Inglourious Basterds

[lefty]

wait, shit... what day is it. eh **** it HAPPY BIRTHDAY erm BRAD PITT JEWS BLEARR

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

that reminds me, holy shit the italian scene.

"Correcto"

 

[ríomhaire]

Got back from it just now. Laughed my arse off. I truely enjoyed every ridiculous moment. Also, whoever spoiled the fact that

Spoiler

Hitler gets killed

earlier in this thread can die in a fire.

 

[lefty]

that reminds me, holy shit the italian scene.

"Correcto"

bwahaha "areervadarechee"

 

[Hurricane]

haha, yeah. the italian part was one of my favorites. And Kadayi, if you haven't even seen the film, how can you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously? At least AHA has seen it, although it sounds like he went in not giving it a chance.

 

[ray_MAN]

that reminds me, holy shit the italian scene.

"Correcto"

Bonjourno!

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

I saw it again tonight and god damn holy shit.

Spoiler

That last scene where Eli Roth is mowing down the audience and tearing apart Hitler's face, he has the most intense ****ing look in his eyes I've ever seen. It helps that he's got this real thick eyelash thing going too. It was almost creepy.

 

[MJ12]

Just saw it, was pretty good. Not amazing, but good.

Spoiler

Loved the scene when the chick is looking out the window at the Nazi banners and Cat People/Putting Out Fire by Bowie is playing.

 

[knut]

I saw it again tonight and god damn holy shit.

Spoiler

That last scene where Eli Roth is mowing down the audience and tearing apart Hitler's face, he has the most intense ****ing look in his eyes I've ever seen. It helps that he's got this real thick eyelash thing going too. It was almost creepy.

Eli Roth was pretty damn good throughout the whole film which surprised me. Best thing he's ever done.

''**** a duck!"

 

[Kadayi]

I'm not sure this disproves anything, in fact it might go some way to confirming what Tarantino is saying; "war, vengeance and bloodshed are deplorable acts of human behaviour, and the worst part is that its celebration and villification are fickly determined by the current political or social environment". It all ties into to that first conversation about the rat and the squirrel.

This coming from a man who is lets face it one of the film industries biggest advocates for violence, vengeance and its celebration in films? I think you're clutching at straws there as a point of justification. There aren't many mainstream films these days that possess the graphic violence of QTs back catalogue lets be honest here. RD was heavily criticised at the time of its release for the ear cutting & torture scene and it was kind of lucky to see the light of day.

haha, yeah. the italian part was one of my favorites. And Kadayi, if you haven't even seen the film, how can you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously? At least AHA has seen it, although it sounds like he went in not giving it a chance.

Hurricane its rare that a bad script makes for a good film. In the spirit of humour I have now seen the film. Unfortunately though I can't say that beyond the opening act it particularly engaged me*. A suitably charming and chilling performance by Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa in the first part (the quick draining of the glass of milk was very Jules in PF) however unfortunately he transformed into an overblown clown in the final act, but by then the film had slid so firmly into the realms of tragic farce that I was beyond caring. The best I can say about it is it left me indifferent. Another shaggy dog story from the house of QT, but not as sustained or focussed as KB, or one that demands the repeat viewing of PF. Better than DP, worst than the rest.

Also its high time QT learned to use a composer rather than continue to lift tracks from other movies, because quite frankly the music did more to detract from the scenes than enhance them, especially when the edits didn't remotely match the musical beats.

* The tragedy to that particular scene is that its far better in the script as the Colonel elaborates beyond the tale about his understanding of what people do when they've lost their dignity, onto how he appreciates that people such as the farmer might become confused over where there loyalties lie, which is ultimately about the continued welfare of their own families, and that the colonel doesn't punish confusion. Which actually provides more of a justification as to why the Farmer so suddenly capitulates, knowing that if he doesn't the Colonel will know its not a case of confusion if he discovers the fugitives.

Script here for QT junkies:-

http://www.cineobscure.com/inglorious-bastards-script-sold-to-miramax/

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

Yeah but Kadayi it's really hard to take anything you say regarding this movie seriously because before you had even seen it, you had just read the script and decided that this movie was trash and everyone was just a QT ass kisser for liking it, because honestly that entire post can be read as:

"So yeah I decided to see that shit movie and it was alright I guess, heh.

