Loading ...Once upon a time in Nazi occupied France...
In Nazi occupied France, young Jewish refugee Shosanna Dreyfus witnesses the slaughter of her family by Colonel Hans Landa. Narrowly escaping with her life, she plots her revenge several years later when German war hero Fredrick Zoller takes a rapid interest in her and arranges an illustrious movie premiere at the theater she now runs. With the promise of every major Nazi officer in attendance, the event catches the attention of the "Basterds", a group of Jewish-American guerilla soldiers led by the ruthless Lt. Aldo Raine. As the relentless executioners advance and the conspiring young girl's plans are set in motion, their paths will cross for a fateful evening that will shake the very annals of history.
Genre(s): Drama, War
Runtime: 153 minutes
Rating: 8.6/10 (62,736 votes)
Release Date: 20 May 2009
Country: USA, Germany
Languages: English, German, French, Italian
Company: Universal Pictures
Sound: SDDS, Dolby Digital, DTS
MPAA: Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
Director(s): Quentin Tarantino
Related Videos for Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Producer(s):
Lawrence Bender - producer
William Paul Clark - associate producer
Christoph Fisser - co-producer
Henning Molfenter - co-producer
Bruce Moriarty - associate producer
Lloyd Phillips - executive producer
Pilar Savone - associate producer
Erica Steinberg - executive producer
Bob Weinstein - executive producer
Harvey Weinstein - executive producer
Charlie Woebcken - co-producer (as Carl L. Woebcken)
Writer(s):
Quentin Tarantino - written by
Cast:
Brad Pitt - Lt. Aldo Raine
Mélanie Laurent - Shosanna Dreyfus
Christoph Waltz - Col. Hans Landa
Eli Roth - Sgt. Donny Donowitz
Michael Fassbender - Lt. Archie Hicox
Diane Kruger - Bridget von Hammersmark
Daniel Brühl - Pvt Fredrick Zoller
Til Schweiger - Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz
Gedeon Burkhard - Cpl. Wilhelm Wicki
Jacky Ido - Marcel
Lawrence Bender - producer
William Paul Clark - associate producer
Christoph Fisser - co-producer
Henning Molfenter - co-producer
Bruce Moriarty - associate producer
Lloyd Phillips - executive producer
Pilar Savone - associate producer
Erica Steinberg - executive producer
Bob Weinstein - executive producer
Harvey Weinstein - executive producer
Charlie Woebcken - co-producer (as Carl L. Woebcken)
Writer(s):
Quentin Tarantino - written by
Cast:
Brad Pitt - Lt. Aldo Raine
Mélanie Laurent - Shosanna Dreyfus
Christoph Waltz - Col. Hans Landa
Eli Roth - Sgt. Donny Donowitz
Michael Fassbender - Lt. Archie Hicox
Diane Kruger - Bridget von Hammersmark
Daniel Brühl - Pvt Fredrick Zoller
Til Schweiger - Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz
Gedeon Burkhard - Cpl. Wilhelm Wicki
Jacky Ido - Marcel
Posted on: August 21, 2009
Top Rated Movies
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- airguitarprincess on The Runaways (2010)
- Repo Men Movie Review on Repo Men (2010)
- chicagopoetry on City Island (2009)
- HumanoidOfFlesh on Män som hatar kvinnor (2009)
- Raghavibaggy-Drawers on Repo Men (2010)
September 14th, 2009
I went to see this one because a Tarantino film is usually a good bangfor a couple of bucks-what I saw was a film that tried very hard to beserious film and failed badly, in fact it was like watching old footageof a B-17 get hit by flack and roll upside down as a prelude to flyingvertically into the ground at three times its top speed, on fire. Theinclusion of Mike Myers as an actor doing a serious role was trulylaughable in and of itself. The fact that some US soldier liked tocarve swastikas into German soldiers heads is something that I havenever heard before and I have heard all kinds of WW2 stories. Well, bigdeal on that anyway, I could imagine lots of worse things to do toGerman soldiers in WW2 than giving them improvised tattoos and hittingthem with baseball bats. The portrayal of Adolf Hitler as funny man andalso the portrayal of Joseph Goebels as funny man treads a fine linedipping into the and of ass jokes with remarkable ease, showing a bitof true bad taste on the part of the film maker. Whats next-pratfalljokes with Joseph Stalin?, who by the way, killed 27 million people,out doing Hitler's period of distemper by quite a few more million deadpersons. Boo hiss on this flap doodle. Only good bit is when two guysgets their testes shot off in a bar scene-and not a vampire in sight.Ihonestly think this film does not contribute to the body of work thatdeals with WW2. Maybe in kind of a cheapish way it does, but I wouldn'twant a WW2 vet to see it.
