Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
movies / August 23, 2009
By Eileen Jones


When I heard Quentin Tarantino was making a Dirty Dozen-like action film set in WWII, I groaned in spirit. With all the amazing eras and dazzling historical figures and slaughterhouse horrors not yet represented in cinema, we’re going to visit the Third Reich again? Really? Tarantino-ized Nazis? As they used to say in the old WWII gas-rationing ads, Is This Trip Necessary?

But it turns out to be a pretty interesting film.

That is, if you’re already genuinely interested in film, your interest will sustain you during the long, slow, boring, unmoving-camera parts in the middle. If you’re not really interested in film, i.e., its history and formal aspects and so on, I’m not sure what you’ll think about when the tough-slogging sequences get underway. Seriously, there’s a tavern scene that runs so long you begin to feel a slight edge of panic, as if you’re in a Twilight Zone episode and are condemned to die in the theater watching uniformed Nazis eternally bantering over drinks at small tables.


There’s a relentlessly repeated scenario in the film: an urbane Nazi observes all the social niceties while interrogating an anxious potential victim/enemy of the Reich. You wait for the revelation of the iron fist beneath the velvet glove. If you don’t think that’s a promising scenario, this ain’t the movie for you, because you’re going to see it enacted, with innumerable variations, about ten times.

I don’t mean to sound dismissive, because for people who really like film, there’s no easy way to dismiss Tarantino. He’s too good. I say that with some uneasiness, but it’s true; technically, stylistically, Tarantino and the creative teams he assembles, they can kick almost anybody’s ass. Beautiful, beautiful work. The shot compositions in the first sequence are so lovely, so effective, I felt the tears come to my eyes.

And I know, smart boy, Sergio Leone gets a lot of credit for those compositions. But really, that Tarantino’s-just-a-thief charge has always been silly. The question—in most arts and above all in filmmaking—isn’t whether or not you’re stealing, because of course you are. The question is, what can you do with what you’ve stolen, and as erratic as Tarantino is, by now he’s proven he can make excellent, highly inventive use of stolen goods.

Supposedly the project started as a neo-spaghetti Western, and there’s plenty of trace evidence left. The most publicized aspect of the film involves Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) leading his band of “Apaches,” vengeful Jewish soldiers ordered to collect literal Nazi scalps, through occupied France.

(Why didn’t he go with the real Apaches? Incredible fighters, Geronimo, Cochise, and what a story, whether to cut a deal with the whites or go down to inevitable defeat knifing whites all the way! Now that’s a film, and nobody’s tried it since that pacifist Jimmy Stewart thing in the ‘50s! Argh, anyway…)


The Nazi-scalping storyline intertwines with other “chapters” involving Jewish girl Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), who’s the lone survivor of the opening-sequence massacre, and German film star Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Unger) secretly working for the Allies. Bedeviling them all is SS officer Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), aka “The Jew Hunter,” whose humorous, mincing precision and blank-eyed cruelty has every critic in the world hunting for new superlatives to throw at Waltz, an obscure actor who’ll now have a big international career.


Tarantino—he can cast, man.

While we’re on the topic of actors and performances, for some reason Denis Menochet, who plays Perrier LaPedite, the French farmer who stoically “hosts” Col. Landa in the tense opening sequence, isn’t getting his share of the accolades, but he’s every bit as great as Waltz. Brad Pitt’s also good, though he’s getting slagged badly for his performance as the unflappable kill-happy Tennessean. I think the general complaint might be that, as Raine, Pitt doesn’t move his face much, having gone with a Bell’s-palsy paralysis of the jaw in his interpretation of the character.

But it’s a good choice, I think. Always difficult to evoke old-time male toughness, and Pitt’s just drawing on the bygone acting style of the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s. Awful lot of rock-faced actors in those days who in typical roles seemed to have two expressions at most, yet conveyed whole complex worlds—I’m thinking Robert Mitchum and Lee Marvin and other god-like figures.


