Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Recommended Posts

I didn't think it was funny watching them suffer and its appalling that they thought watching people suffer was. But I think that people generally like to see justice (or their version of it) being done, though perhaps not in such an extreme manner. (And I wouldn't go so far as to compare Nazi ideology with that of the average person and I don't think that was Tarantino's point.)

Don't most action/violent films include the idea that its audience likes to see the good guys win and the bad ones punished either imprisoned or killed (usually shown through a violent showdown of some kind)? I don't think this movie is all that different, just better written and better acted.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't think it was funny watching them suffer and its appalling that they thought watching people suffer was. But I think that people generally like to see justice (or their version of it) being done, though perhaps not in such an extreme manner. (And I wouldn't go so far as to compare Nazi ideology with that of the average person and I don't think that was Tarantino's point.)

I don't think Tarantino wanted to compare Nazi ideology to our own, but I don't think it was an accident that the final massacre took place in a theater playing a violent action film. Tarantino's a better filmmaker than that. It had to be on purpose. He wasn't saying average people have Nazi tendencies, he was saying that average people get turned on by violence. But if you disagree that this is the message of the film, I'm not surprised, because I don't think a person can agree with that message and still enjoy the film (and you enjoyed the film).

Don't most action/violent films include the idea that its audience likes to see the good guys win and the bad ones punished either imprisoned or killed (usually shown through a violent showdown of some kind)? I don't think this movie is all that different, just better written and better acted.

That may be the reason I rarely like action movies, ha ha. I don't know, I just don't like seeing gratuitous violence, and to me, that's all this film was. If you asked someone why they saw this movie, they probably said "to watch Brad Pitt kill Nazis." The whole point of the movie was to watch violence (which would be different than a movie where violence is required to tell the story, like "The Godfather." With "Inglourious Basterds," violence wasn't just required to tell the story, it was the story)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'm tired of Brad Pitt playing himself in movies. He can be a really good actor sometimes, but his character in "Inglourious Basterds" was just him being Brad Pitt, a badass with a sharp sense of humor. Nothing more to his character than that.

I will also say that the first scene of the movie was really good. Tarantino really built the tension well, and when he finally got the French guy to admit he was hiding Jews under the floorboards my insides just collapsed. It was a really great scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't saying average people have Nazi tendencies, he was saying that average people get turned on by violence. But if you disagree that this is the message of the film, I'm not surprised, because I don't think a person can agree with that message and still enjoy the film (and you enjoyed the film).

No I agree he wasn't, you said his movie was saying we had something in common with the Nazis.

I do agree people are attracted to violence (hence they would like this movie)and that was one point he was trying to illustrate using a parallel in one sequence but I don't think it was the whole point nor does it mean you can't enjoy the other parts of the film (plot, dialogue, acting, characters, build-up) which are equally as important in a Tarantino movie as the action.

If you think people should not be entertained by violence then you can't possible like movies like the Godfather (in which the violence is perpetrated by criminals to no good end), Silence of the Lambs, Saving Private Ryan, most horror/slasher films, (or the evening news for that matter) etc etc.

That said I do not enjoy most action films nor over-the-top violence and gore, but I found other elements of this movie I did like that, for me, outweighed the parts I didn't.

With "Inglourious Basterds," violence wasn't just required to tell the story, it was the story)

Well, it is a war movie. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hate all movies that use violence to tell stories. "No Country For Old Men" is one of my favorite movies. It's not that I'm not entertained by movies that are violent, it's just that I'm not entertained by violence alone. And in my opinion, there wasn't enough to this movie to make it entertaining without the violence. If "Inglourious Basterds" was a book, I don't think a lot of people would read it. The story itself wasn't extremely interesting. And obviously this is where we disagree. I'm just restating my argument to make it clear that I am not completely opposed to violent movies, I am just opposed to movies that aren't good enough to be entertaining without the violence, because the violence itself is not entertaining to me.

Just making it clear that our disagreement is about the film itself, and not about violence in cinema, because I like The Godfather, I like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original of course), I like Silence of the Lambs, etc.

And also, it's not like I think people shouldn't be entertained by violence. People can be entertained by whatever entertains them...it just doesn't entertain me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point B-man. I am not a violent person and I really don't seek out violence. Yet I love Fargo, which to me was shockingly and gratuitously violent. But there was a story behind all the violence, there fore the violence seemed to make sense.

And I am with you on Brad Pitt. I've never really enjoyed him as an actor, which might not be his fault. The attention to his looks ruined him for me a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that I generally only find violence in films necessary if it supports the story, not as an end in itself and I figured by the movies you mentioned you like that that is what you meant.

I think there's a little more to the film (though its probably not among his best work), but I respect your opinion that there isn't. I'll agree to disagree. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am with you on Brad Pitt. I've never really enjoyed him as an actor, which might not be his fault. The attention to his looks ruined him for me a long time ago.

Yeah that could be a major part of it. Some actors are able to break out of it though. Leonardo DiCapprio is a really good actor in my opinion, even though he got famous by being good looking. My main problem with Pitt is that he plays roughly the same character in so many movies, and I'm tired of the character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I'd share my two cents on Inglorious Basterds... It perhaps wasn't the best told story, it was very bitsy with multiple plot lines and too many characters for the audience to keep up with, causing a few to be forgotten, but I found these fascinating anyway and what struck me was the treatment of history in the film. Of course there's the obvious alternate history thing going on, but there was also this kind of idea that history itself is just a story. At the end of the film no one character knows exactly what happened and this is true of history itself. There are so many multiple versions of history floating around depending on who tells it and the truth is no one knows the whole truth no matter how many times it is written in a history book.

Violence in the film was used within this context of history and I think it was justifiable and did not form the sole basis for the film (as opposed to something like the Saw movies which are just about seeing violent acts on screen with a weak story built around them.) Tarantino will use violence gratuitously, but it seems to me that his fascination with violence isn't exactly just for violence sake, but for exploring how people react to violence and violence on film (as someone- sorry can't remember who- said in a previous post, the fact that the climax is in a movie theatre is by no mistake). I think that to some extent, Tarantino is playing with the idea of what makes violence acceptable to people, revenge, war, love etc. I mean, we still live in a world where human beings are employed to kill other human beings for land, power and oil. Tarantino definitely enjoys blood and violence in his films, but I think at the same time he is using this to consider how violent acts have such a hold on humans.

I think I might have lost my argument a bit there, but hopefully it makes sense. For me anyway, I like Tarantino for his dialogue, sharp stylised characterisation and his ability to play around with film techniques like black and white, intertitles and tangent like montages etc instead of focussing on the realism of the film. I tend to look away during the more gruesome bits and I would be quite interested to see him make something that lacked violence and had more heart (which he definitely runs low on) though that may not happen for a while.

BTW whoever mentioned Pirate Radio should definitely go and see it. Though I'm not 100% sure what you'll be getting. In the rest of the world we got The Boat That Rocked, which I just saw today and loved. The soundtrack is fantastic if you love classic rock (although I have heard people complain that there are no Beatles- unthinkable for a film about a 60s radio station- but I'm assuming that would have been due to budget). It's an interesting take on the history of pirate radio stations with quirky characters and some very witty dialogue in parts. I'd give it 7.5/10. Pirate Radio is the US edit of the same film, it has something like 10-15 mins edited out the name changed.

And watch The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus while you're at it. It's a visually stunning film with a quirky story. The plot can be a bit convoluted at times, and I admit that I did lose track at a couple of points so will definitely have to watch again, but the acting is great and did I mention how visually stunning it is? It's the last film Heath Ledger acted in, and they had to get three other actors to complete his role, which may have let the film down but was integrated into the film very well. I'd give it a 8/10. Definitely not something you see every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that everything about the film was very interesting, and honestly I enjoyed it up until the parallel between the Nazi audience and us as an audience. It still was a very interesting point, but a point that for me kind of ruined the movie, and really a lot of action movies in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, the propaganda film the Nazis were watching was directed by Eli Roth (who played the Bear Jew in the movie), who directed the movie Hostel, which is also a really in-your-face examination of humanity's fascination with violence. Or maybe it's just torture porn. Either way, it all seems connected to this discussion.

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

×
×
  • Create New...