The past two weeks, we've had two big movies come out that revel in all the things they don't tell you. District 9 was full of grainy, second-hand reported mystery and Inglourious Basterds is full of the tiny details only Quentin Tarantino knows. (Even the deliberate spelling is left for us to wonder -- and for those of us who had to type it so often, to be really annoyed about.) But it seems as though viewers fall into two camps -- those who revel in the unexplained and call them Easter eggs, and others who just consider them sloppy plot holes.

I realized there was a gulf of divide after my sister and I left Basterds. She was furious that the origin of Lt. Aldo Raine's scar was unexplained, no matter what Tarantino may have specified in the script. "I wanted to know what it was and why! It drove me nuts!" "It's a hanging scar. You don't explain a hanging scar. It's cooler if it's just there." But she was unconvinced*, and while she knows and loves her Tarantino (oh, how I remember when she pointed out all the Red Apple cigarettes to me), she couldn't forgive him this one. She was equally furious that Donny Donowitz's bat didn't receive its origin story, but I have to confess to being disappointed by that one too. (Hey, I read the comic version!)