Inglourious Basterds

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1295 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Dec 22, 2015
    5
    Inglorious Bastards is a stupid and dumb movie. While that may be the reason people will love it is for precise that reason that I don’t. Tarintino is better than this. With films like Pulp Fiction Tarintino has shown that he knows how to write characters and amazing dialogue. Instead, Tarintino throws that out the window in favor of cartoony dialogue that is more stupid than fun or rigidInglorious Bastards is a stupid and dumb movie. While that may be the reason people will love it is for precise that reason that I don’t. Tarintino is better than this. With films like Pulp Fiction Tarintino has shown that he knows how to write characters and amazing dialogue. Instead, Tarintino throws that out the window in favor of cartoony dialogue that is more stupid than fun or rigid dialogue neither of which are good exploits of his talents. The performances given make this dialogue work especially Christoph Waltz as the villain. Nonetheless it is all for not in the big dumb climax that puts gore and spectacle over characters and story something Tarintino is usually good at not doing. Adding to the frustration is that Tarintino decided to use World War II and the Holocaust as his setting. Making a joke out of all of the men and women who suffered through the war, risked their lives to hide Jews, risked their lives to fight in it, and are ashamed of what their Nazi fathers did. Tarintino you have a lot of talents and this film uses none of them. Its one thing to see a dumb stupid movie its another to see it admist one of history’s most tragic events and by a director who is capable of so much more. Expand
  2. Nov 27, 2015
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is really not that great. The story line is very odd and not that interesting overall. The characters are done really well but the ending is terrible. Expand
  3. Jun 13, 2015
    4
    "A basterd's work is never done." You know, of course I understand that violence is a part of war. It's unavoidable. As a fan of war movies I believe I have a tolerance for watching violent movies and the images that come with it. With Inglourious Basterds, the dialog is very clever at times, and the main characters are colorful and intriguing. However, to me, this film really seemed"A basterd's work is never done." You know, of course I understand that violence is a part of war. It's unavoidable. As a fan of war movies I believe I have a tolerance for watching violent movies and the images that come with it. With Inglourious Basterds, the dialog is very clever at times, and the main characters are colorful and intriguing. However, to me, this film really seemed to revel in the violence of violence for itself... not for the sake of war. Expand
  4. Aug 25, 2014
    6
    The movie starts with a very slow scene, which makes one wonder what exactly they are going to see for the duration of the film. The plot is divided to several smaller stories, it seems, but they all come together in the end.

    The Basterds themselves, in my opinion, didn't have nearly enough screen time to become the focus of the movie. None of them was a truly memorable personality, and
    The movie starts with a very slow scene, which makes one wonder what exactly they are going to see for the duration of the film. The plot is divided to several smaller stories, it seems, but they all come together in the end.

    The Basterds themselves, in my opinion, didn't have nearly enough screen time to become the focus of the movie. None of them was a truly memorable personality, and like most of the characters of the movie, they remained rather hollow to the end. Bratty and violent, but hollow.

    The only story and character that remained clear and true from start to finish was Mélanie Laurent's Shosanne Dreyfus. Her story was touching, and her motivation was very human, clear and powerful.

    There were some funny moments, but those occurred too seldom, and the plot itself seemed to be very dialogue-driven; a lot of talk with little action. Sure, there was action, but the very first scenes gave a good indication how the future "chapters" would be structured, pretty much.

    All in all I'm not sure how much I liked this movie. There was a plot, but it was too drawn out in many ways. While dividing the story into chapters worked, making sure the main plot didn't bounce all over in place and time, it also split the events a bit too far from each other, carried by too many characters.

    Or maybe it's just Tarantino's style that I dislike, I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen a movie of his that I would have wholeheartedly enjoyed.
    Expand
  5. Apr 3, 2012
    6
    The movie would be really good if I started watching it half way though. The beginning(while important) is just slow and mindless. I could not focus on it, but the ending and the acting were top notch.
  6. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    Inglourious Basterds is a classic Tarantino film with its long dialogue and strong violence but this movie was way overdone and a little boring at times. Not bad but not his best.
  7. Jan 24, 2012
    6
    I liked the film but I am not 100% sure that I would recommend it. I think Tarantino tries too hard to re-create the magic he had with Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs but he fails to do so. The cast was good but the entire idea of the film was just too stupid.
