Part 1: Tarantino isn’t Tarantino anymore

The foundation for my reaction to this movie comes down to Tarantino himself. His most recent movies were nearly all homages to genres of film. Each film was as much about the art of film as they were about the plot and story. Basically, everything from Kill Bill on is, in one form or another, a film study piece. I liked these movies, appreciating them for what they were. The plots were inane, the twists predictable or underwhelming, but they were what they were: homages to their genres. All of his schticks, from the over-the-top graphic violence to his music choices to his exaggerated characters were fun because they worked toward the greater goal of the film. Sure, he was making movies for film buffs, but they were fun and the non-film buff like me got exposed to something novel and new.

If you look at his recent work as a series, each subsequent film, though, had less plot & worse writing while adding more film buff catnip. Basterds simply continues the descent. It had no greater goal or homage as far as I could tell. It was all the schtick with nothing of substance holding it up. The schtick never did anything for me on its own. In fact, the more I think about it, I never really liked it. In Kill Bill: Vol 1, for example, the Crazy88s fight scene after Gogo dies didn’t add much to the film for me. It was long, disjointed, and pointless. It’s bad film making excused by the genre argument. (I just watched it again… same reaction).

So, with Basterds, I got the schtick, got that it was ‘vintage Tarantino’ but, honestly, I just didn’t like it. We got the long, drawn out dialog, the slow mo shots, the shots with long pauses, the unnecessary close-ups on desserts and incidental elements of the scene, all of it with just a few jokes & Brad Pitt holding it up. I was bored. The vintage has gone sour.

The jokes were funny, though.

Part 2: Historical revisionism, done poorly

What follows contains a major, huge, important spoiler that will ruin the only anticipation created by the film. Do not continue reading if you haven’t seen it and want to. Seriously.

(As an aside, I’m sure this is going to be the more controversial part of my review. I suspect I’m reading more into the film than intended by Tarantino, but this was my honest reaction to the film. Honestly, when the film lost me (right about when Mike Myers showed up), I just got bored and couldn’t just sit back and have fun with the film. I started thinking too much about the ‘why’ of this film. Heidi and the friends we were with both offered different suggestions for Tarantino’s intent with Basterds. No reason offered thus far has swayed me. If you think I’m not getting it, I’m happy to hear suggestions. It could make this section moot.)

After I got bored, I started thinking about the plot (probably too much), which turned boredom and dislike of the film into a visceral annoyance. The movie had this undercurrent of jingoism that was odd. On top of that, taking the penultimate source of American exceptionalism and then revising it to make America’s role even more exceptional, in the context of our current political and historical frame struck me as absurd and, quite frankly, wrong.

Nazis are the universal example for “evil” enemies. We take it for granted as a nation that our involvement in WWII was a glorious and obviously noble and necessary undertaking. As a result, that noble role can get used to justify things beyond the lessons of history. So, Americans working outside the law, doing whatever it took to get the evildoers, justifying torture, killing prisoners, doing anything because the bad guys are evil doesn’t sit well with me in a world filled with Sarah Palins and Dick Cheneys, especially when there’s no basis in history for this. When they finished by getting Hitler, it felt like a “If only we would use such force now, take the gloves off, we’d get those terrorists” statement.

Other historical details were less annoying but still bugged me. For example, we didn’t really do much to help Jews as a nation (e.g. immigration laws, the S.S. St. Louis, etc.) until after the war. So, the over-the-top violent end to Hitler just felt phony, hollow, and, ultimately, absurd. It didn’t work for me and just soured me further on the film. It’s also the reason why one suggestion, that this is a revenge fantasy film for Jews, doesn’t really work for me.

I try not to over think films too much, but the crappiness invited me to dwell on this. I really got started down this line of thought trying to understand what the point of the movie was. I just wasn’t feeling it and all the thoughts of Part 2 sort of flowed from that.

As I said going into this section, I’ll believe that my experience with this film is going to be unusual. As a result, I wouldn’t use Part 2 to make any decision about whether you should go see it or not. Brad Pitt is as funny as the trailers imply (though the trailers contain all of his best moments, another ding against the film). Beyond that, if you like Tarantino’s standard schtick, you’ll probably give it a pass. It just didn’t work for me.