Inglourious Basterds [Blu-ray]

Spoilers... I try to avoid them, but you should definitely see this film before reading this review! To say that I was eagerly anticipating this movie would be a drastic understatement. Quentin Tarantino is my favorite film maker. His films offer such an intense entertainment experience, equal parts action, comedic, and suspense. He makes films that he would like to watch, always focusing on the viewers experience above all other motivations. In my opinion, Tarantino's second film, Pulp Fiction, is the best film ever made. It's a master class in story telling, brilliantly using non-linear chapters filled with hilarious dialog and intense moments of violence to piece together a classic tale of betrayal and redemption, all while using completely unconventional and innovative script writing and film making techniques that have sense been copied to death by other screenwriters and directors. I have loved all six of Quentin's films leading up to Inglourious Basterds to varying degrees, but the anticipation hasn't been quite this high for me, this being his first "epic" since 2004's Kill Bill: Vol. 2, which combined with it's first volume, is the best film of this current decade. Even though I love Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, and Death Proof, I particularly love what Quentin refers to as his "Mount Everests." These are massive undertakings for him, often taking many, many years to get on the page, much less actually production. Leading up to opening night, which was 12:01 AM on August 21, 2009, I had heard mixed reports coming from Cannes, but I knew that the art house crowd that populated the critic's screenings at that festival didn't always appreciate the wildly entertaining pulp classics that Quentin consistently provides his audiences. The trailer for the movie purposefully mis-marketed Inglourious Basterds as a bloodthirsty action movie, like a mix of The Dirty Dozen meets Hostel. It didn't completely appeal to me, but I knew Tarantino had way more up his sleeve. Inglourious Basterds is a story of Jewish vengeance, represented by a band of Jewish American soldiers (a.k.a. the Basterds, led by Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine) terrorizing Nazis behind enemy lines, and a young Jewish French girl seeking revenge for the murder of her family. The man personally responsible for this atrocity is also the one character that ties the entire film together, the antagonist Col. Hans Landa, played brilliantly and enthusiastically by German actor Christoph Waltz, as he is in almost every chapter. The quality of the performance is at least equal to other powerhouse performances this decade (e.g. Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men), but I cannot recall the last time I saw an actor this charismatic and so obviously in love with his craft. He won the Best Actor award at this year's Cannes Film Festival, and I fully expect him to take home an Oscar as well. The film is divided into five chapters, the first of which is titled "Once Upon a Time, in Nazi Occupied France..." This title, the beautiful opening shots of the French countryside, and the sampling from the scores from many Sergio Leone films and other westerns gives this scene the feel of a Spaghetti Western set in World War II. Once Hans Landa arrives on screen and enters the dairy farmer's house, there is about twenty minutes of typically great Quentin Tarantino dialogue, only we're having to read it in subtitles! Heaven forbid the mainstream masses knew about that before going to see the latest Brad Pitt movie! Hence, the (brilliant) mis-marketing. The majority of this film is actually in a language other than English, about equal parts German and French, with a dash of Italian for good measure. Our good friend Mr. Christoph Walt speaks each of these languages fluently throughout the film, adding to the already tour de force performance to the point of showing off. Back to the scene. It turns out that Col. Hans Landa is not only an expert linguist but a master detective hired by the Nazis for the express purpose of hunting Jews that have managed to escape the grasp of the German army. As he interrogates this dairy farmer (who looks suspiciously like Stanley Kubrick), the camera gives us more information, and tension builds until the camera finally puts us directly in front of the Col., staring into his heartless eyes for a few very uncomfortable moments. Excuse the hyperbole, but I feel that this is one of the best scenes Tarantino has ever written. It's not until the second chapter that we're introduced to the Basterds, and most of this scene is spent in the woods during an interrogation of a few hostages that the Basterds have taken after killing and scalping most of the Nazi unit. Here we meet Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger), who gets his own flashback, and Sgt. Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth), also known as the baseball bat wielding "Bear Jew." If there is one thing wrong with this movie, it's the amateur delivery of each of Eli Roth's lines. He doesn't have too many, but whenever he opens his mouth I found myself cringing; in my mind a slight casting misstep, in an otherwise flawless cast (yes, I even liked Mike Myers). We also get to see a very animated Hitler, played deliciously over-the-top by Martin Wuttke, rant about the Bear Jew to the point of delirium. Chapter three re-introduces us to the heroine Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), now the owner of a quaint movie theater in Paris, and her reluctant relationship to a young Private in the German army. This Private (Daniel Bruhl) is the catalyst for all of the events that follow, although Shosanna is obviously displeased by his advances. His playful banter and her distinct annoyance give us some lighter, humorous reprieve, before thrusting us again into the violent foray. This chapter also contains a great scene featuring a conversation between her and Landa over desert. The way Tarantino uses camera angles and close-ups to evoke the same feelings of tension he made us feel in the opening scene... Simply incredible. Chapter four features the longest scene in the film that has been described by some as a thirty minute version of Reservoir Dogs that takes place in a basement tavern. There are several moments during this scene in which Quentin's pacing seems to meander until he suddenly causes you to hold your breath in anticipation. The scene builds and builds and when the release comes, it is quick, violent, and glorious; a small taste of things to come. The fifth and final chapter culminates at the Shosanna's movie theater, at the premiere for a Nazi propaganda film which most of the German high command is attending. Each respective party of vengeful Jews gets basically the same idea, and the beauty is in the execution of each of these plans. One is a plan of desperation in which everything seems to go wrong. The other is a long gestating, deeply poetic, primal scream of a plan that culminates in some of the most haunting and enduring images Tarantino, or anyone, has put on screen. I've listened to and read many critics and film geeks argue the meaning and purpose of this film, and some have submitted some pretty good arguments. There is definitely much irony throughout the film, especially when related to the violence. When a German officer is beat to death with a baseball bat, Tarantino presents him as an honorable soldier rather than a repulsive monster, which makes the beating and subsequent guffaws from the audience sit uneasily with a discerning audience member. Then there are the images of a grossly over-animated Adolf Hitler and his cronies, in a movie theater, their laughter and cheers erupting into a blood-thirsty frenzy as they watch a propaganda film that glorifies the death of hundreds of American soldiers. All the while a group of blood-thirsty Americans clap and cheer at the insanity that ensues, which can be described as a violent orgasm of death, or maybe... a holocaust. There is so much substance here to be analyzed and scrutinized, but Tarantino himself has mentioned that he doesn't even try to examine the subtext of his films, although he recognizes it is there. Mostly he is determined to create a masterpiece each time he makes a film, and not for art's sake, but for ours. He is determined to create entertainment for an audience to enjoy over and over again, always finding something new to take away from it. I've seen Inglourious Basterds three times so far in the theater, and plan on seeing it once more before it leaves. Each time I notice more and more, and it leaves me somewhat contemplative, but always smiling. One obvious theme is the power of cinema, and Quentin has mentioned that this film is essentially a love letter to cinema. Tarantino has always been accused of stealing from other movies, however, the accusers hardly attempt to apply the same level of scrutiny to other beloved directors (e.g. Martin Scorsese) who have not only revolutionized film, but as devout students of film, borrowed heavily from the great film makers who have come before and inspired them to make film in the first place. With Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino has melded together classic themes, settings, camera shots and musical cues with his unique style of writing and directing to create a completely fresh and unique experience. The final scene is delivered almost like a punch-line, or maybe the closing message of a morality tale; either way it is just the right touch to top off his cinematic masterpiece. Monsieur Tarantino, to you, your cast, and your crew I say, "Bravo!" [...]

