There have been a number of threads about or related to this movie but just wanna give my two cents after finally watching it in full.
Even as a QT fan, when I first saw the trailer of this movie I thought it was cartoonish shit so I avoided it.
I have watched bits and pieces of it on TV but tuned out when I see something cringey. I liked the first part when the French farmer had to expose his secret, then that facepalm second part introducing the American cast.
The movie was very uneven in that the European cast far outperformed the American ones, it's like the cast belonged in separate movies. I like how QT was well researched and could put very articulate details to the dialogue and make it very compelling, only to kill that same mood when he shows "Quentin-isms" right after. He likes producing visceral and gory images even if it doesn't necessarily serve the narrative. He always makes the mistake of overemphasizing things in exposition, when some other filmmaker can do it more subtle and organic.
Samuel Jackson as a provider of exposition is a mistake, his voice was too recognizable. The use of music with electric guitars and amps were a mistake. Having a black man be a boyfriend of a French Jew was a mistake because that seemed like a statistic improbability for that setting. But then I realize, the title was purposely written as a mistake. So of course not everything should make sense! I was judging this movie wrong for so many years. Is Shosanna even an authentic French name? It doesn't even sound like an actual name for any nationality.
I have learned only recently is what "exploitation films" are as a genre. This film is supposed to feel like a B-movie. I realize this is what QT was emulating or paying tribute to, and even if I still find the execution clunky, I can appreciate it more now than I did when this movie was new.
The ending/resolution doesn't make any sense to me. Landa was a solid character and Christopher Waltz rightfully won numerous accolades for it but his motivation as the inflection point of the story is just puzzling. I have read threads on reddit which have different explanations for this and they make sense, but shouldn't the audience member figure out what a major plot point is without further research? Or was this a "Euro movie ending" Quentin was going for? I guess it was.
.............................
Brad Pitt was ok but not great. I think QT meant for him to be a caricature of a southern American military officer, just like Hitler was a caricature of himself.
Fassbender was fantastic. This might be his best performance in his career so far. Even if I don't speak German I could tell his accent was off which was a plot point in the movie. I think QT is a frickin' genius for incorporating this into the story. Having watched the Kill Bill movies recently, I learned Uma Thurman unexpectedly became pregnant while filming the movies, which inspired QT to rewrite the script and resulted it to being two movies. I think casting Fassbender as a bilingual Scotsman/Englishman, then realizing he can't authentically portray a Nazi spy was of the same motivation. But what Fassbender did seem like was an actual person from that era, he reminded me of Errol Flynn. I think Michael watched a lot of old timey cinema to get into the role.
And this again is why the film felt uneven, because the American actors seemed just like people you might get seated next to on a plane ride. I can buy Diana Kruger as a German actress double-agent from that time and place but not Eli Roth as a Jewish American born during the Great Depression. Adam Sandler was supposed to play him, which might've been better, if what the Nazi hunters were supposed to be were a bunch of dimwits who always had to trip over their feet to get the job done.
