Inglourious Basterds

He he.. Never had anything against your taste in movies, really. It's more your personality in general....

About Inglouoriuous Bertrands...

I don't think I've seen any macaroni combat films so I don't know what such a genre film is supposed to be like. But if this one was dead on I can say with certainty that it's not my thing. This kind of cartoonish violence doesn't do it for me. I was neither appauled nor excited and it didn't make me laugh either. It was... childish. The depiction of Hitler and Goebbels, two of the scariest guys in history, is supposed to take the edge of the two demons, to make fun of them. Then at the same time the evil of nazism is meant to justify the insane violence against the german soldiers. This is irrational to me.

The brilliant Tarantino dialogue... where is it? He worked with this one for ten years?? Some scenes where way too long and quite frankly - really boring. And the characters (QT:s films are always filled with colorful amazing people) were surprisingly pale.

Some good things: the grand finale in the movie theatre, that was great. Really cool. I also liked the scene with Shoshanna and Hans Landa in the café and the scene with Mike Myers and Lt. Hicox. The subtle humour and how they beautifully made fun of the British gentleman officer character - very funny.


Being not so much a Brad Pitt fan I'll have to say that I think he didn't do a bad job either.

Christoph Waltz, of course, was fantastic.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I'm actually saying the opposite: I'm saying Tarantino is saying we should stoop to the level of our enemy, as evidenced by the ramifications of showing mercy in the film (as described in the spoilers in my previous post).

I don't think he's "saying" this in the sense that he's trying to convince us of it. I just think he's "saying" it in the sense that that's what's being depicted. I think he's kind of kidding around. But he's certainly not saying the opposite; he's certainly not criticizing the idea.

As for why people are cheering: no idea. They could be cheering on the things you describe, or they could be cheering for the reason I would, which is that I think it's a fantastic film. I don't think anyone's cheering because they think Tarantino is making one point by ironically depicting the exact opposite, though. That's a little too jujitsu-ish, I think.

Well I just finished watching it.

SPOILERS, and bad. if you havent seen it dont read my post level bad.

The nazi investigator aka The Jew Hunter played by Christoph Waltz (yes I IMDb'd it) stole the film. Pitt was an entertaining character very easy to like, but Waltz was more instrumental in this films quality. Waltz Im sure had more screen time than Pitt, and possibly more than anybody in the film.

In the begining of the film I felt a sense of Kill Bill but with WWII as the backdrop. Familiar Tarantino slow boiling drama at the farm, and great dialogue delivered by Pitt with the Basterds introduction. Then the film shifted gears for the better. With the courting of the french female theatre owner by the young nazi war hero Tarantino proved he can finally direct a simple scene without overdirecting. Much better pacing than Jackie Brown, and not once do you miss the pop culture music which is usually a staple to his films.

Gore?! Oh yeah. If it wasnt for the gore my mom couldve watched this movie, and I dont mean that as a jab. The difference between Tarantino and Scorsese is Tarantino goes out of his way to show you, but Scorsese wont but instead just not warn you. If Tarantino evolves as a filmaker he could be considered the next Scorsese, but not yet though keep reading.

Why Tarantino wanted to fictionalize historical facts and characters is beyond me. As I write this Im reminded of From Dusk Till Dawn, and how incredible the first half of the movie was. Then the second half got way campy and ludicrous with the vampires, and never before or since had I ever seen a film go so far south so fast. In the movie Hitlers actually killed. Actually killing Hitler?! IMO It just cheapened the whole film, and made it feel like Grindhouse. Scorsese wouldnt have done it.

Also was disappointed on the resolution of the Waltzs' Jew Hunter character. Yeah carving the swastika was a nice touch, but is that it?! The movie was building to the most incredible climax with Pitts capture. Col Handa (Waltz) deciding to make a deal with these "boogeymen of the nazis" just had no punch. Pitts character closed the movie looking at Handas swastika wound saying "Now thats my masterpiece!" then the film goes to credits with Directed By Quentin Tarantino.

Sorry Quentin, but Pulp Fiction was alot better. Kill Bill was better too. Kill Bill embraced all the pop culture, and melodrama and is a forever classic. Pulp Fiction told drama in a new hip way, and was a hell of alot more creative than Basterds. Basterds was damn strong, but damn flawed as well. So yeah its a good watch, but dont expect Tarantinos Saving Private Ryan nor believe its even his best work ever. Damn Id sure hope not.

I'm not sure. Maybe I just live in an Alternate Universe from everybody (or an alternate movie universe since there's no difference). You remember the awesome scene in Pulp Fiction where the Uma Thurman character draws a "square"? I agree it's an awesome scene, but she draws a rectangle which somewhat mitigates the "Coolness Factor".

