Inglorious Basterds !!!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

I smell fresh hate in the air:banned:

Batutta said:
Sorry, but any professor who didn't include Tarantino in a serious film study would be the one I'd have doubts about. Love him or hate him (which you obviously do), he is one of the most influential directors of the past 20 years so he demands attention. Should he be put up on a pedestal as an example for all to emulate? No. Should he be discussed? Absolutely. Along with Spielberg and Lucas and hell, even Michael Bay, as well as Antonioni and Fellini and Max Ophuls and Truffaut etc. If your school isn't showing you the full range of films than that's an issue for you and your school. I went to a pretty crappy school but my teachers exposed me to the classics and foreign films as well as more current stuff. Just because your film school experience is suffering doesn't mean we have to suffer your very biased and skewed rants.
Click to expand...
 
I really liked it, but it felt a bit lengthy in the middle. I really loved the intro; it had kind of a Sergio Leone feel (not that I'm a Leone fan). The Landa character was absolutely brilliant, and Brad Pitt's Eye-talian was impeccable !
 
I have no chip on my shoulder when it comes to Tarantino, he's free to make whatever garbage he wishes. I have a chip on my shoulder when professors try to teach his films in universities to me and other people. I have a chip on my shoulder when marketing mixes with education. It has to do with people holding up the most shallow things in cinema in the highest regard. As usual. American culture is built on the most shallow aspects of life, and this is especially true in Hollywood. And it's spread worldwide by this point. Have you seen some of the textbooks they use? They spend entire chapters on films like Pulp Fiction, Jurassic Park, and Star Wars. Pure madness.
Click to expand...

Please keep your generalizations on American Culture out of the forum and stick to the film commentary itself. Thank you.

A problem with QT being used for educational purposes ?

Tarantino uses the same techniques as the masters do in narrative filmmaking. Something a lot of new filmmakers do not do nor have a comprehension for. I'm referring to the visual language of cinema born from Welles and hyper-mastered by Hitccock, De Palma, Scorsese, et al.

Tarantino also does his own thing with his own style. If you're looking for cookie cutter films, then obviously he may not be your bag. As much as he 'pays homage' or 'rips off' or simply uses mastery to convey his story, he employs it within his own framework.

THE Original Star Wars is one of the most groundbreaking and influential films ever made and Pulp Fiction was a worldwide success critically; internationally acclaimed. You'd be in the minority on that summary.

Jurassic was an okay film story wise; based off a novel of course, but effects wise set new standards in the industry.

I loved the Basterds. My only regret was seeing scenes from the original script that did not make the final cut.

Sorry, but any professor who didn't include Tarantino in a serious film study would be the one I'd have doubts about. Love him or hate him (which you obviously do), he is one of the most influential directors of the past 20 years so he demands attention. Should he be put up on a pedestal as an example for all to emulate? No. Should he be discussed? Absolutely. Along with Spielberg and Lucas and hell, even Michael Bay, as well as Antonioni and Fellini and Max Ophuls and Truffaut etc. If your school isn't showing you the full range of films than that's an issue for you and your school. I went to a pretty crappy school but my teachers exposed me to the classics and foreign films as well as more current stuff. Just because your film school experience is suffering doesn't mean we have to suffer your very biased and skewed rants.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Number 1!

You can not hate on Star Wars!

Number 2!

Pulp fiction is one of my favorite movies, but just like all of Tarantino's films there is always parts you are going to dislike since his movies have a broad viewing audience.

Number 3!

Jurassic Park makes me what to play with dinosaurs!


In all seriousness Tarantino is capable of making complete ****. I found death proof and planet terror to be the biggest waste of time while watching a movie. I find that for every good movie he makes theres a crap one that follows.

Some good:
Pulp Fiction
Res Dogs
Kill Bill part 1
Jackie Brown
True Romance


CRAP: IMO
Kill Bill part 2
Planet Terror
Death Proof
Natural Born Killers lacked in a lot of areas
Dusk till Dawn is in the middle..

You either like his movies (or some of them) or you hate them. I happen to like some of the stuff he makes, other times his movies are just crap in my opinion.

For the record Grindhouse: Death Proof and Planet Terror is a giant ClusterFOOK
 
I left with an unsettling feeling that I wish I did not have...but I'm just a pure minded goodie-goodie so I got what I deserved.

I will say this, he's doing something I barely see other films in theater are doing, and that's suspense. He knows how to withhold and build anticipation.

I haven't read most of the posts, but it's surprising how little this story was about the Basterds. They were like the r2/c3po to the blond girls and jew hunter.
 
Austinv said:
Number 1!

You can not hate on Star Wars!

