inglourious basterds
 

just saw it. i dunno. it was fun but at the same time didn't much strike me as anything special.

Is it better than defiance( I loved it) or valkary?

I'm going to assume that response was a joke

it looks real dumb

I hate brad Pitts voice in this role

Killin Nahtzis

So it was a typical Tarantino flick?

i didn't see his last one but this is probably my least favourite.

it's weird though. it's a really fun throwaway film. like if you go in wanted to be entertained for a few hours then you'll get that, but it's not a film you're going to discuss in years like with pulp fiction or reservoir dogs. watch it but keep your expectations really really low.

Well, the last movie he wrote/directed was Death Proof which I thought was a decent movie but not nearly on par with everything else he's done.

I was looking forward to this but I wasn't getting my hopes up anyway so thats ok to hear..

Nah, its great, The Mask is chatting shit ;)

i think he's trying to give us low expetations so we will be very overwhelmed

Remember that awful vampire movie?

from dusk till dawn?

Nah maybe more just every now and then.

I believe that was it.

Terrible.

that was a rob rodriguez film not tarantino, tarantino was just in it

Something I didnt know is that the Italian Director of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo G. Castellari, plays a Nazi General similar to who he played in his cameo in the original movie. Apparently he's making another movie called "Caribbean Bastards".

Also, I was reading the wiki page for the original and I find it hilarious that they recut the original to focus on Fred Williamson and called it GI Bro.

And in all the press tours and stuff, I saw that Eli Roth pretty much confirmed that "Thanksgiving" will be made into a real move just like "Machete", which means they need to package them together for another Grindhouse double feature.

Oh, ok. Then it was a good movie.

No. It still sucked

the crazy thing is... there are like 5 of those things. i don't think i ever saw anyone rent them when i worked at blockbuster a few years back. best part time job i've ever had.

I loved From Dusk Till Dawn...

Its one of those films that I always have a good time watching.

The other ones were crap though...All I can remember from the other films is Bruce Campbell was in the second one I believe. I just remember seeing a scene where a guy was stabbed with his own sniper rifle by a vampire and thought it was stupid..

Tarantino wrote the screenplay

Inglorious Basterds 7.5/10

I have a pretty positive feeling about the movie but I doubt it will be regarded as highly as his prior movies. It wasn't as bloody/gory as some reviews I had read made it out to be, at least not on the level of Kill Bill, but what was there was pretty awesome, especially the Tavern scene.

Brad Pitt was passable, and I thought the humor he brought kept the movie alive at points. Christoph Waltz stole the movie easily though, I would almost dare say if this were a serious movie that he might garner some awards consideration (he did win best Actor at Cannes). No one else really stood out, which includes Mike Myers, who really didnt go as overboard with his cameo as I figured.

The one issue I haven't settled on is the music, so maybe someone else can chime in.
Hearing spaghetti western themes/70's music/David Bowie in a 1940's Fantasy Nazi War Movie was odd, but it did somehow fit with the movie..but it still felt out of place if that makes sense.

Soemone complete this sentence for me: IF you like _________ you'll like Inglorious Basterds.

i'm kind of iffy about this movie right now....

if you like pulp fiction, resevoir dogs, kill bill 1 and 2, death proof, or jackie brown you'll like inglorious basterds.

I saw it last night. Amazing film.

I would have liked them to delve deeper into the other basterds

yeah i was gutted

I'm gonna have to go with The Mask on this, I love a Tarantino film and although I enjoyed it, it didn't strike me as being as good as his other films.

Although I have a feeling that if I watched this in the comfort of my house that I would enjoy it more.

I thought it was good but would have been better if he didn't add in all that extra "Tarantino" stuff like chapter titles, lengthy dialogue, and an anachronistic David Bowie song. I feel like he let his trademarks get in the way of a great story.

Excellent.

The story's pretty simple. Without the trademarks the movie would be fairly short. I wouldn't trade the conversations for anything. The dialogue is heavy as hell, but its so good that it doesn't take anything away. I thought it added immensely. Personally, it kept me on the edge of my seat and drove the story. The lengthy dialogue creates larger than life characters, and I thought the chapter titles seperate the movie into segments of focus perfectly.

Really loved the whole basement sequence

I agree.

Loved it. I was a bit confused by the Wizard of Oz references though.

The chapter titles worked in Pulp Fiction because they separated different characters in different stories and it signified a change in the point of view. They also worked in Kill Bill just because everything was pretty much fair game in Kill Bill due to the nature of it borrowing so many elements from other film styles. But I just thought it felt thrown in here.

I thought it worked due to the fact that the sequences were very extended, and until the last chapter, didn't have too much to with eachother other than the destination they were moving towards.

The movie wasn't intercut like a normal movie where it would visit the girl and the cinema for 5 minutes, back to the Basterds, back to the cinema, and so on.
It did it in big swoops, so I thought it worked that way. That's how I looked at it.

