Inglourious Basterds & Tarantino in general (1 Viewer)

Ambreen

Sordide Sentimental
INGLOURIOUS%20BASTERDS.JPG


Trailer :
I saw it one week ago and have mixed feelings since then : neither a bad film, nor a good one. Anyway, it disappointed me in so far as I had great expectations, being very demanding with Tarantino. This movie maker was one of my safe bets, I'm quite puzzled now.

Has anybody watched it and been similarly deceived ?
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
My son and his girlfriend saw it last week and said it was great. The theater, which was filled to capacity, applauded and cheered at the conclusion. I have not had the chance to see it. My son wants to see it again.
 
I've honestly seen no Tarantino I didn't like, even Jackie Brown was good, although very (yawn) long and not as crazy as From... and I guess nothing can top Pulp Fiction for my own taste....... but I'd like to watch this one.
One reason is the subject and another is Mr. Pitt, whom I've seen in a lot of cheesy roles and in great ones (12 Monkeys, Fight Club, blabla) and simply because it's a Tarantino.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
Hey watch it - Jackie Brown is brilliant, but then I love Leonard's writing so...

But I'm not rushing to see Inglourious. For me Tarantino blew it with Death Proof. Wasn't super in love with Kill Bill either.
 
Well, to me, the weird, fast and violent style is brilliant. Jackie Brown was good and I guess I wouldn't have watched it three times if I didn't like it a little bit, but it can't match Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction or From Dusk Till Dawn.

As for the music, I agree - fantastic! Like in every Tarantino movie.


Edit: Music? I confused strangegirl's movie with reading music. Just woke up from an afternoon nap, but then... I really love the music.
 

Ambreen

Sordide Sentimental
As some of you seem to feel like seeing it, I can't develop my reproaches, not wanting to spoil you the film.

My main reproach : The film is untitled Inglourious Basterds, these basterds are known and dreaded by all the Nazis, having a really awful reputation. So why don't they appear more often in the film ? Actually, we only see them doing their work - butchering Nazis - in one scene, the one who is in the trailer. That's very frustrating ! I wanted more scalps ! And more tarantinian violence ! I would have liked so much to see the Bear Jew (aka Eli Roth, the one specialized in killing Nazis with a baseball bat) more in action !

There are a lot of things I criticize but I'd reveal some important parts of the plot if I carried on my list.

In my opinion, Tarantino had too many ideas and didn't succeed into laying out them, I found the result far-fetched.

Oh and I warn you : the film is in three languages : english, french, german. The french scenes are sometimes so long that I had the feeling there was two alternating films : the american one, directed by Tarantino, and a french one, with Shosanna, Marcel the black projectionist (who is one of the worst actors I've ever seen) and the Nazi hero played by Daniel Brühl. This feeling was no doubt favoured by the fact that the two groups who want to kill Hitler in the theatre (the american basterds and the french Shosanna + Marcel) never meet, don't even know each others and thus act separately from the beginning to the end. I think that's one of the scenario's weak points.

Yes, Brad Pitt is excellent with his weird face and his weirder accent. The last film in which I saw him was Fight Club, that was strange to see him again ten years after in such a role, far from his sexy ones.

I've not seen Jackie Brown again but I'll soon do it.

I liked Death proof, Kurt Russell is a big bastard, the girls have balls and the car collision scene is great !

From Dusk till dawn... I saw it again a few months ago and still enjoyed it though certain special effects seem outdated (the scene where Harvey Keitel's son is eaten by the vampires is ridiculous ! :D ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
To be fair, Robert Rodriguez directed FDTD, but I know what you mean - it has Tarantino's scriptwriting stamp on it. Rodriguez' Planet Terror was much better than Death Proof in my opinion. Tarantino might love her to bits but Zoë Bell should stick to stunt work.

Looking forward to Machete.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
1) Jackie Brown is awesome. (So is Bobby Womack...)
2) Never been disappointed by Quentin.
3) Including when I saw Basterds and was in awe of it's greatness.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Jacky Brown was a good movie, and I really liked Fargo (with the fake end credit saying it was based on real events :D). That's one of my favorite movies...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ambreen

Sordide Sentimental
and I really liked Fargo
Fargo is not from Tarantino !

Machete - Status: Filming :D
Aaahhh Dany Trejo ! After having seen him in several flicks, I've ended up recognizing him. He looks like a criminal and is as attractive as a truck driver. In the fake trailer, the scene in the water with the two babes is just not credible !

Planet Terror was entertaining. Death Proof was just boring.
I acknowledge that Death Proof contains some lengths, especially the first part with the first group of girls. But so does Inglourious Basterds ! In this latter, some scenes just appear to be endless, you're looking forward for the outcome but the characters are as chatterboxes as Mr. Love, they talk on and on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
I finally watched Inglourious Basterds last weekend. I must agree with several of Ambreen's points, especially

The film is untitled Inglourious Basterds, these basterds are known and dreaded by all the Nazis, having a really awful reputation. So why don't they appear more often in the film ?

Yes, I stupidly thought the film would revolve around these characters, having seen Tarantino suggesting this film was partly his take on a Dirty Dozen type movie...

I would have liked so much to see the Bear Jew (aka Eli Roth, the one specialized in killing Nazis with a baseball bat) more in action !

The scene where he emerges from the dark tunnel, knocking his bat in the darkness - what?!? I was expecting something special there, not just a grubby Eli Roth...

In my opinion, Tarantino had too many ideas and didn't succeed into laying out them, I found the result far-fetched.

Apparently he had enough script material for about 3 normal length movies. I expect that if he'd actually started filming earlier, he would have ended up with at least 2 separate films, as he did with Kill Bill.

... I had the feeling there was two alternating films : the american one... and a french one... This feeling was no doubt favoured by the fact that the two groups ... (the american basterds and the french Shosanna + Marcel) never meet, don't even know each others and thus act separately from the beginning to the end. I think that's one of the scenario's weak points.

I know what you mean. The feel or atmosphere of these two plot lines are very different. The whole experience is somewhat flat. There's certainly some good content, but for me it's mostly an exercise in style over content.

Yes, Brad Pitt is excellent with his weird face and his weirder accent.

Pitt and the other Basterds are so marginalised. His Italian dialogue scene is pretty funny.


The SS officer 'Landa', played by Christoph Waltz is perhaps the most believable character that Tarantino has ever created. His is an awesome performance.

It's worth watching, sure. And I'll watch it again. But I found it disappointing on a first viewing. I don't think Quentin agrees - Pitt's final line of dialogue is I'm sure the director's own comment on the movie itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched it and thought it was great. I saw the 'inglorious basterds' as being not just Pitts crew, but each of the characters in their own way. Pitts crew were clearly getting their hands dirty in an inglorious manner, but when you think about what the other characters get up to, they are each acting in a manner which is unlikely to be promoted as worth gloryfying.

'The Jew Hunter' was possibly one of the scariest portrayals of a Nazi I've ever seen (and the portrayal of Hitler as a disgruntled little boy was very amusing).

I saw a lot of subtlety in the way Tarantino approached the subject, but for now, I'm tired and can't be bothered to carry on. Anyway, loved it.
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
I enjoyed it the way I always enjoy Tarantino. He's a really good story-teller who can move a plot along with some suspense and surprises along the way. Nothing profound, no insights or revelations about the human condition. That's fine. Pass the popcorn...

I thought Pitt's performance was totally unconvincing. Not once was I unaware that he was acting. But, hey - it's a Tarantino amusement ride. I can play along.

Christoph Waltz really nailed the vanity and ego of his character. I thought the performance was good enough for a Best Supporting Actor nomination.
 

Ambreen

Sordide Sentimental
But I found it disappointing on a first viewing. I don't think Quentin agrees - Pitt's final line of dialogue is I'm sure the director's own comment on the movie itself.
That is what I myself and most of the viewers tend to believe. Hope we are all wrong.

'The Jew Hunter' was possibly one of the scariest portrayals of a Nazi I've ever seen (and the portrayal of Hitler as a disgruntled little boy was very amusing).

(warning : spoilers)

I expected Landa to be a terrifying psycho but I was finally disappointed :
- He didn't recognize Shosanna.
- He "only" strangled Diane Kruger's character.
- He thought Aldo Raine would let him go and get what he wanted just like this.

I enjoyed it the way I always enjoy Tarantino. He's a really good story-teller who can move a plot along with some suspense and surprises along the way. Nothing profound, no insights or revelations about the human condition. That's fine. Pass the popcorn...
I don't agree, Tarantino movies are to my opinion much more than mere entertainment. They are cinema.

Eating popcorn while watching a Tarantino flick? Sacrilege!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
Ambreen - In which films has Tarantino risen above mere entertainment for you ? Where and when did he illuminate the human condition or offer complex characters ?
 
I'll let Ambreen answer for herself but these films are above mere entertainment for me (entertainment being the latest laugh track sitcom) - Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds. I don't always want my "Illuminate the human condition" type films or I'd watch nothing more than Pixar. Complex characters to me may not be complex to you. Clarence and Alabama, Jules and Vincent, Jackie and Max, Hans and Shosanna, Mr. Orange and Mr. White, etc. are characters enough for me to sort out. Popcorn fell off my lower lip watching this scene....
 

mjp

Founding member
Tarantino will be looked at in the future as an overrated, empty, hype-jockey, considering that's what he is. That is if the future holds any justice or sanity, which I wouldn't bank on. But Tarantino is the fixie of the film world. A pretentious, ironic, pomo douchebag.

Not that I care, or have an opinion either way.

It is undeniably amusing to watch him pontificate endlessly on film, being that he single handedly created the art of filmmaking and all. So I don't want him to go away. I have enjoyed a few of his movies, and some are pure junk. Doesn't make him a genius or groundbreaking. Just makes him another HOLLYWOOD tool.
 
mjp - sorry to say but when we're all dead and gone they'll still be watching Tarantino films and still be validating his import while the worms settle in.
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
Stavrogin - Believe me, I need a variety of films to satisfy my viewing needs, too. For every work of "serious" cinema, I probably watch 2 or 3 "popcorn" movies. And when it comes to slick narrative, with crackling dialogue and cool action sequences, QT is among the best, imo. But never once did I feel he was taking me below the surface for any in-depth look at anything.

So, you list Jules and Vincent etc., as characters with depth, but what made them multi-dimensional for you ?
 

Ponder

"So fuck Doubleday Doran"
RIP
I remember I fell asleep while I was watching Pulp Fiction.
When I woke up I had to spit out a few small soft pieces of popcorn.
 

mjp

Founding member
Every one of his movies as a director or writer - every one - simmers in a sour stew of irony and referential cheapness that pretty much sums up everything rotten about these mustachioed fixie jerkoffs who are overrunning the world at the moment. It's empty, very empty. The product of a generation with no ideas. Everything Tarantino does is his "take" on something someone else pioneered or did better. Adding an extra layer of graphic violence to an old movie genre is not revolutionary. It's just shock for shock's sake, and something that I think young people appreciate more than others who may have grown up with the things that influenced Tarantino. It all rings hollow to me, false. Winking, self-referential pomo hipster bullshit.

But again, that's not to say there isn't some great entertainment there. But that's all it is. There is no genius, and nothing that film historians will be able to bite into 50 years from now, other than to comment on how such shallowness could be so influential. It's more of a comment about the times he's working in than any talent he has.

Tarantino reminds me of Alice Cooper (really). I though Alice Cooper was about the greatest most outrageous thing in the world when I was 13, 14 years old. But it was just another ratcheting up of the "shock" and "gore," and at its core, very traditional and safe. A new coat of sparkly paint that will eventually get old and chip off.
 
So, you list Jules and Vincent etc., as characters with depth, but what made them multi-dimensional for you ?

Hamlet complex they're not. But they are full, vibrant characters facing moral dilemmas, the Jules one dealt with in the faith vs reason discourse in the restaurant. Vincent's dilemma is, of course, the whole Mia thing and test of loyalty issue with his boss, Marcellus - where I find Tarantino intriguing is the subtle nuances he tosses in to his narrative(s). Marcellus repays Vega's loyalty by not having his back - leaving him in the crapper to go get coffee. In Kill Bill the mother is shot in the head by the father of her child and he takes the child and names her BB (the smallest projectile you can shoot). There's many but I'll stop or mjp will call me out for getting all giddy and wearing emo pants.
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
............ Popcorn fell off my lower lip watching this scene....

That was the most memorable part of that movie and I never realized Tarantino wrote that.

What in hell does fixie mean?

Tarantino's movies are entertaing and that's all he is trying to do as well as copy ....
 
Every one of his movies as a director or writer - every one - simmers in a sour stew of irony and referential cheapness that pretty much sums up everything rotten about these mustachioed fixie jerkoffs who are overrunning the world at the moment.
A friend of mine has a Blues collection that could rival R. Crumbs. It's all he listens to. The tone of your post is not unlike his rant on white-washed rock and roll. It's all derivative, hollow, soulless, smoke and mirrors, etc. Whaddya do? I crank up The Pixies.
 

mjp

Founding member
That's a convenient deflection to use when something has a ring of truth to it. Most rock music is derivative and soulless. But it's easy to dismiss such a blanket truth as generational bias. It's convenient. Doesn't change anything, but I understand why people do it.

There is a vast difference between entertainer and genius, and Tarantino has never crossed that gap. I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say he's incapable of doing it some day. But nothing he's done so far indicates that he has the ability to.

Genius is a term that is thrown around way too casually. Everyone is a genius these days. And everyone gets a trophy and everyone "graduates" from kindergarten. I know, only one person used "genius" - I'm just saying.
 

Hosh

hoshomccreesh.com
As with literature; as with painting; as with any art that is also trafficked as product--the problem is we have no shared vocabulary, no quantifiable sets or measures or yardsticks by which to evaluate them...so OPINION is traded as legitmate criticism. If the critic is writing for the New York Times their opinions are given more weight (by some) then, say, some dude with a blog. Neither is necessarily correct...and, generally speaking, we find the arguments to support the things we already think. But this is how the world is built. If we like something--there's high-brained critique out there somewhere to tell us why; if we don't like it, well, there's also high-brained critique to support that. We find what we go looking for.

If ever we were to somehow establish a clinical, quanitifiable way to prove or disprove something's artistic merit...then maybe the comparative discussions could begin.

For me, personally, my opinion on Tarantino is that I still enjoy his first 3 big films (& will watch them again), but have felt conned walking out of everything after Jackie Brown. This is Taratino the director, I mean.

In re: Taratino as a writer: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and True Romance worked best for me, along with his adaption of Elmore Lemord's book Rum Punch for Jackie Brown...while everything else has been pretty damn disappointing.

As for paying to see his movies: I'm not going to do it--I've been burned for the last time...& I won't pay for another one until he figures it out. That might happen, and it might not.
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
Stavrogin - I suppose the Jules character in "Pulp Fiction" grappled with a moral dilemma. He faced a decision to fundamentally change his way of life. That spray of bullets made him look at his lifestyle and think twice about it. OK - I get it. But Vincent ? He was grappling with whether or not to fuck his boss' wife. I don't think that compares. At least it doesn't matter here, because he didn't TAKE that action and deal with the fallout of his behavior.

In my opinion, the child's name of BB in "Kill Bill" is just another kind of snide, aint-I-clever name game he plays too much. All that inside stuff..... No thanks.
 
It all rings hollow to me, false. Winking, self-referential pomo hipster bullshit.

But again, that's not to say there isn't some great entertainment there. But that's all it is. There is no genius, and nothing that film historians will be able to bite into 50 years from now, other than to comment on how such shallowness could be so influential.

I think that's a major part of his point.

To me, film is one of the "lesser" arts. I've seen any number of films (how's that for being unspecific?); not nearly as many of some of you, but I can't think of one that I would classify as "genius." Or anything close to it. As a medium, it depends too much upon what we already see day to day. Film is nothing more than entertainment even when at its best.

Tarantino's movies are entertaing and that's all he is trying to do as well as copy ....

And he does it well enough to entertain me. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

d gray

tried to do his best but could not
Founding member
To me, film is one of the "lesser" arts. I've seen any number of films (how's that for being unspecific?); not nearly as many of some of you, but I can't think of one that I would classify as "genius." Or anything close to it. As a medium, it depends too much upon what we already see day to day. Film is nothing more than entertainment even when at its best.

it may well be a "lesser art" - probably because it's $ucce$$ depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning - but there's no way you can say that there aren't movies that could qualify as expressions of genius, as overused as that expression is.

i agree that tarantino is a b grade movie maker and most of his films are unwatchable - i think one of the marks of a great work of art in any medium - movies, writing, painting etc is that each time you re-experience it it gets deeper.
tarantino does the opposite (for me)

i don't know, maybe you can't apply genius to film - too many hands involved - but i've seen films that get deeper every time i re-watch them.
Taxi Driver is a film that gets heavier with every viewing to name one.
Maybe Buster Keaton but it's all subjective anyways so fuck it.

good night...
 
it may well be a "lesser art" - probably because it's $ucce$$ depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning - but there's no way you can say that there aren't movies that could qualify as expressions of genius, as overused as that expression is.

I don't mean to denegrate the making of films, but I certainly will state that I've seen no film that even suggests genius to me. I'm often entertained by film, but it's typically little more than that. I suppose genius, to me, has some connotation of supreme greatness to me, and since I can't really drop that moniker on any film (there are some great films to me, but they are, at the end of it all, just greatly entertaining to me), I am forced to arrive at the conclusion that the best films do not quite measure up to the best music, best paintings and best sculptures.

Music too "depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning" and that does remove much of the overall lustre of the art, but there's still this creation from nothing thing going on with at least somemusic that film just cannot claim in my opinion.

Of course, this is all my opinion, which means jack. Maybe it has something to do with my attention span, which is fairly
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
I was all set to agree that film-making is a lesser art*, then reconsidered. Isn't a film simply a narrative told in a different medium ? The basic elements that make up the arc of a novel - introduction of characters and setting, exposition of background, a conflict arising, climax and resolution etc. - are also present in film. Instead of turning pages filled with words, we follow the action by watching a series of images on a screen. But it's still storytelling. And yes, the term genius is way overused nowadays.




*I'm just going to put on The Big Lifeguard Pants and warn everyone not to swim out to the What Is Art ? undertow currents. Very dangerous...
 
There are filmmakers who have created film for purposes other than just pure entertainment, and of course many of them found the lighting difficult up their own arse. However, I would point you to Tarkovsky as an example of a filmmaker, who I believe, stands up as a possible genius in his field.

Film has a power in its directness and I think some people dismiss it due to its popularity. Art, in its many forms, gives the viewer/listener many things such as enlightenment, enjoyment, emotional reaction (positive or negative) etc, and I would find it hard to differentiate the reactions I solicit from one art form over another.

Hollywood has had a negative impact on European cinema (especially in Britain) but I don't dismiss it's entire output on the basis of a large proportion of pap. Every so often it grips the sides and squeezes out a gem. There was a great book called 'Easy Riders and Raging Bulls' which charts the fall of Hollywoods golden years after the success of Jaws. Hang on a second I'm rambling incoherently now...

Now go away and watch 'The Sacrifice' by Andrei Tarkovsky and tell me that isn't genius at work.

p.s I don't think Tarantino is a genius, but I have enjoyed some of his films, including inglorious basterds.
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
.......................
*I'm just going to put on The Big Lifeguard Pants and warn everyone not to swim out to the What Is Art ? undertow currents. Very dangerous...
LOL:D

Thank you. Q Tarantino is a very smart person. He does like to shock and say the unspeakable. Sometimes somethings are better left unsaid.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top