Pitt lets his expansive backwoods Southern drawl provide a counterpoint to his fixed face, and gets off some wonderful lines. “Ah want mah scalps” is the one they’re selling in previews, but my favorite is his exasperated complaint, from a military point of view, about the basement site of a possible skirmish. “Lotta difficulties involved in fightin’ in a basement, the main one bein’, yer fightin’ in a basement.”

Give Brad Pitt a dark comedy with a high body count and an extreme character to play, preferably one with a funny accent, and he comes alive. Thelma and Louise, Snatch, Burn After Reading, and now Inglourious Basterds.

Still it must be noted that, having praised Tarantino’s casting abilities, we must also lament how uneven they are. He makes some terrible choices in this film that rub up distractingly against the excellent ones. Letting his friend, Eli Roth, director of Hostel, play the supposedly formidable “Bear Jew” who terrorizes Nazis with his baseball-bat—that was just stupid. Roth has a voice like Howdy Doody and no formidable qualities onscreen whatsoever. Mike Myers turns up pointlessly playing a British general. Rod Taylor—remember him from The Birds?—plays Winston Churchill, and while he’s not bad, there’s nothing to it other than a chance to say, “Really, that was Rod Taylor?”

The main female actors are a more serious problem, because they’re supposed to hold up big chunks of the film. Diane Kruger, no matter how much she gets promoted as a great Euro talent, is nothing to write home about, and that’s deadly for someone playing a revered German film star betraying her own country. She should be nothing less than fascinating every second. Instead, she’s just a blonde who can say lines.

Melanie Laurent is better as Shosanna, mainly because she’s so seriously pretty you want to study her face from various angles. Not a great actress, but it might not matter overall with a face like that. Still, in this film, she’s got a lot of emotional heavy-lifting to do and her frail little chops are sorely tested.


Eventually the storylines converge at the movie theater owned by Shosanna, the site of two rival plans to assassinate the entire film-loving German high command at one red-carpet Nazi propaganda film premiere. Inglourious Basterds gets slower and slower as we approach this cinematic D-Day, and it’s here that your genuine interest in film, if you’ve got it, will have to see you through.

Because here Tarantino is getting as reflexive as his most savage critics ever accused him of being. It’s a film about film, you lucky viewer! All the film-fanatic citations and quotes and homages that have gone before, and they’re everywhere, coalesce into a kind of self-referential Big Bang. The power of film to rewrite and reframe history, to propagate myth, to ignite emotions and shape fantasies, to warp and persuade, is all celebrated here.

The metaphor Tarantino’s pushing is film as fire-starter, film as explosive. The old silver nitrate stock (as Samuel L. Jackson’s voice-over cuts in to tell us) ignites easily and burns much faster than paper, and it was once considered so dangerously flammable you couldn’t bring cans of film on public transportation. Tarantino stole that metaphor—of course—from Alfred Hitchcock. He acknowledges the theft by showing us, in a quick split-screen shot, a clip from Hitchcock’s superb 1936 thriller Sabotage, the scene in which the nice young boy is told he can’t board a trolley car while carrying potentially deadly cans of film.


Tarantino doesn’t go on to show us what else he stole from Sabotage, so I’ll tell you. The boy is unwittingly toting film cans containing a literal bomb, planted on him by his step-father, a member of a sinister band of saboteurs who were clearly intended to be read, in 1936 England, as undercover Nazis. The saboteur is operating out of a London cinema, which ultimately goes up in flames. As for the boy carrying the film-bomb, he walks through the city getting distracted by every passing what-have-you and all the time the audience is meant to be freaking out because the bomb’s set on a timer….

Does Hitchcock blow up the nice young boy? Of course he does. Plus a puppy the boy’s playing with.

One of Hitchcock’s obsessions, worked out in various ways through his movies, was that the thing he loved most (film) was a fearful, dangerous, eerily powerful thing, wonderful to wield as the ultimate modern psychological weapon, but always potentially annihilating.

Tarantino clearly likes the idea of paying tribute to cinematic power, based on his borderline-supernatural imagery as the theater burns in Inglorious Basterds. He has the Nazi propaganda film interrupted by a film of Jewish defiance right before all the celluloid in the theater, and the theater itself, goes up in a transformative counter-holocaust.

