Inglourious Basterds

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1285 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. StanS.
    Aug 21, 2009
    3
    Tarantino is the King with no clothing. Lauded by critics and film aficionados, but truth be told he is an abject failure as a storyteller. His films drag and sag and never have anything beneath them besides slapstick mayhem. The Basterds are no different 2 and 1/2 hours plus ending as Eliot would put it "not a bang but a whimper."
  2. lawrencealtaffer
    Aug 22, 2009
    3
    Some great acting and great lines but for a film that is 2.5 hours or maybe a little more there is almost ZERO character development. You have a Nazi Loyalist who completely flips in the period of 30 secs for no reason, and its never explained.. just one of many holes. Many long boring moments with characters that could have been left out...very long and overall boring film...with a fewSome great acting and great lines but for a film that is 2.5 hours or maybe a little more there is almost ZERO character development. You have a Nazi Loyalist who completely flips in the period of 30 secs for no reason, and its never explained.. just one of many holes. Many long boring moments with characters that could have been left out...very long and overall boring film...with a few great moments sprinkled in.. Expand
  3. Jackson
    Aug 24, 2009
    1
    I really disliked this movie. If this movie had not had Quentin Tarantino's name attached to it I'm fairly sure most reviews would have said this was garbage. It's just a movie people watch to say "It's good because it's bad, and since I'm smart I can see what the movie was -really- trying to say". Unfortunately this movie was completely directionless, devoid I really disliked this movie. If this movie had not had Quentin Tarantino's name attached to it I'm fairly sure most reviews would have said this was garbage. It's just a movie people watch to say "It's good because it's bad, and since I'm smart I can see what the movie was -really- trying to say". Unfortunately this movie was completely directionless, devoid of purpose, and did not say anything any other WWII hasn't said better. The violence also felt way too forced, which just made the experience pointlessly uncomfortable. Expand
  4. Dec 11, 2011
    2
    Incoherent, self-indulgent mis-match of a movie. Insulting to Jews, Germans & anyone with knowledge of history or any sort of moral compass. I have no idea what this movie was trying to achieve, satisfy Tarantino's ego?
  5. JimD.
    Feb 23, 2010
    3
    Only Christoph Watlz's excellent performance, good cinematography and a great soundtrack keep this from being a 0. It is one of the most repulsive, offensive movies I've ever seen, and the people that gave it a 10 obviously delight in seeing a theatre full of people being burned alive, mowed down by machine gun fire, and ultimately blown to bits by, get this, Jewish suicide Only Christoph Watlz's excellent performance, good cinematography and a great soundtrack keep this from being a 0. It is one of the most repulsive, offensive movies I've ever seen, and the people that gave it a 10 obviously delight in seeing a theatre full of people being burned alive, mowed down by machine gun fire, and ultimately blown to bits by, get this, Jewish suicide bombers. That the victims are Nazis is beside the point. Expand
  6. Nov 1, 2011
    3
    From this movie comes no conclusion, no morale. At the end, the only thing I felt was emptiness. The plot (if it can be called so) is simply terrible or non-existent despite the great visuals and spectacular acting (except Hitler's character, which was not realistic enough, too caricatural). It's just bundle of moments (often too long) patched up together and the two separate story linesFrom this movie comes no conclusion, no morale. At the end, the only thing I felt was emptiness. The plot (if it can be called so) is simply terrible or non-existent despite the great visuals and spectacular acting (except Hitler's character, which was not realistic enough, too caricatural). It's just bundle of moments (often too long) patched up together and the two separate story lines have no interactions other than the final location of the story. It also holds no historic value whatsoever. The violence and gore are not justified for it does not add up any values of interest to the movie. All in all, the movie has nothing beneath it, nothing to tell, and just comes short of interest in its lengthy 2.5 h, a great disappointment. 0/10 for the plot 9.5/10 for the acting 8/10 for the visuals and 0/10 for all else. Expand
  7. Sep 13, 2011
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Only Tarantino can take an event like WW2 and make a boring directionless movie like Inglourious basterds. He decides to recreate WW2 events to show the world his love for (hard on for) mindless violence and long pointless dialougues. The fundamental problem with this film, is that if you are going to recreate an actual historical event, the film has it has to be funny. Without Humor an audience familiar to WW2 history will find this to be boring inaccurate rubbish. The movie is formulated into several chapters covering lives of Shoshana who escapes near death at hands of Christopher Waltz and the nazis. I will not get to much into detail because i do not want to spoil the move. However the movie evolves into an unreleastic convulted plot to assasinate Adolf Hitler. The ending does provide a little suspense but this is around the 2 in a half hour mark. When the movies was over I was left wondering why did I waste 2 in half hours watching this abomination. All in All we have a Quentin Tarantino's wet dream of what happened in WW2, packed with mindless violence, boring dialogues and worse convuluted plot imaginable. This movie is neither humourous or entertaining. Avoid at all cost. Expand
  8. Dec 23, 2011
    0
    Enduring this film is about as close to the human suffering of the concentration camps as I can possibly experience. If you somehow found this enjoyable I hope that God will have mercy on your soul...
