‘Inglourious Basterds’ – Sound On Sight Radio #143

- Advertisement -


‘Directed by Quentin Tarantino.’ Aside from ‘Hand jobs by Megan Fox,’ those are perhaps the words most likely to cause an excess of blood flow in young males. His violent, comedic odes to cinema are jam-packed with references to grindhouse movies, underground film, and European art cinema, like Dennis Miller reciting the liner notes to a rep theatre programme. And Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino’s pulpy war epic, is no different. Sound on Sight caught a sneak peak of Tarantino’s new film at the Fantasia Film Festival, and tonight we’ll give it a spoiler-free review, as well as take a look at the 1978 Italian war movie that inspired Tarantino’s film.



Visit the Inglourious Basterds site

show notes:

Ricky- I made a mistake during my review. The song I played by The Arrows was from the movie Devil’s Angels and not Devil’s Wheels.


Visit Severin Films

  1. Susu says

    I had the PRIVILEGE of attending the UK premier of Inglorious Basterds! Having seen the trailers i had high hopes but had doubts due to a string of self indulgent films (c’mon lets be honest, self indulgence is his tarantinos middle name)

    I was surprised to find though that he had pulled the cat out of the bag with this one. The film is rich with interesting dialogue, Perfect timed comedy with a dash of brutal assassination.

    The crowning glory of this film though lies with Christoph Waltz whom no fault or error can be found. He manages to create a real tension in the audience whilst remaining quite “theatrical” (couldn’t think of a better word). He definitely deserved his prize at Cannes

  2. Marylouise Mareno says

    mabuhay! looking for more good posts.

  3. […] Listen to our review from podcast #143 […]

  4. […] Listen to our review from podcast #143 […]

  5. Puhner says

    Just a quick note to let you know that I just read through your review of Inglourious Basterds. ( Interesting too, I just watched Pierrot le Fou last evening so that one is still fresh in mind and appreciated the reference to it; I enjoyed the hell out of Pierrot, it may have become my current Goddard favorite… ).

    I wanted to compliment you on the review.

    It was a great one ( I had not had much time recently to listen to your podcasts nor read the reviews and now know what I have probably been missing ). I have not seen the film yet, I had somewhat written the project off, after seeing the previews and becoming more and more disenchanted with Quentin Tarantino with each subsequent film of his that I see. I ended up feeling that his references to other films weren’t much of a substitute for Film-making ( I enjoy seeing the referenced so much more ) and were all a bit tiresome too. Your review had enough bite and insight to change my mind about seeing it and I thank you for that. Unfortunately, it has already made its way through Albuquerque, so I will have to end up seeing it on the small screen, not a good thing with a Tarantino film…

  6. Wil says

    Well I saw it. After I saw Death Proof I told everyone I was never paying to see another Tarintino film because he was just an awful filmmaker, yet I still went to see Basterds, remind the next time he releases a film how I feel now. It is the worst film I have seen this year, easily one of the worst films of the decade and amazingly enough worse than Death Proof. This film is a car crash, an utter car crash.

    The only other point I will make at the moment is that I cannot understand the adulation that Christoph Waltz is getting for his horrendous over acting and terrible performance as Hans Landa. He is God Awful in the film. Tarintino once again shows he cannot extract good performances from poor actors. He hired a soap actor, he got a soap actor performance.

    (Only Michael Fassbender’s impersonation of George Sanders is the remotely interesting thing in the film, and that is solely because I love George Sanders and Fassbender is a silly fascimilie of the man.)

    Once again all the characters in this movie sound exactly the same, they all sound like Tarintino. The Pabst, O’Selznick, Refinstahl references are as tired as they are pointless. The dialogue is absurdly overwritten, making it sound like a 15 year old who has found his first note-pad and throws up in times new roman. The dialogue which is neither funny nor threatening nor fresh adds to what is another major problem with this film which is it length, and correlatory the boredom factor. Never before have I looked at my watch so often, scenes drag for hours, then big chunks are missed out and the film splutters forward for no apparent reason.

    Also, the film jumps from interior shot to interior shot throughout, Basterds lacks any scope or dare I say it ambition. I cannot put in words how much a travesty this film is.

    1. Rick says

      LOL – Wow Will thanks for the feedback. Hopefully you have calmed down because this movie really made you angry. I never understand why people become so angry towards a film. The fact that it had such an impact on you to get such reaction says something about the movie itself.

      I estimate that Tarantino’s audience takes up about a fourth of all movie buffs. Not every movie buff likes these so called grindhouse / exploitation films but I do. I am not sure if you actually listened to our podcast but if you did than I think we stated enough reason why this is a good movie. Perhaps it doesn’t speak to you but if you are writing it off as a bad movie than I think you have completely missed the point of the film seeing as you have already completely missed the point of Waltz’s performance. So good I guarantee an Oscar nomination this year.

      I like bad movies but I know they are bad. Take for instance The Happening. Horrible on every level but I was able to enjoy it and laugh throughout the film. In fact I want to see it again. Perhaps on the second view I might not be so amused but at least it entertained me upon first viewing.

      I also dislike great movies. My prime example is Citizen Kane. It is without a doubt one of the greatest films ever made and one of the most influential. However I was not alive when the film came out so it did not have that impact on me. I can recognize its greatness but I find it a long and tedious bore with a disappointing ending.

      What it is great about Tarantino is that his films always strike up great debates. My only problem is that most people can’t get past the artist and leave their personal feeling aside. So most Tarantino haters dive into a Tarantino film ready to hate it just so they can have more ammunition to back up their views on the “Great Tarantino debate”. Another film maker who suffers because of his personality is Mel Gibson. I can’t tell you how many times a client at the video store has refused to watch any of Mel Gibson’s films based solely on the fact that they hate him. I can never understand this way of thinking. Grant it that Tarantino may be a prick and Mel Gibson is insane but the same can be said for almost every film maker out there. The only difference is they are put into the spotlight and their personality becomes visible.