I don't hold Tarantino in any special regard. In fact, the more I learn about him, the more immature I believe the guy is. I'd rather have you MoFos be in our discussions about Powell/Pressburger, Persona, Alain Resnais, The Tenant, The Innocents, etc. because I believe that Tarantino wants everything to be easily representational, except for perhaps his idiotic changing of his movie's title to somehow make it seem that he's DEEP. HA! C'mon, QT, join MoFo and talk to us. We'll show you deep!

Inglourious Basterds, I have no problem giving it a +. It obviously doesn't stand up as a legit war adventure. It's not The Guns of Navarone, The Train, Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen, Operation Crossbow, Von Ryan's Express, etc. It just doesn't have that strong a plot, but it does have a hook, a gimmick and a reason to want to watch the thing. The hook is obviously that this guy (Brad Pitt), who stole his name from Aldo Ray, wants scalps of all dead Nazis and wants all living Nazis to wear something which will always identify them as Nazis. Now, this Guy has American Indian "Blood" in him (even if it's not Apache), so the scalp thing makes sense to some people even if it's mostly BS.

Tarantino does seem more oibsessed with namedropping Leni Riefenstahl and G.W. Pabst, and then he even brings in Oscar winner Emil Jannings to the conclusion. It's unclear what, if anything, Tarantino understands about pre-WWII German cinema and WWII Goebbels propaganda, but since his movie doesn't even take place in any form of reality, it doesn't matter to me. I'd probably say that overall, I gave the film extra points for trying to act like Tarantino knew "anything" about German cinema at all while just faking it to try to make his film better and more "realistic".

I have a few more points to make. Tarantino goes out of his way to have the SS Officer compare King Kong to African slaves and then he has another Officer do the same to try to condemn an African-Frenchman who seems so conducive to the Jewish woman's plot to destroy the Third Reich. On the other hand, the Nazis are quite disturbed that African slave blood helped the U.S. during the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics. I find the film very complex politically, but since it's a fantasy, you have to decide for yourself whether that's a strength or a wimpy weakness.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Best film of the year thus far...Tarantino continues to prove he is a filmmaker to be reckoned with, especially in this day and age. Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece, but this does come very close.

-UJ

I agree, pulp fiction had to be his best work. he had some preety powerful actors in that one. actors who could make any director look great.

Very good, but far from perfect. Tarantino has done MUCH better. I personally loved how stylish it was, but at times the dialogue got a little tedious. And I don't mean all dialogue scenes, because the uncomfortable ones were very awesome. I'm talking more along the lines of the weird Mike Myers part. Just odd.

Along with Star Trek, this is among the most overrated movies of the decade.

__________________

I watched Valkyrie a few days before seeing this. It was interesting to contrast the two. Valkyrie is probably the better film, but it's definitely less "fun".

__________________
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain"

C'mon, I expect a lot more outta you than that. Tell us why.

In case you can't tell by my prodding, I loved it.

Yeah, I mean, even though I've not seen the new Star Trek film, I'm sure that The Dark Knight was much more overrated.

I love both film but I disagree with you, Inglousrious Basterds is much better film because I like what Quentin did.......He picks French actors to play French character, Germany actors to play Germany character, etc. I hate the deal with how the Hollywood American tried to play foreign character that have a bad accent, etc.

Inglourious Basterds is the best film of 2009 and I love it.

9/10

Im dying to see this movie. Im a WW-2 buff and it on my list for this week!

If you're a WWII buff, then I doubt you'll want to see this film.

Now wait a sec here. Part of the fun of the movie is how it completely rewrites history, and you know what? Some of the best parts are definitely the parts which never happened in real life, but now we have them all recorded for posterity, so if you want to see what really did/didn't happen to Hitler, this film gives it to you, up close and personal. Sorry if Drew wasn't included in the cast; she would have fit in nicely, maybe as Diane Kruger.

Well, that might be part of the fun, hell that might be the best of the film, but if someone says they're a WWII buff (or any historical period) then, usually, historical inaccuracies are their biggest bugbear. That being the case, the very parts you mentioned (the made up bits) are unlikely to be part of the fun for them, are they? Now, as in this film they're blindingly obvious, maybe they'll be able to look past them and enjoy. If not, then I don't think a good time's going to be had. That's all I meant.

That's fine and all well and good. It's just that you, yourself, would have to see how outrageous this all plays out to know better whether a "history buff" would like it. The fact that Tarantino had the gall to change the history of the world actually makes the flick much better in my eyes, and, for what it's worth, I'm a history buff...

If any history buff is going to a movie expecting perfectly factual accounts of events needs to have their head examined anyhow. That's why movies like that are "based on a true story" and not "depicted as it actually happened." Even the most die hard buffs have to let their hair down now and then and live a little fantasy at the movies.

I had this dvd for Christmas and I love it! another Tarantino great!

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~