Another question I didn't see addressed in the previous 29 pages
although, I admit, I didn't read each and every post incredibly thoroughly:
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)
I'd be open to suggestions for her motivation or to an explanation detailing why she's not, in fact, kneeling out of compassion at all, but so far, this inconsistency in the characterization of Shosanna is indicative of part of the problem I had with the film. A number of the characters' actions didn't make sense to me (again, I'd be happy for an explanation - maybe I'm just being dense and I've seen the film only once):
1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way? Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)
2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally? I've read in this thread suggestions that he did it out of passion because a) he had a previous relationship with von Hammersmark and b) he was mad 'cause she insulted his intelligence. First, indications of the previous relationship seemed pretty slight to me. Did I miss a look or a line of dialogue that showed he was enraged or still in love with her? I sensed no spark between them that would have lead to a crime of romantically related passion. Second, he seemed too confident a character to be so incensed by a silly lie. He was sure of his intelligence, and I didn't see any previous indication in the film that insults to his intelligence would elicit such a response. Frankly, I think the whole thing was just an excuse for some brutal violence (and another shot of a woman's feet), a character's consistency be damned.
3) Was it really consistent for Raine not to be on his guard after von Hammersmark was taken? Really? He thought he'd just stand there after the Jew Hunter had taken her into an office alone? For a Basterd who'd been successfully ambushing and escaping Nazis, he suddenly seems remarkably stupid in this scene. Someone else mentioned the leaving of the shoe and the handkerchief in the bar, too - again, really? The Basterds would not have taken those things with them? Again, it just seems character consistency is sacrificed for the sake of plot points.
Plot holes I'm think I'm more ok with, but when characters aren't consistent, I have a much harder time excusing a film.