Number 2!

Pulp fiction is one of my favorite movies, but just like all of Tarantino's films there is always parts you are going to dislike since his movies have a broad viewing audience.

Number 3!

Jurassic Park makes me what to play with dinosaurs!


In all seriousness Tarantino is capable of making complete shi*. I found death proof and planet terror to be the biggest waste of time while watching a movie. I find that for every good movie he makes theres a crap one that follows.

Some good:
Pulp Fiction
Res Dogs
Kill Bill part 1
Jackie Brown
True Romance


CRAP: IMO
Kill Bill part 2
Planet Terror
Death Proof
Natural Born Killers lacked in a lot of areas
Dusk till Dawn is in the middle..

You either like his movies (or some of them) or you hate them. I happen to like some of the stuff he makes, other times his movies are just crap in my opinion.

For the record Grindhouse: Death Proof and Planet Terror is a giant ClusterFOOK
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick film knowledge, I had no idea he wrote Natural Born Killers. Though I wonder if he had directed it also would it be somewhat different, even though I loved how it was directed...

I've yet to see Inglorious Basterds, probably this weekend I will see it though. It's doing very well at the Box Office, I think this is the Weinstein's Company's first hit and what better person for it to come from then the guy who in my opinion made those guys who they are.
 
A good movie, worth watching. Not something I'd honestly want to watch again though. That subject matter does not really appeal to me these days.
 
I love when people say Death Proof and Kill Bill sucked!!! LOL, makes me laugh

Inglourious Basterds=pure nitro

This film will certainly never leave my life
 
Saw it last night. Oddly enough this is the first movie I saw in the theatre since I got into making movies (and after my foray into dvxuser) a couple of years ago.

Yes I've been a hermit, watching the films at home.

First off, technically, I've never watched a movie in a theatre knowing what i didn't know before about DOF/35mm/Camera movement all this.

35mm is incredible, the amount of things you can place in a frame is crazy. Nothing like seeing a projection.

I won't talk about much else technically, the color was ridiculously good, cinematographically I doubt i'd even be in a position to have problems. Some favorite frames were the series of dissolves at the cinema with shoshanna dressed opposite the nazi banner in the distance... The birds eye of her going down the stairs...

The bar scene was my favorite. The switch to english gave me gossebumps. He asked if he could 'speak the King's'. Damn.

I am also a sucker for hype. I loved this flick, loved kill bill, even thought deathproof was nicely done, as it is admittedly a 'small project' in between two big movies.

The thing that got me most about this movie is that I think it's smart in the audience's reaction it harvests.

The clapping you're talking about. The cheering at the nazi's dying, even after he turned them into heroes. You cannot help but feel sympathy at least for the soldier that doesn't rat out the squads in the trees. Donny was an obnoxious little wanker at that moment, and I know a few parents of friends who are ex military that would've stormed out, as to them, soldiers, no matter who, should be killed with the respect a soldier deserves etc. This film played with that, and it causes reactions here, in the middle east.

I for one have no respect for any soldier in any regime, it just means nothing to me. Let em have it they've got guns to begin with, and still, he friggin made you feel somethin for a nazi.

Also, a line that had some people get up and bounce, was when the theatre was burning down, to 'the face of jewish vengeance'.

Perhaps the single boldest statement I've heard after a sequence of events like that. Several people began cursing at the screen and left, and it hit me that most of the people that live here, in the region, feel they are tasting this very vengeance.

I'm surprised that line is in there. People were cursing at the British, Americans, and in a way that showed me they really didn't know who to curse at.

Everyone in the world is constantly looking for someone or something to blame for the world's situation.

The west blames the nazis, for the horrible things they've made them endure... the jewish community, the gitane community, etc...

Over here we're watching and going nuts the minute the jews start viciously killing nazis, saying dammit we're next.

It was crazy at the theatre.

Quentin tarantino releases a movie about WWII, that's not historically accurate in the ending, makes you feel sorry for a nazi and kills him anyway, and declares the beginning of the 'jewish vengeance' at the end.

If a film, or any good art, is to provoke thought and emotion, dammit he did.

I think this movie was brilliant on several levels. The sheer difference in reactions all over the world is enough to see that. This is a time in the world that affected and will continue to affect the next several decades of all our lives.

And he had fun with it, and changed the end. I would call it literature.

P.S. This is in no way an effort to turn the discussion into a political one, yes I live in beirut, and it's different here, but I make movies, and used to make music before that, I also draw. Love this flick, and just really think that the line is noteworthy.

World War II must've sucked, the nazis must've sucked, and anyone suffering is someone's kid. This is a movie, and people did get up angry for completely different reasons than moviegoers anywhere else.

