IMDb > Inglourious Basterds (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Inglourious Basterds
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Inglourious Basterds More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 158:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1580 reviews in total 

780 out of 1174 people found the following review useful:

153 minutes of patches

Author: VaultBoyX from Serbia
24 August 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After watching Inglorious Basterds i was really surprised when i saw ratings on IMDb. Didn't expected high ratings and top 250 place. If we can only isolate and rate Christoph Waltz's acting performance i would agree that this movie deserves 10. But he is not alone, and his performance can't cover horrible plot, boring conversations, unfunny characters, alternative QT WW2 fantasy and Eli Roth as Jew bear.

The opening scene with Denis Menochet as farmer and Christoph Waltz as SS officer is best part of the movie. Only part that have same quality and connects tension from that scene with the rest of the movie is a basement scene. Basement scene was crossroad for me. Michael Fassbender was great in role of British spy and his character adds some new layer of logic and realism in movie. In moments you can actually see some plot finally breaking through the rubbish you watched after the farm scene. After the basement chapter, movie is going nowhere.

Empty space. A lot of empty space for movie that last 153 minutes. Long and boring scenes with boring characters and conversations. Childish fantasy mixed up with Spaghetti western movies and some atmosphere that don't belong to WW2 period. Thats why we have basterds to fill everything else and patch the rest of movie. They failed. Basterds are weakest/undeveloped and most boring part of movie. Movie is named by them, yes - Brad is on Movie poster ... but they are horrible. Worst role of Mr Pitt and i hope last one from Eli Roth.

Cinema/Shosanna story with David Bowie music was just another QT patch v1.1 to fill huge empty space between farm and basement. Extremely boring scenes with Mélanie Laurent (taking off cinema letters, red dresses, secret love Marcel...) will blast your brain. Yes - headache is a must.

Beside 2 good scenes, i really enjoyed listening smooth gradient of German, French and English language. But again, this is connected to Waltz and Fassbender and their personal knowledge that Tarantino used for his fantasy.

Inglorious Basterds is Hybrid movie where gangsters are replaced with Nazis adding them wild west background layer with Brad Pitt on movie poster just to sell tickets. It doesn't work in this case.

5/10 - only for Christoph Waltz and Michael Fassbender.

Was the above review useful to you?

822 out of 1299 people found the following review useful:

Read "Hated it" reviews before watching

Author: Dr. Sam from Lebanon
22 September 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.

"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done." "The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz".

"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened" Now for more details go and read "Hated it" reviews.

One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 "heroes" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.

What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.

After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.

My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

355 out of 550 people found the following review useful:

A waste of time and money

Author: derwunderbaremandarin from Germany
23 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.

Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again "the good guys" killing "bad Nazis". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.

This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.

Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.

Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.

Was the above review useful to you?

388 out of 627 people found the following review useful:

Who the hell is Christoph Waltz?

Author: Paul from Hamburg, Germany
25 August 2009

That's what I thought, when I heard about the cast of Inglorious Basterds. And I'm both from Germany and into movies.

That guy is older than 50 and so far he almost only played in mediocre TV series - and even there he didn't play the main parts. Obviously nobody ever noticed, what he's capable of. Now, thanks to QT, he got one shot to change that - and - let's put it this way - that was a bingo! He is the living proof of what a great caster Tarrantino is.

By the way: I think it's a great privilege to watch the movie as a German - being able to understand everything. And the German dialog is written almost as good as the English.

Now I could repeat, what many others have written here before. I'll put it short: Finally, QT is back.

Was the above review useful to you?

356 out of 583 people found the following review useful:

Tarantino's "Talking At Tables"

Author: I_Hate_Almost_Everything from United Kingdom
14 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Chapter One: Once Upon a Time… At A Table (1941)

In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.

Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)

In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.

Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking

In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.

Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking

In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.

Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table

In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.

The End

Was the above review useful to you?

432 out of 740 people found the following review useful:

Very disappointing

Author: sssalem from Egypt
23 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seriously disappointing performance by Brad Pitt and Q T, the plot is very superficial and lame, and, unless indirectly intended, this film actually glorify the Nazis and portrays them as men of honor, and show that the Jewish people are deceiving, cant keep promises and bloody vicious. ((THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER)) Hitler together with the most notorious Nazis are attending a stupid plot less movie about the killing of 300 Italian soldiers in a small cinema theater in Paris is unbelievably ridiculous. the Nazis laughing and hooraying each killing in the movie as if watching a basketball game STUPID, the deal at the end is lame. whats really appalling is that the movie earned great reviews and is ranked here in the 40s amongst the greatest 250 films. will not be surprised if it harvested many awards, including Oscars, as well. the movie is simply a kissing ass to the Jewish people, but hey reconsider, its not even doing a great job doing that. it truly dwarfed the whole Nazi - Jews conflict and a pure insult to all who fought and suffered from the tyranny of the Nazis.