This is my second favorite Tarantino movie (after the legendary "Pulp Fiction"). In fact, IMO this is the best movie he has done SINCE Pulp Fiction (Jackie Brown was very good but a little too slow paced for my taste; Kill Bill I and II were disastrous, IMO; and I am probably one of the few who hated Django because some of the scenes in that movie were so unsavory they made me physically ill). What did I like about this movie? Firstly there are the performances, several of them from new, breakout stars: Christopher Waltz, of course, is the film's true revelation. He plays SS Colonel Landa whose task it is to hunt for Jewish fugitives in Nazi occupied France. Waltz plays the character in a very interesting fashion. He never gives the impression that he truly hates Jewish people and wants them eradicated. He additionally does not give the impression that he is intensely loyal to the Nazi party and wants soley to see its goals carried out (as was the case with Joseph Goebbels, also featured in the film). He is simply is a professional, a detective of sorts whose job is to discover the whereabouts of wanted fugitives, and then secure their capture. That his job has unsavory aspects to it does not unsettle him, nor does it, in some perverse manner, motivate him. It simply is what it is, and as a professional he must pursue it to its logical conclusion. The film also features excellent performances by Micheal Fassbender (this being his first big commercial film), the stunning beauty Diane Kruger (as the double agent Bridget Von Hammersmark), and August Diehl, who plays a cunning and ruthless SS Officer with remarkable authenticity. Brad Pitt surprising does an excellent job in this film as tough as nails Lieutenant "Apache" Raine. I say surprsingly, because Pitt has had to redefine himself as he enters middle age. He can no longer sell movies based on his hearthrob status of his 20s and 30s (where he basically had to just show up and hordes of women were guaranteed to go watch his movies). In his search for a new identity, he has had his share of flops (eg. I thought he was terrible in "Moneyball"). But with this movie, it appears he found a role that suits him to a tee. Namely, that of a kind of tough guy, a poor man's John Wayne, complete with generous amounts of wit, charm, charisma and humor. Beyond the acting, the movies story and script is first rate. My favorite scene in the movie, just a classic Tarantino scene that would be right at home in a movie like "Pulp Fiction", is the tavern scene towards the middle of the film. This is where British Agent Micheal Fassbender must make a rendezvous with his contact, double agent Bridget von Hammersmark. Now Hammersmark happens to be a famous German actress, and she is approached in the tavern by a regiment of off duty German soldiers (several of whom are getting alarmingly drunk). When Fassbender is finally able to pry her away from these admirers, a covert SS Officer, played brillantly but August Diehl, makes a surprise entrance, and, suspicious of Fassbender's curious German accent, decides to interrogate him and his party. The scene is brillantly scripted, and the tension between the aggressive Diehl and the calm and collected Fassbender is palpable. This scene alone makes the movie worth watching. This is not a movie for everybody. There is plenty of violence and gore in this movie, which may offend more sensitive viewers. However, if you are a fan of Tarantino films, and you are curious how Tarantino would approach a WW2 movie, then this is a film you need to see.

Upon first seeing Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds in the theatre a couple years ago, my initial reactions were mixed. While I certainly found it to be a very engaging film, with great mise-en-scene and that classic Tarantino dialogue, I was repulsed by it's content, it's lack of humanity, and the fact that so many people were reveling in it simply because it was Nazis being tortured and mutilated. And, being a student of history, I also wondered, "what the hell was up with that ending?" Thankfully, it was just that mixture of confusion and disgust that intrigued me enough to give it a second look. After all, I'm a die-hard Tarantino fan, and simply could not believe that such a brilliant director would make such a horrid exhalation of man's cruelty to man if there were not more to it; all his other films, violent as they may be, are centered on a warm, persevering humanity- a criminal caring for, and ultimately giving his life for, another; a mother seeking endlessly, albeit amid bloody revenge, to find her daughter. I am glad to say, after repeated viewing, I've finally figured it out. "Inglourious" is, in fact, a revenge tragedy, similar to Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" - coincidentally, another story that was, and is, reviled for it's grotesque inhumanity, so much so that many even today seek to exclude it from the Shakespeare canon. Yet the point of both stories are not the bloody acts of vengeance themselves, but the tragic consequences that arise when people forget their humanity and blindly pursue revenge. Perhaps, after "Kill Bill" QT felt it necessary to depict the awful realities of revenge; perhaps it is an effort to show a post 9-11 world that vengeance is vanity, and that bloodshed only leads to more bloodshed, as atrocities escalate and peace becomes ever more impossible. As Saladin said, "Blood that is spilt never sleeps." Whatever the case, the film succeeds by taking arguably the most justifiable revenge- that of Jews against Nazis- and making it utterly unpalatable, shocking and disturbing. By the end, as in Shakespeare's play, nearly everyone lies dead, proof of the bitter fruits of vengeance single-mindedly pursued at all costs. In between, we are given plenty of subtle flashes of humanity awakened and forgotten in the swing of a bat, stroke of a knife or what have you. In light of this, I would have to say that Inglourious Basterds is indeed a great film, and not the reprehensible heroic-bloodshed garbage I first took it for. In short, if you can enjoy a mindless revenge fantasy about atrocious cruelty, and your conscience doesn't bother you, you can probably still enjoy this film without giving yourself a headache; but if your looking for something deeper, and don't aren't averse to a little subtext, "Inglourious" will reward you.

