, apart from some people sobbing, the audience was completely quiet. And no one cheered when the Americans finally got at the Germans and burned them alive in their pillboxes.

Some people here in Germany seem to have forgotten that it takes more to be a decent, respectable person than just being “anti-nazi”. Perhaps they never knew it in the first place.

Similarly does anyone really wonder whether Sergei Eisenstein was a great filmmaker? I honestly don’t know what to think of Riefenstahl’s filmmaking since the only film I’ve seen of hers was Triumph, and, although beautiful shot, it was straightforward propaganda that did nothing for me.

Frank Capra spent the war years making propaganda. And It’s a Wonderful Life is a terrific film, even if the capitalists don’t come off that well.

Tarantino makes films that are well-crafted commentary on pop culture, and in particular revenge in popular culture: See, Kill Bill Vols. 1 & 2. That’s what this is. The very fact that Hitler et al die at the end of this movie is a pretty good sign that this film is nowhere close to a literal retelling of history. It is a commentary on 60 years of Hollywood filmmaking about WWII. It isn’t meant to comment on actual violence. It’s meant as a commentary on Hollywood violence.

But, you know what, neither is Schindler’s List. Recall one of the final scenes of Schindler’s List. Was there really an event where all of the Schindler Jews lined up to thank Schindler at the end of the war, and where he gave a tearful speech about saving one more Jew by trading his ring, or car, and so forth. Of course not. That’s in the director’s imagination. As was Saving Private Ryan.

Or the Longest Day. John Wayne did not storm the beaches of Normandy.

Anyway, Jeffrey Goldberg is not someone I find credible on lots of issues.

That said, I recognize others will focus on the gold in the garbage. I just thought it took too much time to find too little gold in far too much garbage.

I think it’s a mistake to complain about bad moral or political philosophy from a Tarantino movie. You’re shopping in the wrong store.

Tarantino makes films with compelling dialog and interesting violence.

I don’t expect most movies to teach me how to behave or think about vital issues. I expect them to entertain me. And, this one delivered.

If you’re looking for a morality tale, rent Schindler’s List, which is actually quite mediocre Spielberg schlock.

Anyway, the movie was choppy and looked like a cut-and-paste job to me.

Choppy in what way? There are about 16 scenes, and they’re each about 10 minutes long. I’ve never seen a movie with such well done, long scenes.

It’s a statement of his own view of the world, and that view is pretty twisted.

And I guess you’ll say Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle represents Martin Scorsese’s twisted world view. Or Scarface is DePalma’s world view. Or even The Godfather is Coppolla’s world view.

Or that Ahab represents Melville’s world view.

This is a truly bizarre way to consider art.

Thanks, Charles, for the link. You’re right that the real story is more interesting. Matt, how is pointing out that Rockwell is a racist an “attack,” rather than a statement of fact? Those guys let Ron Paul twist in the wind; it’s pretty widely known that the worst of those newsletters have Rockwell’s fingers all over them. Anyway, we agree that Inglourious Basterds was definitely inglorious. Tuur, you have a good point about not rejecting art because of the objectionable moral postures of the artist, but I don’t see this as about his art. It’s a statement of his own view of the world, and that view is pretty twisted. Anyway, the movie was choppy and looked like a cut-and-paste job to me.

I loved the movie because of how Tarantino masters visual storytelling. His photography is genius, and nobody beats him when it comes down to playing with genres—he’s the Frank Zappa of the movie business. This movie is his master piece.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/b.....us-basterd

and

http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....=112440754

But good for you making this post. Despite the hysteria, Tarantino really dissapoints by making a pro-war, pro-state piece of trash.