inglourious basterds or have i outgrown tarantino?

when asked why he misspelled the word bastards in the title of his new film, quentin tarantino said he thought it was appropriate that the word 'terd' should be a part of the word 'bastard'. the journalist asking the question didn't have the heart to explain to the otherwise genius auteur that that's not how 'turd' is spelled...

well, quentin tarantino needs to get used how turd is spelled because it is the best word to describe his newest film. inglourious basterds is a big fat steaming turd.

i was looking forward to the arrival of this palm d'or winning latest work by someone i consider to be brilliant but sometimes overestimated (grindhouse) starring someone i consider to be beautiful and often underestimated (kalifornia, fight club etc...). i was in there rooting for the boys until about half way through the endless first scene when i found i just couldn't sustain the thrill. quentin had worn me out by opening his film with a 20 minute scene that could have lasted about only 5 minutes and still conveyed everything it needed to- which was to introduce 2 main characters, bad nazi and jew with a vengeance- a dynamic that we knew going into the film. each new scene in this movie is introduced as a chapter and after this one, a fellow theater member groaned, "how many chapters are there?" a valid question as i had all ready nodded off once.

i don't understand the point of this film. my sister suggested it is a fantasy. yes, it is but that doesn't explain it. it's as though quentin wanted to make a film about an american crew out to rain down violence on bad guys and he needed bad guys with whom no one would sympathize. so who are the baddest of the bad ever? nazis, of course. who couldn't enjoy a film depicting scores of nazis being beaten to death with a bat, scalped, and being machine gunned to shreds? you would think that would be a no brainer, but not so fast grasshopper. in order for such a tale to qualify as a good film there has to be a story, a reason(built in with this choice of baddies, granted) and it has to make sense. here tarantino shows hundreds of nazis in a burning theater being mowed down with bullets like rats and quentin has managed to make me feel sorry for the nazis! it's his fault, he wrote and directed this well, turd. the violence is just too, too. i am a huge fan of reservoir dogs and pulp fiction so i am no wuss. but, here practically everyone is wiped out just because he can.  there has to be some scale to the violence, that's why kill bill volume 1 is just ok but kill bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. you have to know when and when not to pull the trigger. kill your darlings, quentin, not your entire cast...

speaking of cast, they were very good. especially, christoph waltz as the bad nazi. he won best actor at cannes and will be nominated again at oscar time. brad was terrific as always. my favorites included til schweiger as hugo stiglitz, daniel bruhl as fredrick zoller, eli roth as the bostonian donny donowitz, diane kruger as actress bridget von hammersmark,...you know, the whole cast was great. Except, i have to say, the insertion of mike myers was very distracting. sorry mike, you may be a fine actor, but your persona is too large for you to disappear successfully into a role.

so, to answer my own question, no, i don't think i've outgrown quentin tarantino. i think quentin is stuck. he's regressed to making a 14 year old's idea of a good shoot 'em up film. what he needs to remember (cause nobody does it better) that if you make a good shoot 'em up film it will appeal to all ages. the key words here are "a good film". i will forgive the bad spelling but not a bad film.