"

 

[Kadayi]

Conversely its really hard to take anything you or others of your ilk say seriously because you are quite clearly an unabashed QT asskisser Adrik. Personally I'm a big fan of the first few movies (I have special editions and screenplays for RD, PF & JB). But I'm not so much of a gushing fanboy that having left the cinema after KB1 I didn't think 'I hope part 2 is better because that was mediocre'. With KB the rot set in where ingenuity gave over to self indulgence (don't give me a 10 minute explanation as to why Chinese American Lucy Lui is a Yakuza boss...cast a Japanese actress in the role FFS).

The truth with any creative is you're only as good as your last product, whether it be music, film, a TV show, book or a painting, and DP was an appalling bad film. Why therefore believe that QTs next venture is automatically going to be Mana from heaven?

The amount of histrionics and enraged teeth bearing that have been displayed by some people on these boards simply because having read the script I was 'I'm not so sure about this one guys..' has been quite laughable tbh. As I said, as QT movies go its better than DP, but I wouldn't put it above KB&2 in terms of entertainment and it certainly isn't in the same calibre as RD, PF or JB. What is even more tragic seems to be that some of the better lines in the script never saw the light of day in the film.

That people are blithely throwing around 9/10s and 'OMG best movie evar!!! seems like a case of hysterically attempting to maintain a collective delusion regarding their disappointment.

Think of me as Colonel Landa, coming to visit you and ask you to get over your confusion and conflicting sense of personal loyalty to QT, and unburden yourself of these falsehoods. Now was IB the best movie ever really? Or was it merely passable Tarantino at best? :dozey:

*drinks milk

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

I never said I thought the movie was the best thing since sliced bread, I still prefer RD, PF, and KB Vol 1. and 2. over IB but I still thought it was an awesome movie and in a summer of really ****ing disappointing movies I think it definitely deserves a 9/10 if anything. Besides you pretty much proved my point with that first sentence of yours.

"HOW DARE YOU LIKE THIS MOVIE ADRIK WHY DONT YOU GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF QUENTIN'S ASS RHUAHUAHGUSAHHGUGHA"

 

[Kadayi]

Besides you pretty much proved my point with that first sentence of yours.

Think harder

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

The rest of your post is still batshit insane kad.

"IT WAS ALL DOWNHILL FROM KILL BILL. I DIDNT LIKE IT AS MUCH AS THE OTHER MOVIES SO QT MUST BE ON THE GOD DAMN SHIT TRAIN TO SHITVILLE"

You already have this pre-conceived notion that anyone who thought this was a great film (Opinions!? ON THE INTERNET?) is automatically some kind of QT fanboy.

 

[lefty]

I didn't like kill bill. Right now if you asked me if I'd rather watch IB or PF, I wouldn't know what to tell you. I still need to see reservoir dogs...

 

[Stigmata]

The rest of your post is still batshit insane kad.

"IT WAS ALL DOWNHILL FROM KILL BILL. I DIDNT LIKE IT AS MUCH AS THE OTHER MOVIES SO QT MUST BE ON THE GOD DAMN SHIT TRAIN TO SHITVILLE"

You already have this pre-conceived notion that anyone who thought this was a great film (Opinions!? ON THE INTERNET?) is automatically some kind of QT fanboy.

And it doesn't help that he talks down to everyone who shows signs of disagreement.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

I can understand not liking a film, and coming into a thread to talk about why you didn't like it. Someone is without a doubt going to argue with you but hey what can you do it's the internet.

What I can't understand is throwing around an opinion as the god damn law and anyone who disagrees is clearly a ****ing moron. In this case it's Kad telling anyone who thought this film was above average that they are in fact sucking QTs dick. Hell I know people who normally hate Quentin movies and loved IB so I mean I don't even know what to ****ing tell you man.

 

[Stigmata]

I can understand not liking a film, and coming into a thread to talk about why you didn't like it. Someone is without a doubt going to argue with you but hey what can you do it's the internet.

What I can't understand is throwing around an opinion as the god damn law and anyone who disagrees is clearly a ****ing moron. In this case it's Kad telling anyone who thought this film was above average that they are in fact sucking QTs dick. Hell I know people who normally hate Quentin movies and loved IB so I mean I don't even know what to ****ing tell you man.

