| Audience: | Adult |
| MPAA Rating: | Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality |
| Profanity: | Very strong language |
| Nudity/Sex: | Brief explicit sexual situation, some sexual references |
| Alcohol/Drugs: | Drinking, smoking |
| Violence/Scariness: | Extreme, brutal, and graphic violence, wartime peril, guns, knives, baseball bat, hand-to-hand combat, torture, many characters injured and killed |
| Diversity Issues: | A theme of the movie |
| Movie Release Date: | August 21, 2009 |
There is no question that writer-director Quentin Tarantino is a brilliant film-maker. But there is some question about whether he has yet made a brilliant film. No one takes a more visceral pleasure in movies than he does but there is always a chilly irony and a look-at-me distance. Movies are more Tarantino's mirror than his window.
This film takes its title from a little-seen Italian movie made in 1978, but starting with the intentional misspelling, it has little in common with the original except for a WWII setting and a Tarantino's characteristic pulpish sensibility. It shares even less in common with history. About the only thing it gets accurately is that the Nazis spoke German and the Americans spoke English.
Tarantino calls the movie a revenge fantasy. Brad Pitt plays Lieutenant Aldo Raine, who assembles a squadron of Jewish soldiers with one goal, to kill as many Nazis as possible, in as horrifying a manner as possible. "We will be cruel to the Germans and through our cruelty they will know who we are," he tells them. One of his men is a former German soldier they rescued from prison after he killed his superior officers. Another is nicknamed "The Jew Bear" (played by horror director Eli Roth), and he kills Nazis with a baseball bat.
Meanwhile, a Jewish woman named Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) owns a movie theater in Paris. She escaped from the Nazis and has a new identity. A handsome German war hero who is interested in getting to know her better arranges for the premiere of the new movie about his triumph in battle to take place at her theater, putting her in danger, but giving her the opportunity to put the Nazi dignitaries who will be attending in danger as well. Tarantino's almost fetishistic fascination with movies, from the fine points of the auteur theory down to the combustibility of the film stock, gives this section of the film an extra charge.
Tarantino's opening scene is brilliantly staged, as a German officer (Austrian actor Christoph Waltz) visits a French dairy farmer in search of Jews who may have escaped his predecessor. Waltz, winner of the Cannes prize for acting, instantly joins Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, and the Wicked Witch of the West as one of the all-time great movie villains with a mesmerizing performance that shows off his fluency in English, German, French, Italian...and evil. Like Lecter, his venom is even more disturbing because of his urbanity and courtliness. Other scenes are also masterfully shot, especially an extended scene in a bar, when a critical meeting of Allied forces working undercover find themselves among a drunken party of German soldiers celebrating a new baby. Others, like the viscious killing of a group of what Raine calls Nah-sies, suffer from Tarantino's tendency to go for showmanship over substance.
And that is the problem at the core of the film. If the misspelling of the words in the title was a signal of some kind, like the backwards letter intended as a warning and a small sign of protest in the sign over the gate at Auschwitz, then we could look for meaning in the reworking of historical events and the actions taken by real people. But Tarantino does not care about that. He is still about sensation, not sense. He appropriates the signifiers of WWII because they are easy, and because they are both scary and safe. His Nah-sies are like dinosaurs, unquestionably dangerous and unquestionably vanquished. Tarantino is a film savant. He knows and understands and loves the language of film. He just doesn't have much to say.
Parents should know that this film has extreme and graphic wartime violence and atrocities including artillery, guns, hand-to-hand combat, scalping, torture, and beating to death with a baseball bat. It also has very strong language, brief nudity and an explicit sexual situation.
Family discussion: What do you think about the liberties this film takes with historical figures and events? Would it have been as powerful if all of the characters were fictional? What should the dairy farmer in the first scene have done?
If you like this, try: "The Dirty Dozen" and "Jackie Brown"

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Andy, I well remember your note on my review of "Sin City," which gave me a lot of encouragement. Your assessment of this film and of Tarantino is exactly right. Masterful staging, but for him it's just a bunch of dollhouses and toy trains. It's about what's cool, not what is meaningful.
I saw the film yesterday. I found the "voiceover" portions confusing. Seemed like they came out of nowhere and then disappeared. Seemed to me they were used out of laziness, to move the story along without having to fill some gaps. Or, in the alternate, as a condescension, to explain what Tarentino felt the audience would be too stupid or ignorant to understand otherwise. Same with the scrawled names of Nazi biggies in the theater scene. I felt that the names were scrawled to avoid the need to have a short scene in which the characters were greeted by name... and out of some expectation that even if the characters were greeted by name in the scene, the audience wouldn't already know, or remember from the previous scenes, that they were high up in the Nazi command.
I haven't seen many Tarentino films, so perhaps these cartoonish features are his calling cards and are in all of his films. If so, it explains a bit more about why they were there, but I find it a bit perturbing that he would use such a serious chapter in human history as a mere backdrop for his cinematic fun.
I am very troubled by the fact that the film plays out an alternate history. I am not much of a fan of books or films that take a particular historical context and then twist and change facts to come up with a different result. Perhaps I am only showing my own limited intelligence here, but I find it challenging enough to try to learn the true history in as accurate and objective a manner as possible. It is intriguing to think "what might have been if this one event had gone another way..." but I don't think such an experiment should be memorialized into book or film form. I think that a lot of young people will think this movie is factual, despite the subtitle at the beginning and the disclaimer at the end.
But by far the most disturbing thing about the film was that it did seem to want us to consider the "basterds" as heroes. Didn't it? But they were utterly without honor or fairness. The "basterds" were no better than the Nazis were.
I wish I could say that I thought this film was a very timely commentary on the unfolding story of unfair practices by the US military in Iraq, but no, you have said that Tarentino has said it is a revenge film....
So I find myself agreeing with Keith's comment above, about the fact that the film would have been better without the "basterds" being the main focus. But that would have been a different film. This one I could do without.
PS re Tarantino (sorry I misspelled his name above) calling the film a "revenge fantasy"-- this may even be in the opening credits. I have forgotten. Anyhow, I didn't mean to say that I doubted that you are accurate in saying that that was Tarantino's intent.
Great review Nell,
I thought it was spot on. The one thing I did appreciate though was the care given to the spoken foreign languages, the subtitles etc. Most mainstream American movies (Valkyrie to wit) have about 5 minutes of patience for this before they give up and just switch to English for the remainder of the movie.
cheers,
grok
Thanks, grok, and a very good point! The languages -- and the dig at Americans who never learn another language -- were very well done.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.