      As I mentioned in top 10 film critics article, a great film critic needs to put his prejudices aside while watching a film and acknowledge them in their review. One of the reasons why I brought up David Edelstein’s review of Jackie Brown from Slate. He right away mentions his hatred for Tarantino yet still reviewed the film as a film and admits to liking it.

      The point is you clearly don’t like Tarantino films. You swore you would never see a Tarantino film ever again. So why did you see Inglourious Basterds if you were so ready to hate it? Just curious.

      Since I already said all that has to be said about this film on the show, I will end this piece of feedback with a link to the world’s greatest film critic, Mr. J. Hoberman and his review of the film.


      1. Wil says

        I think a great film critic should also put his favouritism aside when reviewing films as well. Not just his prejudices. However, I would argue that I definitely did not miss the point of this film, nor importantly of Waltz’ performance. It is a bad performance. This tendency to praise an over the top, anti-method performance which is simply outrageous without any craft baffles me. It is a TV bad guy performance blown up on a huge screen making it simply embarrasing for the actor involved. Pitt and Fassbender were also playing caricatures however they understood how they would look on the big screen, they were restrained enough not to end up looking foolish. (And really Oscar nomination as a mark of quality?)And as for the film being bad, yes I think it is bad. I think it is poorly acted, with terrible and stilted dialogue, the scenes have no tension or freshness to them and every scene is simply people sitting talking. The references to early German cinema, in particular the expresionism of the 20s, Refinstahl, French Cinema and Emil Jannings were awful. He is perhaps more at home with the exploitation rather than the arthouse. I do not think I missed the point of a bad film, I simply recognised it.

        I have no real problem with Tarintino, in fact his enthuiasm for my favourite film, Chungking Express makes me regard him as a person fairly warmly. However, his films I do have a problem with. Death Proof as I mentioned is a something which I consider to be truly terrible and made vow never to see another of his films on the big screen, my hate of that film was so visceral. However, the marketing loured me in like the fool I am. And once again I was disappointed. However, I do think Jackie Brown is a masterpiece and Kill Bill vol 1 is amazing. The rest of his films I can take or leave.

        Citizen Kane is a great film. And something which I thoroughly enjoy watching.

        The world’s greatest film critic is in fact Peter Bradshaw, and here is his one star review for you to read:


        1. Rick says

          Hey Wil,

          I actually read that review. Great review. I still prefer Hoberman. In any case there is no point further arguing. I think it is a matter of taste but I do love the feedback!

          1. Wil says

            I agree that there is no point arguing at all. I love the show, and I usually agree with your takes, or at least can understand where they are coming from, but this film has completely caught me out on how much I disliked it.

        2. Alex says

          Although the Academy Awards has made some rather disappointing decisions in the past decade, for the most part they do choose a nominee who deserves to win. Perhaps not always the most deserving and sometimes not at all, but no award show is perfect. I do still think an Academy Award is more often than not a mark of quality. Recent winners No Country for Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire are proof of this. Even the Cannes film festival has made their mistakes. Take for instance Von Trier`s masterpiece Zentropa losing out to Barton Fink or better yet, Michael Moore’s Palme Dòr win. If Waltz receives a nomination and or win it is because he truly did pull of a remarkable performance. Wil may not like the film but I agree with Ricky that he has missed the point of his performance and perhaps the film. When the majority of film critics including those who dislike the film all agree that his performance is great, there is something to be said by the very few who dismiss it as terrible.

          1. Wil says

            I could throw out a list of performances which garnered a lot of kudos at the time, including Oscar Wins but are now dismissed as fairly inconsequential performances. Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump or Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. Both performances were Oscar Winners, but are now dismissed for being tic-filled carciature versions of acting. I expect the Waltz performance to go the same way over time.

            Of course this is simply my opinion, whether or not you think I missed the point of the film is simply your opinion, of course I do not think I did miss the point I simply was not swayed by Tarintino fanboyism to declare the film anything other than how I saw it.

    2. Anonymous says

      Yes, I agree 100%. There was no real plot that seemed connected. it was all about blood, guts and gore! It was sickening.

  7. bleuaméricaine says

    I live in Finland (we get everything late here) and the original premiere for the movie here was set for October… However, after sending my last comment I went to check the premiere date and it’s been moved to September. So, yay, only a month to go.

  8. Croc says

    Hey Guys, awesome awesome show ! You guys are so well spoken and the show is really entertaining, fun, and a lot of energy. I’m a QT-fanatic myself and I’m gonna travel about 90km to Berlin(I’m an Vietnamese living in Germany) just to watch Basterds in English on the opening day. Your reviews make me feel like crazy, I cannot wait anymore.

    1. Ricky says

      That is awesome to hear that a listener of ours will travel so far to see a movie we recommend! Let us know how the response is in Germany. I am rather curious.

  9. Ricky says

    Well all I can say is that two of my good friends who don’t like Tarantino really like his new film so that says a lot. I think the man is a mad genius so please support the film. Also why do you have to wait until October? It will be released in August!

  10. bleuaméricaine says

    You’ve got me so stoked for Inglorious Basterds, and I have to wait till October to see it. I’ve the different trailers for the movie, and they haven’t really set my hopes high, but because you guys mentioned that the trailers are misleading, I’m relieved. Tarantino is in my eyes an underrated filmmaker, meaning that he only seems to be renowned for including graphic violence and hard-hitting, funny dialog in his movies, yet he actually brings so much more into cinema. So, thank you; now I just have to suffer for a couple more months to actually witness this spectacle myself.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.