From his language it seems that he thinks his opinion about an artistic work can be objectively proven.

, indeed.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Hmm...

The amount of histrionics and enraged teeth bearing that have been displayed by some people on these boards simply because having read the script I was 'I'm not so sure about this one guys..' has been quite laughable tbh.

Inglorious Basterds is not a film, its a media event. Tarantino could of filmed himself shitting in a bucket, whilst beating off to some foot porn and the guys at AICN would be hailing it as 'film of the year' even before the camera had stopped rolling.

Sheep will go and see it because they know no better

I read the script a while back and based on that knew it was going to stink to high heaven.

I'm glad to see someone else isn't sucking at the teat of the emperors new clothes that is QTs career decline.

Waste your money, I care not (you'd waste it anyway). But in a few years when you find yourself watching QT shitting into a bucket whilst jacking off to a ladies shoe catalogue, don't come complaining. :dozey:

etc............

...lol.

 

[KagePrototype]

This coming from a man who is lets face it one of the film industries biggest advocates for violence, vengeance and its celebration in films? I think you're clutching at straws there as a point of justification. There aren't many mainstream films these days that possess the graphic violence of QTs back catalogue lets be honest here. RD was heavily criticised at the time of its release for the ear cutting & torture scene and it was kind of lucky to see the light of day.

This really doesn't go anywhere toward refuting what the film is trying to say. Quentin makes violent films about vengeance and redemption, starring characters who do stupid, awful things; sometimes they're aware of it and try to deal with it, sometimes they're not aware of it. But at all times, the film is aware of it (or more appropiately, the director is). Tarantino frames these arguments in classic genre motifs, literally stealing camera angles, musical scores and plotlines from other movies very overtly. He's called a postmodern director for a reason.

And the only films that Tarantino has made where the violence is celebrated are Kill Bill and Death Proof, and only because those films are obvious references to violent film genres. None of his other films celebrate it, and instead simply show it for what it is (or not show it at all, like Reservoir Dogs).

 

[Kadayi]

I never said I thought the movie was the best thing since sliced bread, I still prefer RD, PF, and KB Vol 1. and 2. over IB but I still thought it was an awesome movie and in a summer of really ****ing disappointing movies I think it definitely deserves a 9/10 if anything. Besides you pretty much proved my point with that first sentence of yours.

Come again? You're holding it up to comparison against Transformers 2 to arrive at your 9/10 score instead of against every film you've seen? That's quite possibly the most hilarious justification for over scoring I've ever heard.

This really doesn't go anywhere toward refuting what the film is trying to say. Quentin makes violent films about vengeance and redemption, starring characters who do stupid, awful things; sometimes they're aware of it and try to deal with it, sometimes they're not aware of it. But at all times, the film is aware of it (or more appropriately, the director is). Tarantino frames these arguments in classic genre motifs, literally stealing camera angles, musical scores and plotlines from other movies very overtly. He's called a postmodern director for a reason.

And again I'd say as messages go it is pretty much culturally irrelevant (if it had a place it was 30 years ago as a parody). The Dirty Dozen as a film says and means nothing to me about my life these days. I can't honestly think of the last mainstream film that demonised the antagonists to the degree of unthinking hatred that Tarantino is referencing*. Modern cinema has long since moved on from Nazis and Injuns. The idea of making the audience view the disposable evil Red shirt as more than the uniform was in Austin Powers (so lets throw Mike Meyers in, just to remind people). By you're limited rationale of theft as post modern, scary movie qualifies as a ****ing masterpiece I'm afraid.

* Flip the focus to video games however and its a different matter, but if he wanted to make a comment on that then he should made a game or game based film.

And the only films that Tarantino has made where the violence is celebrated are Kill Bill and Death Proof, and only because those films are obvious references to violent film genres. None of his other films celebrate it, and instead simply show it for what it is (or not show it at all, like Reservoir Dogs).