September 14th, 2009
I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film wasworthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk outat the first indication of what the film was really going to be about(which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculousstoryline…blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only realtheme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just aroundthe corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anythingthat made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in theaudience walked out of the theater muttering "that was disgusting","what a waste of time", "I should've walked out", "where was thecomedy", "that was pathetic", etc. It actually made us, the audience,voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughlyripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming andthe acting ability of almost everyone in the film….there just wasn'ta plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because thereisn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higherthan a 0!
September 14th, 2009
This was by far the best film I've seen this year. Non-stop fun andwit, but with an underlying dark story – both cleverly mixed togetherinto what can only be described as a masterpiece.
People who do not like this film are either retarded, do not like darkhumour, or for some reason think they are going to the cinema to watcha "History Channel" production… (IT'S A FICTIONAL FILM!! DON'T EXPECTREALITY!) Seriously, watch it. You will love it.
Quentin Tarantino has truly cemented himself into the position oficonic director of this generation. Inglourius Basterds works on somany levels, and every one is as polished and enjoyable as the last.
September 14th, 2009
Certainly, this was no Pulp Fiction.
But this was classic QT.
What do I mean? Very long drawn out dialog usually about a movie, witha mild climax filled with dark humor.
Not historically accurate, which I like.
Brad Pitt was extremely funny as were many of the characters. Also themovie, about 50-60% was subtitled, which I also liked. People in thetheater were falling asleep left and right, so its not filled withaction as one might think.
Think Deathproof, with all the talking leading up to some huge climax,weather you thought the climax was worth all the wait is up to you. Ifyou're a QT fan, then it probably was worth the wait, but after readingthe negative comments, I can understand why people thought this wasoverrated.
Anyway I liked it, but not for 10$ at the theater, more for rent or fora cheaper ticket price. Certainly not QT's best work, I would say Iwould rank it behind Kill Bill with Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogsbeing number one and two.
September 14th, 2009
I can not really understand all the hype about Tarantino's latestmovie. DEATHPROOF also was a really bad movie. But at least there hehad the decency to release it as double feature instead of blowing itup to 2,5 pointless hours.
The story. There was no story. Jewish American soldiers slaughterNazis. Period. There was no character development, there were nosub-plots or unexpected twists. Everything seemed randomly cobbledtogether. That is quite disappointing from someone who once won anAcademy award for the best original screenplay. If only the fightscenes had been better – let's say in a kind of John Woo style – Iwould have enjoyed the movie at least a little. To be fair the openingscene is quite good but from there it goes downhill.
The history. In my opinion you can not overdraw characters like Hitlerand Goebbels by portraying them as some cartoon-like baboons and thehistory connected to them. It seems that in Hollywood movies Nazis arealways shown as some dumb villains. You may call them megalomaniac,evil or insane but the Nazis were not stupid. It is completelyinappropriate to ridicule the Third Reich and in particular theconstant persecution and annihilation of an entire people which causedthe death of 6 million Jews.
The dialogue. Everybody knows that Tarantino's strength are his wittydialogues. Since INGLORIOUS BASTERDS takes place in Germany most of thedialogue is in German which is a creditable approach. Unfortunately youcan tell that German is not Tarantino's native language. Thus hisusually funny and trashy conversations lack of originality and wit andsound wooden. Some scenes look even amateurish and remind me of aschool theatre production – especially the showdown in the cinema.