  9. Jun 8, 2012
    1
    There is nothing in this movie that makes for a good movie save for an interesting opening sequence. The premise is terrible and ignores the historical context of WWII. An all Jewish unit sent to infiltrate Germany. Nevermind that it's glossed over how they get into the country. Let's ignore the fact that none of the infiltration team speaks German or any other European language fluently.There is nothing in this movie that makes for a good movie save for an interesting opening sequence. The premise is terrible and ignores the historical context of WWII. An all Jewish unit sent to infiltrate Germany. Nevermind that it's glossed over how they get into the country. Let's ignore the fact that none of the infiltration team speaks German or any other European language fluently. I'll even let it pass that the guerrilla team hangs out at the site of an ambush to torture their prisoners which is tactically absurd. What I cannot forgive is demeaning and dishonoring ourselves and our veterans by lowering ourselves to the level of Nazi's. For instance, in the ambush seen, Brad Pitt's character gives the Nazi a choice of betraying his comrades or being beaten to death. In this scene, the Nazi is the more honorable figure, selflessly going to a painful death rather than betraying fellow soldiers. Carving swastikas into the foreheads of the dead? Where is the morality or honor in that? If we have become so jaded that we cheer for the mutilation of human beings; for grizzly unjustified torture, I'm saddened for our future. It boggles the mind that we glorify this by nominating it for best picture. Not just because of vacuum of morality. It's bad writing. Taking 15 minutes to introduce multiple characters at length only to have them eliminated five minutes later is obnoxious. Especially, when no one replaces those characters. The dialogue is long winded, pedantic, and campy. The art direction seems more like it's trying to mock Saving Private Ryan than establish it's own style. I get the premise and the concept, no one likes Hitler. He was recent history's most prominent monster. But this movie cheapens the memory of those who apposed him. This should've been a straight to DVD release. Expand
  10. Kerome
    Jan 24, 2010
    3
    Tarantino's world-war 2 effort is a very mixed bag: although it is a cinematographic tour-de-force and wonderfully polished in its technical execution, the nihilistic story feels like a waste of some great performances by the star-studded cast, Christopher Waltz and Diane Kruger being particularly excellent as Hans Landa and Bridget von Hammersmark. Although the violence may shock Tarantino's world-war 2 effort is a very mixed bag: although it is a cinematographic tour-de-force and wonderfully polished in its technical execution, the nihilistic story feels like a waste of some great performances by the star-studded cast, Christopher Waltz and Diane Kruger being particularly excellent as Hans Landa and Bridget von Hammersmark. Although the violence may shock and the slick scenes may briefly hold the attention, ultimately this is as soulless and empty as Deathproof, and less likable in many ways. Pulp Fiction it is not. Expand
  11. ricos
    Aug 30, 2009
    2
    Well, let's all lean back, shall we.. Have a drink and smoke our pipes and talk, then talk some more.. And then, just when you think we've talked enough, let's continue the conversation in french, with a german translation.. Or vice versa. You choose. I don't care. When we've finished talking, someone else will take over. They too will smoke sigars, drink whiskey, Well, let's all lean back, shall we.. Have a drink and smoke our pipes and talk, then talk some more.. And then, just when you think we've talked enough, let's continue the conversation in french, with a german translation.. Or vice versa. You choose. I don't care. When we've finished talking, someone else will take over. They too will smoke sigars, drink whiskey, maybe even milk. They'll eat cake and talk some more, some in french, then in german. This film had me leaving the theatre in pure boredom. I think I lasted about 90mins before I had worn out every imaginable sitting-position you can cram into a cinema seat. I did this for Tarantino; because I've thought he was a genius. Until now. Apparently this basterd of a movie lasts for 153mins, and something cool probably, eventually happens. But I don't care. QT has grown overconfident in his ability to produce lengthy dialogues. And here there are no "charming m*f* pigs" either.. You wait for them, of course: Those nuggets of clever conversation. But they never come.. At least not within the first 90mins. So, I didn't see the whole thing. I think if this weren't Tarantino, alot of people wouldn't. All the overrated reviews of this proves QT has reached a point where he gets a good rating by default.. I think he's developed a speech impediment. It's a damn shame. Expand
  12. JonathanG
    Aug 23, 2009
    0
    War movie? Violent? Hardly. The entire body count until the last couple minutes of the movie is in the single digits. This movie is utterly boring. I've never been tempted to walk out part way through a movie until now. I stayed, hoping it would improve, but it did not. It's as long as The Dark Knight or Transformers 2, but it doesn't have a fraction of the action.