I'd say the basement in scene in Pulp Fiction disagrees with you there. Given they represent a large proportion of his oeuvre though I find it hard to take your attempts at denial seriously. If the man had the diversity of range of say Ang Lee to the scope of his storytelling you might have a point, but as he has made his bones entirely on films that revolve around people doing very bad things to other people its not a view I can readily endorse.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

Come again? You're holding it up to comparison against Transformers 2 to arrive at your 9/10 score instead of against every film you've seen? That's quite possibly the most hilarious justification for over scoring I've ever heard.

What I mean is in a summer of of really bad movies are you really surprised that people are praising it like they are. And don't give me that shit about comparing it to Transformers 2 because I already told you that I find the majority of QT's films to be better then IB. As of right now, after what I've seen this year I'd give it a 9/10, yes. Who knows maybe next year upon further viewing that might become a 7/10 but you're just being ****ing ridiculous for no reason other then "Why can't people agree with me that QT is a hack."

And again I'd say as messages go it is pretty much culturally irrelevant (if it had a place it was 30 years ago as a parody). The Dirty Dozen as a film says and means nothing to me about my life these days. I can't honestly think of the last mainstream film that demonised the antagonists to the degree of unthinking hatred that Tarantino is referencing*. Modern cinema has long since moved on from Nazis and Injuns. The idea of making the audience view the disposable evil Red shirt as more than the uniform was in Austin Powers (so lets throw Mike Meyers in, just to remind people). By you're limited rationale of theft as post modern, scary movie qualifies as a ****ing masterpiece I'm afraid.

So because the movie does absolutely nothing for you this means that is must be without a doubt completely culturally irrelevant and of course once again, if anyone doesn't agree with you they must be ****ing stupid.

"Heh, yeah and scary movie is a masterpiece by that logic

"

Seriously Kadayi, you keep trying to throw around your opinion as fact, and when people come in to say "Well, that's not true I liked the movie you see.." You ****ing pounce on them letting them know how much of a QT fanboy they are, because the only possible reason one could ever like this movie is because they are indeed sucking QTs dick.

I mean either this is some gigantic troll, or you're just completely ****ing retarded because:

 

[KagePrototype]

And again I'd say as messages go it is pretty much culturally irrelevant (if it had a place it was 30 years ago as a parody). The Dirty Dozen as a film says and means nothing to me about my life these days. I can't honestly think of the last mainstream film that demonised the antagonists to the degree of unthinking hatred that Tarantino is referencing*. Modern cinema has long since moved on from Nazis and Injuns. The idea of making the audience view the disposable evil Red shirt as more than the uniform was in Austin Powers (so lets throw Mike Meyers in, just to remind people). By you're limited rationale of theft as post modern, scary movie qualifies as a ****ing masterpiece I'm afraid.

* Flip the focus to video games however and its a different matter, but if he wanted to make a comment on that then he should made a game or game based film.

He's not just talking about Nazis, I've already explained this. He's talking about people who demonize other people to make it easier to enact vengeance on them; that seems like a prety universal human trait to me, especially the way it relates to films like The Dirty Dozen.

Besides, cultural relevance doesn't refute what he's saying at all, it's just a convenient way for you to dismiss it. Is 2001: A Space Odyssey not culturally relevant enough for you? Is ET the Extra Terrestrial not culturally relevant enough for you? What about The Shining, or Fargo, or Memento, or The Wizard of Oz? Do you dismiss what these films say as well because of a lack of "cultural relevance" at the time of release?

And there isn't a single unifying idea in Scary Movie, it just rips off Scream for cheap pot gags and a quick buck (now Scream is a movie worth talking about, which actually does comment on slasher flicks).

I'd say the basement in scene in Pulp Fiction disagrees with you there. Given they represent a large proportion of his oeuvre though I find it hard to take your attempts at denial seriously. If the man had the diversity of range of say Ang Lee to the scope of his storytelling you might have a point, but as he has made his bones entirely on films that revolve around people doing very bad things to other people its not a view I can readily endorse.

What denial? I'm simply parroting what film criticism has been saying for the past 20 years or so.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

Here kage I'll get his next reply from the future for you so you dont have to wait:

Heh, well you're wrong and I'm right

 

[Harryz]

Can't we all just hug and get along?

*Group hug*



I enjoyed the movie.

 

[Stigmata]

Nah, that would just give Kadayi another easy reason to discredit us. Hugging is homosexual, after all.

