Regarding Christoph Waltz’ performance as Col Landa, what can be said – he’s a great villain, one for the ages. He is by turns sadistic, playful, silly, calculating and heartless. Probably the most well-rounded Nazi character ever put on film, if such a thing exists. His opening interview/interrogation of the dairy farmer ranks right up there with Tarantino’s best scenes.

As for Brad Pitt as Lt Aldo Raine, the nominal star of the movie, his is a broad, charismatic performance full of wonderfully hammy moments, as he chews the dialogue with an over-the-top good ole boy accent that never grates, but adds to the overall enjoyment of the film. His opening speech to his men could, in another movie, be considered horrifying – they are, after all, talking about murder, execution, mutilation, etc., but in that goofy twang, even the butchering of Nazis sounds like a fun adventure, not the war crimes they would realistically be considered. But this is far from a “realistic” movie by any means; the ending alone is proof of that. Rather this is a B-picture with artistic flourishes and cinematic moments as only Tarantino can muster.

Tarantino sets up several scenarios that ratchet the tension up to an almost unbearable length. The tavern sequence (Will they get caught?), leading to one of the few, but intense moments of brutal violence in IB, is but one example. As is Shoshanna’s sit down with Goebbels, Landa et al. Who doesn’t gasp when Landa orders her a glass of milk? Truly great stuff.

Lest things get too dark, Tarantino layers in quite a bit of funny moments. Pitt’s hilarious mangling of the Italian language alone is worth a repeat viewing. Also notably funny is the back story (complete with theme music and title) of Hugo Stiglitz, and pretty much everything Stiglitz does in the tavern scene, from glaring at the Nazi Major during the game, to his choice for the character to give to the Major, is chuckle-worthy.

Needless to say I really enjoyed the movie, especially the more I look back on it. I was surprised to see Freaks and Geeks’ own Samm Levine as one of Pitt’s Basterds. If there are any nitpicks to be had, it may be with the choice of Eli Roth to play Donny Donowitz. While certainly a menacing figure as Pitt’s stoic, grinning right hand man, Roth nevertheless blows every line he speaks with a horribly overdone Southie accent. I know he’s good pals with Quentin, but it makes me wonder what Adam Sandler could have done with that role, as it was written for him, if scheduling permiited him to play The Bear Jew instead of a non-acting friend of the director. As for Mike Myers as Gen Fenech, well at least he’s getting work after the debacle that was The Love Guru.

Brian, glad you caught Harvey Keitel as the voice of the commanding officer over the radio. And I’m sure any keen-eared listener recognized Samuel L. Jackson as the narrator. Overall a very good film, on par I’d say with Jackie Brown or Kill Bill Volume 2 for Tarantino. I’d love to check it out a second time, as looking back on it, I have only come to enjoy it more. Let’s hope Tarantino’s next comes hot on the heels of IB, much as it came out a scant couple years after Grindhouse.

Thus, a cognizant viewer can surmise that the Nazis are already on the losing end of the war effort. The United States has officially joined the Allies, and it will all be over soon.

Why then, shouldn’t Landa become a turncoat? I actually saw the movie again yesterday, and noticed something that I missed the first time around. Landa explains to Brad Pitt that he doesn’t necessarily care about the Nazi cause. Hitler simply recognized Landa’s talent as a detective and took advantage it. And as a Colonel in the SS, it was equally advantageous opportunity for Landa.

Is it any more absurd that Captain Renault, head of the police force in Vichy, has absolutely no stake when it comes to politics in “Casablanca”. “I blow with the wind,” he tells Major Strausser, “and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.”

Landa is a similar character. You could even argue that he’s based on Claude Raines’ character from the 1942 classic. Sure, he strangled Von Hammersmark for betraying her country, but in the end, his allegiance was to himself more than it was to Germany.

Although it is not specifically said, it’s certainly believable that Landa realized this was as a good an opportunity to cut his losses and secure his freedom as he was likely to get. After all, how many Nazis were tried at Nuremberg? Landa even says, “I have to no wish to go down on the losing side of the war only to find myself standing before a Jewish tribunal.”

That seems like good motivation to me. Especially given what Landa was promised by General Harvey Keitel: guanrateed citizenship, the congressional medal of honor, and land on Nantucket Island?

