Reply to Topic
Inglorious Basterds was my #1 film.
I said earlier (I think?) that I went with a mix of films I thought were objectively great, and the ones I got the most pure enjoyment over, and while there's no true common currency to measure the value of those things against one another when they seem to conflict, I did my best...and Basterds was so strong on the "enjoyment" factor that I couldn't deny it the top spot.
It's a very very good film, straight up. It was always going to be near the top of my list. What pushed it all the way up was just how many times I've put it on to watch yet again, or popped it on long enough to watch a scene or two...and how often I've ended up rewatching most of it, unplanned. That, and because it's the rare film I loved immediately the first time I saw it, and still love many watches later. A lot of my long-term favorites I have a gradually deepening appreciation for, and a lot of my best initial viewing experiences wane a little with time and distance and more analysis, but Basterds was great when I saw in the theater, just as enjoyable when I went back to see it again, and is enjoyable to this day.
Don't ask me to choose between this and Pulp Fiction. The answer depends on the day. Pulp for influence, for teaching us how to watch Tarantino, but Basterds for degree of difficulty: we already knew Tarantino, he'd been at it nearly two decades, we'd seen nearly all of his tricks, and it still managed to feel fresh.
Here's my review of the film, as well. Apropos of nothing, I remember thinking of this as one of the first reviews I wrote that I was legitimately proud of and didn't cringe at reading years later, like so many others. I'm probably just forgetting/blocking out out a half dozen before this that meet the same criteria, but whatareyougonnado.
I said earlier (I think?) that I went with a mix of films I thought were objectively great, and the ones I got the most pure enjoyment over, and while there's no true common currency to measure the value of those things against one another when they seem to conflict, I did my best...and Basterds was so strong on the "enjoyment" factor that I couldn't deny it the top spot.
It's a very very good film, straight up. It was always going to be near the top of my list. What pushed it all the way up was just how many times I've put it on to watch yet again, or popped it on long enough to watch a scene or two...and how often I've ended up rewatching most of it, unplanned. That, and because it's the rare film I loved immediately the first time I saw it, and still love many watches later. A lot of my long-term favorites I have a gradually deepening appreciation for, and a lot of my best initial viewing experiences wane a little with time and distance and more analysis, but Basterds was great when I saw in the theater, just as enjoyable when I went back to see it again, and is enjoyable to this day.
Don't ask me to choose between this and Pulp Fiction. The answer depends on the day. Pulp for influence, for teaching us how to watch Tarantino, but Basterds for degree of difficulty: we already knew Tarantino, he'd been at it nearly two decades, we'd seen nearly all of his tricks, and it still managed to feel fresh.
Here's my review of the film, as well. Apropos of nothing, I remember thinking of this as one of the first reviews I wrote that I was legitimately proud of and didn't cringe at reading years later, like so many others. I'm probably just forgetting/blocking out out a half dozen before this that meet the same criteria, but whatareyougonnado.
Also, Mean Girls >>> The Hangover
Check out my podcast: 
