Screenplay Junkie #4: Inglorious Bastards Script Review

Adam Volk is a wannabe screenwriter trying desperately to break into the industry and cram his hack drivel down Hollywood’s gaping maw. Each week he examines one aspect from the wonderfully demented world of screenwriting.

When it comes to scripts that have been circulating in the void of cinematic purgatory, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards has achieved an almost cult-like status among fanboy culture; an elusive face-melting Ark of the Covenant which — if Tarantinoites can be believed — will be the greatest thing to grace the silver screen since Vincent Vega accidentally shot Marvin in the face. Now, after nearly ten years in development and countless promises from Tarantino himself, it seems like the film is finally becoming a reality.

I recently got my filthy little mitts on a copy of the script, which was leaked onto the internet a few months back, and if the screenplay is any indication the film is likely to stir up the same kind of controversy and criticisms that circulated around Tarantino’s last outing in Grindhouse. Tarantino fanboys will love Bastards for its trademark dialogue, bizarre over-the-top violence and subtle reverence for all things pop culture. Conversely, critics who think a post-Death Proof Tarantino is past his prime will likely blast it apart as a self-indulgent exercise in masturbatory filmmaking.

******WARNING: Spoilers Ahead! ******

In terms of a basic story, much like previous Tarantino flicks, Bastards is broken down into several chapters peppered throughout the basic three acts:

1. Once Upon A Time…Nazi Occupied France
2. Inglorious Basterds
3. German Night In Paris
4. Operation Kino
5. Revenge of the Giant Face.

The first chapter introduces us to Colonel Landa, a.k.a The Jew Hunter, a ruthless SS officer renowned for his ability to hunt down and exterminate Jews even as Nazi Germany begins to cement its iron grip on Europe. Brutal, intelligent and coldly detached from his task, in the film’s opening scene Landa ends up in a remote farm house in France where he quickly executes a family of Jews after engaging in a round of trademark Tarantino-style dialogue with the farm’s inhabitants. Only a young Jewish girl named Shosanna manages to escape Landa’s vicious assault, paving the way for her eventual story of revenge which drives the central premise of the script.

Chapter 2 introduces us to the Bastards (or “Basterds” as the script styles them). Contrary to some of the early rumors circulating around the film, the story does not follow a Dirty Dozen style band of criminals turned commandos. Instead the Basterds are a rag-tag band of volunteer Jewish-American commandos tasked with operating behind enemy lines and killing as many Nazi’s as possible. Lead by a battle-hardened hillbilly named Lt. Aldo Raine (who will played by Brad Pitt), the Basterds themselves are relatively faceless soldiers, with the perhaps the only notable exception that of Sgt. Donny Donowitz, a.k.a. The Bear Jew, a Boston-born ass-kicker who uses a good-old fashioned American baseball bat to beat the living fuck out of German soldiers. There isn’t really much build up or explanation as to how or why the Basterds are brought together other than the fact that they enjoy killing Germans, but soon enough they’re raising hell in Nazi occupied Europe, earning them the enmity of the Fuhrer himself who even makes an appearance in the script, ranting and raving and ordering the Basterds to be eliminated by any means possible.

But while at first glance Bastards seems to follow the standard “man on a mission” narrative structure of such classic films as The Guns of Navarone or Where Eagles Dare, the script quickly diverts away from the Basterds, focusing instead on the exploits of Shosanna. At the start of Chapter 3, Shosanna is still on the run after her encounter with the Jew Hunter and is now hiding out in Paris. Starving, desperate and only one step ahead of the Gestapo, she manages to find employment and sanctuary in a French cinema run by the patrician Madame Mimieux. There, Shosanna encounters Frederick Zoller, a German war hero from the Eastern Front whose heroics have made him the star of a propaganda film directed by none other than Joseph Goebbels himself. Despite Shosanna’s constant refusal of his romantic advances, Zoller soon enlists Shosanna in his cause, forcing her to screen his film at her cinema to an audience that will include the highest ranking members of the Nazi party — including Hitler himself. Hungry for revenge, Shosanna and her lover Marcel plan to use the opportunity to burn the theatre down during the screening, using the theatre’s abundant supply of highly flammable celluloid to reduce the German high command to nothing more than smoldering remains.

As Chapter 4 begins however, we’re introduced to the eccentric British commando and film critic Lt. Hicox who is ordered by Churchill to join the Basterds in occupied France. The plan is for the Basterds to contact a beautiful German actress-turned-spy named Bridget von Hammersmark who will give the commandos access to the theatre at which point they will plant a bomb and wipe out the upper echelons of the German leadership. Unfortunately, things soon go awry culminating in a shootout in a Paris tavern, with the fate of the mission — and the Basterds themselves — hanging in the balance.

