Pretty angry that I read this before seeing the movie.

The trailers do make it look a lot more Brad Pitt-centric than it actually is. BJ Novak, to some degree.

This is just gonna be a long drawn out spoiler post...



One last point that is far from a Spoiler:

Villians NEED Capes...

The more I think about that film the more i loved it. It made 2 hours and ten minutes of dialogue and some action seem like an hour and a half. Definetly a rewatcher even at that lngth. The villian really did well and stole the movie. Excellent. Differently paced but amaingly effective.

It was better than I thought it would be. Fucking 70% of the movie was subtitled though, and I have terrible vision so I couldn't read most of it.

Big Brad Pitt fan I take it?

I am not a big fan of spoilers, ASSHAT.

Villians don't need CAPS.

the same information (IB does almost $40 million due to Brad Pitt but he was only in 1/2 the movie) was in every news piece I read about this weekend's box office numbers.

Hell, if you had any general knowledge of the movie you would have known there were two concurrent storylines involving seperate groups of characters, so it wouldn't be hard to figure out that Brad Pitt isn't in the majority of a 2 1/2 hour film. Blame whoever designed the ad campaign for totally ignoring the other storyline and making it seem like the movie was 2 1/2 hours of Brad Pitt killin Nahzees.

I didn't see posting that as being a spoiler. OMG, BRAD PITT ISN'T ON SCREEN EVERY SINGLE SECOND!

SRY I TOOK IT AS HE DIES HALFWAY THROUGH

Well he does die halfway through.

OR DOES HE???

a little inside

Good shit. Not Tarantino's best, but I still enjoyed it. Doesn't make me wanna run and grab the DVD the second it's out like his other works, ESPECIALLY DEATH PROOF, WHICH FUCKING AMAZING SO FUCK OFF.

IB's secret Oscar Strategy Revealed

The DVD will be released by the end of the year allowing them to give out copies to everyone. Also, with 10 slots for best picture its possible IB could get nominated for best picture though Im not going to hold my breath. As the article states, the best chances are for Waltz and Tarantino's screenplay.

This was really great. Some of the stuff in the middle was NOT THAT GREAT/COULD HAVE BEEN LESS DRAWN OUT I thought, like starting with chapter 3 up until the bar scene. Everything including and after the bar scene was incredible though. Tremendous.

got it

Really good. Bar scene was incredible. Pitt was hilarious (the scene where he and his men are introduced to Landa and have to speak Italian is about the funniest scene in any movie this year). Christoph Waltz was absolutely top notch.

The only thing was that Tarantino wrote such great characters that, aside from Shoshanna, who I found a tad boring, I basically wanted more of all of them, Especially Donowitz and Hicox.

Yea chapter 3 was the only chapter of the movie I didn't think was top notch. I still liked it, but it basically only served the function of establishing that she was still alive, owned a cinema, and because of the war hero's obsession the location was being changed.
That, and they set up the fact that she wanted to burn the place down and kill them all.
It was basically just groundwork, but went off in a few tangents that lasted a while. They were good, but not nearly as good as the rest of the movie.
I feel like that section of the movie could have been trimmed by 5 minutes.

I personally think its Tarantino's best! Thats just me. I loved it.

GRAZIE!

I have a hard time ranking his movies, because there are only a handful and I love them all.

Obviously I think Pulp Fiction is amazing, and by all accounts probably his best and my favorite. This was very good though.
Kill Bill is amazing obviously (I like vol. 2 more)

I probably like Jackie Brown and Death Proof more than most people. Love Jackie Brown. Sometimes I could probably even consider it my favorite. Max Cherry, Cherry Bail Bonds.

Death Proof is basically unfair to judge on the same level as his other movies, since it wasn't done as a standalone project, but meant to compliment Planet Terror.
Love Grindhouse so much.

Not many people will agree with me, but Reservoir Dogs is actually my least favorite Tarantino movie. I still think it's great though. I guess that goes to show how much I enjoy all of his work.

I <3 this film.

Kill Bill vol. 2
Pulp Fiction
Inglourious Basterds
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill vol. 1
Jackie Brown
Death Proof

The discrepancy between volume 1 and 2 is that 1 is basically a big intro with fight scenes to volume 2. Volume 2 is where the story is. I put it above Pulp Fiction because it seems more "natural." Even though some of the characters have the lengthy trademark Tarantino conversations, the "anything goes" mishmash nature of the film makes them feel less out of place than in any other Tarantino work. The other films are still great stories, but usually I wonder why the characters go on and on about every little thing. It's just something to accept when watching a Tarantino film. So barring that, the rest of the list is self-explanatory.

I really did like this movie. Like many I felt it dragged on just a little bit, especially the bar scene, but that scene was still pretty good. I'll give it an 8.

And since we are talking about it, Kill Bill is my favourite Tarantino film. (I consider vol 1 and 2 one movie)

I preferred volume 2 for a number of reasons, but the Pai Mei sequences, and the coffin scene were a big part of that.