This is an interesting, well-plotted, fascinating film that won't be to everyone's tastes. It centers around all sorts of goings-on during WWII with a plot that's incredibly intricate and nastily violent. The movie features several stories that eventually lock together. You've got the Nazi "Jew Hunter",played by Christoph Waltz (in one of the best performances of the year. Before seeing this I was prepared to say the Best Supporting Actor win would go to Christian McKay for his performance in "Me and Orson Welles". Now I'm not so sure), a Jewish woman (Mélanie Laurent)who survived a massacre of her family led by the "Jew Hunter" (what is that in German? "Juden Jaeger", I assume), and then, almost as an afterthought, you've got an American guerrilla group led by one Lt Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who offers one of the most hilarious moments in the film when he speaks Italian with a very thick Tennessee accent. It's hard to describe the plot without giving away huge parts of the movie. Suffice to say the Basterds are sent across enemy lines to wreak havoc against the Nazis (which they do rather graphically). Meantime the Jew Hunter is oozing his way across the landscape and the Jewish woman he failed to kill is running a movie theatre. When the Nazis decide to premiere a movie there, she makes plans to blow it up. As usual with Tarantino, there's lots of blood and gore, plus plenty of references to other movies. The soundtrack is like a Spaghetti Western, there's an appearance by Emil Jannings, references to the works of Leni Riefenstahl and mention of the great German film studio UFA. Left out are comments on the works of Murnau and Lang, but given the Nazi view of Lang especially, that's no great surprise. As mentioned the movie tells several stories all at once. It is a testament to Tarantino as a filmmaker that I never once felt lost and that the stories come together in a way that seems quite natural. I'm no great Tarantino fanboy. "Reservoir Dogs" and "Kill Bill" (both parts), remain to me some of the most overrated films in history. I didn't like either one. On the other hand, "Pulp Fiction" and "Jackie Brown" are two of my all-time favorite films, so there you go. The DVD extras include some deleted scenes (though fewer than you'd expect), as well as trailers and a six-minute short film done in the style of Riefenstahl. It's less interesting than one might want. Ultimately I recommend this movie. It's a tad on the violent side (to put it mildly), but well worth seeing.

Another epic from Q. Incredible performances from actors who are known as well as those who were unknown at that time.

