Four Stars for Basterds

Ebert loves Tarantino’s Basterds:

Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” is a big, bold, audacious war movie that will annoy some, startle others and demonstrate once again that he’s the real thing, a director of quixotic delights. For starters (and at this late stage after the premiere in May at Cannes, I don’t believe I’m spoiling anything), he provides World War II with a much-needed alternative ending. For once the basterds get what’s coming to them.

What’s interesting about his review, though, is that it needed time to ferment — like most great films and filmmakers, it all can’t be absorbed in one shot. Even Ebert needed some time and then a second viewing:

After I saw “Inglourious Basterds” at Cannes, although I was writing a daily blog, I resisted giving an immediate opinion about it. I knew Tarantino had made a considerable film, but I wanted it to settle, and to see it again. I’m glad I did. Like a lot of real movies, you relish it more the next time. Immediately after “Pulp Fiction” played at Cannes, QT asked me what I thought. “It’s either the best film of the year or the worst film,” I said. I hardly knew what the hell had happened to me. The answer was: the best film. Tarantino films have a way of growing on you. It’s not enough to see them once.

Meanwhile, there is a really interesting, strange, kind of hot exchange between filmgeek-sexpot Kim Morgan and Tarantino on her blog, Sunset Gun. The two seem to be speaking the same language – no, not love but a love for obscure cinema. I dare you to try to keep up with these two. When Kim met Quentin.