  8. Dec 30, 2011
    5
    I think this is the goodbye of Quentin Tarantino as a writer or a director. Anyway, I think he could have done much better with the story.

    This story has a few good elements but it gets totally screwed when it comes to the climax. Rewriting history, we must say it is original - but I'm not into it. In general, this isn't a good film but I must say: Christoph Waltz is BRILLIANT, by far
    I think this is the goodbye of Quentin Tarantino as a writer or a director. Anyway, I think he could have done much better with the story.

    This story has a few good elements but it gets totally screwed when it comes to the climax. Rewriting history, we must say it is original - but I'm not into it. In general, this isn't a good film but I must say: Christoph Waltz is BRILLIANT, by far the best actor in this picture, even though Brad Pitt did he great job as well, Waltz' acting is Oscar deserving in my opinion. The cinematography was amazing, especially in the scene where colonel Hans Lada lights up his pipe. Also a great choice of music.
    Expand
  9. Sep 21, 2011
    5
    Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" is a messy movie, a movie that needs precise trimming. The characters are unstable and undeveloped while the whole dialogue is extremely measured towards the Jews. I know Hitler killed a lot of them, but this is just too unfair to the Nazis. At least Tarantino had to show a little bit of respect to them, not just spitting at them and killing themQuentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" is a messy movie, a movie that needs precise trimming. The characters are unstable and undeveloped while the whole dialogue is extremely measured towards the Jews. I know Hitler killed a lot of them, but this is just too unfair to the Nazis. At least Tarantino had to show a little bit of respect to them, not just spitting at them and killing them with baseball bats. Chrisopher Waltz's performance was powerful and charismatic, but unfortunately he acted in the wrong movie. Expand
  10. Aug 28, 2011
    6
    In spite of excellent performances and carefully crafted dialogue, Tarantino can't hide the fact that Inglourious Basterds is smug and glacially paced, feeling more like Quentin Tarantino's celebration of himself as opposed to the violent, frenzied fantasies that made his early work so brilliant. That said, a good chunk of Tarantino celebrating himself is a celebration of other movies, soIn spite of excellent performances and carefully crafted dialogue, Tarantino can't hide the fact that Inglourious Basterds is smug and glacially paced, feeling more like Quentin Tarantino's celebration of himself as opposed to the violent, frenzied fantasies that made his early work so brilliant. That said, a good chunk of Tarantino celebrating himself is a celebration of other movies, so that does help to ease down and enjoy what's here. Expand
  11. Jul 27, 2011
    5
    This is definitely a Tarantino film, and it certainly has its moments. Chritopher Waltz is outstanding in an over the top performance that still manages to captivate as well as amuse. However, on the whole this movie does not have the impact or depth of other notable Tarantino films. If you want nasty Nazi killers, see The Dirty Dozen. If you want Tarantino's brand of ultraviolence,This is definitely a Tarantino film, and it certainly has its moments. Chritopher Waltz is outstanding in an over the top performance that still manages to captivate as well as amuse. However, on the whole this movie does not have the impact or depth of other notable Tarantino films. If you want nasty Nazi killers, see The Dirty Dozen. If you want Tarantino's brand of ultraviolence, see Reservoir Dogs. If you want to follow the sheeple who "love" any tripe that Tarantino cranks out, have a gander at this heap of film detritus... there are gems mixed in, but at best it is a failure of editing. I'm sure there are those who will just "love" it, too, though. As Hume said, there's no accounting for taste. Expand
  12. Dec 4, 2010
    6
    I'm didn't care for this movie much. I really wanted to love it, Tarantino puts on a good show. Watching the first scene with Christoph Waltz in the Frenchman's farmhouse, I thought wow this is going to be good, but it just got progressively worse. There are some other gem scenes though. The last bit just seemed like he ran out of ideas and time. Overall it is worth seeing, but it couldI'm didn't care for this movie much. I really wanted to love it, Tarantino puts on a good show. Watching the first scene with Christoph Waltz in the Frenchman's farmhouse, I thought wow this is going to be good, but it just got progressively worse. There are some other gem scenes though. The last bit just seemed like he ran out of ideas and time. Overall it is worth seeing, but it could have been so much better. I was left disappointed. I was really surprised it was nominated for best picture, because I think there were better films. Expand
  13. CJF
    Jun 12, 2010
    6
    Trailers, misleading - they were funnier than the movie, Brad was great as usual, My God, The Subtitles, I am an old man, don't wanna read that much while I am trying to think! Some new stuff, the blow your jewels off triangle was great!