Further — and again, you have to pay attention to catch this stuff — one of Landa’s demands was that all of the operatives in Operation Kino were to receive the Medal of Honor. That means Lt. Raine (Pitt) and his Sergeant would have received the highest honor the United States government can bestow on an individual. Landa didn’t have to demand that, but he did, perhaps thinking that this would put him in the good graces of the surviving Basterds.

Throughout the film, no one was able to get anything by Landa (except for Shosanna). So Landa thought he had worked the Basterds into a corner and that his freedom was secure. He is shocked and outraged when Brad Pitt guns down Herman in cold blood, and tells him that Herman going free was part of the deal, and believes Pitt will be executed for going against orders. Seeing as how he believes Pitt will be shot for his actions, it’s not really hard to see why he was willing to turn himself over to him in the first place. He knew that Brad Pitt was only a Lieutenant, after all, and that he had no real authority.

And finally, the groundwork was previously laid for Landa’s betrayal when he placed the bomb that he confiscated off of Raine in Hitler and Goebbels’ private box at the theater.

How it all hangs together is tough to say. I toyed with an 8 score because of the narrative weaknesses, but ultimately I left the film feeling highly entertained. It also felt fresh and nuanced. I think the 9 rating is a good reflection of my first view gut feel for the movie.

IB was stylish and very watchable (the burning theater scene was pretty spectacular), but the narrative was poor. Really, the narrative was a flimsy scaffolding for QT to hang his trademark overlong dialogues which are often overindulgent.

Tarantino’s ability to blend a compelling story, masterful dialog, memorable characters, and superb direction is a rare gift, indeed. Perhaps not since Orson Welles has the world seen such a cinematic polymath.

From the outset, the audience must understand that Inglourious Basterds is historical fiction. The titular characters are a Jewish covert ops team working behind enemy lines to seek and destroy Nazi patrols. To that end, Tarantino has chosen to (liberally) play up the angle of Jewish empowerment over their oppressors. Although the film has drawn some criticism for this, when I saw it, the audience seemed rather delighted by it — and yes, the theater was packed.

Brad Pitt is the leader of the Basterds, sporting a mustache and a southern accent that almost seems like a parody of itself. It should be noted that Pitt’s character (Lt. Aldo Raine) is not intended to be the romantic hero of this story. At times he seems like a rather incapable leader compared to his much more serious and adept subordinates. It’s all in good fun, though, as Pitt is the designated comic relief (and there are more than a few laugh out loud moments).

The film has three separate plot lines that meet at various points, before converging at the film’s climax. The exploits of the Inglourious Basterds are the first thread. The second follows the sadistic but brilliant Nazi detective, Colonel Hans Landa dubbed “the Jew Hunter” for his uncommon ability to conduct successful raids on safe houses and to sense when he is being lied to. Christoph Waltz turns in one of the year’s best performances and has already received considerable acclaim including the award for Best Actor at Cannes Film Festival. Waltz steals every scene he is in, and will have audiences squirming in their seats as the suspense builds.

The final story arc is that of Shosanna Dreyfus, lone survivor of her family’s massacre at the hands of the Nazis. Shosanna (later going under the alias Emmanuelle Mimieux) is singularly hell bent on exacting vengeance upon those responsible for the untimely demise of her family. It would be difficult to say more without spoiling the film.

Tarantino’s signature style is on-again, off-again throughout the movie, a choice that renders the final product all the more outstanding. There are scenes, such as the centerpiece of the film which takes place over the course of at least 20 minutes entirely within the confines of a drab one-room tavern, where Tarantino withdraws almost entirely, trusting the dialog and the actors to carry what is perhaps the most crucial turn in the film. Does it pay off? Like hitting a progressive jackpot on a penny slot.

There are other scenes where the mood is considerably lighter, and the director deliberately interrupts the natural flow of the movie for purposes of humor or overt exposition (featuring some great off-camera appearances by a celebrity guest star! See if you can guess who).

Not absent from this two and a half hour opus (though it doesn’t seem that long) are several moments with QT’s trademark graphic violence, so be warned: this film is not for the squeamish.

Most audiences will revel in the well told story that is Inglourious Basterds. Films like this do not come along often, so seize the opportunity when they do. Highest recommendation.