THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Inlander on 22 Aug 2009, 00:24
-
Anyone seen this yet? What do you think?
It seems to have really divided the critics. Usually I'm a bit lairy about people making entertainment out of particularly horrific moments in history, especially those that are still in living memory, but I checked my moral qualms at the door and went to the cinema last night and had a whale of a time. The acting and directing was superb, and I think Tarantino managed to reign in his dialogue just enough so that it was credible but still distinctly Tarantino-esque - for instance in the opening scene, which is fantastic, and in which the dialogue seems at first like two guys talking about random shit until you realise that every single line has a clear and distinct purpose and reason to exist in terms of building the suspense and moving the scene towards its climax.
And I loved Pitt's character - at first he seems like just another hillbilly hick, but as the film goes on it becomes apparent that he's in fact a very shrewd and smart guy, who just happens to be wildly unhinged (and speaks with a magnificently over-the-top accent).
In summary: the film's very long but I was never bored even once and the two-and-a-half hours positively flew by.
-
I cannot wait to see it. It has been one of my most anticipated movies for a while. I am glad to hear that response is positive so far.
-
In regards to it being a time piece it wasn't historically accurate anyway and I really saw nothing wrong with the film, I enjoyed it throughout. I'd go see it a second time, actually.
-
Harry! I am kind of surprised. I consider you to be a pretty discerning guy as far as taste in films goes, and I was honestly not expecting much of Inglorious Basterds. I guess I might check this out, then. Brad Pitt's character seems so obnoxious in the trailer! I guess I will try not to assume things on the way in.
-
Did you see Burn After Reading? He was hilariously obnoxious in that.
I am seeing this either tonight or tomorrow night and I'm excited. Shane (Valley_Parade) just saw it and said some good things about it, too.
-
Harry! I am kind of surprised. I consider you to be a pretty discerning guy as far as taste in films goes, and I was honestly not expecting much of Inglorious Basterds. I guess I might check this out, then. Brad Pitt's character seems so obnoxious in the trailer! I guess I will try not to assume things on the way in.
Brad Pitt's character was probably one of the best parts of the movie.
-
I cannot wait to see it. It has been one of my most anticipated movies for a while. I am glad to hear that response is positive so far.
-
I thought it was great. I am definitely feeling at the moment that it is Tarantino's best movie so far. The only really honest critiques I've heard of the movie have come from people who just really didn't understand what the movie was going for, I feel. Or, there are also some that are just critiquing something you have to expect from a Tarantino film. I.E. "There was too much talking."
-
Just came back from this movie. It was great. The suspense was great, the character development was great. The fact that it was not very predictable until the very end was great.
I also have a huge mancrush on brad pitt.
-
I really cannot watch anything from Tarantino except for Reservoir Dogs and little bits of Pulp Fiction. I've seen the stuff that he rips his stuff off of (For Kill Bill it was the manga and movie Lady Snowblood and Sex and Fury mainly) and I find him absolutely shameless in doing it. I find most of his films to be practices in masturbation while he looks back at how awesome the 80's or 90's or 70's were. I don't really like his reliance on nostalgia because I find that he uses it to prop up huge portions of the film.
However, I think he's amazing at writing monologues and he has fantastic taste in movies. Oldboy was up for the Palme d'Or at the 57th Cannes Film Festival. Quentin Tarantino had been raving about it forever but the award went to someone else. Tarantino then decided that because Oldboy didn't win, he wasn't going to support Cannes anymore. I don't know if that's entirely true but I totally respect him for that.
In the end, I'm going to avoid this.
He's done vampiresplotation, asiansplotation, blacksploitation, grindhouse, and now nazisplotation....what's next, Nunsploitation? Brucesploitation? Sexploitation?
-
Well that's a shame, because this movie was pretty great. Christoph Waltz was fantastic. He did very well going back and forth between the personable and downright terrifying guy. The whole cast was great, but he really stood out. Also, I agree with Harry - even though this was a rather long film, I wasn't bored once during the film. It was paced very well, the plot was intriguing, and there were enough comic relief scenes in it to keep it from being too gruesome.
-
Speaking of gruesomeness, how gory is this? Not sure if I should ask the slightly squeamish gf to come with me.
-
Speaking of gruesomeness, how gory is this? Not sure if I should ask the slightly squeamish gf to come with me.
Let me put it this way: He gets his scalps.
-
I think there was a good premise in the whole idea of the Basterds but as far as I'm concerned the movie was a big misfire. By splitting the narrative between Jewess McSeriousFaceAllTheTime and the Basterds, neither plotline really reaches its full potential. The beginning sequence was great, but the movie really shot its wad in that first interrogation sequence where we see the Bear Jew in action. There's a point at which the nazi officer is asked if he's heard of a particular Basterd and he says that he does, at which point the Basterd's name is displayed in stylized lettering onscreen and a short and entertaining origin story plays out. In general the use of this style is surprisingly haphazard, I would have really enjoyed the movie much more had they stuck to that sort of stylishness, but they really didn't (apart from some fourth-wall breaking to identify historical figures in the later parts of the movie, and some scattered expository narration). I really wish they hadn't included the origin story of Hugo Stiglitz, because after that I was pumped to learn the mythology of the Basterds and their particular acts of notoriety. Tarantino's originally script actually included more of these origin stories (http://www.playboy.com/articles/inglourious-basterds/index.html) (warning: link goes to Playboy site) but they were excluded from the film, which makes you wonder why Stiglitz got his and others didn't. It stood out as a weird aside in what turned out to be a pretty unfocused movie. Despite the Basterds being a unit there were only three members of any importance - Eli Roth's Bear Jew, Brad Pitt's Aldo the Apache and Hugo Stiglitz. BJ Novak as "the Little Man" is introduced in the final 15 minutes of the movie as a character despite being an extra for the rest of the film. I felt like the Paris premiere storyline existed solely to allow Tarantino a chance to show off his film knowledge w/r/t prewar European film, since it seems like half of the dialogue has to do with actors and directors from the era. I was not remotely as interested in that storyline as I was in the Basterds storyline. I did not give a fuck about it, frankly. I was pissed that it leeched off the interesting parts of the movie like a parasitic twin.
I have to say that although Tarantino set up some really beautiful shots throughout the film (though there were some scenes toward the end that went for a certain sort of power and failed) I don't think it worked by and large. I want to say that Tarantino really put his touch on the film and added a distinct twist to the WWII film but I don't feel like he committed to anything. Like I said, I would've liked to see a more intense exploitation style element, but as it is it's just not very fun except as a really simple vicarious power fantasy (one that's a bit troubling considering how sympathetic many of the lower-rank nazis seem to be drawn). I think Tarantino could've done a lot better. It's a shame it took him this long to make such an not-fun movie.
-
I really cannot watch anything from Tarantino except for Reservoir Dogs and little bits of Pulp Fiction.
For context, I thought Reservoir Dogs was terrific but I found Pulp Fiction far too spotty and disjointed and in general incredibly over-rated. I haven't seen either of the Kill Bills, nor Deathproof, and I am in no way a Tarantino fanboy, but I still had a great time with Basterds so don't think that it's just for the fans.
Speaking of gruesomeness, how gory is this? Not sure if I should ask the slightly squeamish gf to come with me.
As Felrender said, it's pretty gruesome - but for the most part you can see the gruesomeness coming and look away (like I did). Things you can't avoid seeing: the beginning of the first scalping (you'll probably see a bit of brain before you have time to look away), a bunch of blood-spray in a gun-fight, somebody sticking their finger into a bullet wound as a means of torture, and the machine-gunning in the head at close-range of a dead body (again, happens too suddenly for you to look away entirely).
-
This movie is really good. Performances were great, Chris Waltz especially had one of the best performances I've seen in a while, and the fact that he set it up in the trailers as this Nazi Killin' action movie and then had it be almost entirely about German cinema I thought was actually pretty awesome! The final scene i the theater is a masterpiece of filmmaking, the random narration is hilarious, the Angry Jewess is smokin' hot, and if you don't laugh at the King Kong scene you have no sense of humour.
-
I think there was a good premise in the whole idea of the Basterds but as far as I'm concerned the movie was a big misfire.
Agreed. Tarantino has eight more of my dollars, and for the first time ever, I want my money back. Pitt and Waltz were fantastic, as were those extended scenes of nail biting tension - particularly the one in the tavern basement. I can live with one big fantasy wankfest of Nazi killing if I'm left with a decent film in the end. This ain't it.
The audience loved it though, those giggling idiots laughed at every word out of Pitt's mouth. During the final scene, the fat guy next to me (in between gasps for breath) chuckled hysterically, repeating "Oh shit! Oh shit!" Regrettably, he stopped just short of saying "Oh no he didn't!" That, I think, would've made the entire ordeal worthwhile.
-
I just finished watching Inglourious Basterds, and I have to say, it's a major improvement from Death Proof (which I thought was one of QT's weakest films, by the way, ugh). However, if you walk into the theater expecting an non-stop action/comedy Nazi-killin' fest like the trailer implies, you'll probably be disappointed. I could tell several members of the audience were fidgety during the long dialogue scenes, including myself at certain points. I attribute all that to QT's style, though (same with the random cuts in music, which are pretty jarring).
The ending payoff was amaaazing. The acting was great all around, and I was happy to see Daniel Bruhl on screen again (whee! I have a bit of a crush on him). Christopher Waltz, like everyone's been saying, definitely deserves some recognition for his role. And not to mention any spoilers or anything, but I thought the ending showdown in the projectionist room was spectacular in a Romeo-Juliet type way (emotional, even).
I was expecting buckets of gore like in Kill Bill, but the violence wasn't anything that outrageous. If you can stomach Kill Bill, you can stomach Inglourious Basterds. And go see it if you haven't!! Historical inaccuracy aside, it's worth watching.
PS: Random Mike Myers cameo, wtf? It's a shame the scene with the Brits wasn't more comedic like I was hoping.
-
As you can tell by my name, i am a pretty big Tarantino fan. I was really looking forward to seeing Inglourious Basterds. I was completely expecting something different from the movie then what I got but that isn't all a bad thing. Going into it thinking I was going to see a lot of Brad Pitt and the Basterds going around killing nazi's but instead getting 5 or 6 twenty minute scenes of tension laden dialogue really threw me off. It was hard to appreciate the movie for what it was because I was constantly waiting for something that wasn't coming. It's an enjoyable movie but I think it will take me seeing it a second time before I can really enjoy it since that time I won't be expecting one thing and getting another.
-
http://www.movieline.com/2009/08/tarantino-britney-spears-jason-mraz-helped-inspire-inglourious-basterds.php
I suppose even the most insipid of artists can inspire greatness.
-
PS: Random Mike Myers cameo, wtf? It's a shame the scene with the Brits wasn't more comedic like I was hoping.
I dunno about you, but I giggled through most of that scene. The scene itself wasn't "funny", but Meyers just has that effect I guess.
-
I actually thought the scene wasn't hilarious. It wasn't so much that there were great lines, or any physical humor. I just found something really amusing about how absurdly stereotypically British the two of them were. Maybe I'm just seeing something that isn't there, but I think it was much better than if they had gone for something more overt.
-
It took me a while to realise that the English guy in the basement scene was the same as the English guy in the scene with Mike Myers, because between those two scenes he lost his moustache.
(Incidentally, he was played by an actor named Michael Fassbinder, who was absolutely amazing as Bobby Sands in an extraordinary film called Hunger earlier this year. I wish he'd been in more than just two scenes of Inglourious Basterds, even if one of them was a really long scene and one of the best in the film.)
-
However, if you walk into the theater expecting an non-stop action/comedy Nazi-killin' fest like the trailer implies, you'll probably be disappointed. I could tell several members of the audience were fidgety during the long dialogue scenes, including myself at certain points.
I definitely agree the trailer is grossly misleading in that area. Watching that, you get the impression the narrative is more tightly focused on Pitt and his merry band of Nazi exterminators. I was pleased to see the plotting is more complex than that, but ultimately the film just fell apart over the last hour. Still, I found the long dialogue scenes to be the high points of the film. I look forward to revisiting this on blu-ray in six months, perhaps I'll see it in another light.
I thought Duralde (film critic for MSNBC) summed up the film perfectly: If you’re OK with Tarantino’s habit of standing between the audience and the screen and waving his arms about, then you’ll be thrilled by “Basterds.” That might've been my problem with it, because even though I've liked the three Tarantino films I've seen, I found it difficult not to roll my eyes at the Hugo Stiglitz logo, the brief scene of Goebbels banging his French interpreter, et cetera.
-
I think either the Basterds or the Jewess storyline could have made a film in themselves, two entirely distinct films mind you.
But together it was just a mess.
I enjoyed the theme of language through the film with the switches between German, French and English but other than that and the obligatory foot scene it wasn't a particuarly amazing film.
-
Yeah, looks like I won't be checking this out at all. I was thinking of renting it when it comes out on DVD....but now I'm slightly unsure. Maybe.
-
I thought it was really good. It was uneven in tone in a lot of places, but that was kinda the appeal for me. I thought the pacing was excellent - it didn't feel as long as it was. Admittedly, I was sold entirely by the first chapter, which was a brilliant Leone homage and a great scene in its own right. I also really liked the entire scene in the basement bar. The final act might not have been as strong as it could have been, but I kinda liked that things weren't too neat, and there was some real emotion involved - which is where sometimes QT falls down as a writer. I can certainly see why someone would have some serious issues with it though.
-
What a bloody and bold film! I was excited to see this film and was not disappointed. Brad Pitt did a good job even with the Italian accent. Tarantino's dialogue continues to be one of the best in the game ( although at some points in the film, as in all his films, it slows the movie just a bit). I would lalso like to point this out: his use of cinematography. I am no expert in the field but you recognize the use of it and the aesthetics. This is his first film that I see that he uses landscapes, moving still frames (if that's what they are called) and shots dashing back and forth between characters. One of the best movies of the year.
-
Oh my yes, I loved Brad Pitt's over the top "Eye-talian" accent :lol:, same with the rest of the Basterds who impersonated Italians. Bonjourno! GRAZIE!
-
the accents are great. but the hand gestures they pull off when they're introduced are epic.
-
Oh stereotypical thumb to middle finger hand shake. Bahaha.
Yeah, looks like I won't be checking this out at all. I was thinking of renting it when it comes out on DVD....but now I'm slightly unsure. Maybe.
Really, I think you should if only for the performance of Waltz. Seriously. He blew me away as Hans Landa. I don't know why they didn't show him more in the previews, considering I think he was in it more than anyone else, and was possibly the best actor in the film.
-
He's brilliant in four languages.
-
He's brilliant in four languages.
I sat here and counted. Thanks.
-
(http://a.imagehost.org/0018/inglorious2.jpg)
You have ten seconds to get me another glass of your delicious milk.
-
Loved it. Loved it so much.
In the box office today (I am currently employed at a movie theater) a middle aged woman was all "2 for Incredulous Basterds." and I'm all "Okay. Two for Inglourious basterds." "Is it a comedy?" "No." "Is it a drama?" "No... Well...Not really...It's a Tarantino movie." "Who?"
I hate my job I hate it I hate it.
-
Really, I think you should if only for the performance of Waltz. Seriously. He blew me away as Hans Landa. I don't know why they didn't show him more in the previews, considering I think he was in it more than anyone else, and was possibly the best actor in the film.
Oh god yes. Waltz was fucking terrifying. The way he projects such menace though affability is brilliant.
-
I haven't actually seen Reservoir Dogs the whole way through, but I thought that this was Tarantino's best film.
There was never a moment when I was bored, and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it a week ago.
-
I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it a week ago.
I think you may have your first crush.
-
Even though Brad Pitt looked constipated throughout the entire film, he saved himself with the "Gor-LAM-ee" scene. Also, I have a lot more respect for Eli Roth after this movie, I didn't really like him as a director. Not counting Thanksgiving, of course.
-
Really? I mean he's a really bad actor. Not Quentin Tarantino bad, mind you, but bad.
-
He played his part well. I mean all he had to do was look pissed and hairy. But still.
-
Yeah, there's not a lot of nuance or range required when you're in a Tarantino movie playing a character whose nickname is "the Bear Jew".
-
He played his part well. I mean all he had to do was look pissed and hairy. But still.
Also crazy. To sum up why I liked him in this movie, I wish I had a screenshot of his face when Pitt was talking in his fauxtalian accent.
-
Yeah, there's not a lot of nuance or range required when you're in a Tarantino movie playing a character whose nickname is "the Bear Jew".
Honestly I thought Roth was actually a distraction in how bad he was. He didn't deserve to be in the same shot with Waltz.
-
ok, is the trailer a fair representation of the movie, because the trailer left me thinking it would be the most painful thing in the world to watch.
-
The trailer is a terrible representation of the movie. The movie is built around very long scenes full of rich dialogue that slowly winds tighter and tighter until the tension is almost unbearable. The trailer, as is the nature of the beast, is built around short sound-bites of amusing lines taken out of context and edited into something flashy and baubly and attention-grabbing that won't take up too much of your time.
-
full of rich dialogue
Wait, did Tarantino write this movie or not?
-
I get that it is vogue to hate on Tarantino (to have always hated on Tarantino, to hate him before it was "cool") but he has had some amazing movies, Ill admit backing his bum-buddies movies Hostel 1/2, or his own Kill Bill and Grindhouse were either total shit, or just not my cup of tea. But Pulp Fiction is one of the top ten highest reviewed movies of all time, and Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown were both powerhouses in their own right, and Basterds has earned a spot right up there with them.
I do however find it incredibly ironic that people of this forum can say the dialog was painful as lets face it, (a re-read of everyone here's comments showed you did actually appreciate the dialog, its just everyone else who didnt) this forum is built upon witty dialog, well that and inside jokes. Though me personally as a talker, thirst for witty dialog in every facet of my life, so perhaps I have the pedigree to enjoy his dialog more than most.
Though as far as the end of summer movies so far, this is 3/4 the movie that District 9 is, even if on subsequent watches Basterds will improve, District 9 was an amazing powerhouse of somewhat of a sleeper hit, well sleeper to me who has been "off the grid" for the last two months but hadn't heard about it prior to about two days before seeing it.
-
I like witty dialogue, but I had to force myself through Pulp Fiction because everyone I knew said it was such a great movie. What I see that movie being is 95-99% totally forgettable garbage, and 1-5% of the greatest lines ever written. It's just not worth it, to me. I couldn't make it through Reservoir Dogs, because I remembered that I could be doing something else. Judging by most people here, Basterds is quite similar. Clearly, many people like him, and I don't care if it's vogue or not, but I don't. I try to keep my opinions to myself, because he's clearly quite popular among people who's opinions I otherwise quite agree with. However, if he's brought up, I will speak my mind.
-
ok, is the trailer a fair representation of the movie, because the trailer left me thinking it would be the most painful thing in the world to watch.
The trailer makes the movie out to be a war film, and it's not. The Basterds are barely characters, the movie's really about a French theater owner / survivor of Nazi persecution. It's really not a war film, it's a Tarantino film, which is to say, it's about movies. There are some really tense scenes, but at a certain point they all stop being suspenseful in the "what's going to happen?" way, and they start spinning their wheels and sliding toward an inevitable end.
-
...rich dialogue that slowly winds tighter and tighter until the tension is almost unbearable.
QFT. This is why you see the movie. Sometimes the talking scenes seem unbearably long, but if you've been paying attention you are on the edge of your seat, because you just know somebody's about to get their shit ruined.
-
The movie fucking toys with you, too. You get several moments where you go "On shitshitshi- Oh, okay, they're all laughing and chatting again and-OH GODDAMMIT"
See: the basement scene.
-
*SPOILERES*
Really? There wasn't a great amount of tension for me because I knew there was only one way the situations could pan out. In the first scene, for instance, did anyone really believe that the farmer would be successful in hiding the jews from Waltz? I didn't. Did anyone believe that the SS captain in the bar wouldn't get wise to the charade? I didn't. Did anyone believe they'd let the new father live after his discovery of the double agent crucial to the success of the mission? Of course not.
The only uncertainty was at the end, and still I wasn't entirely satisfied with the way it played out.
-
If I may say, Hans Landa is a very Glourious Basterd.
-
I don't think Hiter's very pleased with how he's depicted in the film. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qKflAW8Un0)
(spolier alert obviously)
-
I lol'd
-
"Everybody fucking hates Hitler!"
Tee hee.
-
Finally saw this. I laughed my ass off.. i flinched and groaned and gasped. I thoroughly enjoyed the cinematography and the entire movie in general.
That opening scene channeling the Good the Bad and the Ugly was QT's best work i think.
-
*SPOILERES*
Really? There wasn't a great amount of tension for me because I knew there was only one way the situations could pan out. In the first scene, for instance, did anyone really believe that the farmer would be successful in hiding the jews from Waltz? I didn't. Did anyone believe that the SS captain in the bar wouldn't get wise to the charade? I didn't. Did anyone believe they'd let the new father live after his discovery of the double agent crucial to the success of the mission? Of course not.
I believe that it was more a matter of when and not what. I was sitting there just waiting for the shit to hit the fan and observe the disgusting haphazard patterns on the walls.
-
I have seen this movie twice and will probably see it a third time. (This may or may not have something to do that I haven't paid to see it yet).
-
*SPOILERES*
Really? There wasn't a great amount of tension for me because I knew there was only one way the situations could pan out. In the first scene, for instance, did anyone really believe that the farmer would be successful in hiding the jews from Waltz? I didn't. Did anyone believe that the SS captain in the bar wouldn't get wise to the charade? I didn't. Did anyone believe they'd let the new father live after his discovery of the double agent crucial to the success of the mission? Of course not.
The only uncertainty was at the end, and still I wasn't entirely satisfied with the way it played out.
An unexpected result isn't necessary for tension to exist. One of the metaphors I use in explaining the process of writing is that the author is carefully managing the expectations of the audience. It's not possible for every possible fork in the road to contain a surprise, and in fact if you go for the "twist" every time, you risk losing the trust of the viewer. Set up some trust by having a few scenes go the usual way, then throw in a twist. If you're working up to a BIG TWIST at the end, you have to pace the buildup to it by setting up a series of these mini structures in advance.
A creator like Tarantino has both an advantage and a burden that comes with his reputation. As a lot of other people in this thread have said, part of the tension comes from the fact they know that at any moment, things can go apeshit crazy. I haven't seen the movie yet, so what I can't speak to is whether he's solely relying on his own body of work for this, or whether he's established these expectations internally within the movie (at least with the earlier scenes).
There are certain overall story expectations that even somebody like Tarantino has to be careful about messing with. A "happy" outcome of the first scene, while perhaps possible within the internal structure of that scene, would by necessity be setting up a completely different movie. What eventually happens sets up future expectations, and how it happens further refines those expectations.
This is why a lot of thriller/suspense movies fail. They do the "unexpected" with a particular scene to throw off the audience, but never reconcile what that means to the other elements of the plot. While you're watching, it may be exciting because you never see any of these twists coming, but afterwards, none of it makes sense.
I don't know if this makes sense, but I find that it's a very useful tool in writing.
-
Nah, I get you. To SPOILER UP CHILDREN OF MEN, I remember watching the film and feeling the whole nature of the movie changing with that first twist where Julianne Moore abruptly and violently gets killed. Before that point I was expecting a rather run-of-the-mill sci-fi thriller, in which peripheral characters die off at key points in the film, but a top-billed character with a fleshed-out backstory that the viewer is supposed to like gets randomly axed completely out of nowhere. From that point forward there was real uncertainty and it probably was the most tense experience I've ever had in a theater. They were characters in the real world where bad shit happens and they weren't dealing with Imperial stormtroopers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImperialStormtrooperMarksmanshipAcademy). And the reason that film worked the way it did is because it subverted expectations and took the film into territory not often trod. After Psycho it's been pretty much impossible to milk that kind of tension out of straight-up horror films - that sort of cast shake-up has become part of the language of the genre. It's more clever than suspenseful, when it works at all.
And I do think it's a problem that Tarantino wouldn't run into without his legacy. I think a lot of people had that same experience I had with Children of Men the first time they saw Reservoir Dogs, where not half an hour into the movie the stakes change and in the span of a scene the film becomes something else entirely. Since then a propensity for staccato violence and a cavalier attitude towards the mortality of characters have been hallmarks of Tarantino the auteur. It's just not a Tarantino film without that barely controlled chaos lurking under every scene.
Specifically my annoyance with Inglorious Basterds, particularly the bar scene, was that he effectively telegraphs the outcome (I don't want to totally spoil it but it should be obvious by now how that scene plays out) at the outset. There are characters going "it sucks that this thing can totally happen" and then lo and behold, that thing happens. I suppose it comes down to a matter of taste. Some people, probably most people, delight in that slow slide towards the inevitable outcome. I consider it wheel-spinning.
-
Well I dont entirely agree with your point, but I dont disagree either. But it was remarkably well constructed so Ill think on it some more.
-
Ok, so this is a bit of a necro but worth it.
Saw this for the first time today and I am so glad I saw it on a big screen (student union cinema). The whole film was damn near flawless and the 2 1/2 hours absolutely flew by; I couldn't believe it when the film finished and it had been that long. Christoph Waltz put in the best performance that I have seen from anybody in a fair amount of time and fully deserves his Best Supporting OSCAR nomination. However, it will be close as to who gets the nod with Peter Capaldi (In The Loop) and Robert Duvall (The Road) as his competition but personally, I would give it to Waltz.
Mélanie Laurent also deserves the OSCAR nomination she got and certainly has a chance there too, probably more so than Waltz even. The film as a whole got 2 nominations but is unlikely to get more than one; probably will miss out on Best Picture as there is not as much competition is the Best Original Screenplay category so they won't be missing anyone out (except Up but it was unlikely to win as much as it may deserve something).
The graphic scalpings and markings of the nazis were, of course, trademark Tarantino and in my opinion this could well be his best yet after the disappointing Kill Bill (mostly part 2, I did quite enjoy part 1).
-
when you put Oscar in all caps, it becomes NASCAR in my head, for some reason, which is really confusing.
-
(http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/11/oscar-the-grouch.jpg)
≠
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Sports/images-2/nascar-staten-island-crash.jpg)
-
Oh hey I finally saw this movie. It is pretty silly and not worth watching, sorry!
-
Also apparently Tarantino has been nominated as the 12th greatest director of all time? Pfffft
-
Only nominated? So he hasnt one 12th best yet, there's still time!
-
Also apparently Tarantino has been nominated as the 12th greatest director of all time? Pfffffft
Fixed.
Who nominated him as a great director though? I thought 80% of his appeal was in the writing. Either way you'd be better off watching Black Book to this.
-
you'd be better off watching Black Book to this.
I've seen both and loved both but I don't think they're really analogous.
More nipples in a Verhoeven film though, so that's always a plus.
-
Also apparently Tarantino has been nominated as the 12th greatest director of all time? Pfffffft
Fixed.
Who nominated him as a great director though? I thought 80% of his appeal was in the writing. Either way you'd be better off watching Black Book to this.
He's right down there at the bottom. I mistyped though, so he was named, not nominated.
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/greatest-directors-ever-part-2
-
On a related note:
I just saw Tsukiaki Western Django on IFC or Sundance or one of those movie channels you get with directv, and I really have to say that Qt needs to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF HIS MOVIES. His acting ruined the intro to that movie. Other than that, it was an alright film. Most of the other actor's had such horrible english that it was difficult to understand them at times. I think actual Japanese directors making Japanese homages to spaghetti westerns do a better job than Americans making Japanese homages to spaghetti westerns.
-
Tarantino didn't do anything but act in that movie, actually. It was a Takashi Miike project.
-
On a related note:
I just saw Tsukiaki Western Django on IFC or Sundance or one of those movie channels you get with directv, and I really have to say that Qt needs to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF HIS MOVIES. His acting ruined the intro to that movie. Other than that, it was an alright film. Most of the other actor's had such horrible english that it was difficult to understand them at times. I think actual Japanese directors making Japanese homages to spaghetti westerns do a better job than Americans making Japanese homages to spaghetti westerns.
I think people who know what they're talking about make better arguments than you do.
-
I cannot stand anything Tarantino has done except Reservoir Dogs. Bits and pieces of other films I like but it's really only bits and pieces. Whenever he puts himself in front of the camera my appreciation for the film stops completely. He has like 4 lines in Reservoir so it's not too bad.
Every time I see him I just get the feeling that he's one of the smuggest film directors out there. It's like he thinks he's doing these absolutely mindblowing films when all he's doing is remaking exploitation films. It seems a large portion of his audience have never seen an exploitation film before. It bothers me that he's very buddy-buddy with Takashi Miike who actually has an insane amount of skill, he hops from genre from genre with such proficiency. Watch Ichi and then watch Zebraman and then watch The Bird People in China.
I just get the feeling from Tarantino that if you got into a serious argument with him about his movies he would scream a bunch of films that you've never heard of before but that he knows and loves. And then he would go home and cuddle with Robert Rodriguez.
-
I feel pretty much the opposite. I find a lot of Reservoir Dogs to be pretty unwatchable.
-
I cannot stand anything Tarantino has done except Reservoir Dogs. Bits and pieces of other films I like but it's really only bits and pieces. Whenever he puts himself in front of the camera my appreciation for the film stops completely. He has like 4 lines in Reservoir so it's not too bad.
Because Hitchcock did it first?
Every time I see him I just get the feeling that he's one of the smuggest film directors out there. It's like he thinks he's doing these absolutely mindblowing films when all he's doing is remaking exploitation films.
From every interview I've seen of him, he's talking about his new movie, why he's excited about it, and what he was trying to do with it. This is what we call "being interviewed." There's nothing wrong with being excited about your work.
It bothers me that he's very buddy-buddy with Takashi Miike who actually has an insane amount of skill, he hops from genre from genre with such proficiency. Watch Ichi and then watch Zebraman and then watch The Bird People in China.
First implying that Tarantino is not talented, but to follow it up with Miike, who has churned out some unadulterated garbage (example; the 1980s soap opera camerawork in Audition, which is hardly a groundbreaking piece of cinema to begin with) And so my retort would be, watch Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms, and Kill Bill, (and now Basterds) in that order, and tell me Tarantino has not covered his bases.
I just get the feeling from Tarantino that if you got into a serious argument with him about his movies he would scream a bunch of films that you've never heard of before but that he knows and loves. And then he would go home and cuddle with Robert Rodriguez.
My question to this is what purpose would anyone have getting into any kind of altercation with an artist over their work? If your biggest complaint is that his pool of inspiration is something you know nothing about or care to know about, how on earth are you supposed to make this guy give a shit about the things you are saying when you have absolutely no frame of reference? And he would go cuddle with his friend of 20 years, yeah that's quite the personal attack, gg.
I understand not liking someone's work, but your argument is that he sucks because you don't like him, and to bring that up in a thread about his new movie is oddly self-serving. He obviously has a style that he has worked on developing over the last 15 years, but you're not really making much headway here.
-
The dude's not good terribly good at separating fact from opinion, cut him some slack.
-
beat mouse i now think you are pretty much a total douche bag for the way you made that post. its a fucking movie and he doesn't like its director who the fuck cares?
-
Did I cross some hidden line where it's no longer okay to disagree with people and explain why? I wasn't calling the guy out to duel me in the town square, or calling him a worthless piece of shit who deserves to die. Sure that could be considered a little strong, but dear god, act like that was the first time you saw someone break down an argument a little more.
-
People have a low tolerance for condescension around here, that's all.
-
I don't think I explained myself there well enough and condescension is kind of a heavy thing to accuse someone of, so I'll throw a wall of text at you real quick.
Honestly, I think the biggest thing here is probably the way you came in and basically told SonofZ3 that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's generally considered good form not to rub it in when someone makes a mistake or is misinformed. Pointing out a misconception is one thing, but that had already happened, so it came across as rather harsh when you put it in such terms. And for better or worse, people tend to read posts in sequence, so the overall effect is making you sound like you have a slight case of nerd rage even if the individual comments aren't so bad on their own.
It's not something that can't be fixed though; just keep in mind that this is a relatively small and slow moving forum, so things don't get lost in the background noise like on a bigger webcomic forum like PA. People can and will remember posts that you make here, and that'll influence the way they interpret your other posts, so generally it pays to be a bit more polite than you have to be on other places.
-
-> Beat Mouse
That was pretty awesome. I actually like having my arguments picked apart by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. I've had too many arguments where the person arguing with me boils it down too "you're an idiot and you don't get it." I'm pretty bad with debating, obviously, and so having someone like you just rip apart what I'm saying is actually really helpful to me. So...thanks.
What I think of Tarantino is that:
1. His movies are just exploitation films, I don't think that there's that much going on with his storytelling. I think he has a very distinct style and that he's very good at writing and at shooting scenes.
2. He relies way too heavily on nostalgia. I'd go more into this but I don't really know how without being torn apart.
3. I don't really have a problem with his relationship with Rodriguez but I think that pretty much every time they've collaborated together it's turned out awful or half awful. I'll cite Grindhouse and From Dusk Till Dawn.
Is there a way to turn that into a cohesive argument?
-
I'm not interested in getting into more arguments over this. Sorry SonofZ, Ikirk, sean, anyone else. I'll just say that I've lurked here for years, and I have witnessed far worse posts from unnamed members garner applause and encouraging laughter time and again.
-> Ikirk.
I think at the end of the day it boils down to whether you do or do not like the "film nerd" angle he goes after. His movies can be given a real "for us by us" mentality in that he is going to usher his movies to people who get excited over the same movies that he does. I would say if anything it's just not a matter of positive vs negative, just taste vs taste. I myself grew up watching a lot of movies from the 70s and 80s, and a fair amount from even earlier (I'm 22, to give an idea of why this isnt just a product of my time) so with Grindhouse as an example, it was cool for me to watch something new in the style of older movies that I grew up on.
Tarantino is a hard director to argue over because of how love or hate his work is. My reaction was more addressing the way your argument held his work accountable by his personality, and not by the work's individual merits, as criticism should be directed, hence what looked like a much more personal attack than was intended.
-
Tarantino is a hard director to argue over because of how love or hate his work is. My reaction was more addressing the way your argument held his work accountable by his personality, and not by the work's individual merits, as criticism should be directed, hence what looked like a much more personal attack than was intended.
Ikirk that is what I was getting down on you for in the Avatar topic.
-
you'd be better off watching Black Book to this.
I've seen both and loved both but I don't think they're really analogous.
More nipples in a Verhoeven film though, so that's always a plus.
Well full frontal is almost always a plus. As for what I see as analogous between the two films: They both take the form of female Jewish vengeance. Also they both attempt to paint the Allies as at least amoral in their goals and purposes. The endings are also shockingly similar.
-
Yeah but tonally they're pretty much chalk and cheese. I mean I don't know how many people think "I want to go see a film about a Jewish woman getting revenge on the Nazi who killed her family". I think most people are more inclined to think "I want to go and see a serious drama with elements of a thriller" or "I want to go see a fun romp with elements of serious drama".
-
Agreed.
-
1. His movies are just exploitation films, I don't think that there's that much going on with his storytelling. I think he has a very distinct style and that he's very good at writing and at shooting scenes.
My problem with this is the phrase "just exploitation films". One of the reasons I like Tarantino so much is because he seems to be fascinated by a lot of the same films I am, and feels they're a lot more interesting than people sometimes think. Then again, I can see his films could fall flat for someone who doesn't share that interest, just like how my girlfriend will enjoy just about anything by Lynch simply because they share the same obsessions. What exactly is it you mean by storytelling by the way?
Also they both attempt to paint the Allies as at least amoral in their goals and purposes.
You think? I didn't feel like it was saying anything about the second world war at all really.
-
Sweet lord I hated this shit. Hated it. Wish it had never been made. Don't see any reason for it to have been made. If there was a way I could unwatch this film I would. I'd pay money to unwatch this film. The saddest thing, though, is that to date I've enjoyed every movie Tarantino directed.
Reservoir Dogs? Loved it.
Pulp Fiction? Loved it.
Jackie Brown? Enjoyed it.
Kill Bill? Loved it so much.
Death Proof? Loved it.
But this shit, I literally found unwatchable. As in, I stopped watching it. I went over to my computer, left the shit film running on my TV, and just sort of surfed the internet for a bit, answered some emails while it was playing in the background. Came back feeling refreshed.
It was fucking stale. He's rehashed so much from his past films. He's treating himself as a living legend, and the arrogance isn't endearing, it's annoying. It was predictable, it was trite, it was monotonal, but I think what got me to really hate the flick, was the obsessive self-quoting. God damn it, Quentin. God damn it.
-
Rewatched it recently, and loved it just as much as I did the first time. such a fantastic film
-
Well it looks like we disagree. I think you know what this means.
-
I also disagree with scarred
-
also I think planet terror was better than death proof
-
Well it looks like we disagree. I think you know what this means.
an honor duel? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNUCsUUaevk)
also I think planet terror was better than death proof
Yeah I agree with this, also Death Proof was fucking terrible
-
It was fucking stale. He's rehashed so much from his past films. He's treating himself as a living legend, and the arrogance isn't endearing, it's annoying. It was predictable, it was trite, it was monotonal, but I think what got me to really hate the flick, was the obsessive self-quoting. God damn it, Quentin. God damn it.
How'd you like that final line? Bit of a pat on one's own back.
-
I really don't get that claim and I've read it a number of times. Are we to assume then that Pitt's character is a stand-in for Tarantino throughout the film? I see absolutely nothing to support that. Every single person I've come across who's suggested that the final line is Tarantino speaking himself has been disappointed with the film, and seems to be wilfully imposing their own disapproving interpretation on a line that in any other film by any other director would almost certainly pass unnoticed and unremarked upon.
-
The film was alright. Plot was ok, cinematography was tasty, acting was good. The whole thing was a bit flat though, never really made me feel anything, any sympathy towards any of the characters, any concern for what happens. There were some great bits of tension though, in the first chapter and when they're meeting Von Hammersmark in the bar. I didn't really feel anything like I think I should have felt when Emmanuelle dies though. It would have been great if Tarantino had taken the film in a more serious direction, but the silliness holds up throughout which I think spoils quite a few scenes.
-
Well it looks like we disagree. I think you know what this means.
an honor duel? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNUCsUUaevk)
I was thinking more something along these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhBVvq0yQeE) lines, but yeah, you're on the right track.
Re the final line, "I think this just might be my masterpiece," I think it had less to do with Tarantino's opinion of the movie and more him trying to piss critics off in the manner of Haneke or von Trier. The problem is Haneke and von Trier make movies which, no matter how flawed, are at least on some level serious or attempting to address a serious issue. For instance, although I hated the Funny Games remake, I hated it in a way that made me admit that Haneke was at least addressing a serious issue in a thought provoking manner. Whereas Tarantino made a live action cartoon. In my mind he hasn't earned the right to be provocative.
I get how the movie within the movie was a reference to the Kill Bill House of Blue Leaves sequence, for instance, amounting as it did to nothing more than kill shot after kill shot. The inclusion of the sequence, however, did not strike me as a meaningful attempt to address violence or war so much as the same narcissistic self-quoting that afflicted almost every aspect of the movie, from the title screens to the soundtrack to the voice over. I think what frustrated me the most about this movie was that Tarantino appears to be congratulating himself for achieving parity with a slew of legendary directors who have created significant movies when, by his own admission, he hasn't achieved at that level yet. Everyone believes he has to the potential to make a truly significant movie, on the level of Space Odyssey 2001, or Rashomon, or Annie Hall, or Wild Strawberries, or The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, etc. Perhaps Pulp Fiction was such a movie. But since Pulp Fiction, his films have been stunted by self-indulgence more and more, this one most of all.
-
Are we to assume then that Pitt's character is a stand-in for Tarantino throughout the film?
Not particularly. But the fact that he says that and the *bam* cut to credits leads me to believe he might have been being cheeky. He's certainly the type to have a high opinion of himself, and he was working on this film for a long time (since Jackie Brown day, I think?).