  14. AlistairV.
    Mar 4, 2010
    4
    This is a terrible movie, but then I'm not a fan of Terantino's work, so if you are, maybe you'll like it. However, as an objective reviewer, it's all style over substance. In a movie, the resounding question is "Is it entertaining?" The answer to that question is no, it is definitely not entertaining. There are interesting parts, but for the most part, dull, This is a terrible movie, but then I'm not a fan of Terantino's work, so if you are, maybe you'll like it. However, as an objective reviewer, it's all style over substance. In a movie, the resounding question is "Is it entertaining?" The answer to that question is no, it is definitely not entertaining. There are interesting parts, but for the most part, dull, uninteresting, not worth the watch. Expand
  15. RickG.
    Feb 18, 2010
    6
    This film is almost impossible to rate. A 6 will have to do, because in a sense it's far too wonderful -- thanks to many great scenes and performances -- to give a 5 or below. Yet, as a piece of storytelling it's so wretchedly constructed, so abhorrently paced and so dizzyingly uneven, it can't possibly deserve a "positive" grade. What a frustrating experience! There's This film is almost impossible to rate. A 6 will have to do, because in a sense it's far too wonderful -- thanks to many great scenes and performances -- to give a 5 or below. Yet, as a piece of storytelling it's so wretchedly constructed, so abhorrently paced and so dizzyingly uneven, it can't possibly deserve a "positive" grade. What a frustrating experience! There's a truly great movie buried somewhere in this mess, and Waltz deserves the Oscar hands down, but Tarantino is long overdue to revisit the discipline he showed in his 1990s-era films. Expand
  16. JohnC
    Feb 7, 2010
    4
    Moments of genius (opening scene, Bar scene, Christoph Waltz's performance, Bowie musical montage) can not make up for a crass and self indulgent film. The Nazi's persecution of the Jews and the destruction of Europe is not a vehicle to explore notions of movie violence and a European style of film making. The juxtaposition of a true historical evil with cartoon violence is not Moments of genius (opening scene, Bar scene, Christoph Waltz's performance, Bowie musical montage) can not make up for a crass and self indulgent film. The Nazi's persecution of the Jews and the destruction of Europe is not a vehicle to explore notions of movie violence and a European style of film making. The juxtaposition of a true historical evil with cartoon violence is not a responsible narrative. I'm all for the exploration of violent fantasy and the emotions and feelings it evokes in us as the viewer. But it does a disservice to those who died in World War Two by setting the film within that genuine space. The inclusion of actual figures of history who we know did not suffer such a demise only adds to this vapid fictitious theatre. It is to be repeated there are some excellent moments and performances. But such scenes and a story of revenge, is in my opinion cheapened by a film that is looking for a laugh or response at the expense of historical fact and truth. Expand
  17. BrianM.
    Jan 29, 2010
    6
    Inglourious Basterds is mostly entertaining during its 2 hour and 30 minute running time, but it seems to exist primarily so that Quentin Tarantio can remind audiences and critics of his talents. Here he reimagines the fate of Hitler, juggles separate but converging plotlines, uses German and French subtitles and creates a bloody revenge fantasy out of the Holocaust. In the end though, Inglourious Basterds is mostly entertaining during its 2 hour and 30 minute running time, but it seems to exist primarily so that Quentin Tarantio can remind audiences and critics of his talents. Here he reimagines the fate of Hitler, juggles separate but converging plotlines, uses German and French subtitles and creates a bloody revenge fantasy out of the Holocaust. In the end though, despite all of its virtuosity, it is a film that says nothing and means even less. An example of style over substance that, unlike Pulp Fiction, doesn't have any deeper meaning. It is best enjoyed for what it is: sheer entertainment with no real depth or substance. Expand
  18. TimD
    Jan 27, 2010
    6
    This movie had its moments, but several scenes failed to maintain the tension their length demanded. The violence was entertaining, but overall, Tarantino needed to make this movie tighter. I frequently was bored waiting for the inevitable conclusions of scenes. Not a bad movie, but a bit boring at times.