Good movie

Inglourious Basterds is a cinematic masterpiece, as well as an expectation defying, genre shredding, throwback of a beast of a film that revels in not giving two shakes of a bloody bat what you think. That's precisely what's so invigorating and thrilling about the experience of watching it. Like many of Tarantino's films, one ends up feeling more of a participant as opposed to merely a spectator. Things open quietly and horrifically with one of the most understated and thoroughly evil opening flourishes ever attempted to set up a ride as wild as this... and it works almost too well. Christoph Waltz is an actor I was totally unfamiliar with before viewing this film. By the end of the first scene I wanted to jump through the screen and wring his smarmy neck. His performance only grows stronger through the entire production. While some may balk at the leisurely pace taken, it not only serves to ratchet up tension for the first act, but really sets up this character for the events in the third act nicely. Waltz is the jewel of this production. However the ensemble cast around him with Brad Pitt leading the way is not only excellent but littered with Tarantino staples, i.e. a retired actor making a triumphant return, stunt casting extraordinaire and gorgeous women who wouldn't know a second fiddle if it bit them on their torpedo brassieres. Pitt especially, is brutally effective in an unrestrained performance that works great as a foil for the cool, collected sinister moves of Waltz's character. Besides the great acting though, what really makes Basterds shine are the ideas embodied and the indeed glorious set pieces that provide perfect stages for Tarantino's tense, interlocking morality yarns. The highlight for me was not the much ballyhooed ending, but rather the tavern scene. To me this scene is not just the greatest in this film but one of the greatest in film, in quite a while. Tarantino's love of movie history really shows here, but also his mastery of dialogue, invective, foreshadowing, wordplay and ability to always SHOW rather than TELL, even while a complex conversation is in the offing. It is a thrilling scene to watch and is a nutshell version of why the whole movie works, despite its own (at times) maniacal fearlessness. Without the tavern scene, I can't imagine Basterds being as cohesive or affecting overall. In the same way the deliberate pacing of the opening scene could put some off, I can see how the occasional insistence on tapping the brakes could frustrate fans of more traditional fare, as well. As noted there are not a lot of concessions made to the viewer, but this to me comes off more as respect than lack of fan service. You will never feel spoon fed while watching Inglourious Basterds but you might at times feel like you want to stop and digest a bit. To paraphrase, you can digest when you're dead. Tarantino always has a fresh spoonful of creme ready for your strudel, no matter how you take it. With a film like this you might need a little extra willing suspension of disbelief but if you do give yourself over to it, the ride can be unforgettable. The DVD itself has a lot of great special features that fans of the film will enjoy. I would have loved a commentary, but the roundtable discussion fills in some of that information. Being able to see the film within a film was a nice touch too. Lastly, it seems that some people take exception with the barbarous acts of unremitting violence perpetrated against fictional Nazis herein. I would just like to say that you're being quite silly. Are you afraid that anti Nazi violence in the world will spiral out of control? It would be laughable if it, well... weren't. The only entity in the world that engenders rage towards fascism of all flavors, is fascism itself. Fictional representations of revenge are many times the closest victims can get to exacting the payback they have in their hearts. If you feel that the violence portrayed here against the SS rank and file is "over the top" then check again. Dachau was "over the top." Himmler was a REAL freak off the leash so cry me a Rhine. The swastika has a target on it forever now and that's just as it should be. It's called payback is a b*tch. Ask Tojo if Pearl Harbor was worth it. Now ask Michael Bay. See where I'm going here? Sure you do. Sit back and enjoy the show people. It's what you do best.

I was fortunate enough in 1994 to attend a test screening of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, shortly after its triumph at Cannes and months before it premiered in the U.S. Because I saw it before it was acknowledged as a game-changing sensation, I was completely unprepared for my mind being blown. I remember sitting in the dark theater, sort of giggling to myself in a low voice, because I was in absolutely alien territory; I had no idea what was going to come next, and I knew I'd never seen anything like it before. (Tarantino attended the screening and I got a chance afterwards to shake his hand, after which I just walked away, rather than say, "huminah-huminah-huminah.") Coming out of Inglourious Basterds, I realized that Tarantino is still blowing my mind, as he has with each of his post-Pulp Fiction films. This is not because I think his films are perfect, and not even necessarily because he's my favorite director, but rather because I think Tarantino is trying for something in his films that's absolutely different than anyone else's work. Basterds is a multi-threaded take on a World War