Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tony Baloni

Inglourious Basterds

Recommended Posts

Oh. My. God.

No movie has ever got my testosterone pumping this much. Everything about this movie was just amazing, and as soon as it was done, the first thing I wanted to do was watch it again. I honestly think the climax in the cinema is the best thing to ever be captured on film. Quentin Tarantino's really really outdone himself. And all the acting was amazing. Except for Mike Myers haha. But he was still funny. The opening scene is some of the most beautiful acting and dialogue in the whole movie, and Christoph Waltz played such an evil, but likable villain. He definitely deserved the best actor award for that.

I just got back from the midnight showing of this, and I can't stop thinking about it. Anybody else think this was Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so hard on yourself...

To think tarantino's movies are good is to not know what a good movie looks like. Actually, one cannot think his films are good and enjoy watching movies since they're the anti-thesis of each other. Of course, maybe you watched it with the same sense of hipster irony as you did with that other terd of a movie :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your standards, BA, probably all I ever watch are turds of movies! :laughing:

I'm going to see Inglorious Basterds today. Andy's son said it was the best movie he's seen in a long time, so now Andy really really wants to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I made the mistake of sayin' that "one cannot like tarantino's movies and enjoy watching movies at the same time." I really do believe his movies may be enjoyable to watch for some people. Hell, even Michael Bay movies could be enjoyable to watch. I had to change my stance to "one cannot see these movies as 'good' and enjoy watching films at the same time." I watch crap that I like all the time, but I cannot say - drunk, high, sober - that they're good films. Peter Jackson's District 9 was around 30 million to make and that movie was fun to watch. tarantino's "grindhouse" flick was 53 million and it was a megaterd (and a pain to watch). I was left aghast thinkin', "How could this piece of crap cost so damn much?!" And that pretty much goes for every one of his movies. They're cheap-looking, big-budget duds. Basterds was lifted from a b-movie, so this movie should either be a b-movie or something on the level of The Dirty Dozen and Guns Of Navarone (which I really doubt tarantino is able to direct). Judging from its budget, it's not a b-movie, but it's also not a good movie :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How offensive is this movie?

I'm partially German-Jewish and am having second thoughts about going to see this. She wants to wait until it comes out on DVD, so we can better study the film's plot and read the subtitles, also because Americanized German accents are hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly though, a lot of the German in this film is spoken by native speakers, although I think a couple of them are from Austria. But Hitler is the hardest to understand really. Also, a lot of it is in French.

As far as it being offensive, it really depends what offends you. The main villain in this definitely is so evil that all the nazi killings feel really justified. But then at the same time, it shows how a lot of the soldiers are just regular people who happen to be on the other side. The thing about this movie is, it's that classic stylized tarantino violence, and the way it's filmed, it's almost like a really dark comedy. For a lot of the violence, the whole theater was laughing. Although I thought it was really ironic how it showed a whole theater full of nazis watching a movie about american soldiers being killed, and clapping and cheering and laughing.. and here we were, a theater full of americans watching a bunch of nazi soldiers being killed, and we were reacting the exact same way.

But all subject matter aside, (contrary to what people who think that ska or chicago has anything to do with this movie believe), from a cinematic standpoint, this is a really really good movie. The soundtrack, cinematography, script, it's really all genius. And all the acting is amazing.

I wouldn't miss the chance to see this on a giant screen if I were you. I really haven't been this pumped about a movie since The Big Lebowski...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an interview with Tarantino from the London Times . He wants people to see this as a fictional action/adventure movie in an homage to 1940's war films which , to quote him , ' were made when the f***ing war was ON .' It's not supposed to be a 'message movie ' about the inhumanity of war -or the Holocaust- and how it affects people of the sort that have been largely made in the last 30 years or so . Think ' The Dirty Dozen ' or ' Kelly's Heroes ' other 'lighter ' war flicks, where people shouldn't read into the story anymore than they would a video game blasting the enemy . Apparently , if you take into the theater a 'Schindler's List ' mindset , you'll dislike this movie .

Myself , I'll still wait for the video or run on a movie channel as I now feel the home experience is better than going out to the theater . The big screen has no significant advantages, imo , other than seeing it when it is released .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus there's so much more substance to this movie than any of the other ones I've seen from him. Like the way the watch story from Pulp Fiction just kind of stole the show and had all this magical quality to it, that just completely went beyond the style of the movie. That's every scene in this movie. It's still completely got that tarantino style, but it's not a slave to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's my assessment.

1) I was unprepared for the subtitles. Subtitles are difficult for me, because I miss much of the facial nuances, etc. when I'm trying to read the words. Plus, if you look away for a moment (to take a drink of your soda, for example) you miss dialogue.

2) It ran really long. 2 1/2 hours was too long for me, and I got bored about 1 1/2 hours into it.

3) Andy fell asleep, and he wasn't tired when we went in.

4) Very gory.

5) The only part of this movie I truly enjoyed was when Brad Pitt was onscreen - and I'm not a fan of Brad Pitt by any stretch. But he saved me today.

Admittedly I don't know a good movie from a bad one, but I know what I like. This wasn't it. There were a few good chuckles sprinkled throughout, but they were few and far between.

The audience, in general, applauded at the very end. I don't know if that is because the ending was satisfying, or because it was finally the end.

Sorry. I really did go into it thinking I would love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) It ran really long. 2 1/2 hours was too long for me, and I got bored about 1 1/2 hours into it.

What is up with Brad Pitt's movies being too long? I have always had a hard time sitting through most of his films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an interview with Tarantino from the London Times . He wants people to see this as a fictional action/adventure movie in an homage to 1940's war films which , to quote him , ' were made when the f***ing war was ON .' It's not supposed to be a 'message movie ' about the inhumanity of war -or the Holocaust- and how it affects people of the sort that have been largely made in the last 30 years or so . Think ' The Dirty Dozen ' or ' Kelly's Heroes ' other 'lighter ' war flicks, where people shouldn't read into the story anymore than they would a video game blasting the enemy . Apparently , if you take into the theater a 'Schindler's List ' mindset , you'll dislike this movie .

I read that too (I heard him using the term "a spaghetti western in WWII setting")

and I fully agree about how it would depend on what kind of film you expect to see.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah... at the beginning of the flick, Brad sports a nasty scar from ear to ear, like he's had his throat slit or been hanged at some point. By the end of the movie, it's gone, and so far as we could tell there hadn't been any explanation give for it, or its disappearance.

Any clues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a possible spoiler from wikipedia

"[Pitt's character] bears a rope burn on his neck, which is not mentioned in the film; the script hints that he might have survived a lynching."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the original idea for Inglourious Basterds was to have it be a tv series, so Tarantino has entire histories for these characters that he may flesh out in later projects or may just leave floating around in his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very much looking forward to seeing this movie. Then, I did. I was horribly disappointed. Either I expected too much, or the movie was just half-assed. Im going with the latter.

Edited by Guest
SPAM removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...