  19. LeslieL.
    Jan 24, 2010
    4
    Brad Pitt ruined this movie for me. Truly bad casting choice. That ridiculous underbite and accent was the best he could come up with? Took me out of the movie every time he came onscreen. And the music. This is usually where Tarantino usually shines. The music here was not coherent. I questioned a number of his choices. Christopher Waltz was thrilling to watch. And the scene in the Brad Pitt ruined this movie for me. Truly bad casting choice. That ridiculous underbite and accent was the best he could come up with? Took me out of the movie every time he came onscreen. And the music. This is usually where Tarantino usually shines. The music here was not coherent. I questioned a number of his choices. Christopher Waltz was thrilling to watch. And the scene in the farmhouse was brilliant. There were a few real stand-out scenes, none of which involved Brad Pitt. It just didn't all come together. Expand
  20. NRiding
    Jan 10, 2010
    5
    If not for the brilliant performance of Christoph Waltz this movie would have been a total write off.
  21. TommyJ.
    Jan 7, 2010
    4
    just so you guys know, its like 95% talking. this movie was not what I expected and felt let down when I started to realize it was some merge of drama and fo-comedy than a neat action-packed something or other.
  22. JamesC
    Jan 5, 2010
    5
    I'm going to have to agree with Ryan S on this one. A couple of really good scenes ruined by a long drawling pace interspersed with some truly grusome violence. Violence for the sake of violence is just not entertaining - not when it doesn't do anything to service the story. I think this will be one of those movies you'll either love or hate. I don't hate it - but I'm going to have to agree with Ryan S on this one. A couple of really good scenes ruined by a long drawling pace interspersed with some truly grusome violence. Violence for the sake of violence is just not entertaining - not when it doesn't do anything to service the story. I think this will be one of those movies you'll either love or hate. I don't hate it - but I'd never watch it again and would rather deal with revenge escapism like Kill Bill than sit through a crappy alternative World War 2 themed picture. Expand
  23. JenniferK.
    Dec 22, 2009
    5
    Same Tarantino film you've seen before filled with "witty" dialogue and a boring story. I really enjoyed the first kill bill, but since then Grindhouse, now IB all seem to be the same movie to me.
  24. scottv
    Dec 21, 2009
    6
    This movie was nothing like I expected from seeing the previews, I actually thought that it was supposed to be a comedy, kinda of like Fargo but set during world war II. The previews that I saw showed smart/witty scenes that seemed funny, however, this movie is hardly a comedy. That said, I ultimately enjoyed the movie, the beginning was interesting, the middle seemed very long and at This movie was nothing like I expected from seeing the previews, I actually thought that it was supposed to be a comedy, kinda of like Fargo but set during world war II. The previews that I saw showed smart/witty scenes that seemed funny, however, this movie is hardly a comedy. That said, I ultimately enjoyed the movie, the beginning was interesting, the middle seemed very long and at times boring but the ending made up for the dragging parts in the middle. There where a few light moments of comedy but mostly just alot of people dying throughout. Definetly worth seeing even with all of the subtitles (lots & lots of subtitles!) with a strong finish and a typical Tarantino style ending. Expand
  25. mauriciol
    Nov 6, 2009
    6
    Ok love quinton but the movie was a litle slow, sofor the second time and i went the movies again and saw it agian i twas much better.
  26. samim
    Sep 15, 2009
    4
    Another racist blatant pro blood revenge ridiculous movie.
  27. mog
    Sep 11, 2009
    4
    An indulgent, strictly self-satisfying mess. Basterds is like a fireworks display; thrilling, even captivating but ultimately devoid of depth or emotionality. Tarantino is addicted to cleverness and cinematic novelty, but without empathetic characters or human themes this film is strictly for the ADD crowd.