To say the least, Tarantino doesn’t seem to share Hitchcock’s complicating fear of film. Tarantino doesn’t really seem to have any fears, none that get expressed cinematically, anyway. That’s what’s good about his directing, his all-out film-elation, and it’s also what can get tiresome about him, after a while. He’s the biggest film enthusiast in the world, forever shouting and pointing, “And look at this, isn’t this great?! And how about THIS?! And THIS and THIS and THIS!!”

It’s all eye-poppingly impressive, and the relentlessness of it will still make you want it to stop as you head deep into hour three. Then after you leave, you might find you think about it a lot, how interesting it was, even the boring parts.

So it’s been a good month for films: In the Loop, District 9, and now Inglourious Basterds. Things are looking up.

Read more: , , , , , Eileen Jones, movies

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at


Add your own

  • 1. KKK for knowledge  |  August 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    Your first instinct was spot on. Why don’t they make McDonald’s commercials about Nazis? If Hollywood won’t green light anything but Nazis then fuck ’em I’m sticking to Wii.

    Plus ha ha the “Apaches.” Pure nerd fantasy. All but a few Nazis walked, scalps intact. And that just kills all you IDF wannabees, don’t it?

  • 2. Plamen Petkov  |  August 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    a revenge fantasy about what never was. it’s been over 60 years now since WWII. When is Hollywood gonna stop kissing Jew’s asses? I reed some place some Jew guy who is Torentino’s producer or something told him this movie was Jews’ “wet dream”. How disgusting.

    Torrentino has always sucked as a director, his movies are the equivalent of a teen boy waving piss dick and giggling how funny he is. As you said, he has stolen everything from some place else. The Japanese and the Koreans make the best gore movies now days. Off the top of my head: Battle Royale, OldBoy, Ichi the Killer, Visitor Q. Torrentino will NEVER make a movie that will rival those.

    Oh yeah, first post!

  • 3. BlottoBonVismarck  |  August 24th, 2009 at 1:34 am

    Tarantino – Stupid Bass Turd

    Would someone buy Tartantino a spell-checker, for F___’s Sake.

    Congratulations, or complaints, to Eileen Jones for following the ‘auteur’s’ ridiculous spelling of the title, or is it some mystery of the film? Ze French accent of ze directeur zat requires a perfectly normal English spelling to ‘basterdized’ perhaps?

    Since when does the movie title to be read by millions of literate film goers have to be misspelled on the grounds that a character in the film — and the auteur — are barely-literate? And or dyslexic, KO?

    Unfortunate choice really, because it becomes so easy to suggest that the ‘auteur’ eze a preetentious preek’. But any of us who made the mistake of sitting through Kill Bill 1 and 2 knew that. (Hoping against hope that somewhere the great insanity that was Pulp Fiction would return. A hope not just dashed, but strangled, crushed, steam-rollered and then incinerated; with the ashes flushed down the nearest toilet ‘to make their own way out to sea, instead of being scattered on the ocean’).

    OH, and a very enjoyable review from Ms. Jones.

  • 4. arrrgh  |  August 24th, 2009 at 3:33 am

    Oh boy, yet another Jewish revenge fantasy. What was it last year? That awful “Defiance”?

    Fuck do we really need another one of these to make the jews feel better about getting their asses handed to them by Hezbollah?

  • 5. Tyler Bass  |  August 24th, 2009 at 3:52 am

    You wrote, “The question—in most arts and above all in filmmaking—isn’t whether or not you’re stealing, because of course you are.”

    And lest you missed it, Eileen, your favorite line in the flick is a cinematic inside joke regarding Brad Pitt’s role in one of his top 20 films since Tarantino became a director, Fight Club.

    “Lotta difficulties involved in fightin’ in a basement, the main one bein’, yer fightin’ in a basement.”

    Remember that the group is fighting in the basement of that bar owned by Lou. Tyler Durden eventually gets in trouble for this.