II film. It weaves together a series of stories taking place in Nazi-occupied France, and it's exciting, suspenseful, thoughtful and funny (Brad Pitt is an absolute hoot, and he, Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent pretty much walk away with the film). But like every other Tarantino film, it's actually really all about movies above all other concerns, including plot. That's where Tarantino runs into trouble with some critics. They say that his films are all about movies, not real life, that the films are simply a series of film references. The worst criticism? His films are mere exercises in genre. I think that's missing the point. Yes, Tarantino loves genre films and loves to mix genres. But he's doing some remarkable things with them. I think he's trying to build serious art with the raw materials of genre. It's akin to taking an electric guitar, an accordion and a triangle and writing a symphony with them - and succeeding. Some say that Pulp Fiction was his most mature work, if by "mature" we mean conventionally artistic. Under this view, later films, which more explicitly take use the mechanics of gangster, blaxploitation, revenge and, oddly enough, European art cinema, are less "personal," less serious. But that may reflect more about what you think about genre than about anything else. If you believe genre is artless, low-brow moviemaking, then the use of the film vocabulary from genre in service of personal, artistic filmmaking is confusing and unsettling. If you can accept that art is about personal vision, not the tools you use to express that vision, then Tarantino's approach can be exhilarating and thrilling. Employing that personal vision, Tarantino has no problem using David Bowie's great "Cat People (Putting Out Fire)" in a period film, or splashing a blaxploitation-era logo to flash the name of one particularly colorful character, or using narration when it's necessary and forgetting about it when it's not, or opting for long stretches of subtitled dialog (I think this was Tarantino - who's calling card is his expertise in dialogue - tying one hand behind his back for the fun of it). Tarantino even uses little signifiers - signifiers as little as the fonts he uses in his "chapter" markers and in the end credits - to let you know you're in his unique, personal world. As Tarantino himself said in a great appearance on the Howard Stern radio show recently, his work is unambiguously his work - you'll either love him or hate him, and that's because he has a singular, idiosyncratic voice. I love his work and I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. One more thought [and mild spoiler alert] - I hope it doesn't become an issue that in Basterds, Tarantino is playing fast and loose with the facts of world history (let's just say that at some point Basterds and history go down different roads). It's called an alternate history - a device used by everyone from comic book artists to serious writers like James Ellroy. Is there any real concern that people will mistake Tarantino-esque fiction for historical fact? If that's the case, we should worry a little less about Tarantino and a little more about our education system.

great movie watched several times

I always thought that Tarantino as a director was making quite violent films for my taste. I watched Kill Bill a few years ago, and i have to admit that i loved it, despite the fact that it involved a lot of violent scenes. When inglorious basterds first came out I didn't rush to the cinema until my dad who watched it described to me the first scene at the French village. His description was very good so i decided to watch it. Some of the scenes take your breath away, i love his directing style as he focuses on the characters' emotions, and then the next minute the most violent scene will follow. I never thought that Brad Pitt was a great actor, but in this film he was great. Tarantino's combination of slow almost pausing, moments in the film where the viewer focuses on the character and his/her drama and then immediately an almost frightening scene of extreme violence keeps you a bit on your toes. A lot of plot twists and of course (a film spoiler now) a fantastic imaginary scene of how we would all wish it had happened in the first place: Hitler killed by a Jew, instead of taking his own life. A very good scenario, with good actors and directing. The character of the German detective is so good that it makes you really scared of him. An evil, extremely clever person and an excellent actor Christoph Waltz at his best. His language excellency in french, german, english and italian in the film makes the rest of us green from envy. Not to mention his acting talent. If i was in the academy, i would definitely consider him as an oscar winner. Even if you are not a Tarantino fan, give this film a chance. It is not the best film in the world ever, but it would be in the top 100 I am sure :-)

Tenemos lo que todo un coleccionista le podria gustar. Un juego de cartas, y postales, ademas del librito con fotos de la pelicula. Si estas leyendo esto, sabes que es uno de entre los mejores trabajos de Tarantino. Si ya viste la pelicula, y buscas tenerla en una buena edicion. Esta es la buena, y tiene doblaje en latino, por si querias saber.

Tarantino ci regala una visione alternativa della seconda guerra mondiale nella Francia occupata dai nazisti. Spettacolare, crudo ma allo stesso tempo Intrattiene alla poltrona per dialoghi taglienti e trama curiosa.