Was the above review useful to you?

1007 out of 1894 people found the following review useful:

Brave, unique and just sheer brilliant!

Author: produpp from United Kingdom
2 June 2009

Inglorious Basterds makes no apologies, asks for no forgiveness, it's a no holds barred assault on the senses. Tarantino doesn't care if he offends, if he steps all over stereotypes and clichs, this is film making at it purest. It's great to see a film maker whose work clearly isn't interfeared with by the powers that be. Tarantino is a master of effortlessly cranking up immense tension and suddenly mixing it with laugh out loud moments; you're not sure if you should be looking away in disgust or rolling around laughing, either way it's a roller coaster and one not to be missed! It's not for everyone, certainly if you're not a fan of Tarantino's style, this may be a little hard to swallow, but never-the-less, it is a film which simply has to be seen. No self respecting film fan should miss this. And the performance of Christoph Waltz... Oscar don't you dare ignore him!!

Was the above review useful to you?

499 out of 879 people found the following review useful:

More Homage-frais from a tired director

Author: lee nicholson (dolemite72) from middlesbrough, UK
3 September 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'

Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?

Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)

Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)

More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.

My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)

The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is "well, if you can do so" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't?

Was the above review useful to you?

824 out of 1537 people found the following review useful:

Great fun, a real surprise

Author: motta80-2 from London, England
23 July 2009

It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.

Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.

So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.

Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.

Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.

What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.

Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.

That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.

All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.

It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.

The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT.

Was the above review useful to you?

192 out of 274 people found the following review useful:


Author: pete from england
4 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I simply cannot believe this movie's current rating on IMDb.

It is currently sitting in the IMDb top 100, nestled closely with The Bridge on the River Kwai, Raging Bull and the Prestige.

To find this movie in the same standing as those three is truly staggering to me. Hence I am taking the time to give this film 1 star, to hopefully help get it down towards its rightful place among the other pieces of truly worthless cinema with which it belongs.

I can understand that this is a movie that you either love or hate - it is certainly true that it is both a provocative and original film. However, what surprises me is the massive bias towards the "love" side, given the film's content - which can be summarised as an unashamedly unrealistic and soulless collection of sadistic/casual mindless violence, strangely blended with dramatic scenes of the kind of things that genuinely took place under the Nazis.

What I am trying to say is that combining very tense, well written SS interrogation scenes (which evoke some genuine emotional investment in the film) with comic book character British generals/Nazi leaders/Jewish soldiers makes for an extremely uncomfortable combination for me. At times it feels like someone has spliced together Schindlers List with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

My best guess is that the film's originality and uncompromising approach is refreshing to people bored of the same old Hollywood formulae. Certainly the film is unpredictable. The plot (such as it is) is extremely meandering and many of the characters' actions are pretty much inexplicable. *SPOILER* (I point here towards Colonel Landa's killing of Bridget and his non-killing of Shosanna.) But then again every single character is so one dimensional that it leaves you with no idea which characters you are supposed to actually care about anyway. There is no real shock when anyone gets killed because you don't know who anyone is or what makes them tick.

Brad Pitt gets the award here for the most wooden and pointless character to appear - he is truly awful throughout the film and finds himself in a role where he does not have to portray a single emotion throughout the film. Nothing.

My final point is that originality on its own does not make a great film. Yes, Tarantino has made a movie where you see things that you have never seen before in a major Hollywood release, but that is not any sort of achievement. The reason a high budget film has not been made before where the entire German high command has a day at the cinema in occupied France with almost no guards or security is because that idea is stupid. Yes, the film is stupid - and no amount of brushing over with "Tarantino is being postmodern" or "he's being ironic" will overcome that plain fact.

In summary this is a film that takes an exploitation film script, (that would ordinarily be filed under "trash cinema") gives it a big name director/very high quality cast and then takes the plaudits for being ground breaking.

It is not. It is simply a steaming turd given a coat of gloss paint.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 158:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history