  28. Joe
    Sep 11, 2009
    5
    It was a good movie, but i was disappointed that it wasn't what i expect a war movie would be; more shooting, blood and gore, etc. very few action and too much conversation that i couldn't keep up with and the suspense was too long to actually to get to the good parts I liked. I can see how this is a good movie, good acting, etc. but i don't find that as what a good movie It was a good movie, but i was disappointed that it wasn't what i expect a war movie would be; more shooting, blood and gore, etc. very few action and too much conversation that i couldn't keep up with and the suspense was too long to actually to get to the good parts I liked. I can see how this is a good movie, good acting, etc. but i don't find that as what a good movie needs to be good. I assumed it was going to be more action than drama. Expand
  29. JamieB
    Sep 8, 2009
    6
    Mostly entertaining but long and uneven. Many tension-filled moments with great dialog but subtitles slightly weaken the effect. Glad it was subtitled though, Valkyrie was ruined by lack of subtitles imo. Brad Pitt chews the scenery, as they say. You really notice him 'acting'. Hans Linda character was easily the best part of the movie, intelligent and intimidating; he's Mostly entertaining but long and uneven. Many tension-filled moments with great dialog but subtitles slightly weaken the effect. Glad it was subtitled though, Valkyrie was ruined by lack of subtitles imo. Brad Pitt chews the scenery, as they say. You really notice him 'acting'. Hans Linda character was easily the best part of the movie, intelligent and intimidating; he's operating on a higher level than others. Although that makes his comeuppance at the end a little jarring. I did not like the soundtrack which had similar elements to Kill Bill but it just doesn't work here. Its another QT genre mashup which i guess that's all he makes going forward. Expand
  30. JaimeC
    Sep 2, 2009
    5
    A film that goes desperately in search of an editor and doesn't find it. Twenty mintues too long. Admittedly buzzes in parts but long and drawn out through the middle act. The opening scene holds much promise but subsequent scenes fail to build any tension. Characters are killed off before the audience has had any chance to invest interest in them. Waltz is good throughout however. A film that goes desperately in search of an editor and doesn't find it. Twenty mintues too long. Admittedly buzzes in parts but long and drawn out through the middle act. The opening scene holds much promise but subsequent scenes fail to build any tension. Characters are killed off before the audience has had any chance to invest interest in them. Waltz is good throughout however. Recut the movie twenty minutes shorter, and 80% less self-indulgent and this would be excellent. Expand
  31. CharlieD.
    Sep 2, 2009
    6
    Inglourious Basterds is a boiling pot of concepts. It has so many influences, it's almost impossible to list them all. The film is, in essence, a love letter to European cinema. This turns out to be the film's blessing and curse. Languid pacing, endless dialogue, brutal violence, odd camera choices, and out of era music don't add up to the eclectic sum that Tarantino had Inglourious Basterds is a boiling pot of concepts. It has so many influences, it's almost impossible to list them all. The film is, in essence, a love letter to European cinema. This turns out to be the film's blessing and curse. Languid pacing, endless dialogue, brutal violence, odd camera choices, and out of era music don't add up to the eclectic sum that Tarantino had hoped for. There is some miscasting, such as Eli Roth as the "Bear Jew", who doesn't convey the menace that his role requires. However, Christoph Waltz is perfect as the clever and cruel Hans Landa. Brad Pitt does nicely as Aldo Raine, leader of the basterds. But in several instances, the all performers are weighed down by the amount of dialogue they must convey in however many languages. Ultimately, the film has too many personalities to know what it really wants to be. Expand
  32. DavidC.
    Sep 2, 2009
    6
    Don't believe the hype, this is a mediocre movie at best.
  33. GregA
    Sep 2, 2009
    5
    What can I say? I came out of this movie expecting a lot more, it didn't pull me into the story or engage me. It wasn't particularly moving or funny, (alot of)the violence added nothing to the film and the ending was kind of, well, "is that it?". Brad Pitt looked ridiculous in this role. That aside, Christopher Waltz did an excellent job as a Nazi and almost worth watching for What can I say? I came out of this movie expecting a lot more, it didn't pull me into the story or engage me. It wasn't particularly moving or funny, (alot of)the violence added nothing to the film and the ending was kind of, well, "is that it?". Brad Pitt looked ridiculous in this role. That aside, Christopher Waltz did an excellent job as a Nazi and almost worth watching for his performance alone. Expand
  34. robE
    Sep 2, 2009
    5
    Ok, that must be one of the most average films I have witnessed in a long while. It was just stupid. Sorry there was nothing clever or witty or well written or directed in it was there? Is it me or is this film just pointless? There was just nothing in it to makes one think "that was a good film". Someone please explain to me the point of taking real people (Hitler etc) and just Ok, that must be one of the most average films I have witnessed in a long while. It was just stupid. Sorry there was nothing clever or witty or well written or directed in it was there? Is it me or is this film just pointless? There was just nothing in it to makes one think "that was a good film". Someone please explain to me the point of taking real people (Hitler etc) and just completely changing history? Oh sorry is that the "clever" bit? The first 10-15 mins are good. Nicely acted, lit, written. Suspense and shocking even. Great start...Then it all goes down hill. Serious characters become a joke, Brad Pitt and the itallian accent, jesus christ... was that meant to be funny? Was just totally rubbish! You get to serious/exciting part of the film and you have him doing some stupid voice?... oh sorry is that the genius again?...then the story drags it's way to, I don't know, the most stupid film ending ever? I'm sure it makes Americans proud that they won the war like that? Or is that just me not understanding "a masterpiece"? If someone could point out the "really good bits" I'd be very greatful. Sorry very little to enjoy in this film, average at best please nobody try and tell me this is a good or even great film... think you need to remove your Tarantino rose coloured specs and see that when all said and done he's a bit of a one trick pony. Expand
  35. NorbR
    Aug 31, 2009
    6
    A lot of people sitting and talking, often with subtitles. The talking is occasionally livened up by acts of violence, many of which are familiar to the viewer from the film trailer. For some reason, the best part is the first scene, which is mostly a bunch of sitting and talking, followed by a massacre. Huh.