Also, the sleezy strip club owner was probably the funniest part of both. "Fuckin with your cash is all you kids seem to understand!"

Loved it. There were definitely parts that were just sooo self indulgent, to the point of being detrimental, but there were parts that were absolutely brilliant. The opening scene was almost perfect filmmaking

Another thing, some characters were so unnecessary and random...for example, why the hell did QT think to himself "I absolutely need B.J. Novak for this role"

Well there had to be Basterds surrounding him. I suppose there was no need to cast big for them, but maybe he planned to give them more lines and things changed during shooting.

Simon Pegg was supposed to be one of the Basterds, but couldn't do it because he was already booked for Star Trek.

Probably one of his best films. Depends what you were looking for I guess. I thought the bar scene was one of the coolest scenes I have witnessed.

I think the movie is gonna age really well. I bet I like it more on second viewing.

Also I kinda liked the randomness of the characters... in a way it was weird but in another way it made them even more badass. You never got to know too much about the basterds other than that they were a bunch of angry Jews ready to bust up some Nazis, and in a movie like this, I see nothing wrong with that.

Now in saying that I heard a rumour that the directors cut is gonna be 4 hours long and each basterd has a back story like Stiglets.

Yeah, this far exceded my expectations, I guess the thing I liked most about it was that it was a celebration of the cinema. Like half of the characters civilian professions were movie related, the plot was set around a movie premiere, the bombastic style and abandonment of historical accuracy, plus I appreciated the quaint little references to G.W. Pabst and Emil Jannings.

The more I think about it the more I think this is his best film. The dialogue builds the tension so well.

QT had said he had enough screenplay written for a prequel which would go into their backstories, so I doubt that they actually filmed it already for DVD Bonus stuff. No doubt there will be a directors cut that will be longer but it wont have backstories.

I'll have to think of it more but I do agree with you on the dialogue part.

I thought the story was absolutely amazing. This could very well have been twice as long as there were things that I feel were important to be in there but obviously had to be cut because it was too long already.

I know pretty much nothing about QT's previous movies so the typical QT touches didn't really mean much to me but I did feel he tried to make the movie entertaining when he didn't have to, the story itself was gripping enough.

Did anybody else not like the ending? When I heard interviews with QT he said he didn't research it that much and that enabled him to make up the story as he saw fit. I was under the impression that he was just talking about the fictional group the Basterds. I didn't like that they actually got Hitler because everything up to that point seemed like it could have fit seemlessly into the actual WWII time line. Then to have that event you'd have to assume something like "Well, I guess Hitler from that point on was a body-double." I guess it was an alternate reality movie, but I didn't realize that fully going in, and even now I don't like that part of the story.

Personally I liked it, but I didn't approach it as history.

I think it's limiting and pointless to pre-destine his characters. To me, it was a great twist. I saw it as how existing history would have happened had the characters been a part of it, rather than an untold part of history or something.

I think by choosing not to limit what your characters can and can't accomplish, you have more freedom as a writer. A movie like Valkyrie revolves around killing Hitler, but we all know the plot won't succeed because the movie tries to fit within a history book, rather than become it's own thing.
I think the historical accuracy should be left to documentarians, or Spielberg.

I didn't take the movie seriously as a war epic, but rather just a Tarantino western set in WWII. Hitler died anyways, so why not do it on his terms?

If one really wanted it to fit within existing history, you could make the claim that the U.S. supposedly moved in on Hitler shortly after that, and the theatre massacre was covered up, and the suicide story was placed in as a cover. Details from that time are hectic anyways. There were groups of soldiers not too disimilar to the Basterds racing to Hitler's mansions to have their way with his belongings. They destroyed paintings, burned belongings, and ghost rode his cars off of seaside cliffs and shit.

It's also satisfying as hell to see Hitler have his head blown off at the hands of a movies protagonists, and not his own cowardice.
Hitler is such a villain, and movies have used him and his regime before. They find other ways to deliver closure, or work within history. But at the end of the day the larger victory is never delivered. The historically accurate truth is in many ways unsatisfying. I kinda like that for once a movie just said fuck it and gave Hitler the demise he deserved, that any fictional movie villain would get.

I will agree that seeing Hitler gunned down is very satisfying. But I don't think it's pointless to predestine the characters. The movie had, up until that point. been quasi-realistic (in the sense that the Basterds could have fit in the time line, obviously some of their dialogue and mannerisms are more modern). They're operating under a set of rules that says they're in a plausible WWII timeline. Then when they get to Hitler they just quash that totally. That's like Superman getting his ass kicked and then just suddenly having a new power for the sake of winning a fight. It broke the rules set forth by the rest of the movie "We're in WWII, WII, WII, oh wait, they got Hitler."

As for trying to fit it in with existing history, I said something in my previous post about how maybe they used a body double from that point on, and you mentioned that maybe the U.S. covered up the theater massacre. Neither one of these possibilities are hinted at, so there isn't even really a way to reconcile those outcomes. The Hitler death ending seems to be the only possible ending.