Comments on: Inglourious Basterds – Revenge, Evil, and Humanity

By: Jorgen

Jorgen — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 06:27:24 +0000

Hey, I liked your analysis a lot.
But I have a different point of view on Landa’s surrender.

I don’t believe he surrendered to Raine because he realized what he did was wrong. I thought he had no regret about what he had done. I think he thought the Nazi’s were going to eventually lose and the war would end, so he found the easiest way to get out of it without dying.
Instead of facing Jewish trials for war crimes and being sentenced to death, he made a “deal” with Raine (you know what the deal involved) to say he was supposedly a part of the Basterds’ Operation, he did this so he could sneek away from the war and pretend to be a hero. I’m guessing.

Thanks!

By: Skillz

Skillz — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:24:00 +0000

That was really bad “analysis”. I agree with all of the above comments talking about amateur type of analysing.
Everything (and i mean Everything) you did tell us, is so freakin obvious, that in the middle of the text i tought you are joking.
I personally belive that this movie is far overrated. It is classical Hollywood movie with as much pointless violence as you can get, a story written for Steven Siegal to play, a wierd way to show what the worst war of all times was about.
And when you talk about your own interpretation of the simbols, you are actually speaking against the movie. (For example: when you talk about the swastika on forehead as a mark for the future about the past, you are saying, that everybody need a chance to change to better person. So if “americans” and “jews” won’t let you change, but they are all about revange, are they bad as well? And the nazis are obviously bad guys? Does that mean that Tarentino’s point of that swastika mark was, that all people are bad and that is in our nature, to bi revange type of being?! Than who’s the good guy in the movie – who’s the “good guy” in our world?! If he can’t show that there is hope……and yeah i know about the woman feeling bad after killing this german guy at the theatre allthough they killed her family, but she KILLED THE WHOLE FREAKING THEATRE + talking about simbols – she killed him from behind…)

Don’t get me wrong, i got nothing against anyone. And everybody needs a chance to write thi opinion. The only reason i decided to make this (pretty long ) post is, that i just can not belive, that you write some obvious things and sum up like: tarentino made another extraUNordinary movie, witch is so faaar from anything we can see nowadays.

Sorry again for the “angry” style of writing, i didn’t meant it to sound like an attack.

I wish you All the best!

Skillz

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:43:25 +0000

I just wanted to thank Brett Clair for the accurate and insightful analysis of this fine contribution to cinema.

By: Josh Lipovetsky

Josh Lipovetsky — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:43 +0000

Spongebob-Pedanticpants, I like your name! I do believe that some things are more unique than others, though. Every filmmaker is unique in their own way, but Tarantino deviates from the norm of filmmaking in so many aspects; hence the ‘very unique’. I used the absolute term in a relative context. It may be grammatically wrong, but I stand by it.

Thanks for the comment!
Josh Lipovetsky.

By: Spongebob-Pedanticpants

Spongebob-Pedanticpants — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:05:10 +0000

Interesting stuff, thanks. I just breezed by because I wanted to find out a little more about this movie, which I’ve not seen. It was useful.

Can I make a really pedantic comment? It is not possible for something to be “very unique” nor is it possible for something to be “unique from” something else.

Unique is an absolute term, something is either unique, or it isn’t. It cannot be a little unique or very unique, and it certainly can’t be unique from something else.

By: Incubus

Incubus — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:44:50 +0000

To No Sir:
Are YOU kidding me???
you wrote “evident you have KNOW movie knowledge”???
First: you used the incorrect word; it should read “.. you have NO movie…”
You should surely be able to type a correct sentence before you criticize others’ writing.
On another point: technically, he DOES have ‘movie knowledge’ -the summarized the movie correctly, which is what knowledge of the movie is.
What may be a bit off is his ANALYSIS of the movie, but not his “knowledge”.
In reading your last sentence, I am not sure, but it may, in fact, be a fragment.

By: Josh Lipovetsky

Josh Lipovetsky — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:17:12 +0000

Joseph,

Thank you so much for stopping by, man!! I appreciate you taking the time to read such a long article . Tarantino breaks the norms of filmmaking. He’s a love/hate type of filmmaker.

Please let me know if you would like me to analyze any film! Chezzy621@gmail.com!

By: Joseph Salfi

Joseph Salfi — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:22:04 +0000

Excellently written. Nothing I could say hasn’t already been said in regards to the comments discussions, but it must be said that Tarantino is a filmmaker like no other!

By: Blake

Blake — Sun, 02 May 2010 18:00:07 +0000

Very well done. You gave me some good ideas.

By: Josh Lipovetsky

Josh Lipovetsky — Sun, 02 May 2010 15:45:47 +0000

Perhaps I am too idealistic? I am such an optimist, and I like to see all the positives of every person. My mind usually blocks out the negatives, and it’s something that I have to deal with in my life.

It also applies to this article. I guess I tried too hard, to see the good in such a horrible and merciless villain.