 

[knut]

Going to see it again tonight with some friends who couldn't make the first showing. Good stuff.

 

[CR0M]

Watched it on Thursday before going away on a camping trip. Have to say it wasn't what I was expecting at all, but much much better - the trailer certainly let nothing slip about just how funny or entertaining it is. Forget historical accuracy and political correctness and violence and the fact that it's a tarantino film, just stfu and watch and you will enjoy.

From the first minute I was hooked, the atmosphere and feeling of immersion is astounding, I was right there in the cabin / cinema / bar etc.
The characters are all rock solid and hilariously stereotypical - especially the brits - the props and scenes are incredibly well detailed and authentic, and the tension as the different storylines converge is nail bitingly good. The cast must've had as much fun filming it as I had watching it.

Will be seeing it again - pure entertainment.

 

[chrissyin]

Just saw this today. I'm no writer and I know there's been lots of discord on this but here's what I thought. What I found most surprising was how funny in places the film was. The other thing was how much it did seem like a spaghetti western, and not only because of the music. The opening scene, with the French dairy farmer, in the middle of nowhere in the countryside, could just have well as been the wild west - and all through seemed these little nods to westerns or the idea of the Apache raids etc, even the French cinema owner using rouge like war paint.

But then there was the line about the rat and the squirrel, and that made me think that Tarantino was being a bit more clever (than me, not hard I know) and perhaps it was maybe slightly to do with the games we play as children: cowboys and indians. How, at least for a big part of my childhood, it was the cowboy you wanted to be (probably because of the spark or caps gun!). So to me that added to the idea that he was twisting what we perceive as the good guys and the bad guys, Basterds, Nazis, Allies, name them what you will. That initially we may side with the Basterds, but that eventually they're doing what can happen to any human, they can believe in an idea, but that the idea can devolve and come 360 right round so that it becomes what you are trying to stop. In the same way I thought that the characters also change. At the beginning Landa was terrifying, but by the end he was a comedic version of himself. Likewise other characters that began as silly or weak, became strong at the end. Of course against this, the Basterds went in to scalp Nazis. So I'm sure I'm wrong in lots of ways.

On a simpler (my) level, I just found the movie very entertaining, and very beautiful in places too. Although some parts were jarring (some of the music, the character intros), the film seemed to have a playful knowing quality and it didn't upset me at all. I too found parts very violent, but strangely not as violent as I thought it might be. Christoph Waltz was mesmerizing, but I also thought Brad Pitt was superb, although cartoonish too, this was the guy I remember from the WWII movies I used to watch in black and white on a Sunday afternoon on TV, shouting orders at Montgomery Clift.

So overall I thought it was a very entertaining, beautifully shot and interesting film. I'm not going to give a score as that seems futile, but its definitely better than Death Proof, and perhaps the most fun I've had in a cinema for a long time.

 

[Kadayi]

He's not just talking about Nazis, I've already explained this. He's talking about people who demonize other people to make it easier to enact vengeance on them; that seems like a prety universal human trait to me, especially the way it relates to films like The Dirty Dozen.

Kage I know its not about Nazis per say, but the point still stands about where is this demonisation of other people still taking place exactly in the modern Cinema? If he's making a comment, where exactly is the present offence occurring? With war films about Iraq, no ones painting out the Iraqi people to be out and out bad guys whilst the USMC are the conquering heroes? That kind of black and white goodies/baddies style of film making died a death with war films when films like Full Metal Jacket came a long. Film narrative has moved on in the 42 years since The Dirty Dozen hit the screens. So why suddenly attempt a mocking pastiche of those old films? What great purpose does it serve when no ones remotely making that sort of genocidal (kill everyone in a uniform) cinema any more?

As a commentary it is culturally irrelevant, because it’s not a commentary about actual history, it’s a commentary about film history. Personally I don’t need to see a film about the film ‘Breakfast at Tiffanys’ to know that having a Western man acting the role of a 'Engrish speaking' Japanese man was an incredibly bad and tasteless idea, and isn’t the sort of mistake that should be made again. Yes it was shameful, but if you want to highlight it make a documentary about it.