Eli Roth was suprisingly fun. I thought it was a strange choice when I heard about it, but he really made me laugh. "TEDDY FUCKIN BALLGAME!"

I'm going to see it in thirty minutes, even though the trailers looked pretty bad.

He didn't say it didn't. He was telling you it wasn't Tarantino, which was what you brought up in the first place.

It made almost 40 million over the weekend on he back of Brad Pitt, which has me leaning towards believing there were a lot of upset people given he was only in half of it.

I'm sure you're right. I can't stand peoples obsession with big draw actors screentime. Or big draw actors in general. People decide whether or not a movie looks good based on its cast. I've seen some great movies with obscure or unknown casts, and I've seen some allstar casts turn out stinkers.
It's like a certain portion of society cares more about whos on screen than how the movie is. I guess thats the age old phenomenon of movie stardom.
That's why every Will Smith movie breaks $200 million, regardless of quality

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.

It's definitely Hitler death. I was just throwing out safety valves. There's no defending the ending from a historical standpoint, or as one that acts in accordance with WWII movies. I guess it just comes down to whether it jived with the viewer, or put them off. I'm sure you're not the only person who feels that way

The bar scene is an absolute masterpiece...and to be honest...most of the movie is as well. Without some of the silly humor, it would be one of the most intense movies I have ever seen.

The acting is superb. Most of the characters are over the top, but it's intended to be that way. (Yes, including Brad Pitt.) The writing is fantastic. The imagery and cinematography is fantastic. It's certainly not a documentary, but did you honestly think you were going to see anything like that? I think it's Oscar-worthy...and certainly unlike any movie you will EVER see again, nor have seen before.

I honestly enjoyed this movie more than any movie I've seen in ages...and goddamn it, you should too.

<font color=goldenrod>Finally saw this last night, really incredible. I concur that the ending was very satisfying, and epic. Loved seeing three separate plans to end the regime intertwining into one big-ass thing. And personally I enjoyed seeing all of Tarantino's trademarks, including the hella unique Mexican standoff.</font>

A+ movie. I had a big ol' boner for Hans Landa (Chris Waltz is his name, I think?) the whole movie. I loved walking out of the theater and hearing people go ''hurr durr there wasn't enough action''.

The other thing is, they didn't really know about the Holocaust until AFTER WWII was more or less over with. So the main premise behind the Basterds is kind of pointless. That's a bigger hole than Hitler dying, to be honest.

Though, I must say, Hitler still looks boss in the cape.

Two of the Basterds were German born.

Tarantino brought up that "hole" himself in an interview I watched. I put hole in quotation marks because he knowingly did it.

I'm no historian but I'm sure it's full of holes. I wouldn't be suprised if the Nazi occupation didn't line up with the timeline or whatever. I just look the other way and take a western in WWII

I should have, at some point, stated that the above fact had precisely zero bearing on my enjoyment of the movie. It was something I thought about waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay after the fact.

I don't think Hitler really died that way either...I don't know...

Who here has seen The Dirty Dozen?

Supreme movie.

Great movie. Some similarities between this and that. Definitely some similarities. No doubt a huge influence on IB.

The concept of a small band of American soldiers behind enemy lines, and them taking out as many Nazis as possible at a big gathering.
I loved that Tarantino didn't focus it just on them, and do a big training period and all that. He basically took the broad idea and added/focused in on things. Fantastic.

I need to see more of that old genre. Where Eagles Dare is next on my list.

This movie was never meant to be historically accurate...and I have no idea why anyone even brings that up. They're missing the entire point. When they saw the misleading trailer, did they think they were going to see Saving Private Ryan?

Sad that people nitpick on something that wasn't even intended. The movie is bloody fantastic, and if you said one of the following:

1. What was with all the historical inaccuracies?
2. What's with all the subtitles?
3. I wish they spent more time with the Basterds, like the trailer suggested.

You missed the entire point of the movie. Go see it again.

Bingo. Spaghetti Western in WWII

If "Basterds" wasn't accepted by the MPAA, then Tarantino's backup was Once Upon A Time in Nazi Occupied France

and I love me some Spaghetti Westerns

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hL-X53ze5O0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hL-X53ze5O0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Just got back from seeing this.

Nothing special. But I marked out to the Kelly's Heroes music before the big clusterfuck at the theatre.

I don't see why spaghetti western and historically accurate (or at least not farcically inaccurate) are mutually exclusive.

They're not, but it means its trying to do something different than a Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers

I don't know. When I saw it everyone in the theater started laughing when they burst in and shot Hitler. I'm not sure if that was the right/desired reaction or not.

It was definitely the desired reaction. The entire movie was meant to be fun/funny. Tarantino's whole schtick is making things that shouldn't be funny funny. It wasn't a drama.