tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915645041279509055.post801905635949018740..comments2022-03-30T18:35:57.368-07:00Comments on Leonard Maltin's Worst Ratings: 103. Inglorious Basterds (2009)Jack Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081345272079204063noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915645041279509055.post-6903094966849118062020-09-19T08:33:50.751-07:002020-09-19T08:33:50.751-07:00Inglourious Basterds is a great movie and one of T...Inglourious Basterds is a great movie and one of Tarantino’s best, silly Maltin. This is worth at least 3 1/2 stars out of 4.TheAnonymousBlogger1999https://www.blogger.com/profile/12685899422160774141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915645041279509055.post-27579109108250946972018-08-15T18:35:29.163-07:002018-08-15T18:35:29.163-07:00I would have to say that I agree with Leonard Malt...I would have to say that I agree with Leonard Maltin's analysis completely. <br /><br />From what I've seen of Tarantino's movies, they are in large ways about the spectacle, but I think it's always clear Tarantino is trying to tell a coherent story. I think a film generally should have a strong narrative, as well, for the record. And you can tell a film like Inglourious Basterds is driven by narrative and is trying very hard to tell a cohesive story - and so when it doesn't live up to that and the narrative doesn't come together, as Maltin pointed out, I think the film should be held accountable for that. <br /><br />What's more, Tarantino doesn't just claim Inglourious Basterds to be a "real movie" - he flat out declares it a masterpiece with the final line. So a film critic absolutely has the right to say it doesn't live up to those standards. It might have been incorrect for Maltin to claim it isn't a "real movie", but I think what he was trying to point out was that the scenes in Inglourious Basterds work better in and of themselves rather than as anything tied to a larger grand story, as Tarantino intended.<br /><br />I don't particularly agree with your idea that Tarantino's movies are always played straight, either. There are several moments of winking at the camera in his films, such as the absurd title card on the screen introducing Hugo Stiglitz, or the random narration panning down the screen in the midpoint of Django Unchained. And to be honest, I think that's Tarantino's failing when it comes to Inglourious Basterds. The movie does want to play it straight, as you said, but when the movie itself just basically amounts to an over-the-top pulp rather than something meant to be taken seriously, this becomes a case of having its cake and eating it, too, and it just doesn't work. <br /><br />Also, if Maltin isn't supposed to impose his own personal tastes on his audience, what exactly is a film critic supposed to do, in your opinion? Review the film in terms of your standards? I don't see how a critic can review a movie on anyone's standards except his own. Whether anyone else agrees with these standards is another thing, but film criticism can only provide one person's perspective, which is what people like you don't seem to understand, as you seem to believe all critics should tailor their reviews for what the mass audience will likely think, instead. This is dishonest, cowardly, conformist pandering - and critics like Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert should be celebrated for not engaging in this tiresome practice, which is why I don't, to be honest, approve of websites like yours at all.<br /><br />I have written a review of my own of this movie, if you want to know further why I didn't feel Tarantino made "it all work". I would be happy to hear your thoughts:<br />https://kirksbooks.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/inglourious-basterds-2009-review/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353594262529859256noreply@blogger.com