Products You May Like
I know this might sound crazy, but there are people out there who actually think that Pulp Fiction isn’t Quentin Tarantino’s best movie.
Now, I’d consider myself a reasonable man, so I always like to listen to other people’s opinions. These other people have said is that Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s true masterpiece.
And, look, I get it. This an excellent film. In fact, when my colleague, Eric Eisenberg, ranked all of Tarantino’s movies, he put Basterds at number two. Which makes sense…to me at least. That said, I really want to get to the bottom of this. So, could Inglourious Basterds actually be Tarantino’s best movie?
Short Answer, No
Look, I recently rewatched Basterds again just to give it another shot, and, while I was just as impressed this time as I was the first two times I watched it, I still can’t say that it’s better than Pulp Fiction, and it’s mostly because of the lopsided tone.
What do I mean by this? Well, Basterds almost seems like it’s trying to be two different movies. You have some of the greatest dramatic and tense moments Tarantino has ever put to screen with this film, with most of those scenes involving Christoph Waltz, who I’ll get into later.
But then, you have some of the more, I’ll call them, cartoony moments with characters like Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, or Eli Roth as “The Bear Jew.” Now, don’t get me wrong. I LOVE these characters (which I’ll also get into later), but they kind of clash with the more dramatic moments in this film.
Some people don’t see this as a problem. I do. Yes, it makes the film very enjoyable (I mean, all of Tarantino movies are enjoyable – including Death Proof). But, it also kind of limits the film, too. Because, in a lot of ways, I feel like Tarantino’s style actually gets in the way with this movie – especially with the dramatic moments, whereas Pulp Fiction doesn’t have that problem. In fact, his style shines the brightest in that film, which is likely why it made him a household name (though, Reservoir Dogs could have just as easily done that over time).
While I really do like Inglourious Basterds, I think its shifting tone (Is it serious? Is it silly? Which is it?) holds it back from being Tarantino’s best movie. Pulp Fiction is just much more consistent throughout. Even so…
I Will Say That Tarantino’s Best Character Is In This Movie With Hans Landa
I would argue that Pulp Fiction is easily Samuel L. Jackson’s best movie, and it’s not even close. That said, there are so many excellent characters and moments in that film that I really can’t say that any one character actually steals the show.
The same can’t be said for Inglourious Basterds, because even though it also has a lot of stand-out characters, Christoph Waltz handidly steals this movie. I mean, there’s a reason why he won an Oscar for his performance. It was certainly justified.
This movie has a lot of phenomenal moments, but I would say that the single best is the opening scene where SS-Standartenfuhrer Hans Landa (Waltz) interrogates a dairy farmer who has Jewish people hiding beneath the floorboards. Honestly, I would say that this is not only the best moment in the entire movie, but also the single best moment in any Tarantino film ever.
As somebody who loves HItchcock movies, I would say that this scene is almost Hitchcokian in nature, as the tension is through the roof. The fact that the audience knows (and that Landa likely knows) that there are Jewish people hiding beneath him immediately pulls you into this film, and you’re pretty much on the edge of your seat every time Waltz is on the screen.
Which again, I actually think works against this film, since the movie turns deadly serious (even though Landa is so charming) whenever he’s present, but then turns kind of silly again (in a good way) when most of the other characters are present. It’s almost a shame that Tarantino’s best character (in my opinion, anyway) happens to be in the same movie as Lt. Aldo Raine. But, like I said, I don’t hate Brad Pitt in this film. In fact…
All Of The Characters In This Film Stand Out
It might sound like I’m dogpiling on this film at times, but I’m really not. I wouldn’t say it’s my personal second favorite movie of Tarantino’s (that would be The Hateful Eight), I will say that I’m comfortable with calling it Tarantino’s second best film, and it’s mostly because of the assortment of characters, since they all stand out.
Landa is undisputedly the best character, but I really love the other characters, too, such as Raine, who survived a lynching, and has the scar to prove it. Or Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), who is the sole survivor from the scene at the beginning of the movie, and gets her revenge by the end of the film. She’s also wonderful.
This is also the movie that introduced me, and I’m sure plenty others, to Michael Fassbender. He plays a brief, but potent, role as a British soldier and former film critic helping the Basterds, and he’s in my second favorite scene in the film, which involves a tavern with several German soldiers.
And, who can forget Daniel Bruhl, who plays a German sniper who is getting a movie made about him? He’s both made to be admirable, but also a little goofy, which again, kind of shows that conflicting tone again that I mentioned earlier.
Honestly, Inglourious Basterds is a movie that I think has great scenes, but the parts don’t completely add up to the whole. Be that as it may…
It Has What Might Be Tarantino’s Most Satisfying Third Act
From first scene to last, Pulp Fiction is satisfying. Its circular nature makes it feel like you’ve really gone on a journey, and there really isn’t a single thing I would change about that movie.
Basterds is different. Yes, I would say that it also feels like a journey, but not in the same, satisfying way that Fiction does. However, I will say that I think Basterds has the most satisfying third act in any Tarantino movie, and it’s mostly because it all culminates in some extreme revisionist history.
Now, the first time I saw this movie, I didn’t know what to think. The fact that both Hitler AND Goebbels die at the end really threw me for a loop. That didn’t happen in reality, so I didn’t see it coming.
Now that I know that this is how the film ends, though, it’s super satisfying. Much like with Django Unchained, which I also find super satisfying, and Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, which I find much less satisfying (I should write about why someday), Basterds toys with history, which gives it a much more cathartic ending than the truth.
And, I think it works the best in this movie. The fact that the sole survivor from the beginning literally gets to have the last laugh as the movie theater burns down just feels SO GOOD, and that scene alone almost makes me want to say that this is his best movie, just because I’ve never felt so strongly about any other Tarantino conclusion. Be that as it may…
Inglourious Basterds Still Doesn’t Have The Megaton Impact Or Storytelling Of Pulp Fiction
I know this whole article has been about the overall quality of both movies, but I think it would be foolish not to consider the overall impact both movies have had, as well, for Tarantino.
Let’s be clear. Pulp was a more important movie for the trajectory of Tarantino’s career than Basterds, and that means something. For example, let’s look at a director like Martin Scorsese. Yes, Scorsese had several great films in the ‘80s and ‘90s (Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy are actually my favorite Scorsese films).
However, when Scorsese’s career is finally over, I think it’s clear that most people, when ranking his films, would say that 1990’s Goodfellas was his greatest movie. It’s why a lot of people often associate him with gangster films in general, even though a lot of his movies don’t involve the mob at all.
I think the same could be said for Pulp Fiction. It’s the movie that all of Tarantino’s other films are compared to, and for good reason.
So, is Inglourious Basterds Tarantino’s best movie? No. But second ain’t bad. In fact, it’s pretty good!