Topic: Inglourious Basterds (Read 41220 times)

Wasteroo · « **Reply #50 on:** 31 Aug 2009, 10:54 »

Quote from: Inlander on 31 Aug 2009, 08:13

...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.

Felrender · « **Reply #51 on:** 01 Sep 2009, 06:36 »

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.

KvP · « **Reply #52 on:** 01 Sep 2009, 08:40 »

*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.

Felrender · « **Reply #53 on:** 01 Sep 2009, 17:49 »

If I may say, Hans Landa is a very Glourious Basterd.

Christophe · « **Reply #54 on:** 02 Sep 2009, 00:04 »

I don't think Hiter's very pleased with how he's depicted in the film.

(spolier alert obviously)

scarred · « **Reply #55 on:** 02 Sep 2009, 00:09 »

I lol'd

Lines · « **Reply #56 on:** 05 Sep 2009, 05:04 »

"Everybody fucking hates Hitler!"

Tee hee.

el_loco_avs · « **Reply #57 on:** 21 Sep 2009, 03:20 »

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.

Tom · « **Reply #58 on:** 22 Sep 2009, 02:04 »

Quote from: KvP on 01 Sep 2009, 08:40

*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.

StaedlerMars · « **Reply #59 on:** 22 Sep 2009, 03:28 »

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).

Jimor · « **Reply #60 on:** 22 Sep 2009, 16:26 »

Quote from: KvP on 01 Sep 2009, 08:40

*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.

KvP · « **Reply #61 on:** 22 Sep 2009, 18:14 »

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. 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.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #62 on:** 22 Sep 2009, 18:56 »

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.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #63 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 17:17 »

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).

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #64 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 19:53 »

when you put Oscar in all caps, it becomes NASCAR in my head, for some reason, which is really confusing.

scarred · « **Reply #65 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 21:47 »

JD · « **Reply #66 on:** 27 Dec 2009, 22:27 »

Oh hey I finally saw this movie. It is pretty silly and not worth watching, sorry!

JD · « **Reply #67 on:** 27 Dec 2009, 22:31 »

Also apparently Tarantino has been nominated as the 12th greatest director of all time? Pfffft

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #68 on:** 27 Dec 2009, 23:28 »

Only nominated? So he hasnt one 12th best yet, there's still time!

knives · « **Reply #69 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 02:51 »

Quote from: Zombiedude on 27 Dec 2009, 22:31

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.

Inlander · « **Reply #70 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 05:05 »

Quote from: knives on 28 Dec 2009, 02:51

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.

JD · « **Reply #71 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 10:58 »

Quote from: knives on 28 Dec 2009, 02:51

Quote from: Zombiedude on 27 Dec 2009, 22:31
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

SonofZ3 · « **Reply #72 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 12:17 »

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.

Alex C · « **Reply #73 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 12:53 »

Tarantino didn't do anything but act in that movie, actually. It was a Takashi Miike project.

beat mouse · « **Reply #74 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 15:33 »

Quote from: SonofZ3 on 28 Dec 2009, 12:17

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.

Ikrik · « **Reply #75 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 15:45 »

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.

Alex C · « **Reply #76 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 15:48 »

I feel pretty much the opposite. I find a lot of Reservoir Dogs to be pretty unwatchable.

beat mouse · « **Reply #77 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 16:27 »

Quote from: Ikrik on 28 Dec 2009, 15:45

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #78 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 16:47 »

The dude's not good terribly good at separating fact from opinion, cut him some slack.

sean · « **Reply #79 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 18:09 »

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?

beat mouse · « **Reply #80 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 18:26 »

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.

Alex C · « **Reply #81 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 18:55 »

People have a low tolerance for condescension around here, that's all.

Alex C · « **Reply #82 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 19:16 »

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.

Ikrik · « **Reply #83 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 19:26 »

-> 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?

beat mouse · « **Reply #84 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 19:56 »

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.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #85 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 20:16 »

Quote from: beat mouse on 28 Dec 2009, 19:56

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.

knives · « **Reply #86 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 22:31 »

Quote from: Inlander on 28 Dec 2009, 05:05

Quote from: knives on 28 Dec 2009, 02:51
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.

Inlander · « **Reply #87 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 22:47 »

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".

knives · « **Reply #88 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 22:49 »

Agreed.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #89 on:** 30 Dec 2009, 08:44 »

Quote from: Ikrik on 28 Dec 2009, 19:26

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?

Quote from: knives on 28 Dec 2009, 22:31

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.

pilsner · « **Reply #90 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 21:45 »

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.

scarred · « **Reply #91 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 21:48 »

Rewatched it recently, and loved it just as much as I did the first time. such a fantastic film

pilsner · « **Reply #92 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 21:54 »

Well it looks like we disagree. I think you know what this means.

JD · « **Reply #93 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 22:00 »

I also disagree with scarred

JD · « **Reply #94 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 22:01 »

also I think planet terror was better than death proof

scarred · « **Reply #95 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 22:05 »

Quote from: pilsner on 07 Jan 2010, 21:54

Well it looks like we disagree. I think you know what this means.

an honor duel?

Quote from: Zombiedude on 07 Jan 2010, 22:01

also I think planet terror was better than death proof

Yeah I agree with this, also Death Proof was fucking terrible

KvP · « **Reply #96 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 23:29 »

Quote from: pilsner on 07 Jan 2010, 21:45

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.

Inlander · « **Reply #97 on:** 08 Jan 2010, 02:35 »

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.

Ã¶de · « **Reply #98 on:** 08 Jan 2010, 07:13 »

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.

pilsner · « **Reply #99 on:** 08 Jan 2010, 10:37 »

Quote from: scarred on 07 Jan 2010, 22:05

Quote from: pilsner on 07 Jan 2010, 21:54
Well it looks like we disagree. I think you know what this means.

an honor duel?

I was thinking more something along these 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.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds (Read 41220 times)