Inglourious Basterds Getting Forty Minutes Shorter?

Published 6 years ago by , Updated September 12th, 2013 at 1:52 pm,

inglourious basterds image3 Inglourious Basterds Getting Forty Minutes Shorter?

The last time Screen Rant reported on Inglourious Basterds’ runtime it was said that writer/director Quentin Tarantino was actually about twenty minutes under what he was contractually obligated to produce, with the cut showed at Cannes being 2 hours 27 minutes.

Tarantino himself said that he would be re-editing Inglourious Basterds post-Cannes, perhaps even adding an entire scene to reach the 2 hour 48 minute runtime. However, in lieu of the widespread rumors that The Weinstein Company is currently having financial problems, it is being reported that they DON’T want to lengthen the film but rather cut it down… by a whopping 40 minutes!

According to The Wrap (thanks to Slash Film), the Weinsteins are in desperate need of a hit film, and since Inglourious Basterds didn’t receive 100% positive reviews (most were, but some weren’t), it seems they don’t want to release a 2.75 hour version of the Basterds, at least not in North America. Apparently the Weinsteins and co-producer Universal are currently trying to convince Tarantino to re-edit Basterds by cutting 40 minutes, citing that the 2 hour 40 minute length it originally was supposed to be is considered, “too long, especially for American audiences.”

Is this a case of the Weinsteins wanting to tighten up the runtime to make Inglourious Basterds a better movie? Or is this just to squeeze as much money out of it as humanly possible? Looking at the reported financial situation the company is in, I’d lean towards the latter. There’s no doubting that more people will see Inglourious Basterds if the runtime is shorter (not to mention the fact that more screenings of the movie can be fitted into a single day), and if I were in the Weinstein’s situation, I might be tempted to do what they’re doing with the film (notice I said tempted, not that I actually would).

inglourious basterds new image1 Inglourious Basterds Getting Forty Minutes Shorter?

Personally, I think Inglourious Basterds is a film that will find its audience no matter how long the runtime. People (such as myself) who are fans of Tarantino’s movies will gladly sit through almost three hours of Basterds. With the type of film it is, I also think it’ll do decently at the box office, even if it isn’t a monster hit. And let’s not forget the DVD market, where, as with all of Tarantino’s movies, I’m sure Basterds will do pretty well – the inevitable homages and infectious Tarantino dialogue oughta’ take care of that.

The Weinsteins recently showed their meddling ways when they supposedly tampered with the trailer for the upcoming film, The Road. Screen Rant writer Kofi Outlaw pointed out the misleading footage put into that trailer to make it look like something it’s not, simply because the Weinsteins didn’t think the true nature of the movie would draw in audiences. It also seems that the Weinsteins think American audiences can’t handle a long cut of Inglourious Basterds – I agree it might not do AS well, but surely not as badly as Bob and Harvey seem to think it will.

What do you think of The Weinstein Company apparently wanting to cut 40 minutes from Inglourious Basterds? Do you think Tarantino should cut that much, if anything at all?

Inglourious Basterds is scheduled to be released on August 21st, 2009.

Sources: The Wrap via /Film

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. If it’s good(which it should be cause come on its Taratino), it wont even feel like 2 Hours and 40 Minutes, Terminator: Salvation didn’t feel like 2 hours to me. It’s also The Weinsteins fault they are in bad shape, they have produced some of the dumbest movies I have ever seen.

  2. @bigDOG,

    I agree with you, man. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown (Tarantino’s two longest movies before Inglourious Basterds- coming in both at 2hrs 30mins) absolutely BREEZE past every single time I watch them, despite particularly Jackie Brown not being the quickest paced of movies. Just something about QT’s dialogue and his inventive, iconic characters that make 150 mins seems like a third of that.

    Bring on hour 2hr 48 minutes Basterds, please! :)

  3. Don’t movie studio’s learn? It seems that everytime a movie studio gets in the way of a director’s vision for a film, the movie suffers(for example, any Marvel movie made by Fox) and fans aren’t happy. Now some studio’s have gotten away with it like Spider-Man 3, but they only got away with it financially. I’m fairly certain that Spider-Man 4 won’t get as high of an opening weekend because some people will be wary to see it since Spider-Man 3 was such a letdown in just about everyone’s eyes.

  4. At 40 minutes, you have GOT to be removing important parts of the story. Overall, it’s the plot that you are selling to the public. I’d rather sit through a 150 minute tightly woven story then leave the theatre scratching my head trying to make sense of the past 90 minutes.

    Oh, and Weinstein boys, don’t think you will sell more DVD’s by saying you added the missing 40 minutes back. Either serve me your best dish first or don’t expect me to come back for a second helping.

  5. Thats a shame about the Weinsteins, most of the best films from the 90s where under their banner.

  6. Let’s just hope this doesn’t turn into another Kill Bill type deal.

    Parts 1 and 2 ,,?

  7. While Tarantino’s movies usually are very good, I thought Death Proof was a letdown. Most of that movie was about girls talking about their experience and buying some car, then we get the chase (which was pretty good). I nearly fell asleep.

  8. Death Proof: Unending Oprah-trailer-park-chick talk, and in the end Kurt Russell gets owned. KURT RUSSEL!



  9. Grrr!!! :P

  10. Yep, Kurt Russell, the same dude that owned the upgraded soldiers in Soldier (I’m sorry, I really liked that film), the same dude that saved Little China, the same dude that kicked butt with Sly, and the same dude that brought down a giant robot; and a couple of horny girls took him down?! HEEEEEECCCCCKKKK NO! :-)

  11. Cutting 40 minutes out of this movie is a complete and utter mistake. Weinstein is obviously trying to get that paper but is that worth shattering a directors vision? I really don’t think so especially as renowned of a director as QT is. His films aren’t my favorite aside from maybe Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs but I respect his style and great dialog. However I expected this movie to have a bit more action then the standard QT movie and sadly I hear that there is barely any. That is no doubt a letdown but I will still hold my head high for this one.