Well that doesnt say much for his recent films. Someone summarized it better than me
What's not clear is what Tarantino wants to achieve: 'Inglourious Basterds' is an immature work that doesn't know whether it's a pastiche, a spoof, a counterfactual drama, a revenge tragedy or a character comedy. How can we, within a space of minutes, feel adult sympathy for a hunted Jewish family and then childish glee when a Nazi's skull is crushed with a baseball bat? The one cancels out the other.
But perhaps the biggest faux pas is introducing real historical characters. Tarantino's inventions are big enough - not least Waltz's terrific 'movie' Nazi - so why does he have to court implausibility by dragging in a loony Hitler (Martin Wuttke, nothing special) and introducing Goebbels? You might imagine, too, that this film was written in the '60s: Tarantino seems blithely uninterested in more than 60 years of slow reconciliation between Europe and its past.
I would also add to that the ridiculousness of having some Jew Special Forces running around occupied France, killing Nazis for... what? Its completely impractical, but thats the only way that Tarantino can make his little Nazi revenge fantasy work. The film implies that it is to terrorize Hitler. Yeah, like a guy whose entire world is starting to implode by 1944 really gives a shit about some Jews in France thugging around. On top of that, the usual Tarantinoisms - lengthy dialogue scenes, colorful characters, etc. feel out of place here.