I just saw the new Quentin Tarantino film "Inglorius Basterds" starring Brad Pitt. Prior to this film I so thoroughly enjoyed the Kill Bill movies by Tarantino and now having Brad Pitt, who to me has become a major actor with great versatility, I am expecting a real blockbuster movie. Overall, it was well made and I must say if you go to see it do so for no other reason than the character Colonel Landa--incredible acting worth nomination for the Academy awards. However, I take strong exceptions to a total distortion of history!! I am not sure the purpose of doing such?? Was it wishful thinking to how the war should have ended?? I just did not see the reason for this. Hopefully, somebody can enlighten me.
I think you're just taking the film way to serious, it's like what Frank Miller did with 300. Both of these films are not meant to be a documentary, they're entertainment 
What?! Next you'll tell me that Mel Brooks' 'History of the World, Part 1' isn't credible.
Jerk.
What?! Next you'll tell me that Mel Brooks' 'History of the World, Part 1' isn't credible.
Jerk.
Sorry to piss on your Wheaties there Fremen
This latest Tarantino film is being panned by most of the reviews. I tink I will wait for the DV release before watching it!
What Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part one isn't a factual recounting of events! I'll be darned!
Fuck!!!!!
My personal favorite is 'The Spanish Inquisition' sequence.
To the original poster.
I agree with the site owner on this one. The movie is an exaggerated riff on The Dirty Dozen and a fantasy, not a recreation of World War II.
The movie is actually a loose remake of Inglorious Bastards, an awesome 70s exploitation film staring Fred Williamson. It's definitely not meant to be historically accurate. I enjoyed the Tarantino version but I looooove the original. They're pretty different though.



