Back in 2009, did audiences go into "Inglourious Basterds" expecting a (relatively) historically accurate film?

[EDIT: I’m specifically referring to the Hitler twist! Putting this clarification as high up as possible because a lot of these early people responding seem to have only read the title and are dunking on me for thinking a movie is a documentary.]

Obviously, most historical fiction embellishes some stuff for an exciting narrative, but what I'm referring to is the ending where the assassination turns out to be a success. Even though we know in real life Hitler dies later on at his own hands, here Tarantino gives us the catharsis of watching him and the other Nazis get shot to death (and also burned alive) a bunch of times.

I've got this idea in my head of audiences watching the movie in 2009, filled with dread, because they know Hitler can't die yet so all our heroes are doomed to fail. It makes the fact that Hitler actually does die feel like such a cool, triumphant twist. But were audiences really as surprised by this as I like to think they were, or did they already sort of know going in to expect some historical revisionism? (I didn't watch it until years later.)

Submitted December 11, 2022 at 11:26PM by hithere297 https://ift.tt/6LKrGVj