No. I like a number of scenes and some characters, but I feel like this particular mixtape didn't have the flow of some of QT's prior work. I don't have a boiling hatred for it but I could probably go the rest of my life without watching it again (although I'm sure I won't, since sooner or later we're sure to DIF it).

Nah, I only liked one of the characters in this and the first scene seams to be the only one that's well put together.  But I saw it sorta half-baked so... I don't know how much I can trust my own assessment of the flick...

I wouldn't want all movies to be like this but i wish there were more of them. It's well made and well acted. To me, nothing about it is slipshod and 'mixtape' talk is a little unfair. It's more original than that.

It doesn't have the flow of some earlier stuff because it's more European, which is ok. The milk farmer scene's slow on purpose. Not like the end of Pulp Fiction where it's full of tension because Jules explains his philosophy, it's just plain slow at the beginning cuz it wants to be the opposite of Transformers 2.  I enjoyed the performances of Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger and Mélanie Laurent in a different way than Sam Jackson, Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman but just as much.

The revenge ending is too fucked up for me. Not a huge fan of Death Proof because of the revenge angle also. I disagree Zarban, there is no "why." This is an alternate universe story. The American solders are weird because they've never existed like this, and in what-if-Jews-shot-Hitler-in-the-face world that nazi doesn't get to live a cushy life in Long Island without Jewish Brad Pitt carving a swastika on his forehead first.

I've always thought of movies as either art (like Alien) or not art (like Aliens). Not art isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact i usually prefer to watch Aliens. One of the reasons I like Basterds is because it's art. The Hurt Locker didn't deserve to sweep best picture/director/orig screenplay over this.

Martin Scorsese sez: "[Stanley Kubrick's] films were initially misunderstood. Then, after five or ten years came the realisation that 2001 or Barry Lyndon or The Shining [or Eyes Wide Shut] was like nothing else before or since." QT isn't Kubrick, but he has an original vision and that counts for a lot.

I really can't say. I mean, I enjoyed parts of it, but in retrospect, I think it just went on for too long. I'd have to watch it again, but I've got things to do.

So I guess that's a 'no', then.

Right. I don't mean it literally. Some films just seem to have more of an emphasis on... i don't how else to say it than being 'artistic', instead of a fun to watch commercial enterprise. Avatar is art like every movie, but its priorities were commercial. It was made in order to earn a shit ton of money. Watch Plinkett's review for more on that.

It's like when Francis Ford Coppola introduced Apocalypse Now (at Cannes, i think), trying to explain how seriously he took it and how much effort went into it, he said "This film isn't a movie, it's a film." (The funny part was the French guy sitting next to him translated it as "This film isn't a film, it's a film." They don't really have a word for 'movie' in France.) I couldn't find a clip of him saying that but i did find him saying "the future is electronic" at 00:40. Years before Lucas! I miss you, '70s Coppola.

How did you feel about Kill Bill? That description fits it perfectly, but Kill Bill is better received by most people.

You mean something happened in a movie that didn't happen in real life? Unheard of!

Kill Bill is great. It has a stated morality--the Bride kills those who betrayed and tried to murder her. That's a great anti-hero--a character who does things that are illegal and perhaps even immoral, but who is nevertheless sympathetic and perhaps even admirable. I didn't get any of that from Brad Pitt.

Re: reality... my suspension of disbelief becomes more strained the closer the work of fiction approaches yet differs from my personal experience without an explanation. Go ahead and use your magic beans, but you have to have a character explain "These beans are magic; here is what they do" even if that's done really casually and subtly with a lot of ellipsis that relies on (for example) the viewer's cultural understanding of fairy tales.

It would be different if the film was called "What if...?" or featured a radio report of the Germans carpet bombing Washington, DC. That sort of thing would signal that all bets are off and raise the tension at the end. It would make us wonder, "Wow. What was it that made this history diverge from ours? Was a weird, glowing briefcase involved?" Something like that could have been really cool.

WoOz didn't actually need the frame story, because the twister explains the travel to a magical land where anything goes. I hate movies where it's all a dream anyway; if it's only my point of view that's skewed, then there's no point to the story. It's like making a movie about an optical illusion. "Oh, the lines really ARE the same length."

However, your idea of a lost script is 100% better than QT's no attempt at explaning or even foreshadowing at all. Personally, I would prefer some sci fi explanation, like Pitt and crew stumbling across a scientist who explains that the Germans just exploded a "probability bomb" or something in hopes of changing their chances of winning the war. "Says here that without the in-- indoosed time anom-- anom-a-lee, the Allies would win the war in 1945 and Hitler would shoot himself in his bunker in Berlin. Jesus, the fuckin' Nazzis blew up the FUTURE! You know what this means, boys? We gotta win this war any way we can!"

/Suddenly contemplating a new Asylum screenplay for 10 Vainglorious Bastards.

I will say this before I outline my views on the movie- I MIGHT just be retarded.  Like, bear that in mind, I'm aware that everybody seems to disagree with me on all of this.  But I like, can't even begin to imagine how DIF people didn't love Inglorious Basterds.

Like, it's perfect.  I love everything about it.  I think the premise is easy to understand and solid.  I think every single character was performed brilliantly and even bit players were there because their part added to the whole.  I think it delivered an interesting ending to every subplot all wrapped up neatly in a bow.  And while I know many were expecting a more actiony movie, I think the action it delivered had balls and some amazing (loud) sound design.

Again, I might be retarded.  I'm not a QT fan really at all, I walked out of a room once that had real life boobs in it and my first viewing of Pulp Fiction, because I wasn't really terribly interested in either.  Otherwise though, I like the same things as most of you and agree with the general consensus on most things.  So if I AM just retarded, and it's obvious to the rest of you, let me slide on this one.