  36. deebb
    Aug 29, 2009
    6
    Entertaining and beautifully filmed but overrated. Christoph Waltz steals the show. One of Tarantino's weaker outings. Slightly confused and violence for the sake of it.
  37. marinaH
    Aug 28, 2009
    5
    Well, to start I'm Jewish and I should have wanted a revenge movie but well even I felt sorry for German's. It was harsh and I am a big Tarantino fan. Overall I felt 2 1/2 hours was too short- I really wanted to know more about the charters.
  38. Max
    Aug 28, 2009
    6
    Not Tarantino's best. Most of the film was completely dialogue based and in another language, which didn't really mesh well with a film in which the central pleasures come from exciting things physically appening. I was sitting around reading, waiting for something to happen. The story was kind of boring and unbelievable. But hey, I'm sure it was better than Post Grad.
  39. bills
    Aug 27, 2009
    6
    Many scenes such as the bar scene were too drawn out to be effective.
  40. MarcF
    Aug 27, 2009
    4
    Although this was a good movie to look at, i found it to be quite poor overall. Much has been made over the past decade or so regarding Tarantino's directing prowess but this movie left me wondering what's the big deal? The film was too long and the story underwhelming. It seemed to be a collection of long, plodding scenes punctuated by moments of excessive violence and some Although this was a good movie to look at, i found it to be quite poor overall. Much has been made over the past decade or so regarding Tarantino's directing prowess but this movie left me wondering what's the big deal? The film was too long and the story underwhelming. It seemed to be a collection of long, plodding scenes punctuated by moments of excessive violence and some occasional good acting. This seems to be the Tarantino formula - good actors, shocking violence and good marketing - not much more. There was some strong acting in the film, Christopher Waltz's Col. Landa was well constructed and executed. My main issue with the film may have to do with hype - i haven't seen many poor reviews but i cannot see what people are cheering about. To refer to this as one of the great WWII films of all time is ridiculous, it is not even in the genre as far as I'm concerned. Brad Pitt alleged that Tarantino has closed the book on the genre - I'm sorry but this wasn't even close. Also, with this film Tarantino alleged that he was attempting to turn the traditional WWII symbolism on its head. However, in one of the (many) scenes leading to the climax he employed music from a similar point in the WWII flick "Kelly's Heroes". I found this ironic and a bit lazy, "Kelly's Heroes" is seen as one of those typical WWII films that glorify the conflict and is a bit corny - although not bad to watch on a Saturday afternoon. My main beef with this film was that it accomplished none of what Tarantino or his boosters claimed it would - it was "Kill Bill" in Nazi occupied France. If this was an attempt to close the book on this genre I'm pretty confident we can keep reading. Expand
  41. Rarr
    Aug 26, 2009
    6
    It was good, but not great. Way to strung out.
  42. SteK
    Aug 25, 2009
    4
    Moments of greatness in a dull, self-indulgent, moral quagmire.
  43. MaggieH.
    Aug 25, 2009
    4
    Hated it. Just pick a filmmaking style and go with it (goes from spaghetti Western to 70's Starsky & Hutch etchings and all over). Too self-indulgent. Tarantino can't quit name-dropping for 5 seconds to put together a great story (besides the ending, which is horribly insensitive to WWII vets/Holocaust survivors). Be original, for once.
