Comments on: The Rumpus Review of Inglourious Basterds

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:04:59 +0000

I’m a little disappointed that you blamed subtitles for how the long conversation scenes didn’t do it for you. It’s a little like calling a black and white film “broken” because it has no color, but I digress.

The dialog was brilliant. The subtitles had many jokes (subtitled “oui” with “oui” for one), for folks like you “stuck” reading, and the German (and I imagine French, which I do not know well at all), has some very subtle nuances that really made those scenes for me. The accents, the choice of words, the whole thing. Like Nick says, above, I wish the film had more of these scenes. All that said…

I thought Taratino failed in “blending” genres. The points were obviously and unsettling and why, WHY, WWWHHHHYYYYYY, is Samuel L. Jackson even remotely involved with this film? I get it. You guys are buddies. But come on…

By: Gaby

Gaby — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:10:53 +0000

Could it be that you viewers who think the movie rambling and over-indulgent with dialogue just need larger attention spans? There was enough tension and interest to merit the amounts of dialogue in this film. Neither was it heavily subtitled.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:45:31 +0000

But lots of movies without “rambling, indulgent dialogue and needless digressions” are bad. I actually wish Inglourious Basterds had more rambling, indulgent dialogue and needless digressions. The movie was pretty plot-driven, with very few digressions that didn’t move the story along. It needed to be about 45 minutes longer.

By: nickmagoo

nickmagoo — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:05:22 +0000

Tarantino spends so much time trying to be clever he trips over his own cleverness. The pop! snap! power of Pulp Fiction and the slower cool flow of Jackie Brown are missing here – as they were in Death Proof (such a shame – Kurt Russell’s awesome performance done in by the non-stop cooler than thou yackety yack yammering of the women). Not to say it’s a BAD movie…It’s certainly interesting, funny, disturbing – in essence, a Tarantino flick (for better or worse depending on your taste in films). As Maxwell Smart would say “Missed it by THAT much.”

By: JS

JS — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:40:58 +0000

I think “masterpiece” would be a stretch! I just think that Tarantino gets so wrapped up in trying to convince his audience and the industry that he is so smart and witty and a master movie maker that he forgets the basics of what makes a good movie! I’m no reviewer or film critic so I will leave a description of what those basics really are to the professionals, but I do know that they don’t include, “rambling, indulgent dialogue and needless digressions”, qualities of which Tarantino is usually guilty!

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:58:46 +0000

But it is a masterpiece. For all the reasons it’s supposedly not.

By: JS

JS — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:12:35 +0000

I needn’t read any further than, “rambling, indulgent dialogue and needless digressions”! Yup, that pretty much sounds like Tarantino!!