Inglorious Basterds

On one hand, what supreme fun! On the other, Slothy feels deeply ill about making the victims of tragic crimes against humanity exact revenge in an equally if not even more diabolically inhumane and sadistic way against their violators, ethically speaking. But so on still another, a gleeful film about film and its powers of imaginative romance; but on the last hand left, did it have to take such historical license? Or maybe that's part of the point, the thrill of movies basterdizing reality? But at such moral cost? Is this exploitation at its least redeeming? Is Slothrop being a fuddy-duddy? B+

Koko: Even the Holocaust can be a joke. / That doesn't bother me. What bothers me / Is the gay self-congratulating "FILM / Beats Hitler" wish-fulfillment denouement. / Most of the scenes he handles with elan, / Poise, and a masterful command of pace. / Unfortunately, climax a la bomb / Was not Q.T., auteur, but Tarantino: / Cinegeek, faux-Godard, and, frankly, dumb. C

Slothrop: The "C" grade doesn't make sense. For a thing like this I think it either succeeds or it doesn't, quite. Thinking of it as an average-ish movie doesn't get at what's happening here. C movies, they're just, eh, as far as I can tell. Which is most of 'em. And this one is not like most of 'em, it's too good. A D would make more sense than a C. Perhaps you meant B-?

Koko: Some of the scenes are A+, some are F. / The best and worst will average out to C. / As for the subtler task of criticism: / A grade reflects the relative success, / Not the ambition, effort, novelty, / Or vision--those inform but don't comprise / The grade, dear Slothrop, which is diagnostic / Showing us how well the movie works. / The verbal commentary, as an adjunct, / Shows us the qualitative aspect, all / That the grade embodies but can't tell. A C does not mean it's an "average movie," / Only an average product. And this was. / Also, you misspelled Tarantino's title.