The situation quickly builds to a head in Chapter 5, with the Basterds and Shosanna crossing paths and attempting to realize their ultimate goals. I won’t give away too much of the ending other than to say that it ties up all of the loose plot threads nicely and has a fairly interesting climax that is surprisingly ballsy of Tarantino.

If the script is any indication, Bastards should also be an interesting visual experience. Throughout the screenplay Tarantino makes reference to a number of quirky cinematic tricks including omniscient narration, some memorable flashbacks, the inclusion of comic book style thought bubbles as well as mentioning that key scenes will be filmed in a variety of cinematic styles (including black and white French New Wave and a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western influence).

Perhaps more so than any other Tarantino film, Bastards is also a film which espouses Tarantino’s abiding love of cinema. From the inclusion of cinema and filmmaking in the basic plot, to the countless references to obscure pre and post-war films, there is no shortage of material and it’s clear Tarantino heavily researched the periods cinematic history. That being said, “Bastards” is about as far removed from an actual historical war film as possible. Instead, much like previous Tarantino films, the story is really an homage to genre filmmaking, in this case giving a nod to B-movie style war flicks popularized in the 60s and 70s. In this sense, much like Kill Bill was Tarantino’s love letter to Shaw Brothers style 70s Kung Fu flicks, Bastards is more about playing on the over the top motifs and themes of movies like The Dirty Dozen and Kelly’s Heroes rather than delving into the realities of the Second World War.

Yet, for all its good intentions and engaging premise, Inglorious Bastards never really captures the frenetic energy, pacing, or action of classic 60s war movies like The Dirty Dozen (a film which is undoubtedly Tarantino’s template and key influence in Bastards). In fact, for what’s essentially a war movie, the script is surprisingly short on action. Instead, its plagued heavily by the same rambling dialogue we saw in Death Proof – most of which ever fails to pay off in any meaningful way – and is ripe with scenes filled with characters that are either unlikable or never really developed (including the Basterds themselves).

Yes, despite being a huge fan of Tarantino’s films, I have to say that I was incredibly underwhelmed by the script for Inglorious Bastards. Still, the film is only weeks away from shooting and a lot can happen during the time it takes for a story to make the transition from script to the big screen, so I’m willing to give the script the benefit of the doubt. Because if Quentin Tarantino has taught us anything, it’s that when it comes to filmmaking in the face of criticism, sometimes it takes a bastard to get the job done.

Around the Web:



  • Ok, I skipped to the last few paragraphs because of spoilers but this concerns me:

    “Instead, its plagued heavily by the same rambling dialogue we saw in Death Proof – most of which ever fails to pay off in any meaningful way – and is ripe with scenes filled with characters that are either unlikable or never really developed (including the Basterds themselves).”

    EXACTLY. I don’t see why the podcast crew liked Death Proof so much…the rambling sounded like someone doing a great Tarantino screenwriting imitation and perpetrated the biggest crime a film can violate: BOREDOM. Plus I hated most of those bitches.

  • Adam, I think your article won’t be read until after people have seen Inglorious Bastards in the theatres. But I read it. Interesting that your Screenplay Junkie has a tenuous link to my “How to Keep a Secret” Treknobabble.

    I was disappointed with Death Proof. I liked it the least of his oeuvre. I found both the dialog and action boring.

    Inglorious Bastards sounds interesting to me. I generally don’t like war movies, because the dialog is uninteresting. I’m wondering what kind of pop culture references Tarantino would make in a World War II period piece.

  • Speaking of developed characters, what character was developed in Pulp Fiction? What did we really know about Jules or Vincent? There was plenty of rambling going on. Come on, the script is brilliant. What more could you ask for?

  • Trev

    Let’s face it, it probably took us longer to read the script than it took for Mr. Tarantino to write it. Get ready for the beginning of the end for an American cinematic icon. I pray the infamous leaked internet copy of “Inglorious Basterds” is a clever promotional ruse, intended to throw us geeks of the scent of the real storyline. Beyond the references and homages to European cinema history the writing is adolescent, to say the very least. Using the atrocities of the holocaust as the motivation for a B-style revenge/war film seems beyond irresponsible, as it trivializes an awful “truth”. The script appears to be proof of his true range as a writer. It was obviously rushed, and ultimately suffers because of it. There is no emotional investment in the events which shaped what was undeniably the most heartbreakingly horrific time in modern history. Wrong place and time for more of your violence for violence sake, Quentin.

  • The script is AMAZING!!! And Trev is an oversensitive idiot. If you dont like violence dont watch a tarantino movie!!! Get ready for the beginning of the end for an American cinematic icon my ass!!!!! Deathproof was great i dont see what all the bashing is for. You dont know film so quit acting like you do you.