  13. Jan 11, 2012
    1
    Odd movie.The Germans, who are supposed to be the bad guys, are made to look like the good guys. It is almost impossible to feel sympathy for the basterds after they smash in the head of a POW in the most disgusting way possible. A POW, for Christ's sake. And one with honor as well, since he refuses to betray his comrades. Cinematography is great, acting is as well, with the exception ofOdd movie.The Germans, who are supposed to be the bad guys, are made to look like the good guys. It is almost impossible to feel sympathy for the basterds after they smash in the head of a POW in the most disgusting way possible. A POW, for Christ's sake. And one with honor as well, since he refuses to betray his comrades. Cinematography is great, acting is as well, with the exception of Brad Pitt. The weirdest thing is that they use a David Bowie song that has already been used in 'Cat People'. That is really the killer. Expand
  14. Jackson
    Aug 24, 2009
    0
    Total garbage. The more I think of this movie the more agitated I become. This movie had absolutely no story to tell, no message to convey and no focus. If this movie had been exactly the same, but a different director's name slapped on it, people would call this movie terrible. Since Tarantino's name is attached, however, people are somehow calling this film brilliant. The onlyTotal garbage. The more I think of this movie the more agitated I become. This movie had absolutely no story to tell, no message to convey and no focus. If this movie had been exactly the same, but a different director's name slapped on it, people would call this movie terrible. Since Tarantino's name is attached, however, people are somehow calling this film brilliant. The only purpose this film MIGHT have had was to offend, and that could have been accomplished by showing police footage of old people being murdered, though with the crowd that raved about this movie I wouldn't be surprised if they'd also find that riveting. Don't get me wrong, the acting was absolutely wonderful, but that can't save every movie. That's like giving a toddler incredibly expensive paint and then watching him drink it then puke it all over a perfectly good canvas. I will admit it's fun to watch people rave about how this film was a masterpiece because it's as if people are trying REALLY hard to grasp a turd and then tote it around like it's gold, all the while looking down at us and telling us we're just too unsophisticated to understand why it's a beautiful thing. Expand
  15. DaveS
    Aug 21, 2009
    1
    Fantasy is one thing, but this movie is a piece of crap that not only insults those of us who had family that fought in WWII, it insults the intelligence of the average moviegoer as well. The Action was sporadic, the dialogue was a snooze. Take my word for it, if this movie (and I use that term loosely) were edited down to just the scenes you see in the Trailers, then you would have all Fantasy is one thing, but this movie is a piece of crap that not only insults those of us who had family that fought in WWII, it insults the intelligence of the average moviegoer as well. The Action was sporadic, the dialogue was a snooze. Take my word for it, if this movie (and I use that term loosely) were edited down to just the scenes you see in the Trailers, then you would have all that was worth watching, and everybody would be spared the waste of time that this flick really is. Expand
  16. EvinC.
    Aug 22, 2009
    1
    I went in this film expecting the best. Unfortunately, i came out feeling oh so disappointed and sad. There's no doubt, i love Tarantino and his work. But all i ask is why? Why did this film have to be bad. I permit this film the biggest letdown of the year. I only enjoyed one performance, not by brad pitt, but by another individual.
