Great Basterds Review

This is the best review I've found so far on the Basterds.

THE GOOD: I'm a Tarantino fan. I couldn't wait to see this film and was pretty much basking in the warm glow of the ten minute opening sequence. Yes it's a venerable tip of the hat to the opening of the The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. And yes it's a terrific scene all on it's own merit. It held the promise of a solid WWII movie to come after its conclusion.

THE BAD: It's a boring movie man. There are little islands of fertile ground on this open plain - but they are very few and so very far between. Tarantino's always been a bit of an attention whore, with Inglorious Basterds he's pretty much openly reminding you that this is a QUENTIN TARANTINO movie every other minute of the film. These are his words. These are his influences. These cool actors are his buddies. This cool music is from his collection. This is the extent of his cinemaphile credentials. To which I say - whatever, it's your movie do what the hell you want in it. But as far as the general audience is concerned we just like a good time. And Inglorious Basterds is nowhere near a good time.

THE UGLY: No, the real "Ugly" part of Inglorious Basterds was how much I was looking forward to this film, (need proof fans? look here) and how much I wanted this to be a return to excellence for a guy that really loves movies and loves making them. I wasn't expecting to hate 90% of the flick. Nor was I expecting this film to be the most overly self-indulgent film project in recent memory. Quentin made this movie for Quentin and Friends of Quentin, the rest of us tragic suckers just put up the cash to fund the project.

The Verdict: Quentin Tarantino went "full retard" on this one. There are flashes of genius and craftsmanship but they are quickly and commandingly snuffed out by a long, hopeless film that wanders in and out of dry conversations and illogical plot devices.

Read the whole thing. The best insight in the article is the saddest fact of all - the movie is pretty boring. Not because of the length, but because of the repetitiveness.