  • 6. mijj  |  August 24th, 2009 at 4:45 am

    stylistic affectations and wish fulfillment layered on satruday-afternoon-cartoon sytle characterization of wwii = dull, unimaginative, cliche ridden pap.

    There are so many unexplored views on wwii, but only the kiddy view is examined: nazis were bad and didn’t like jews but had cool uniforms and awesome weapons, let’s enjoy hating them and getting revenge.

    Tarantino is a juvenile tosser who has some story telling ability but no story to tell.

  • 7. Rob  |  August 24th, 2009 at 5:24 am

    In many ways I agree with what you say about the film – Tarantino’s a technically great diector, the acting was excellent (with those few exceptions)and the meta stuff was all very clever.

    But for me, none of it makes up for the fact that this was exactly what I expected: just another ultra-violent nerd fantasy.

    If I was a producer I would force Tarantino to cut the nerd shit and direct something penned by a decent screenwriter. No guns, knives, samurai swords or gratuitous gore. No more than three deaths, just good comedy/drama. Then we might get a movie that shows his real potential.

  • 8. thomzas  |  August 24th, 2009 at 5:30 am

    Here’s a thought that occurred to me after Inglourious Basterds…

    Before the climax in the cinema there’s about 4 or 5 cuts to Hitler watching “Nation’s Pride” (the German propaganda film-within-the-film, blah-blah). The film is just shots of allies being killed in huge numbers, and we keep seeing his grinning, smirking reaction of enjoyment.

    Well, isn’t the intended audience reaction to the Basterds nazi beating meant to be hearty chuckles too? Is Hitler standing in for the Inglourious viewer, with the allegiance of the victims switched?

    Is this a Haneke style condemnation of our filmic blood lust? Or perhaps while Tarantino has been messing around with the script over the years it’s ended up a mess of intentions?

    I think I’ll go with the latter…

  • 9. Pulp Dog  |  August 24th, 2009 at 5:58 am

    Tarantino is a genius, what he made is the first real anti-semitic Hollywood film portraying Jews as deranged violent degenerates and Nazis as civilized humans, completely reversing the established “ultimate victim” and “ultimate villain” tradition of Hollywood.

    Something vaguely similar was attempted in “The Sound of Music”, which was only decades later brilliantly deconstructed as a subversive film that really portrayed the struggle between country-side Aryans and corrupt urban Jews.

    Tarantino’s desire has ALWAYS been to f@@k with people’s heads, and I think he just created a masterpiece. Why, I don’t know, maybe somewhere along the 9-year write/rewrite period his producers Weinsteins stepped on his artistic testicles abit too much ( Kill Bill 1 and 2 were horrible, a definite departure from auteur into mainstream ), and this is his personal revenge, or maybe tearing down the “untouchable Jew” / “unredeemable Nazi” cinematic tradition was simply destiny for a man who made has been tearing down Hollywood conventions since day one.

    More than a director, Tarantino is a film fanatic with incredible intelligence, there is no way he wasn’t aware of all the visual and narrative conventions he was breaking, as well as the bizarre role reversals and juxatpositions. He even made Eli Roth, a Jewish director, direct a short pro-Nazi film.

    They say God laughed when a thief got robbed, well I say the same happened when a rich Jew paid for an anti-semitic film.

  • 10. rick  |  August 24th, 2009 at 6:56 am

    Yeah, “Old Boy” was better than “Pulp Fiction.” However business is done there, competent writers don’t get to write Asian movies…and I mean almost all Asian movies. The only really well-written Asian movie I ever saw was “Seppuku” from 19 fucking 62. Most else is like first year short stories filmed by talented directors. Even if the high concepts are great, kinetic action is awesome.

    The same screenwriter’s dilemma exists in the US (scripts are too subjective for executive imbeciles to comprehend), but it’s much worse in Asia. Thank God for America’s Jews, or you’d be speaking German right now. Because you’d have watched German movies a lot. Because they’d be better than American films. Assholes.

