The conversations that you mention – eerily similar to the fab. conversation between Tope and Bhope in Kaminey? innit… In terms of the narrative, in terms of strong characters, VB has definitely taken a leaf or rather, flowers and seeds as well from QT.

And when I finished watching the movie last night, I was thinking, no other director would have the balls to twist history in such a manner and come out trumps – I guess, he knows this and he revels in this fact. You’re darn right when u say – all his movies are only about one thing – Himself.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112286584

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/movies/21inglourious.html

Christy Huntingdon writes:

“Good A movie, unfortunately not an obvious Tarantino film.
The movie was a very good “A” movie. It followed a lot of the rules for making successful films. In fact, I would rate this as one of the best A movies I’ve seen. If you’re looking for a film that will keep you guessing and keep your nerves on edge the entire time this is the film for you.

What disappointed me about this film is that I am a huge Quentin Tarantino fan. If I hadn’t known going in that this was one of his films I never would have guessed it. I would have thought that the creator was witty and trying to be unique with his/her “A” film, but I wouldn’t have pegged it as a Tarantino film.

The things this film had that were obviously Tarantino were: a few witty quotes, though not as many as his other films; some good and unique camera angles, though not as many as his other films; unique characters that weren’t as watered down as in most “A” films; the bits of gory violence that while unnecessary resembled Tarantino film making; also the way in which he coordinated some key scenes to unfold was a tip-off to Tarantino film making. There was a scene where he shows Goebbels and his “translator” being introduced and then cuts to a scene of Goebbels having sex with her bent over a table – very Tarantino.

The things Tarantino usually does in his films that were missing in this film are: a plethora of witty and memorable quotes; three dimensional character development; lots of in-your-face violence presented in his own unique, theatrical way; lots of unique cinematography, camera angles, choppy “back and forth” between story lines; intimate background snippets on characters; deeper scene development.

Overall the movie was a great one. I was disappointed because I was expecting a Quentin Tarantino film and got a witty and unique “A” film. It was as if Tarantino decided he wanted to make a big money “A” movie instead of his usual cult classic types. He tried to appeal to the masses instead of specifically appealing to his fans. He followed a lot of the rules to make a big money “A” movie and I’m sure left a lot of his fans disappointed. Though possibly gaining some new fans since this movie was easier to follow and far less complicated than his usual. There were definitely elements of his usual style in this film but it wasn’t unquestionably obvious that it was one of his. I wanted a bit more in-your-face violence, witty quotes, character development and unique scene structure. So overall, I was disappointed because I expected a Tarantino cult classic and got a “Tarantino on a leash” “A” film.”

Pretty much my thoughts. I have watched it twice now. But the film is worth watching. The lady in red shot is Tarantino’s best singlar shot ever. The music as usual, is amazing.

Its a great review and fully agree with your comments. I am a fanboy of QT and have seen everything that he ever involved himself with, if even remotely. I loved Basterds and almost wanted the movie to play on forever – watched it on the first show. But I do not agree with your views on KB – its a masterpiece as well. The interactions between beatrice and vivica fox, the “regret” conversation betwween michel madsen and daryl hannah, and of course the life-and-death, pei mei and superman conversations between bill and beatrice.

It was also his tribute to the spaghetti westerns and the martial arts genre so there had to be more action that normally is.

Pulp fiction can never be made again I think – that is the only movie I would give a 10 on 10.

In basterds, I would have loved to see more of the basterds and definitely more of the Apache..if I were to rate QT’s films, they would have to be:

pulp fiction
Reservoir dogs
Inglorious basterds
KB2
KB1
Jackie brown
Deathproof

If one includes true romance, since he wrote the script, then it will be above jackie brown.
What would be your ranking.

Lastly, it would have been better if you had not detailed out the opening sequence because people read your reviews a lot and a QT fan would love to experience everything first hand.

Christoph waltz (col landa) is known in the german cinematic world for his ability in acting the psycho maniac but he just triumphs in this one.

Take for example, the lengthy scene at the basement of the tavern. It comes off as a massive dud. Because a) Diane Kruger, the center piece of that scene, is over the top. Zero subtlety.(“but this is a Tarantino movie”… is not a good enough counter-argument). b) A character from nowhere jumps into the scene. Why? whats his purpose? just to extend the rambling? to build tension? Sorry. But the mixture of incompetent acting, bunch of half-baked characters put in there just to be shot dead and 10 minutes of wothless rambling is a DUD.

I don’t mean to say that the scene doesn’t serve the purpose but does it HAVE to be so long? Pacing is one thing. Getting repetitive is quite another. If you slow down, ramble on and then go kaboom every other scene aren’t you getting one paced?

I believe this film dies because of that. The climax namely the important face-off between Handa and Raine is such a forced, rushed scene precisely because the plot had meandered so much to serve so little a purpose. I was imagining the encounter would be a stuff of legends…but disappointment.

A German-Jew one-sided love story? Did it deserve so much footage? What was Mr. Mike Myers doing in the movie? Was he needed? If the film’s titled Inglourious Basterds, and if they are the fun part, how come they have so little a footage? Apart from Brad Pitt and 3 others how come there characters are so under-developed?

..and finally why is this compared to Pulp Fiction, where pacing never meant being predictable or the witty lines just kept raining down so fast that you bowed down in front of the screen and worshiped it? Why would my favorite director Mr. Tarantino let me down?

Questions. So many questions

ps: Its ironic that my comment is such a ramble. But can’t help it, I’m heartbroken.

pps: Hans Landa is awesomeness!