  44. MichaelM.
    Aug 25, 2009
    6
    Walz's Col. Landa is easily the best part of the film. Tarantino has always been a dialogue man, which I love. Normally he uses simple conversations that the audience enjoys sitting in on. Here his conversations are mostly dry. The usual wit and creativity (with the exception of Landa) are missing.
  45. Jayg
    Aug 25, 2009
    4
    Had lots of potential but failed to really go anywhere in the long-winded 2 and a half hours. More action and half an hour less of crawling would have made this one more interesting.
  46. TimB
    Aug 25, 2009
    6
    All I can say is a 2 1/2 hour movie, could have done it in 1 1/2 let everyone else fill in the blanks but didnt feel cheated in going to see it.
  47. KH
    Aug 25, 2009
    6
    Quite disappointing given QT's track record. This movie plain ole dragged in too numerous places and didn't capture the QT spirit and style. A let down from a big fan.
  48. CaseyH.
    Aug 24, 2009
    4
    I've seen every Tarantino film in the theater except Resevoir Dogs but what I experienced tonight was something I never expected: boredom. There is a tremendous acting job in this film by Christoph Waltz and a solid performance by Til Schweiger but that's about it. If the quality of acting in this film had been the deciding factor, I'm afraid the Nazi's would have won.
  49. DrewK
    Aug 24, 2009
    5
    I left the theater after seeing this movie feeling rather confused. I loved Pulp Fiction and thought this would be nearly as good. Unfortuantely, this movie isn't quite sure what it wants to be. It's neither an action film nor a melodrama. It's satirical in some spots and incredibly serious in others. I guess that's just Tarantino's style. Whereas Pulp Fiction did I left the theater after seeing this movie feeling rather confused. I loved Pulp Fiction and thought this would be nearly as good. Unfortuantely, this movie isn't quite sure what it wants to be. It's neither an action film nor a melodrama. It's satirical in some spots and incredibly serious in others. I guess that's just Tarantino's style. Whereas Pulp Fiction did these things smoothly, Inglorious Basterds felt disjointed. The actor playing Landa did, as mentioned by nearly everyone, an incredible job. I was let down by Brad Pitt and nearly all the Basterds. My girlfriend absolutely hated this movie. I would recommend renting this once it comes out. With a summer filled with movies like Star Trek and Drag Me to Hell, this movie will be lost in the fray. Expand
  50. Chris
    Aug 24, 2009
    6
    Warning: SPOILER included! I LOVE Tarentino....usually, and I was wildly entertained by this movie up to the point of the assassinations of the Nazi high command & Hitler.Then, I felt the movie completely deflated for me. I know, it's Tarentino, but I thought that was just too unbelieveable considering too well known historical facts about Hitler's death. Otherwise, it could Warning: SPOILER included! I LOVE Tarentino....usually, and I was wildly entertained by this movie up to the point of the assassinations of the Nazi high command & Hitler.Then, I felt the movie completely deflated for me. I know, it's Tarentino, but I thought that was just too unbelieveable considering too well known historical facts about Hitler's death. Otherwise, it could have been a brilliant film. The whole idea of the film festval/cinema being the revenge on fascism for jews & western culture was beautiful & brilliant genius. Acting is terrific. Characters great, especially Brad Pitt as Aldo The Apache. But Quentin sabotaged it with the Hitler death thing. And the British spy dies WAY too soon. Makes his character pointless. Too silly & foolish. If you're gonna do historical fantasy, let the audiece know from the beginning, so belief can be suspended early. This was way too much deus ex machina when it happened & I couldn't buy it. Ruined the whole earlier movie for me. Nice try, QT. Unlike some others, I don't think this was on the level of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown or either of the Kill Bill's. I think it's his WORST, actually, though a highly flawed masterpiece. Expand
  51. GeoffR
    Aug 24, 2009
    4
    Holy boring, Batman! The movie is called the Basterds and they are in the movie for about 15-20 minutes of the 150. Can Quentin just trim a bit of time off of his "suspense build-up" dialogue and camera work? There were moments in the movie where I was wondering what the heck I was even still in the theatre; I felt it HAD to get better. To that end, the Landa character was great, Pitt was Holy boring, Batman! The movie is called the Basterds and they are in the movie for about 15-20 minutes of the 150. Can Quentin just trim a bit of time off of his "suspense build-up" dialogue and camera work? There were moments in the movie where I was wondering what the heck I was even still in the theatre; I felt it HAD to get better. To that end, the Landa character was great, Pitt was a hoot (and should have received more screen time along the other basterds), but so much of the rest was just pandering to Quentin's ego. Many of the scenes have been in other Quentin movies (almost getting routine). In short, don't bother seeing it in the theatre - wait til it's out on dvd or blu-ray. Expand
  52. JamesY
    Aug 23, 2009
    4
    Love T's work, but this was painful. The ONLY thing that kept us in our seats was Brad. Hope his character comes back.