...und eine weitere Rezension die Schar der Film-"Freunde" spalte! Ehrlich gesagt bin ich erschrocken, dass der Film solch zahlreiche negative Rezensionen erhält. Dies geschieht meines Erachtens völlig zu unrecht! "Langweilig", "mies", "schlecht", "der schlechteste Tarantino aller Zeiten" - das sind die Attribute, mit denen dieser Film beschrieben wird. Scheinbar waren viele Zuschauer mit "Inglourious Basterds" komplett überfordert!!! Hier nun der Versuch, in der Kürze einer Film-Rezension bei einem Internet-Shop einige Dinge zu (er)klären: Womit haben wir es hier überhaupt zu tun? IB ist in meinen Augen erst mal eine Spielwiese für den kreativsten Filmschaffenden (jedenfalls in der A-Liga) unserer Zeit. Der Film ist eine riesengroße Satire auf das, was die Amerikaner gerne gesehen hätten, auf das, wie sie sich selber sehen(oder am liebsten sehen würden) und den amerikanischen Blick auf die Welt in der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts (und vermutlich auch weit darüber hinaus). Macht dies schon eine Allegorie? Diese Frage soll jeder für sich selbst beantworten! Dieses gezeigte Weltbild wird jedoch immer wieder erschüttert durch Handlungen und Charaktereigenschaften einzelner Personen/Figuren, die in ihrer Komplexität plötzlich den selbsternannten "Rettern" turmhoch überlegen sind - sei es in Sachen Mut (Shoshanna, der dt. Feldwebel Rachtman), Intellekt und Gerissenheit (Hans Landa) oder Loyalität. Die amerikanische "Überlegenheit" erweist sich als purer Zufall. Die amerikanische Mentalität ("Wir tun das Richtige, also ist die Wahl der Mittel nebensächlich"), die heute noch Gültigkeit besitzt wird hier demnach komplett ad absurdum geführt! Doch begeben wir uns einmal weg von der politischen Ebene, hin zum Filmischen: Der Film hat die Form eines klassischen Dramas in fünf Akten, die Tarantino-typisch auch als solche plakativ deklariert werden: Den Einstieg bildet eine Hommage an den Italo-Western, repräsentiert durch die Anfangssequenz ("Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France..." als Anspielung auf Leone!), untermal mit der Musik des absoluten Großmeisters Ennio Morricone! Landa verhört einen französischen Bauern wegen des Verdachts, eine jüdische Familie zu verstecken. An alle, denen das nicht aufgefallen ist: Schade! Euch wird noch viel mehr entgehen/ entgangen sein! Das zweite Kapitel - bitte nicht wieder Kritik an Mr. Pitts Schauspielkunst - soll uns den "Haufen" vorstellen, der sich durch die deutschen Reihen "arbeiten" wird. Hier, das gebe ich zu, wirkt die Ansprache von Aldo, dem Apachen in der Synchro weniger eindringlich als im Original mit prima Akzent! Die gefühlmäßige Kälte (Routine) wird hier auf den Punkt getroffen! Im weiteren Verlauf bekomme wir immer wieder Klischees vorgesetzt - den cholerischen "Führer", den "treuen und tapferen Deutschen" Werner Rachtman (hier besonders intensiv, da für amerikanische Verhältnisse im Grunde deutlich "zu" positiv dargestellt), den snobistischen Engländer, die unterkühlte deutsche Schauspielerin, den jungen Kriegshelden, die immer in den gleichen Platitüden plappernden Amis... Doch jede der Figuren wird von den entsprechenden Schauspielern mit teils unglaublicher Tiefe versehen! Besonders hervorheben möchte ich an dieser Stelle Daniel Brühl, bei dem man ständig zwischen Abscheu und Sympathie hin und her gerissen ist - und BLEIBT! Eine abschließende Festlegung auf eine Haltung bleibt meiner Meinung nach beinahe unmöglich! 