"Review of the Reviews- 'Inglorious Basterds'"

The positive review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/REVIEWS/908199995

This positive review by Roger Ebert is very enthusiastic about Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds." Ebert starts off by saying some will love it, and some will be annoyed by it. Ebert then moves on to commenting on the three main characters of the film, discussing the incredible way Tarantino develops a character into a Character with a capital C. Tarantino, the director and writer of this film, is continually mentioned throughout the review, mostly because Tarantino makes very unique films that are hard to categorize. Ebert has high praise for QT. Ebert then discusses the plot, commenting on the well-done, much needed twist at the end, saying, "For once, the basterds get what's coming to them." While moving through the story line, Ebert builds more on each character, discussing the characters of Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, and Christoph Waltz. Ebert focuses on the plot because this is a hard film to explain and/or categorize, so he relies on showing what it is all about. The critic ends by discussing the way Tarantino's films grow on people. "Inglorious Basterds" obviously grew on him.

Ebert's tone is light and playful, emulating some humourous aspects of the film. He makes playful comments toward certain scenes, meant to be understood only by the people who have seen the film, perhaps to make the ones who haven't seen the film yet go out and watch it. Another aspect of Ebert's writing is how he relates certain choices of Tarantino to pop culture. QT is well known to make reference after reference in his movies (http://www.shortlist.com/cool-stuff/virals/every-pop-culture-reference-in-tarantinos-movies) and Ebert makes sure to comment on this style. Ebert dedicates a whole paragraph discussing the difficulty he had trying to categorize the film, relating it to Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction". He does this perhaps to show the uniqueness of Tarantino films, ensuring you are in for an unexpected adventure when going to see a QT film.

The negative review: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/orl-movie-review-inglourious-basterds,0,4336375.story

This is a very passionate, very negative review by Roger Moore. He begins by telling how excruciatingly slow the movie is and deems QT's work "incompetent." Moore then rants about how Nazis love to eat strudel and how the French dairy farmer in the beginning is chopping a wood block--not an actual piece of wood. It seems Moore is focusing on these little details and disregarding the whole of the movie, which is not fair to the reader of the review if he/she hasn't seen the movie yet. Like Ebert, Moore comments on all of the characters, throwing Pitt a bone for his "funny" portrayal of Aldo Raine. Moore's quick review of the film seems to reflect his disdain for the super lengthy film, but in the end he doesn't give the character explanations justice.

Moore doesn't mention anything on QT's style of directing, and he doesn't make any other references to other Tarantino movies or movies in general for that matter. The tone is sarcastic, commenting on how Spike Lee will be happy that the unwanted spotlight will be shared with another WWII movie dud. Moore's utter disappointment for the movie is evident right off the bat, seen with phrases and words like "terrible filmmakers" and "awfulness". You can tell he does NOT like this movie. At all. But, this rant is a short one, making it seem not as valuable, and I'm sure readers will want to go out and see the movie to make the decision for themselves if this movie is indeed one of the "worst WWII movies of the millennium."

I agree with Ebert's quote, "These three, played by Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent, are seen with that Tarantino knack of taking a character and making it a Character, definitive, larger than life, approaching satire in its intensity but not — quite — going that far." I agree with this quote because when I first saw the film, the amazing acting stood out the most. All three characters had you laughing, crying, fuming,...etc. The characters give the movie the edge it needs to make it go from a great movie to an awesome one. 




I agree with Moore's quote, "Every Billy Bob-drawled word out of that Leno-jutting jaw is funny." I agree with this quote because it is praise... pretty much the only praise to be found in this review. And, I agree with it. Pitt is really not on my top ten favorite actors list, but I absolutely loved him in this movie.


If I had never seen this film, I'd have to say Ebert's review would be more convincing. 1) It is longer; 2) It pulls key phrases and scenes that matter from the movie, unlike Moore's sarcastic rant about mundane details; and 3) He mentions QT's popular culture references, exemplifying his ethos; this guy did his homework.  


If I were to write a one page film review I would definitely research the director in order to be extra knowledgeable when discussing the director's style/purpose. This would also make my review more convincing, as seen in Ebert's. I would not go too far into the plot, though, because then I would simply be summarizing what happened and not analyzing the film. I would discuss more cinematography in my review. Both reviews lacked this important aspect of the film.