  53. Vinnie
    Aug 23, 2009
    6
    Half of this movie is pretty good, the rest is forgettable and boring. Brad Pitt is absolutely terrible, his accent was unconvincing to say the least and most of his jokes weren't too funny. Sadly, nearly every scene with the Basterds is pure misery. Tarantino wanted to show retribution and so these scenes show a bunch of blood thirsty and barbaric Jews, making it kind of hard to Half of this movie is pretty good, the rest is forgettable and boring. Brad Pitt is absolutely terrible, his accent was unconvincing to say the least and most of his jokes weren't too funny. Sadly, nearly every scene with the Basterds is pure misery. Tarantino wanted to show retribution and so these scenes show a bunch of blood thirsty and barbaric Jews, making it kind of hard to sympathize with them at all. I'm not saying the Jews deserved what happened to them but in this movie, the Nazis were definitely tame in comparison to their enemies in terms of brutality. The other half of the movie revolves around a Jewish girl in hiding. I thought her scenes were quite good. The real star of this film is the no-name actor who plays the villain Hans Landa. I actually found myself rooting for him. You know it's a messed up movie when the Nazi is more charismatic than the Allies. Expand
  54. RonaldB.
    Aug 23, 2009
    4
    On its own terms tolerable. But why doesn't someone make a movie about the 11 million people murdered by the Soviets?
  55. BrandonD.
    Aug 22, 2009
    6
    I'm not sure if it's the way he used them, or the amount of them over the years, but these Tarantinoisms are getting dull. This movie had a lot of potential, but did not follow through. This has turned out to be my least favorite film by Mr. Tarantino.
  56. JeremyC.
    Aug 22, 2009
    4
    This was a film that didn't know what it wanted to be. The trailers bill it as a black comedy which led to audiences laughing at scenes that were supposed to be serious, which in turn ruined the feel of those scenes. The Michael Myers scene was completely unnecessary and ruined the film's feel and pacing. I have given Tarantino the benefit of the doubt for too long and this film This was a film that didn't know what it wanted to be. The trailers bill it as a black comedy which led to audiences laughing at scenes that were supposed to be serious, which in turn ruined the feel of those scenes. The Michael Myers scene was completely unnecessary and ruined the film's feel and pacing. I have given Tarantino the benefit of the doubt for too long and this film has convinced me that I am no longer going to give him any more of my money or time. Deathproof was not a psychological thriller or a suspense film and neither was Basterds. This film is another case of critics looking at a mudball spit out by Tarantino and treating it as gold. We get it, Tarantino has seen a lot of movies, and he loves referencing them ad nauseum in his films. I can also no longer stand his characters, yes they are not the traditional movie archetypes but they are so completely and utterly one-dimensional. Not every Nazi officer during WWII was a Sherlock Holmesian sleuth waiting to catch American spies off-guard. Also Aldo and Landa both begin the film as intelligent and crafty soldiers yet by the end they are both bumbling idiots. This is a film filled with unnecessary scenes, inconsistent story-telling, and an ungodly number of old film references. This simply was not a strong movie. Expand
  57. RMADDEN
    Aug 22, 2009
    5
    whoopee, politically corrected Dirty Dozen redux via Pulp Fiction, with BP as Lee Marvin. myself, I preferred Lee Marvin.
Metascore
69

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 36
  2. Negative: 1 out of 36
  1. The film is by no means terrible -- its two hours and 32 minutes running time races by -- but those things we think of as being Tarantino-esque, the long stretches of wickedly funny dialogue, the humor in the violence and outsized characters strutting across the screen, are largely missing.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    A violent fairy tale, an increasingly entertaining fantasia in which the history of World War II is wildly reimagined so that the cinema can play the decisive role in destroying the Third Reich.
  3. In Tarantino's besotted historical reverie, real-life villains Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels are played as grotesque jokes. The Basterds are played as exaggeratedly tough Jews. The women are femmes fatales.?