  17. JamesL
    Aug 23, 2009
    3
    I feel sorry for Brad Pitt as this is the second consecutive major bomb he has starred in. This film is simply not entertaining, funny, enjoyable, or worth your time and money. Tarantino seems to have forgotten that you need a plot, character development, dialogue that matters, and respect for the intelligence of your audience. Once can not just throw crap on a wall and see what sticks. I feel sorry for Brad Pitt as this is the second consecutive major bomb he has starred in. This film is simply not entertaining, funny, enjoyable, or worth your time and money. Tarantino seems to have forgotten that you need a plot, character development, dialogue that matters, and respect for the intelligence of your audience. Once can not just throw crap on a wall and see what sticks. That appears to be his film making approach now! This was more of a cartoon, a bad cartoon, than a movie that one could appreciate in any manner. Tarantino is washed up! Expand
  18. AlbertP.
    Aug 23, 2009
    2
    Personally, I can not believe all the good user reviews this movie has gotten. Are you all just Tarantino fanatics that will give him a 10 no matter what he throws your way? For the record, Pulp Fiction is one of my three favorite movies of all time. I loved Resv. Dogs, True Romance, and Kill Bill. But with Deathproof I started to see some chinks in Quentin's armor. It was Personally, I can not believe all the good user reviews this movie has gotten. Are you all just Tarantino fanatics that will give him a 10 no matter what he throws your way? For the record, Pulp Fiction is one of my three favorite movies of all time. I loved Resv. Dogs, True Romance, and Kill Bill. But with Deathproof I started to see some chinks in Quentin's armor. It was self-indulgent, way too-talky, and mediocre at best. Well, Basterds picks up where Deathproof leaves off. The funny thing is that Basterds is just as talky as Deathproof, and all of QT's other movies, but 75% of the movie is in subtitles!!! Only QT has the director capital to pull something like this off in H-town. Anyways, I did something I never thought I'd ever do - with an hour to go, I walked out of my first Quentin Tarantino movie. Expand
  19. NathanR
    Aug 23, 2009
    3
    Little cinematic tricks here and there will fool the moviegoer into believing they are watching something fresh and innovative. The movie is 2.5 hrs of long, drawn-out scenes that could have been easily comprised to one hour. Tarantino tries to relive Pulp Fiction vicariously throughout Basterds, which only succeeds in highlighting each and every way this movie comes up short. I pleaded Little cinematic tricks here and there will fool the moviegoer into believing they are watching something fresh and innovative. The movie is 2.5 hrs of long, drawn-out scenes that could have been easily comprised to one hour. Tarantino tries to relive Pulp Fiction vicariously throughout Basterds, which only succeeds in highlighting each and every way this movie comes up short. I pleaded with my group to leave but by that time there was only 30 minutes left. This movie should have been better. Tarantino has lost his touch. Expand
  20. DavidS
    Aug 23, 2009
    0
    Tarantino is loosing his touch. Very dull, so very dull.
