Weinstein Company, The | Release Date: August 21, 2009
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1311 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,043
Mixed:
111
Negative:
157
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
4
JeremyC.Aug 22, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
5
RMADDENAug 22, 2009
whoopee, politically corrected Dirty Dozen redux via Pulp Fiction, with BP as Lee Marvin. myself, I preferred Lee Marvin.
3 of 6 users found this helpful
5
NRidingJan 10, 2010
If not for the brilliant performance of Christoph Waltz this movie would have been a total write off.
4 of 10 users found this helpful
5
grandpajoe6191Sep 21, 2011
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,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 them with baseball bats. Chrisopher Waltz's performance was powerful and charismatic, but unfortunately he acted in the wrong movie. Expand
5 of 14 users found this helpful59
All this user's reviews
4
AlistairV.Mar 4, 2010
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
BrandonD.Aug 22, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
RonaldB.Aug 23, 2009
On its own terms tolerable. But why doesn't someone make a movie about the 11 million people murdered by the Soviets?
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
lherman22Dec 4, 2010
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 progressivelyI'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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
imthenoobJan 24, 2012
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 filmI 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. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
6
BrianM.Jan 29, 2010
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RickG.Feb 18, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
GeoffRAug 24, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChrisAug 24, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
billsAug 27, 2009
Many scenes such as the bar scene were too drawn out to be effective.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MaxAug 28, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JaimeCSep 2, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
robESep 2, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GregASep 2, 2009
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidC.Sep 2, 2009
Don't believe the hype, this is a mediocre movie at best.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JamieBSep 8, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LeslieL.Jan 24, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JamesCJan 5, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TommyJ.Jan 7, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JohnCFeb 7, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
VinnieAug 23, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DrewKAug 24, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MichaelM.Aug 25, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KHAug 25, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TimBAug 25, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarcFAug 27, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful