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

Richard J. Johnson said:
When I first saw the shot I thought he did that just to create a new line as well. But then I started to think like Horrigan. I should call up QT and ask him.:costumed-smiley-047
Click to expand...
I guess my point is that he could have created a new line quite easily. This bold camera move stood out as much more to me and the tension was really starting to build. I would have to see it one more time to be sure though.

A new excuse to go see it again. :)

Either way, the move was very blatant and really stood out for me. In a good way.
 
I enjoyed the film but.... it was something about Tarantino's dialog in another language (i.e. subtitles) that took me out of the film.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy subtitled films and don't have an issue with "reading" a film. But again, it was something about not hearing Tarantino's dialog that took me out of the film; albeit slightly.

That is to say that when the characters started speaking english I perked up a bit. Also, when the characters did decide to speak english they often made reference to them (about) doing so.

Interesting.

Watching the film I did enjoy the tension/anticipation towards the showdown between Aldo Rey and the "jew hunter". A bit anticlimatic but nonetheless highly enjoyable.
 
Well it did add to the authenticity of the film, the foreign language, but I can see what you mean where Tarantino's dialog isn't presented in it's prime with it being not in english.
 
The really fantastic thing about this film was the fact that it had several tension building, slow burn scenes. Several minutes of the heros and antagonists having conversations, one not knowing what exactly the other knows. These were some of the best tension scenes I've ever seen. (The intro, the strudels and cream, and the basement bar scene)

I had a real problem with the resolution of the film though. Mainly in how the villains were defeated.
Tarantino spent the entire film humanizing the Nazi war hero, only to have him behave completely out of character at the very end. Did Tarantino lose his nerve and decide that he no longer wanted the character to be sympathetic at all before the heroine murders him? It would have been much more tragic and much more poignant (not to mention fit better thematically) to have him remain sympathetic while the heroine is forced to murder him in cold blood. Turning him into a potential rapist at the last minute seemed like a cheat to me.

Now comes the main villain: Landa. I didn't like his resolution AT ALL. Here we have a genius level supervillain, who has ultimately outclassed and outwitted his prey. He has the heroes dead to rights. Then what happens? The villain switches into idiot mode so that he can be defeated by the hero. I hate when writers do this. Oftentimes a writer creates a villain that is seemingly smarter than he is, and cant' figure out how to have the hero outsmart him. I've noticed that this is very common. When the villain is too powerful, a writer is often forced to use a deus ex machina in order for the hero to defeat him. Very disappointing. (Quentin pulled this stunt in Kill Bill also in my opinion. Bill was defeated too easily).

I discussed this phenomenon with my friend the other day, and we struggled to think of films where the hero justifiably beats the genius caliber villain by outwitting him without a god in the box or any other cheats (In cinema I mean. This happens all the time in literature).
We couldn't think of any films that match the criteria exactly. I mentioned Shawshank, but threw it out because Andy didn't outwit a genius level villain, per se. He simply used his own genius to subvert a SYSTEM.

In Usual Suspects, the villain got away with it.

The Dark Knight ended in a fist fight due to bat sonar. Not detective work per se.

It pains me to say this, but the only film I can currently think of at this moment that comes close is.... The Da Vinci Code. Robert Langdon outsmarts his genius level foe via his code breaking ability, his quick thinking, and a bluff that plays on the villain's weakness. This probably doesn't count either. The film was adapted from a novel. Sigh.

Even Darth Maul went out like a punk...

Ah well. Sorry to sidetrack. All said, I was doubtful at first that I'd buy this film on Blu-Ray, but have since reconsidered. Despite some of the story and character problems, watching this film is indeed watching a master at work. The tension dialog scenes alone are worth the price of purchase. Hopefully they include a lot of extras though. I still feel that Kill Bill Vol. 1 is Quentin's masterpiece. It felt like he had been training his entire career to make that film. It was completely sublime.

Inglorious Basterds was a well done entry among his body of work, but I don't think it quite hit the standard he has set for himself.
 
i didnt like frank zoller from frame one. he seemed upset that the girl didnt know who he was. then it seemed like he tired to impress her and she wasnt having it. i was this dude wants her but she doesnt want it. i thought he was going to rape her at the end.
 
mentatDUKE said:
Inglorious Basterds was a well done entry among his body of work, but I don't think it quite hit the standard he has set for himself.
Click to expand...


crazy enough I heard alot of people say this is his masterpiece that he finally grew into his shoes and that its even better than pulp fiction.

to me right now its a great film I'm not saying it better than PF, but it is his most mature piece of work i feel like.
 
I've given Tarantino too many chances, after seeing Kill Bill and Death Proof in the theater, I'm done. He can only make one kind of film: boring and shallow.
 
I have another friend that feels Tarantino is 'boring and shallow.' This is someone who's opinion I respect, but I beg to differ when it comes to Inglorious Basterds. Its not a film for everyone. To each their own as they say.

BTW, Death Proof did suck.
 
spidey said:
how?
Click to expand...


How? People give him money to make them, that's how. Just as they give Michael Bay money to make movies about exploding robots. Hip dialogue and quick editing isn't going to fool me into thinking it's somehow "smarter". Tarantino has never had anything original to say about anything in real life.

If you like him, you like him. But sometimes people's priorities and perspective scare me. "Masterpiece" "Classic" "Legendary" and "art" used in conjunction with Quentin Tarantino is like an ant-eater wearing a suit of armor.
 
ARTICLE: BEFORE THEY WERE BASTERDS

Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is perhaps his most deft handling of reference and homage yet. The video store nerds at Scarecrow Video would like to present to you an unofficial and in progress footnotes companion to Basterds. Some of these films are directly referenced in the film, others are only evoked, while others still are films we simply felt should go on the list.

http://www.scarecrow.com/2009/08/27/before-they-were-basterds/
 
SPOILERS

Well, I loved this film. Easily my favorite Tarantino film. Even better than the Kill Bill double feature.

jpastuch said:
Hip dialogue and quick editing isn't going to fool me into thinking it's somehow "smarter". Tarantino has never had anything original to say about anything in real life.

If you like him, you like him. But sometimes people's priorities and perspective scare me. "Masterpiece" "Classic" "Legendary" and "art" used in conjunction with Quentin Tarantino is like an ant-eater wearing a suit of armor.
Click to expand...

Frankly I've never understood the whole this filmmaker doesn't say anything about real life argument. Normally, I go to movies to get away from real life. Not to say that a Micheal Bay 'splosion fest is what I'm looking for. I still want a great story and amazing actors among all the other things. And if there is a thematic thread and any type of intellectual stuff embedded in the film, then great. I actually like intellectual discussions as I think too much of society walks around with blinders on, but that is why I feel intellectual content in films feels unlike real life. That is the ultimate point of film for me, to envision an alternate world that is better than the one we are all stuck in, or by way of almost reverse psychology, to suggest that the world we live in is crappy by showing how bad things can get. Great dystopian stories like Mad Max, 1984, Blade Runner, and Children of Men are what spring to mind.

Back to the positive side of things, that is why girls flocked to Titanic back in the winter of 1997. The whole romance plot of that movie never happens to real people in boring everyday real life. Same with the Twilight craze. Same with stuff like Predator and Die Hard. Dudes get to be the hero like Arnie and Bruce Willis. Luke Skywalker and Neo give us those vicarious thrills but with a deeper and mythic theme intertwined with their fictional journeys. Then you have something like Blade Runner which is more ambiguous about who the real hero is. Inglorious Basterds is more in this category. It questions who the hero is during wartime and how far a soldier has to go to become a hero. He's a hero to the public, but not to himself. The Basterd's seem to not give a shi* about being heroes, they just want to scare the shi* out of the Nazis, while Frederick Zoller seems to be milking all the praise he gets from his heroic deeds whilst truly loathing what he did. Only he sees himself as not a hero whilst everyone around him, even Hitler looks at him as a war hero.

Back to the point of all this... it is not like Tarantino is the only successful filmmaker whose films are painted on a larger than life canvas and aren't specifically about everyday real life. I guess I would say they're about reel life in some ways, especially IB with the climax taking place in a cinema. But so are many of the films by Spielberg and even Kubrick. What about much of the work of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, etc.. all directors who work primarily in bigger budget arenas? Just because a film like Aliens or Lord of the Rings is not as close to present day real life reality, doesn't mean it isn't a good or great film that can be looked at as a classic, masterpiece, piece of shi*, art... whatever positive or negative opinion someone may have of it.

I think that Inglorious Basterds has layers of meaning and depth that might not be easily noticed, especially on the first viewing. I need to see it again to see what I can extract from it, but so far I think it is more than just hip dialogue. So much more to it.

As for a theme, I'd say IB is about how perception of something or someone changes once the propaganda is wiped away and the real person or entity stands before you. To me, the whole thing is illustrated by Zoller as he can't stand to watch the film about his heroic yet murderous exploits. Of course, the whole scene in the basement pub with the characters pretending to be Nazi's whilst wearing the cards on their foreheads playing charades. Col. Landa and how he is simultaneously charming yet heinous because of the duty he carries out by hunting down Jewish fugitives and refugees.

I also loved the Diane Kruger character. She plays an actress pretending to be all buddy buddy with the Nazi party whilst really being an agent for the Allies. So we have a double agent actress playing charades with a bunch of Nazis and a couple IB's plus the British agent played brilliantly by Michael Fassbender. The levels are interesting and well, I'm nerding out here but I just thought that was cool. I loved the amazing opening and ending scenes of the film, but this battle of wits in that dank old pub was my favorite scene in the film.

Not that I'm saying you have to like this film, but I do disagree with the notion that Inglorious Basterds is all hip dialogue and snazzy editing or camera work. I just got to thinking about the film some more and I got excited, so please excuse this long and somewhat rambling response.
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
Frankly I've never understood the whole this filmmaker doesn't say anything about real life argument. Normally, I go to movies to get away from real life.
Click to expand...

This is why we have bad films though. I'm not asking for filmmakers to give us realistic depictions in the superficial sense- we have to STOP trying to get away from life, away from our problems, away from our feelings. You say we live in a "boring" world, what are you insane? Nature is boring? The ocean is boring? The fights we have with loved ones, the forces out to stop free expression, loss of spirituality, the question of the meaning of life, all of the feelings we feel on a day to day basis, our crisis of existence, our desperate feelings to communicate with each other, urban architecture, plane crashes, lonilness, getting drunk, dancing, crying, the atom bomb- THESE THINGS ARE BORING?!

I think film is an artform, and there is good art and bad art. The good art doesn't run away from life, it faces it. It asks the questions that need asking and expresses the things that, in no other way, could we possibly express. It's challenging, confusing, engrossing- and it doesn't need to play into silly fantasy cliches that movies like Titanic or Die Hard use to manipulate us.

You should stop running away from your life. That's a really tragic idea, to conciously avoid something that is happening to you all the time. To "turn off your brain". That's why the world is always on the brink of ending. Children of Men wasn't set in some far off dystopia, I have news for you.

So when I see someone like tarantino, pushing the excitement buttons- but not really giving me anything but a song and dance- it's hard for me to really think of him as anything more than a song and dance man. I want a unique view on life, not a unique view on how much he loves other people's films. I want to see people's souls. Brad Pitt talking funny isn't good enough for Tarantino to be taught in film schools, and it's a sick travesty that he is, further proving how bad film school is and how bad film is treated as an art.
 
jpastuch said:
This is why we have bad films though. I'm not asking for filmmakers to give us realistic depictions in the superficial sense- we have to STOP trying to get away from life, away from our problems, away from our feelings. You say we live in a "boring" world, what are you insane? Nature is boring? The ocean is boring? The fights we have with loved ones, the forces out to stop free expression, loss of spirituality, the question of the meaning of life, all of the feelings we feel on a day to day basis, our crisis of existence, our desperate feelings to communicate with each other, urban architecture, plane crashes, lonilness, getting drunk, dancing, crying, the atom bomb- THESE THINGS ARE BORING?!
Click to expand...