  • 11. Madmadman01  |  August 24th, 2009 at 8:57 am

    i just feel it’s gonna suck. C’mon, you shold’ve come out and plainly said that it sucks. Jackie Brown, Kill Bills, Death Proof – QT had FOUR shitty films in a row! And yeah Kill Bill is fun to watch – but so is, I dunno, Fast and Furious; a masterpiece it ain’t, just an exercise in stylish parody.

    ok i’ve rambled enough now

  • 12. Bat-Mite  |  August 24th, 2009 at 10:22 am

    Hey #3 and #9, don’t worry, this is a site for grown-ups, you can say “fuck” all you want and no one will stop you!

  • 13. sternenmoral  |  August 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am

    During the scene where the british officer is being briefed on his mission by Mike Myers, the officer says that Goebbels is trying to invent a new cinema and appears to be succeeding since cinema attendance is going up. This comment seems to be very important in the context of what QT is trying to say about cinema and the role it plays today.

  • 14. eric  |  August 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    This review isn’t bad, but IMO the one at Ruthless Reviews is brilliant.

    I haven’t seen it, but from what I’ve read it sounds like this is the closest we’ll get to a film that will deconstruct the building of the holocaust story in the public consciousness, as opposed to silence concerning other slaughters no one has ever heard of. Why doesn’t anyone ever make films about Stalin’s gulag, or about Pol Pot, East Timor, etc.

  • 15. solfish  |  August 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    And Hitchcock stole it from Conrad.

  • 16. Padilla  |  August 24th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    I tend to agree with Rob’s comment: Tarantino is a highly gifted filmmaker, but he seems to be truly uncapable of going beyond the ultra-violent and the juvenile.

    Not that “ultra-violent” and “juvenile” are synonyms… Just thinking out loud: if Tarantino wanted ultra-violent, he could have tried to go beyond the current facile option and make a movie about the Iraq war. Or about the very real scalping parties (AKA “Tiger Force”) that existed in the Vietnam war:

    The way I see it, Tarantino simply lacks the guts/imagination/artistic maturity necessary to embark on a movie dealing with truly unpleasant realities. That’s why his movies, in a way, are as predictable as the latest Peter North compilation.

  • 17. Neil  |  August 25th, 2009 at 7:02 am

    It’s a terrible movie. I guess Hollowood realized that the public was sick of the “Jew as hapless victim” genre, so now it’s cranking out “Jew super heroes won the war in secret” genre.

  • 18. chrisv  |  August 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    #15 — good point! Of course you are referring to Conrad’s “The Secret Agent” from where Hitchcock steals the idea of an innocent little boy made to unknowingly carry a bomb and to eventually explode with the bomb.

    So everyone steals something from someone. The most important thing is to make your stuff good. For that reason, I am very very suspicious of Tarantino.

    Kill Bill 1 and 2 were sooo bad and long that I am very leery of walking into any Tarantino movie. And that is coming from someone that was practically obsessed with Uma Thurman for 10 years. Thus, far Inglorious Bastards (sorry, bastErds) shows the two main danger signs of Kill Bill: (i) pretentiousness up the ass, and (ii) an artificial set up to make sadism and violence by the main characters “ok”.

  • 19. Jackass in NJ  |  August 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Lots of critics have been labeling Inglourious Basterds as unrealistic. Fair enough.

    But they forget to remind people that the vast majority of World War II movies have been just as unrealistic.

    Sure there was a battle on Iwo Jima. But no, it was nothing like the John Wayne movie “The Sands of Iwo Jima”. In fact, William Manchester, the historian and Pacific War vet recalls that when he and his friends saw this film in the theater, they all laughed so hard they were kicked out.

    In the case of Inglourious Basterds no, not even Hitler (and he really was one of the stupidest dicators in history) would have been dumb enough to plan a film opening in Paris a few weeks before the whole fucking Anglo American army was about to come rumbling into town. Just for that he deserved to be blown up by a gorgeous Jewish Milkmaid or gunned down by a couple of ugly fuckers from the USA.

    BUT, in two ways Inglourious Basterds is a hell of alot more realistic than most war movies.