  • Noting that neither the original post above nor any of the comments have even mentioned INGLORIOUS BASTARDS, the original version from 1978, I have to wonder if perhaps you guys aren’t familiar with it at all. If that’s the case, that’s sad as it is one of the most enjoyable WWII movies of all time. IT is the one styled after the DIRTY DOZEN. We have a bunch of soldiers on their way to be court-martialed when they escape and make for Switzerland. Along the way, they accidentally kill a group of specially trained commandos disguised as Nazis and find themselves mistaken for them. Before you know it they’re having to get a secret weapon off a train. Bo Svenson, Fred Williamson, Peter Hooten and Richard Basehart’s son star. There’s also naked Nazi women with machine guns. Even though it’s a war movie, it has that KELLY’S HEROES “fun” vibe to it and is most enjoyable. Traentino reportedly loves it but this picture seems to only have taken the title. Jeez!

  • Kevin

    I am interested to see this movie.. Judging that you are all (or mostly) not too excited, I would urge you to consider looking up another WWII justice film, Iron Cross. It’s coming out later this year, and Roy Scheider is the lead!!! The trailer is starting to pop up everywhere on the internet. It looks so good.

  • I’ll have my name back now. Thank you.

  • Reid Rothchild

    I’ll have to second Trev’s sentiments. It was a big open secret that QT is not a good speller, but his spelling in that script is atrocious. Confusing “their,” “there,” and “they’re,” throughout it’s entirety, it looks like the work of a 6th grader. “Bazaar” for “bizarre”? Please. “Congressional Medal of Honor” for “Medal of Honor” will also be corrected I’m sure. “Suppose” for “supposed”? “Craft” for “carafe”? It’s pretty sad writing.

    With respect to Daniel’s opinion of the script being “Amazing,” I’d say it’s somewhat pathetic and that a judgement of “amazing” calls into question one’s literacy, and their reading habits.

    QT tackled some weighty subjects with humor, drama and excitement, in Pulp Fiction. This Inglourious Basterds is inglorious alright, unless it’s some kind of diversion.

  • Its all over Quentin. A totally clunker of a movie by as David Denby calls you- l’idoit de la cinemateque. A total piece of rubbish with not a redeeming feature. Way, way too long -how long should it take for the guy to walk through the tunnel with that baseball bat? OK we get, we get it. Stupid second hand tale, over acted and boring. Couldn’t wait for it to be over. Quentin, take a few years off and don’t see another movie for a while unless you want to hole up with your Lubitsch collection. Christoph, it was worth for you, potentially great –wait for an offer for the next great part and don’t do his next movie. Please.

  • Jeremiah Rieke

    I was offended by the flagrant bastardization of history in this film! Historical fiction should at least remain in the frame work of actual historic events. The fact that QT chose to have all of the German high command killed off in one fell swoop dishonors the hundreds of thousands that died in the quest to oust the Nazis from occupied Europe. This film is irresponsible, and, most of all, not very good. There shall never be another QT movie in my house ever again.

  • CLAUDE

    one of the worst movies i have ever seen in 2009 ( dont want to be an asshole and say in my life)

    the fact that 2 of the 3 friends i invited to watch the movie slept during it will tell u my opinion.

    the only good thing i can say about the movie is … cant find any … well the PR for the movie was great but im sure that this movie wont be in anyone collection .

    totaly waste of my money

  • The film’s introduction started promising, but the grand finally just fell short. I love most QT films, but this one was the most disappointing. Most reviews state that this is one of his best films, but I disagree. It doesn’t have much action, and the length of the film is too long. The ending is terrible, and I’m not sure what the symbolism of altering history represents. On a positive aspect, the movie has some great dialogue, and the characters are very charismatic. I enjoyed the movie, but was just disappointed with the ending. I expect better closure in a QT movie. Judge for yourself, and good luck.

  • Vader

    Anything that you want to know about this movie was pretty much covered above. In other words, those bashing the film and those that gave ‘kudos’ were fair in their opinions. Personally, I was entertained (which is why I watch movies). Brad Pitt did a wonderful job and his character was fun to watch. The SS officer was probably the most believable in the script, enough to re-hate the Nazi’s all over again.

    Though I was entertained, it was bittersweet. I don’t see the reasoning behind mixing unappologetic fantasy with reality when it comes to Hitler’s demise. The film would have been much better overall had there been any sense of dedication to historical accuracy in areas that really MATTERED; not just with name-dropping of films & filmakers of a by-gone era, as if to ‘legitimize’ this film.

    Argueably, “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” for example, was based on historical facts but also went into ‘fantasy land’. But somehow IT worked and ‘Basterds’ didn’t. This one only got to third base. Nice try, but the frustrating part (as with a lot of films) is that a few areas of poor screenwriting detract from what could have otherwise been a home run.