I don't think these things you mentioned are boring. I might not have specified what I meant by boring. What I was talking about is how the majority of the population gets up and follows the same basic routine. Get up, shower, shave, eat breakfast, go to work, take the cigarette break, back to work, etc... mundane everyday routine reality. That is what I'm talking about, or what I meant. Life on a strict schedule. That is the reality for almost everyone. It can get downright annoying and I think an escape is needed for the brain to not go on the fritz.

You're right, it is not healthy to constantly be in a state of escape from reality through drugs, cinema, alcohol, twitter, or whatever other thing provides a way out. Hell, I spend too much time on this forum, something I've been trying to cut down on lately.

What I mean by cinema as an escape is that a really good film is actually one that has something to say whilst also offering a cathartic 2-3 hour vacation from mundane reality. By stepping outside of ourselves a bit, we can actually focus on a relevant issue or ideas about the world in the dark cave of the theater while we watch the flickering dream world projected on the big screen. There needs to be an escape, otherwise we won't actually experience the film in any profound way because we'll be thinking about our dirty laundry or the grass needing to be mowed.

I think film is an artform, and there is good art and bad art. The good art doesn't run away from life, it faces it. It asks the questions that need asking and expresses the things that, in no other way, could we possibly express. It's challenging, confusing, engrossing- and it doesn't need to play into silly fantasy cliches that movies like Titanic or Die Hard use to manipulate us.
Click to expand...

This all kinda goes into the whole notion of a healthy cinematic diet. Not every movie a person watches needs to be an art film, yet shouldn't be restricted exclusively to what you call fantasy cliches. I mean, I like to view dumb popcorn flicks like Planet Terror and Death Race, whilst I can also get sucked into a Terrence Malick or Kubrick film and appreciate those on a different level. Sometimes I want a take out pizza whilst other times I want a hearty steak dinner at a nice restaurant.

I also really blame the studios, the money people. I'm sure there are plenty of established filmmakers, screenwriters, and actors out there that would like say more about the world than they are doing most of the time with the films that come out these days. But the studios are all about the bottom line and as costs continually rise, we are probably in for more of the same dumbed down fare.

You should stop running away from your life. That's a really tragic idea, to conciously avoid something that is happening to you all the time. To "turn off your brain". That's why the world is always on the brink of ending. Children of Men wasn't set in some far off dystopia, I have news for you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sadly, Children of Men seems plausible enough to actually truly scare me a bit. One of my favorite films by the way.

I definitely don't want to "turn off my brain". Actually, I wish mainstream films were as stimulating as Inglorious Basterds (at least to me) was. Same thing with some of the "other" films released this summer like Moon and District 9. I mean, I was entertained for 2+ hours with Transformers 2, but after seeing the above mentioned three films, I feel a little dirty even mentioning a Transformers film in the same paragraph. I guess what I liked about Inglorious Basterds was that it was entertaining and yet it didn't insult my intelligence like Star Trek and Transformers 2 did.

But then some folks will lap up Star Trek, Transformers 2, and GI Joe whilst probably saying District 9 and Inglorious Basterds sucked.

So when I see someone like tarantino, pushing the excitement buttons- but not really giving me anything but a song and dance- it's hard for me to really think of him as anything more than a song and dance man. I want a unique view on life, not a unique view on how much he loves other people's films. I want to see people's souls. Brad Pitt talking funny isn't good enough for Tarantino to be taught in film schools, and it's a sick travesty that he is, further proving how bad film school is and how bad film is treated as an art.
Click to expand...

As for Tarantino being taught in film school, I'll leave that one to the film scholars and teachers to decide. Of course, just like we are discussing the film here, some professors will say Tarantino is great while others will dismiss his work.

I agree with you though, film isn't really treated as an art as much anymore. Not that it should be only treated as an art, but the question is: are the number of newly produced films that can stand up as pieces of true "art" becoming vastly overshadowed by the films that are merely "products" made by corporations?
 
I had to think about this film and dismiss the violence but it's a great piece of movie making and keeps your attention as entertainment right to the finish.

Just the same as when you're a kid, frightening, scary, relief, sad and relief again. It's part Hitchcock, Scorsese, Welles and the best of the rest.

Hopefully Tarantino can control all this and not get into an unrecoverable spin from which there's no recovery.