3. Akt - Die Keller-/ Tavernensznene: hier jongliert QT erneut mit dutzenden Anspielungen, die von Karl May über Edgar Wallace bis hin zu Alfred Hitchkock reichen. Dazu werden Namen von Schauspielern und Filmen gleich im Dutzend genannt oder angedeutet... Ganz groß gemacht, denn es wirkt niemals aufdringlich! Dazu eines der ABSOLUTEN Highlights: es wird durch Dialog eine Spannung kreiert, die im Kino ihresgleichen sucht. August Diehl hat hier (s)einen Auftritt als SS-Mann, der dem Besucher mehr als nur in Erinnerung bleiben wird! Plötzlich und unversehen ändert sich hier auch der Lauf der Dinge... "Operation Kino" bildet den 4. Akt und zeigt die zeitweise Hilflosigkeit der agierenden Personen, die natürlich Konsequenzen hat: der Plan gerät mächtig aus dem Ruder! Köstlich hierbei der Auftritt von Herrn Pitt als italienischer "Ausnahmedarsteller" nebst seiner Kameraleute, die jedoch leider kaum ihre eigene "Muttersprache" sprechen. Optisch wird hier mit dem Aussehen von Marlon Brando in "Der Pate" kokettiert, die Gags sitzen. Dies war übrigens schon immer Tarantinos große Stärke, der sog. "comic relief", also dass unmittelbar nach besonders spannenden (oder grausamen) Momenten ein komisches Element eingebaut wird, das die Situation etwas entschärft. Das große Finale bildet dann der 5. Akt: "Die Rache des Riesengesichts". Hierauf möchte ich nicht näher eingehen, doch es sei gesagt, dass sich einige dinge vollkommen anders als erwartet entwickeln! Dieses "Drama" ist natürlich wieder "gewürzt" mit plakativen Schriftzügen und Einblendungen, die an die Trash-movies der 60er und 70er erinnern oder an Fernseh- und Printwerbung dieser Zeit: laut, grell, aufdringlich. "Die Botschaft MUSS in Eure Köpfe!" scheint das Motto zu sein! Abgesehen davon finden sich noch einige andere "Gags" im Film, die so gut versteckt sind, dass man schon genau hinschauen muss: Wer hat denn z.B. BOB ROSS im Film entdeckt??? Hadelt es sich vielleicht bei den kleineren und größeren Katastrophen im Film bloß um "happy little accidents", die wir zu unserem Vorteil nutzen können? Wer hat die Anspielung auf Keinohrhasen entdeckt??? Tarantinos Fußfetisch - auch hier wieder bedient??? Wir erinern uns - es begann eig. mit Salma Hayek in "From Dusk Till Dawn"... Dies alles wird von QT erneut mit einem Sountrack untermalt, den nur ER in dieser Form liefern kann. Besonders das musikalische Herzstück des Films "Cat People" von David Bowie mit der markanten Zeile "Turning out the fire with gasoline" zeigt uns doch, was wir von alledem zu halten haben: wenn man Feuer mit Benzin bekämpfen will, muss man verdammt noch mal GANZ GENAU wissen, was man da tut, denn ansonten verbrennt man sich ganz gehörig die Finger!!! Zuletzt möchte ich noch einige schauspielerische Leistungen ansprechen: Christoph Waltz - UNGLAUBLICH!!! Von Sherlock Holmes über wahnsinnigen Killer und eiskalt berechnende Bestie bis hin zu Fähnchen im Wind ist hier ALLES vertreten, glaubhafter als ich es bisher gesehen habe! Schon jetzt legendär! Melanie Laurent - spielt Diane Kruger locker an die Wand. Neues und unverbrauchtes Gesicht, tolle Tiefe! Großes Kino! Daniel Brühl - Laurents Gegenpart und Nemesis, großartig interpretiert! Alles in allem mehr als nur eine Empfehlung für größere Aufgaben! Til Schweiger - gewohnt stoisch in seiner Mimik und wortkarg, dennoch überzeugend! Diane Kruger und Eli Roth - die beiden schauspielerischen Tiefpunkte im Film August Diehl - BEÄNGSTIGEND GUT!!! Mehr braucht man nicht sagen! Denis Menochet - Puuuh!!! Intensiv!!! Was bleibt nun am Ende übrig? Eine Hommage an das Kino an sich, eine Kollage unverdauter amerikanischer Erinnerungen und sozio-kultureller Missstände? Ein modernes Märchen von dem, was hätte sein können? Hier möchte ich auf alle Fragen mit "JA" antworten. Vor allem bleibt in meinen Augen ein wirklich großes Stück Kino, das man kaum genug loben kann! Alles andere als 5 Sterne ist in meinen Augen ein Verkennen der Kunstfertigkeit dieses Regisseurs!