The inherent problem the film makes with regard to the use of the word 'Nazis' is that, labelling every foot soldier in the German Army as a Nazi would be akin to labelling every soldier fighting in Iraq under Bushes years a Republican. Sure some of them undoubtedly were Republicans, but principally they were there because it was their job to be, because their President ordered them to be. The Nazis were the dominant political movement, the German Weirmacht were beholden to them in terms of instruction (The SS on the other hand were a Nazi organisation). The problem with the film is that, it doesn’t at any point make that distinction clear to the audience, and regardless of how fantastical the film is otherwise, that is a mistake because in not doing so it weakens the message of, look how truly bad we are being. By and large the men the Basterds are killing and marking aren’t Nazis, which is the inner irony to the whole thing (only about 1 in 8 Weirmacht were Nazi Party members in truth). If they were specifically targeting and terrorizing SS units it would make a hell of lot more sense if they were after Nazi scalps, as the SS were volunteers, where as the Weirmacht were by and large conscripts.

The other problem (and I think that I highlighted it before) is that by the Basterds succeeding in their mission it actually endorses their approach. It’s the ultimate stamp of approval to everything that Tarantino is hoping you’ll react against. Sure everything they did was reprehensible, but that they got the job done is validation for all that’s gone before. The ending should have been the massacre without the success, not Bad men did bad things and won the war.

What denial? I'm simply parroting what film criticism has been saying for the past 20 years or so.

What all of them over the last 20 years? Even the 3 years before QT even had a film out?

 

[Dog--]

Ok so I saw this movie last night... I went to the drive in, too.

Ok so I was expecting a cool Tarantino action comedy, like Kill Bill kinda thing.. With Nazi's..

No, instead I got 5 minutes of that, then 2 hours of meaningless boring bullshit. This movie sucks, but probably because I went into it with the wrong idea.. Oh well it's ruined for me I think this movie blows and is boring.

EDIT: I want to watch a movie, not read subtitles. Literally this entire movie aside from Brad Pitt scenes are all French or English.. Why not just make them all have English accents.. It worked in Valkyrie. It's a movie, not a ****ing book. The only movie I accept this in is Ong Bak.

 

[Eejit]

EDIT: I want to watch a movie, not read subtitles. Literally this entire movie aside from Brad Pitt scenes are all French or English.. Why not just make them all have English accents.. It worked in Valkyrie. It's a movie, not a ****ing book. The only movie I accept this in is Ong Bak.

Unfortunately some films do require the viewer to either be literate or multilingual. Goddamn liberals intelligentsia!

 

[2Fast4U]

It worked in Valkyrie.

No it didn't. It completely ruined the movie for me.

 

[Kadayi]

I want to watch a movie, not read subtitles. Literally this entire movie aside from Brad Pitt scenes are all French or English.. Why not just make them all have English accents.. It worked in Valkyrie. It's a movie, not a ****ing book. The only movie I accept this in is Ong Bak.

Unfortunately Dog--, a big part of the film was about people using different languages, for example the SS officer at the begining using English when speaking to the Farmer so that others couldn't understand them. It was kind of necessary I'm afraid.

 

[lefty]

And you really having german and french people speaking english just to cater to you is a good idea?

 

[Dog--]

Honestly I'm not incompetent at reading, I can read really fast and am just fine at it.

But when you read so much that you can't even look at the actual movie, the people talking, what's the point? You're just looking at text.

 

[lefty]

That does bother me often, but from what I remember it was either closeups on someone's face while they were talking or you could still tell what was going on in between reading lines of dialogue.

 

[Harryz]

EDIT: I want to watch a movie, not read subtitles. Literally this entire movie aside from Brad Pitt scenes are all French or English.. Why not just make them all have English accents.. It worked in Valkyrie. It's a movie, not a ****ing book. The only movie I accept this in is Ong Bak.

Now there's an argument worth arguing. I don't understand the problem people have with reading subtitles. Films should be watched in their original language. Movies should not be dubbed unless its a cheesy 70's kung-fu movie.

 

[Yorick]

But when you read so much that you can't even look at the actual movie, the people talking, what's the point? You're just looking at text.

Do you have to squint to read or something? I don't really have a problem reading subtitles and watching the movie at the same time.

I also like how Dog's response to like six people saying "You're an idiot" is basically "NOU".