Just got back from watching "Inglourious Basterds". (No Spoilers)

[LostInAnomie]

I would say, in total, it was a good and entertaining movie with some very interesting twists. The dialogue is very well written and very well executed by the actors. Christopher Waltz's character alone is worth the price of admission (and should receive an Oscar). Brad Pitt does a turns in a very strong performance as well. I would probably say it is one of the better movies I have seen this year.

That being said, it is not one of Quentin Tarantino's best movies. Although it is very well done in almost every aspect, it lacks the gritty realism that you expect from Tarantino (especially if you enjoyed his earlier works). It's still gory and violent, but it just doesn't have that quality that makes you think "This is real. This is really happening.".

Any questions?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear LostInAnomie!

No questions!

Me and my husband already plan to see it!

Sounds very interesting...

[LostInAnomie]

2. Like all Tarantino movies...

... it is very well done and gory. The story is really interesting too. Not historically accurate though. LOL

You should like it, baby.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Gritty realism?

Every Tarantino film I've ever been has been a comic book, not the slightest hint of realism about it.

I mean, huh?

[LostInAnomie]

4. Particularly the violence.

Sure people may be dispatched in unique ways, but when they are killed the results resemble reality. Blood splatter isn't just blood splatter. It includes brain matter or chunks of flesh. A bullet wound isn't just a bullet wound. Flesh tears, bone is visible, etc. When people are shot, they don't do the cliche "grabbing the wound and falling down". They react as is they were really shot and you see them in anguish. After someone is killed in a shoot out the room falls deathly silent, not the usual "shoot out rock" music playing in the background.

This was particularly true in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Things just looked like they were really happening, despite the improbability.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. The violence strikes me as the most non-realist thing about Tarantino

C'mon. You're kidding, right?

[LostInAnomie]

7. There's a big difference between early Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction)...

... and later Tarantino (Grindhouse/Kill Bill). Early Tarantino is a someone getting shot in the head and brain/gore splash out, someone getting slashed with a straight razor, rape completely devoid of the usual sexuality Hollywood gives it. And, all of it was accompanied by the same pain, shock, surprise, sadism, etc. that you would expect to see if it were really happening.

Later Tarantino is someone getting their face ripped off by a car tire, someone's leg flying off during a car wreck, an arm getting cut off and an obscene fountain of blood erupts. As the budgets and body counts grew the realism became more removed.

Inglourious Basterds includes a few scenes that are closer to his earlier, more realistic violence. It also has quite a few that are like typical Hollywood violence. It does not include any ridiculous scenes though.

[NNadir]

6. I have never managed to sit through one of Tarantino's movies.

I tried a few times, but each one is worse than the last.

I'll skip it.