    1.) Brad Pitt’s violent hillybilly is what most soldiers act like, not Tom Hanks idealized liberal icon in Saving Private Ryan.

    2.) The vicious war criminal gets away in the end. He’ll have plastic surgery to cover up his swastika and he’ll get to enjoy that house on Nantucket for the next few decades.

  • 20. Ben  |  August 25th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Plamen Petkov: “When is Hollywood gonna stop kissing Jew’s asses?”

    When Slavs learn to make movies. Too bad your countries got rid of your Jews; you might have had a film industry too.

  • 21. Benjamin  |  August 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Eileen, when are you going to review “World’s Greatest Dad?” It’s ultimately about how Americans self-servingly “venerate” the dead. It’s a take-off on the pathetic toadying, careerism, and ladder climbing that describes every rung of American society.

  • 22. OKwithKGB  |  August 25th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    ouch, dirty cosmopolit! ouch! ouch!

  • 23. Fissile  |  August 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    @Ben (#20)
    It was those “dumb Slavs” that put the Wehrmacht out of business. 85% of all German military casualties in WWII were caused by the Red Army. Until the US joined the war, the only place the Nazis ran into any kind of meaningful resistance was in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Had if been the US Army v. Wehrmacht there wouldn’t been any Hollywood today.

  • 24. Jackass in NJ  |  August 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Just another way the vast majority of WWII movies are as fantastic and ahistorical and Inglorious Basterds.

    They don’t come out and say it, but they (a good example would be Saving Private Ryan) do create the illusion that Normandy was a major battle against the Nazis, when in fact the Russians had won the war in 1942 and 1943.

    All the Anglo Americans were really doing at Normandy was putting enough troops in place to keep Italy and Greece from going communist.

    The biggest contribution the USA made to beating the Nazis was actually getting attacked by the Japanese. Richard Sorge, maybe the greatest spy in history, was able to convince Stalin that Japan was going to attack the United States sometime in 1941. This allowed him to roll the dice and pull his troops out of Siberia and reinforce Moscow.

    Not that I want to get into an American Jew vs. Slav cinematic pissing match (although Tarantino would probably approve), but I don’t think I’m quite ready to trade Milos Forman and Andrzej Wajda for “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan”.

  • 25. Ben  |  August 26th, 2009 at 7:59 am

    No disrespect intended toward the talented directors and accomplished Nazi-killers Slavdom has produced.

    Disrespect intended toward the Slavic Hitler sympathizers (Hitler would have loved you back) whose ancestors rounded up and killed the Jewish intelligentsia and are angry that the descendants of that intelligentsia now flourish in a land without quotas and cossacks.

    Wajda yes, Horthy no.

  • 26. Jackass in NJ  |  August 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    (Hitler would have loved you back)

    Actually no, he wouldn’t have.

    A Slavic Nazi is a bit like a white trash American who’s against universal health care.

  • 27. Jackass in NJ  |  August 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    And as for Hollywood kissing Jews asses, get it straight.

    Steven Spielberg is a Jew who made a war movie about idealized WASPS played by Tom Hanks and Matt Damon.

    I actually like what Tarantino does with Melanie Laurent. She’s a blond, Aryan looking Jew sleeping with a black guy. That’s guaranteed to shortcircuit the Nazi brain from here to Nuremberg. First they’ll find themselves sexually attracted to a Jewish woman, then bang, she’s sleeping with a black guy and killing Nazis.

    But I don’t think this movie has much appeal to your typical Bomb Iran and Kill Palestinians Neocon Jew either. There’s no “Purity of Arms” in this movie and the Basterds aren’t exactly “the most moral army in the world”.

    Top that off with the Jewish heroine as a suicide bomber (althought Tarantino gets around the thorny problem of whether she was planning to go down in flames herself by having her stalker kill her before she has to make a decision) and it’s not going to be appealing to Alan Dershowitz any more than it’s going to be appealing to David Duke.