Cheers.
 
jpastuch said:
So when I see someone like tarantino, pushing the excitement buttons- but not really giving me anything but a song and dance- it's hard for me to really think of him as anything more than a song and dance man.
Click to expand...


You'll have dismiss most of cinema then. yes there are main films that tell a story. but most of all cinema has been used to get people out of their lives for a few hours into another life.

people watch movies for pleasure and excitement; for drama and entertainment. If not you're watch portraits of life or documentaries (some documentaries feel like song and dances).

some treat as art, others dont... today you can see who doesn't.... I think tarentino walks a line on both ends. He loves the art but he loves the pure enjoyment of cinema. and I think thats great.

I mean we could just have michael bays left in world.
 
Last edited:
spidey said:
You'll have dismiss most of cinema then. yes there are main films that tell a story. but most of all cinema has been used to get people out of their lives for a few hours into another life.

people watch movies for pleasure and excitement; for drama and entertainment. If not you're watch portraits of life or documentaries (some documentaries feel like song and dances).

some treat as art, others dont... today you can see who doesn't.... I think tarentino walks a line on both ends. He loves the art but he loves the pure enjoyment of cinema. and I think thats great.

I mean we could just have michael bays left in world.
Click to expand...

But what you're saying is true, that MOST movies made are bad. But this is with everything- technically most music is bad, most books are bad, most youtube videos are bad. That's because of the sheer bulk of stuff put out today. There are also a huge amount of great films- that of course are in the minority- hence the reason they're great.

I'll say right now that I'll throw Hitchcock (gasp!) and Spielberg in with Tarantino. Hitchcock had a few things to say, so he really isn't as bad, but I absolutely abhor Spielberg. They're technical masters, no doubt. But their content seems to dance around complicated events, like "Well, I'm afraid they may not get this, so let's make it more clearer". Why? Bob Dylan's lyrics couldn't be anymore obtuse, and that's why I love them. If Bob Dylan or The Beatles or John Coltrane sang and played stuff that Michael Bolton sang, generalized cliched ideas about love and happiness and sadness, I wouldn't listen to them. No one would.

Understand, I don't want a ban on being entertained or feeling emotions at a film. Not at all. But when I make a film, or someone I admire makes a film, they aren't thinking "How can I keep these idiots quite and on the edge of their seat for two hours?" they're thinking "This is what I have to say, honestly, and truly from my soul. Hopefully they get something from it".

The best cinema can actually seem BORING the first time you watch it, or frustrating. Hell, I rewatched the Italian film L'avventura (1960) the other night, and I still get lost, confused, and frustrated at the damn thing. I've seen it 3 times and everytime I get thrown through a loop. I want the movie to sit still and have a beginning, middle, and end.

But it doesn't. It doesn't give me what I want, yet I keep going back to it. It nags me, gets in my brain. Every time I watch it I notice something I never noticed before. I change my mind about certain characters, certain events. I realize, as I mature, what the director was trying to say and show about people. They're lonliness, the way they move, the way they communicate with each other. I start to see things I do in real life with other people. and the best part was, he didn't try to distract me with "cool" dialogue or crazy editing, or sensationalist stuff. In fact, the director didn't cater to me at ALL- he challenged me.

Look, I go off on rants about this in threads and I honestly shouldn't even be in this one. I have nothing against you if you like Tarantino (besides disagreement), I just can't stand the hype behind him. If you want pizza, and you want junk food, fine. Just know what he's doing, and realize that you're turning off your brain.

What's bad is that film professors and students sometimes worship him, and when you ask why, it's simply because he knows a lot about obscure movies and has a really "snappy" style. To me, that just isn't good enough, especially when SO MANY great films from the past that you or me have never heard of are simply neglected. Film schools are supposed to be teaching ME new things, showing me new films. Instead, they seem to cater to students' whims.

Hell, in one film class my teacher told us to "Bring in some horror movie to watch" because she was out of ideas. Some kid brought in Evil Dead. We watched it, and she simply commented on how "fun" and "Scary" it was.

This is a COLLEGE CLASS. I'm paying money to sit here for this! It's crazy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top