The cast. Brad Pitt is not a leader. Let alone the leader of an armyelite squad. He is funny and a good side cast like in BURN AFTERREADING but he does not really fit in this role. I'm sure Tarantinoonly chose him because he is in his prime and a box office magnet rightnow. The whole movie was shot in Berlin, hence every German castertried to get their actors in the film no matter how small the role was.As a result you have scenes with almost the complete young German Acast in even the smallest roles. This is probably not very obvious foran American audience, which is not familiar with actors like AugustDiehl, Daniel Bruehl and Ken Duken. Just imagine you have a movie whereLeonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, Matt Damon and Jake Gyllenhaal startogether in one scene. That does not work. Actors need their space. Ifyou put too many big egos in one movie they limit each other'sperformance.
In a nutshell: INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is a tedious, unnecessarily violentfilm with no story line and partly very amateurishly acted scenes. Ithas some good moments with notable performances by August Diehl,Alexander Fehling, Daniel Bruehl and multi-lingual Christoph Waltz whogives a great villain but is of course overwhelmed with making the weakscript work alone. Diane Krueger is a bit out of her comfort zone andshows that she is not a leading actress. I only gave the movie twostars because of its appealing marketing.
September 14th, 2009
"Inglourious Basterds" is an interesting film, but not really asatisfying one. It has the ideas and framework of a cracking 1960'sstyle WWII action spectacle, along the lines of "The Dirty Dozen" or"Where Eagles Dare," (Or even Italy's "Inglorious Bastards" from whichthe new film gains its name). But the long sequences that make up IGare really more like outtakes from a Hollywood film. It's as thoughTarantinio is presenting the conversations that happened in the bigbudget 1960s WWII action epic when the camera wasn't on. In that way,it is actually much more like his first commercial feature "ReservoirDogs"–long dialog sequences punctuated by violent outbursts; allsurface style, no deep characterization; incredibly entertainingdialog, but way too much of it, etc.
I had very high hopes after the first sequence, a very skillful lift ofthe prolonged yet tense opening sequence from Sergio Leone's "Once Upona Time in the West." But I was soon to find out that the film was justgoing to be one such sequence after another, each less effective thanthe last simply due to the repetition. There were no real themesdeveloped, the Basterds (except for Pitt's cartoony "Psychotic AndyTaylor") were basically faceless and uninteresting, and the whole thingwas unfocused and unbalanced. But even so, the dialog scenes wereentertaining while they were taking place—it's just that they servedabsolutely no other purpose than momentary amusement. It would havebeen really cool if Tarrantino had collaborated with someone who couldhave integrated the best of his conversational sparring sequences intoan actual story.
September 15th, 2009
With the standard of Tarantino's films declining to surprisingly lowdepths ever since the release of his second film Pulp Fiction, manyhave debated as to whether or not Tarantino really was the immenselytalented director we had been lead to believe? With his latest film,however, Tarantino seems to have redeemed himself with this new warepic.
Based around a fictional event in which a group of American soldiersand a vengeful young Jewish woman in Nazi occupied France plan to blowup/burn down and cinema during a premier, with many of the German highcommand, Hitler included, in attendance, Tarantino is able to bringinginto play his usual directorial traits: his extensive, yetentertaining, conversation scenes; tough, though likable heroes;violent imagery; pre-recorded music scores and discreet film references- not to mention his obvious love of cinema, made especially clearthrough the events and technicalities of the film's cinema based plot.
Despite these familiarities, this is still new ground for Tarantino,mainly because this is the first of his films that doesn't take placeduring the in contemporary America (bar several key scenes in KillBill). Gone are the distinct fashion traits or the familiar pseudobrands that scatter his previous films that we would normally expect.Instead, he is stuck in 1940s Europe and is perhaps closer at times todirecting a period drama rather than a "Tarantino film". However, hestill manages to get his own distinctive edge on his WWIIinterpretation – strudel arguably becoming the new "Big Kahuna Burger"- and even finds room to fit David Bowie onto the soundtrack score.