  21. nirax
    Aug 23, 2009
    0
    Although i enjoyed previous Tarantino movies, this one was complete boring (no real action), hailing towards brutality towards defenseless people (this got disgusting already in one of the first scenes when a soldier did not want to betray his country by disclosing some information on a map. He was beaten to death by a laughing gang of mindless creatures which unfortunately would be Although i enjoyed previous Tarantino movies, this one was complete boring (no real action), hailing towards brutality towards defenseless people (this got disgusting already in one of the first scenes when a soldier did not want to betray his country by disclosing some information on a map. He was beaten to death by a laughing gang of mindless creatures which unfortunately would be followed the whole movie. Sad piece of crap. Expand
  22. robertp
    Aug 23, 2009
    2
    Tarentino as Spielberg. This parody of war films trivializes World War II, the Holocaust & Hitler. The real star of this movie, Tarentino, never appears on screen; but he's in every scene, the guy wearing the lamp shade, the eternal self-indulgent showoff , age 50 going 15. Brad Pitt plays his role with just the right amount of hokum, 99.44%; & the technical aspects of the film are Tarentino as Spielberg. This parody of war films trivializes World War II, the Holocaust & Hitler. The real star of this movie, Tarentino, never appears on screen; but he's in every scene, the guy wearing the lamp shade, the eternal self-indulgent showoff , age 50 going 15. Brad Pitt plays his role with just the right amount of hokum, 99.44%; & the technical aspects of the film are quite good. But overall, it doesn't work. Tarentino's next project is a romantic comedy based on the Black Death. Expand
  23. petern
    Aug 24, 2009
    3
    I have just arrived home from watching Inglourious Basterds, and i have to say that it was a total disappointment. The movie had all of the ingredients too be something special. the performances were good, the cinematography was good. But i have to say the directing let what could have been an excellent movie spiral out of control into, into a mishmash of different genres and the whole I have just arrived home from watching Inglourious Basterds, and i have to say that it was a total disappointment. The movie had all of the ingredients too be something special. the performances were good, the cinematography was good. But i have to say the directing let what could have been an excellent movie spiral out of control into, into a mishmash of different genres and the whole things starts too look ridiculous. What had worked for Tarantino in the past seems too be old hat these days, and unless he can come up with something new i think his day has passed. I am a fan of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but this movie looked like Quentin managed too actually get down on film the exact feeling that we all have when we have so much going on in our minds we find it hard too explain or put down on paper, Quentin has however managed this and the result is that feeling of so many confused ideas actually all making it to screen. Hopefully Quentin can find something new in his bag of tricks otherwise i feel it might be time for him too hang up his hat. Expand
  24. chrisB.
    Aug 24, 2009
    3
    The marketing and advertising for this movie is extremely deceiving and I'm pi$%ed off, and feel stupid for falling for it. Basterds was advertised as an "action" and "war" movie... it was niether one!! It was a diologue movie and the character development was so horrid that i didnt care what they were blabbering about for 2.5 hours. The saviors of the film were chris waltz and the The marketing and advertising for this movie is extremely deceiving and I'm pi$%ed off, and feel stupid for falling for it. Basterds was advertised as an "action" and "war" movie... it was niether one!! It was a diologue movie and the character development was so horrid that i didnt care what they were blabbering about for 2.5 hours. The saviors of the film were chris waltz and the german officer they broke out of prison (who they killed way to early)... Death-proof was so bad that i should have seen it coming. Tarantino tries to salute so many old movies, he just needs to focus on his own... its going to his head. Expand
  25. PaulS
    Aug 25, 2009
    2
    Not very good at all. QT is and always has been a one trick pony.
  26. Keith
    Aug 25, 2009
    1
    Quentin Tarantino keeps making the same movie over and over. The drug addled geek has been irrelevant for 10 years now. Good riddance you over-rated bum.
  27. stella
    Aug 25, 2009
    0
    I have never had much interest in getting online and being part of rating movies and such. But I find myself in a place where I can absolutely not be silent. I have never in my life seen such a horror. What is the joke? The millions of people that suffered and died during World War II? The millions of people that ran and hid because of their religious beliefs or any view that the Nazi didn
  28. ahmedk.
    Aug 26, 2009
    3
    Terrible movie. Terrible script, not funny. The bar scene is the most tedious scene in film history. The Italian speaking joke is terrible. Once more thing, how do three non German speaking people attending an event in the presence of Hitler, Gobbels, Gurring et al get in and not get frisked and their body checked for guns and bombs around their ankles. Poor, poor movie.
  29. SteveA.
    Aug 26, 2009
    0
    The user ratings on this site are being artificially inflated by movie companies spamming the message boards to hype their unloved "blockbusters" (read all the copycat "I give it a 10/don't believe the critics" comments on this and other movie boards, particularly 'G.I. Joe'. Unfortunately the only "word of mouth" you can trust anymore is actual words out of a friend's The user ratings on this site are being artificially inflated by movie companies spamming the message boards to hype their unloved "blockbusters" (read all the copycat "I give it a 10/don't believe the critics" comments on this and other movie boards, particularly 'G.I. Joe'. Unfortunately the only "word of mouth" you can trust anymore is actual words out of a friend's actual mouth. Ask 'em - these films suck. Expand
  30. danted.
    Aug 27, 2009
    0
    Awful, very disappointed, boring, and let me tell you something i`m a really tarantino Hard core fan, but this film is terrible self-indulgence.
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.?