  • 28. BlottoBonVismarck  |  August 26th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    Tarantino – Stupid Bass Turd 2 – the amazing sequel. Available now at – Irresponsible ‘Basterds’?: Mulling Over Tarantino’s WWII Do-Over

  • 29. james  |  August 28th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    There is one film industry in Europe who make real life action films that make this look like the Teletubies who the US gave aid (weapons) to shot there movies and that’s Bosnia.

    With such classics as Martyrs of Bosnia featuring Ramzi Yousef the first WTC bomber of over 30 greatest hits DVD’s from the Bosnian war featuring torture and executions.

    The latest release is Juda the sniper in Iraq although it only lasts 30 minutes killing US soldiers.

    “A half-hour long film about a Muslim sniper who is killing American soldiers in Iraq is being shown in Bosnia, reports Bosnian Muslim television.
    The film is shown in central Bosnia where concentration of radical Islamists is the greatest, reports Bosnian government TV station.

    The film is about a mysterious Muslim named Juba who is using a sniper to kill an American soldier once every day. The sniper has been doing this for several years now and each soldier is hit with one bullet in the forehead, the movie shows.

    Bosnian TV news show 60 Minutes reports that the mysterious sniper has killed several hundred Americans so far. After each killing, the sniper leaves one shell and a message in Arabic that says “What’s taken by blood cannot be brought back without blood.”

    The DVD also says that Bosnian Muslim Jihad veterans from the notorious Bosnian Muslim Army unit El Mujaheed are also volunteers among the Jihadists in Iraq that are killing the Americans.

    During the Bosnian civil war in the 1990s, United States blamed and then bombed the Bosnian Serbs who were targets of massacres by the El Mujahedeen units and other Bosnian Muslim government forces.”


    “Why doesn’t anyone ever make films about Stalin’s gulag, or about Pol Pot, East Timor, etc.”

    I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could.
    ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obamas foreign policy advisor

    Who do you think created and ran the Gulag system?

    It would be pretty embarrassing if it were common knowledge that the most powerful international western banking firms financed the Bolshevik revolution ( Warburg Germany, Rothschild England, Ashberg Sweden and Schiff London) sending them arms, print and propaganda material, etc and in the case of Trotsky and other Marxist terrorist exiles in New York US passports to enter Russia.

    Where do you think Stalin got his money to launch the 5 year industrialisation plan project?


    The Russian guy who made the Nightwatch films (I didn’t like them but they had good effects for the budget)and directed Wanted I think he is Jewish.

  • 30. Michael B  |  August 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    @14:”Why doesn’t anyone ever make films about…, or about Pol Pot,”
    It’s called “The Killing Fields” and came out in ’84.

  • 31. aleke  |  August 31st, 2009 at 9:15 pm


    Yes, Stalin, wielding enormous power, got ‘money’ from ‘Jews that ran the banks’ to start his Five Year Plans. It’s this way because you believe in it! Glory be!

  • 32. Guy de Bored  |  September 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am

    If he were ever confronted in reality with the sort of violence he loves to glorify on film, Quentin “4-F” Tarantino would shit his pants and run away screaming for mommy.

  • 33. jeffery  |  November 28th, 2009 at 3:34 am

    It was such a boring movie I can’t even watch it till the end. Doesn’t have a ww2 ‘feel’ with mike meyers, brad pitt etc

  • 34. Markes  |  February 13th, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    # 25. Ben
    It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. I agree that people shouldn’t make comments like “stop kissing jews asses” without at least explaining further what they mean, but that doesn’t give you the right to blatantly spout off hate about a people, slavs, about whom you obviously know nothing.

  • 35. dan  |  August 20th, 2010 at 7:46 am

    (Why didn’t he go with the real Apaches? Incredible fighters, Geronimo, Cochise, and what a story, whether to cut a deal with the whites or go down to inevitable defeat knifing whites all the way! Now that’s a film, and nobody’s tried it since that pacifist Jimmy Stewart thing in the ‘50s! Argh, anyway…)

    nice one prick

  • 36. Vendetta  |  December 5th, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    Lot of pretentious pricks commented on this one. Movie wasn’t even really about the Basterds, they were almost a subplot to Shoshanna.

Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed