Inglourious Basterds
Sep 21, 2009 at 7:53 PM Post #16 of 48

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif
My favorite Tarantino movie so far...I liked it a whole lot better than Kill Bill, which was way overrated.

I guess I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, as Kill Bill is my third favorite movie of all time and, IMO, Tarantino's masterpiece.

I.B. just doesn't have that Tarantino "feel" to it. The story is completely linear, as opposed to his usual practice of temporal discontinuity. The witty language that is normally one of the hallmarks of his films pops up only sporadically (when it works, it works... the opening scene is amazing). But the biggest omission is the larger-than-life characters that normally populate Tarantino films. With the exception of Brad Pitt and the guy who plays the main Nazi, none of the characters are even slightly interesting. The heroine is used only as eye candy (she primarily has only two limited modes--she's either smoking or acting slightly gruff), and the Basterds (with the exception of Pitt) seem almost interchangeable. Where are the Mr. Blondes and the Elle Drivers and the Marcellus Wallaces?

In the end, I.B. isn't a bad movie, but it's down there with "Jackie Brown" as one of the Tarantino films that is just decent (he's only made one bad movie, the disastrous "Death Proof").
Sep 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM Post #17 of 48
I did not really get the idea of a complete movie, where it becomes one organic thing. It has some great scenes and conversations, probably some of the best I've ever seen. I especially liked the first scene and the cellar scene where there is a great build of tension that is released in a very violent instant.

It does take a 'slight' sidestep from the normal historic time-line we get taught in school. Really not necessary to make it a great movie in my eyes and it took it way over the top and past the borders of the suspension of disbelief. That's where I feel it just does not live up to my expectations. His previous movies have been somewhat unlikely but always somewhere believable and never so obviously false just for the heck of it.
Sep 21, 2009 at 10:02 PM Post #18 of 48

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I.B. just doesn't have that Tarantino "feel" to it. The story is completely linear,

That was perhaps the most Inglourious Basterdization of all! If you get what I mean.
Sep 21, 2009 at 10:40 PM Post #19 of 48
damn...i liked it......after a long time...a quality movie.

somehow they made every scalping scene appear humorous..also the scene where the Bear Jew smashes the guys skull.

brad pitts accent was awesome....what accent is it btw?
Sep 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM Post #20 of 48
Brad Pitt playing the Italian... awesome
Sep 22, 2009 at 6:56 AM Post #22 of 48
It was a great movie. Though it took a while before it started to come together as all the various stories did not converge until late in the movie. Pitt and Waltz were fantastic though and I can't help but laugh now that someone mentioned Pitt's last scene.

I'll probably get chewed out, but I've been chewed out before.
Sep 22, 2009 at 7:14 AM Post #23 of 48
I really liked it. Really REALLY liked it. The first tarantino I'd seen and it led me to see a few more. I still rate it as one of the best.
Sep 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM Post #25 of 48
thoroughly enjoyed it. never was a gigantic tarantino fan. huge fan of pulp fiction and i thought sin city was decent. didnt really like anything else he's done, but this was definitely worth the money.
Sep 22, 2009 at 9:16 AM Post #26 of 48
It is now 1:37 Am, walked out of the movie 1:00 Am. Somehow I want Tarantino to do a movie like Pulp Fiction again. That is history and will never happen. Yes we have some small big star parts but no real big role actors. So that is what he did in Pulp, he used up and coming people along with rehashed Travolta and it worked great. But this time the actors somehow do not have the same charm. You know, Hollywood star charm. OK so you thought I had forgot about Brad Pit. Yes he is all those things for the movie, star-power, charm, and his character is truly great. Brad Pit is totally funny in this movie. His part has timing. is well written. he does a fantastic job. We just needed more. As far as a movie goes the plot was cool, filming perfect. The close-ups were the best I think I have ever seen. The acting was a 10 by all actors. Even in some of these really strange rolls the actors pulled it off. The sets are out of this world. The sets and filming would be one reason to see this at the theater and not on DVD. It has a look like all those 70s exploitation movies Tarantino loves so much. It also has the look of a big money world class masterpiece. So we get a mix where he took elements of the 70s drive in level and mixed it with his own dialog humor, then it has a big blockbuster quality too. I guess the timing and rhythm are what made the 2nd half start to rock. When the sum of all parts started to come together 1/2 way though there was a cool tension waiting and wondering what the out come was going to be. This was the action element.

I have not seen the original 70s one but It may be hard to see after the Gone With The Wind level this movie has. 2 3/4 hours was what I timed it as. My first thought was how they made all the crazy German accents and verbiage sound so real. I'm American so what do I know. But it had a level of authenticity from what I could see. I have seen so many Nazi exploitation movies that were shot on a shoestring and that cheapness was what made them cheesy and cool. This somehow had an influence from those but did not look cheep at all. To me the Grindhouse 2X feature that Rodriguez and he did had a level of that cheapness in the filming, in the sets, in the acting. So this can be his other masterpiece besides Pulp Fiction I guess. Was there the total charm and magic of some of his earlier works? I may have to see it again to see it. There was a lot of talking with this charm put in but did it have the true magic of Pulp Fiction? I think not. But peoples perception of this movie may change in time. Pulp Fiction was so out of the box very few understood what it was the first time they saw it. The wave started and still to this day Pulp is many peoples favorite.

Would I recommend someone to see it? It was worth seeing and an example of why we go to the movies. There were many plot twists that I did not expect. You could see a lot of work went into this one. I feel the work was not wasted. You may get a little restless in the first half not knowing where the plot is going to go. The introduction of the characters make up for this if you can really see the tongue and cheek that Tarantino is going for. Some people may think it is strange. All of these movies had that factor. You know that there will be this character development on many levels. I guess my favorite part is the voice on the radio but I will not ruin it for you. You may figure it out.
Sep 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM Post #27 of 48

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That was perhaps the most Inglourious Basterdization of all! If you get what I mean.

It´s a remake it´s not Tarantinos movie. May be it
Sep 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM Post #28 of 48
Awesome, awesome, awesome. Loved the movie.
Sep 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM Post #29 of 48

Originally Posted by oqvist /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It´s a remake it´s not Tarantinos movie. May be it

One would assume, but in reality, there is very little like the original. There is one common theme, but I would guess that without the shared title, no one would ever think to connect the two films.

I was too vague anyway. My point is that the entire movie is a bastardization of genre. To the point, that QT played with a couple of his own trademarks, like timeshift and the survival of the heroine/s.
Sep 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM Post #30 of 48
My personal feeling was that it's good, but not great. I think Tarantino has ample skills to create a masterpiece, but he's so sold on paying homage to pulp cinema that it's dragging him down. Many scenes in the movie were absolutely masterful (I mean amazing work: meticulously acted and directed) but I thought the sum was less than its parts because of his insistence on glorifying pulp cinema. I'm sure his intent was to let the audience have fun with some camp, but why not try to create a really good film, rather than waste talent in the pursuit of mimicking a lesser one? As a written work, one of my main gripes was the Inglourious Basterds concept. This was supposed to be his "Dirty Dozen" "The Great Escape" war film, but I really had no idea who any of the Basterds were. He set them up without any real personalities, (except Pitt) and their story is never developed. Think of all the characters in "The Great Escape" -- and there are plenty --- and you get to know each of their personalities and histories intimately. I barely knew anything about the basterds when this film was over. Did I get any sense of their exploits? Only in reference. I think what's weighing in against Tarantino is his loquacious style versus the traditional movie form of 2-3 hours. He's a master of dialogue, but when you've devoted 15 minutes to one scene, you've used up a good portion of your film. Consequently, as everyone has noted here, the film can be divided into a couple set pieces quite easily. There's no real sense of a journey or adventure, no unfolding of events. Most great films or novels are a picaresque - you finish them feeling like you've been on a journey. I felt Inglourious Basterds was just underdeveloped and a bit lazy in design, especially after an intricately structured film like Pulp Fiction. I think Tarantino needs to sit down and take a year or two to write another real screenplay. He should abandon his wacky plans like making Kung Fu tribute films in Mandarin and work his ass off on producing another masterpiece like Pulp Fiction. That's what made Kubrick so special, he wouldn't just hack away at any project. I think Tarantino is just as talented -- maybe even more so -- but he needs to think about his legacy and stop paying homage to genres not worthy of his talents. Anyway, that's my two sense worth.

Users who are viewing this thread