Perhaps the thing which we can be most grateful for is Tarantino'sattempt at redefining the genre. With most recent war films, madewithin the past thirty years, attempting to bring out the raw,grittiness of war and the obvious, yet constantly used, "war is hell"messages it is a relief to finally to have a war film that is madepurely to entertain, à la Where Eagles Dare, Kelly's Heroes and TheEagle has Landed. The story itself is too absurd to be taken seriouslyyet gripping enough to be intrigued by, along with the suspense andtension constantly building to levels that would have impressed thelikes of Alfred Hitchcock – pretty impressive given the audience is inon the plan and the inevitable conclusion, all they don't know is howthe scenes are going to play.
Far from perfection however, the film does suffer from a few flaws,namely the Basterds. Whilst the characters in the remaining episodesseem to have their work cut out, the Basterds side of the story comesacross as a forgotten and undeveloped. Their role as American soldiersdropped into France to randomly kill and terrorise Nazi's lacks thedepth and plausibility to make their characters or stories interestingenough. Likewise, the characters themselves are incredibly bland to thepoint that even Brad Pitt struggles to bring something worthwhile outof his character, not to mention the bizarre miscasting of Eli Roth.
Despite the flawed Basterds, Tarantino has nonetheless managed toassemble a selection of memorable well cast characters. Much praise hasbeen given to Christopher Waltz (and rightly so) for his performance asthe villainous "Jew Hunter" Hans Landa, however much credit also oughtto be given to Daniel Brühl as the young, innocent-looking Naziwar-hero Private Fredrick Zoller, trying to start relationship with theJew-in-hiding, cinema owner Shosanna Dreyfus (brilliantly played byMelanie Laurent). Their juxtaposing relationship alone keeps the filmalight with tension. Michael Fassbender also makes a hugely memorableperformance as the charismatic British spy and film historian Lt.Archie Hicox along with Mike Myers' amusing cameo.
Whilst not quite on the same level as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs,Inglourious Basterds is certainly a huge step up from Kill Bill andDeath Proof, proving that Tarantino still has much to offer us.
September 15th, 2009
Just went to watch this with a friend of a non-English speakingbackground. Spent most of the time translating everything – includingthe subtitles, but to my surprise she managed to pick up most of theimportant parts without much explanation.
This is one of those films that'll get lots of criticism – and istherefore successful. This movie has REALLY REALLY random things goingon. Fully unpredictable (at least up to 0.5 seconds prior to eachsignificant event).
Note the amount of detail he puts into each shot. Its pretty crazy ><but its so clean cut.
Good for laughs, great for discussion and will probably be one of thoseHSC texts in the future. When we look back at how random people are,lol…
P.S. The opposite of this film would be something like Cloverfield(cough)
September 26th, 2009
how do i watch the movie???
October 7th, 2009
Over all a good movie,I think they should of made it not so long,I did watch it 2 times,Because of the subtittles,And i did not see it in the theater,So it was harder to see everything like you would on a big screen in the theater.
I dont think it’s worth the $75 or so it would cost for me and the wife to go see it in the theater,Personaly i dont think it is the type of movie i would want to see in the theater,I think some of the people that comment that the movie is not good,Have seen it in the theater and that is part of the reason,They are mad they payed all that cash to watch it in the theater,They would probably like it more if they got it from the video store,Or watched it online,It is worth the $5 to rent it,But not worth the crazy price to go with the wife to the theater,Thats just my opionion..lol.
January 29th, 2010
my opinion…
February 18th, 2010
[...] for marijuana and how he manages to restrain himself while moviemaking. He also adds how his “Inglourious Basterds” star shares the same [...]
February 22nd, 2010
thx
March 13th, 2010
It was really good. And I usually don;t like Terentino
March 14th, 2010
[...] coveted Oscar award, he’s now got a lawsuit in his hands to handle. The writer-director for “Inglourious Basterds” is now being sued for plagiarism. A man claims that Tarantino had stolen the idea for a [...]