Also, when I'm good enough to talk about the technical mindsex QT just administered, maybe I stop trying to be deep lol :)

Cheers all.

Alice believe it or not is my next 'i can't wait' movie.
 
Grey, thanks for the thought provoking post. It's very interesting to hear how the films messages are received in other parts of the world.
 
The interesting thing to me about this film, regarding the "Jewish Vengence," theme, is that QT was really true to the perspective of most Jewish people. I'm Jewish and this film had very special meaning to me and my family.

I would not normally get into religion, but it is so key in the film I feel it is ok to at least touch upon.

The litergy of the Jewish faith is 100% clear. It is about justice, arguably first and foremost. I personally felt no sympathy for ANY of the Nazis in Inglorious Basterds, which is is quite different than most other films dealing with the period. War and Remembrance, Winds of War, Schindler's List, The Pianist, Das Boot. ALL of them had Nazi characters I felt complete and utter sympathy for. Not so with IB.

QT is a smart guy, and a brilliant filmmaker. He's given us a film that is uniquely unapologetic for its thirst for revenge against a brutal enemy. Judaism prescribes equalitive retributivism. It also, does not allow for absolution. Unlike Catholicism.

So quite simply for me, this is a special film that is completely authentic to the Jewish attitude for dealing with tyrannical forces.

Moreover it provokes thought unlike many morally black and white war films. Are the basterds paradoxically guilty for carrying out justice themselves? Is that why many of them die in the fire as well? Was Shoshana's singular purpose to kill those responsible for her family's death, and as a result, her own death is not a tragedy?

There is no artificial hollywood drama. All of the events seem to unfold in a way that seems realistic, even though we know QT's vision of the period is surrealistic. I find that interesting, original, and fun. There will always be plenty of movies recycling the same formula verbatim. It's nice to see something that, even if it isn't exactly "new," it feels new.

My only complaint, like many others is that we didn't get to see enough of the Basterds. Also I felt like the whole move was too short. It like flew by for me. Not that it was too fast. It's just I loved the movie so much I wish there was more of it. I could easily go for a 4 hour version of the film without being bored. I hope the DVD may have some additional content. It almost feels like a 4 hour film that was trimmed down to 2.5 (or less?).

Similar to Once Upon a Time in America; which was a 4 hour movie that should have been 6.
 
Nice take on the film.

I like how you put that; There will always be plenty of movies recycling the same formula verbatim. It's nice to see something that, even if it isn't exactly "new," it feels new.

I personally enjoy both spins on finding sympathy for the Nazi. Schindler's Goeth was so disturbing but one felt sorry for how pathetic he was and movies like The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen had you feeling zero remorse, if even they were sort of adventurist films.

Tarantino is the man. He never disappoints me.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Nice take on the film.

I like how you put that; There will always be plenty of movies recycling the same formula verbatim. It's nice to see something that, even if it isn't exactly "new," it feels new.

I personally enjoy both spins on finding sympathy for the Nazi. Schindler's Goeth was so disturbing but one felt sorry for how pathetic he was and movies like The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen had you feeling zero remorse, if even they were sort of adventurist films.

Tarantino is the man. He never disappoints me.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Goeth for me, evoked such a bizarre set of emotions, and I think that was compounded by being Jewish. I watch him shooting my people from his villa, not even for the "sport" of it, but because of some type of specific misanthropy I'll never understand.

Yet, because of that; this monster/confused being, for some reason garnered sympathy for me.

In fact, the more I've read about Hitler himself over the years, the more I feel he was simply a sorry excuse of a person, a pathetic, insecure, paranoid, who feared the world so much that he literally NEEDED to form a strict edict... a scapegoat in which he could exercise control, in a life he had so little control over.

But back to Goeth, I think the theme is that these people has such distorted perspectives, without any hope of recovery to a decent or functional method of thought to live life that we decent people feel sorry for the fact that we know they will never change.

Compassionate people generally feel sympathy for anyone who is subject to an immutable characteristic which controls them in a negative way, even if it makes them destructive. Yet the heinousness of their acts makes it so confusing... "what can we forgive?" where do we draw the line? And it's in the space of that confusion where we, the audience, find so much fascination. I think... just my take.

But one of the reasons I like IB so much is because it is a relief from that paradox. It takes a stand. These are people we cannot forgive. And that is refreshing, because in drama, based primarily on conflict, it is so tempting to give in to the sympathetic monster complex. So because QT had the discipline to refrain from that, it feels new, and even if not new, is a nice change of pace in the portrayed morality of an era examined so many times over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top