Comments on: U.K. Review: ‘Inglourious Basterds’ An Original, But Ultimately Frustrating Experience

By: notanotherblog

notanotherblog — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:19:15 +0000

I disagree with the letter taking but at least you guys took note of Diane Kruger. She had the fiercest performance this year so far.

By: Zitlife

Zitlife — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:21:15 +0000

I think it's interesting that you conclude the review by comparinng Inglorious to Tarantino's previous work. Sure, his latest film doesn't compare to Pulp Fiction, but it is still far superior to all the other trite Hollyweird drivel that has been spat at us this summer. Thank god there is still room for auteurs like Quentin, he is out on his own competing with himself – serving up the unexpected and getting great performances from his actors. Go and see this movie you WILL be entertained.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:03:07 +0000

The most nonsensical part of this review is the second to last line, saying that this C movie, which is made to sound excruciating, "deserves to be seen this weekend and discussed"...

Why? The reviewer tears the movie apart, then implores us to actually spend money on it? Bluh?

By: Tristan Eldritch

Tristan Eldritch — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:19:59 +0000

No, ain't seen Denby's yet. Hell, I may even hate it myself, we'll see come the weekend!

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:25:45 +0000

I think that's close. I gave it a C+ at Cannes and it didn't get much better on a second viewing (I was hoping once i got over my initial disappointment, i could just enjoy the thing, but was honestly and unfortunately bored; trust me, i would LOVE to love this movie).

@Tristan i don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying it doesn't work as a whole and there's no center because it's full of digressions and very self-indulgent which is on the mark.

Did you read David Denby's review? He was scathing to the film and you know what? His opinion is valid too (though the moral compass thing I don't buy from anyone, that's no reason why this movie isn't good or successful as whole).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:05:31 +0000

@Torontonion. Quite the opposite. Surely you'll be oh-so-happy to know that about 65% of the film is in subtitles. Have fun!

By: Tristan Eldritch

Tristan Eldritch — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:03:18 +0000

Haven't seen the movie yet, so can't really argue with specific points relating to IB. However, much of the argument running through the piece seems to suggest that movies are to be judged purely on a criteria of plausible, three dimensional characterisation and conventional story-telling (hence Jackie Brown is Tarantino's best work.) This, as the European arthouse directors of the sixties argued, is a criteria for eithteen century novels, and not necessarily for cinema. This insistentance on the primacy of three dimensional characters and humanism would rule out most of the films of Antonioni, Godard, Melville,ect, as well as Thomas Pynchon and most postmodern literature, and countless other things. Don't get me wrong, I see entirely where ye're coming from, but i really admired the stubborn auteurism of Public Enemies, and still (fingers crossed!)hold out hope of being entertained by the Basterds.

By: Torontonian

Torontonian — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:56:38 +0000

Probably not enough subtitles for this lot.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:39:35 +0000

wow. a C?

not even close.

i agree roth is a cunt, but myers was just fineand teh movie was incredible