Inglourious Basterds & Tarantino in general (1 Viewer)

I really like Tarantino for his entertainment, but there's nothing more than pure shocking entertainment to his movies. That's fine because sometimes I just want to be entertained by a very easy to follow story line and amazing pictures of violence, blood and gore. It's fun to switch off the brain and enjoy.
Even therapeutical because it works like a vacuum cleaner for the mind.

But I doubt he will be important for the future, his films are kind of short lived because he's at the nerve of our time and will be obsolete someday soon.
 

mjp

Founding member
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.
Purple Stickpin;92320 said:
I think that's a major part of his point.
You think he was/is making a grand comment on shallowness by perfecting it? Ha. I'm quite sure he is not thoughtful enough to do that. One day he will no doubt realize that is exactly what he's done with his career and claim to have had it mind all along, but that's clearly not the case. He believes he's making important art, and he believes he is a genius. Whether we agree or not.

He is no Duchamp hanging a urinal on the wall. He's just the guy who sees the Duchamp show and later hangs a newer model urinal up in a gallery down the street, in the mistaken belief that the urinal is the art.

Film is the newest art, but hardly lesser-than. It's been around for less than 100 years and the other"arts" have been around for thousands. You can't really compare them yet. But to dismiss it? Methinks you just watch too many shitty movies. ;)
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
I think I should add this about Q Tarantino. I sold a truck to a man who was a grip for the movies Kill Bill and he liked Tarantino. That would be compared to the many other directors this grip ever worked for. He liked the way Tarantino worked and interacted with everyone including the crew. Yes that doesn't validate too much but it shows that he probably doesn't go around like he some type of god.
I also think Tarantino uses the N word too much.
 

d gray

tried to do his best but could not
Founding member
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,
i just meant that because of the huge sums of money spent on making
most films - as opposed to making an album or writing a book etc. - the
bottom line is the first priority which is where depending on the general
public - ie HUGE numbers going to see it - comes in.

and the shite that the general public will line up to pay and sit through
and think is great is truly mindblowing to me.

just one more thing to make you lose faith in humanity.
 
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.

We're just approaching it differently. You see clever cheap trickery, I see a wicked sense of humor. The devil is in the details. mjp stated that Tarantino simply added an extra layer of graphic violence to an old movie genre and that's true from an Americans viewpoint - Asian crime films had added that layer years prior to Reservoir Dogs. Americans don't typically like foreign films (subtitles? FUCK!!) unless it's a poorly dubbed kung-fu flick or Godzilla. We don't watch them even if the filmmaker is regarded as genius - Godard, Fellini, Bergman... Tarantino takes his love of foreign genre films and throws it back at us. Sure he homogenizes but to borrow from Buk, he knows how to lay down a scene - in his own unique way.
 
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.

My opinion is that it is much more challenging to create an image from words than from the operation of a camera. Considering the better aspects of both media, by and large, the written word conjures images, and film spoon-feeds them to you.

Film is the newest art, but hardly lesser-than. It's been around for less than 100 years and the other"arts" have been around for thousands. You can't really compare them yet. But to dismiss it? Methinks you just watch too many shitty movies. ;)

I thought that reciting Bukowski poetry to an electronic drum machine and a digital accordian was the newest art.

But I would agree that I watch too many shitty movies. But there I go being redundant again.
 

justine

stop the penistry
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.

i was about to post what i thought of this movie, but i realised dave had already said it better ;)

probably my favourite QT thing is the 'making of' From Dusk Till Dawn.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
I hate to bring up an old topic, but after watching Inglorius Basterds for the first time(yesterday)I feel moved. I recently re-watched all QT(don't feel like looking up proper spelling) writer/director films, and by recent, I mean the last month or so. Anyway, at the end of Resorvoir Dogs, I thought, what the F was all the fuss about? And that was maybe the 3rd time I watched it? I watched both Kill Bill films and wondered, why the hell did I just waste another 5 hours(I did see both vol 1 and 2 in the theaters.) Then I watched Jackie Brown, and thought, well I've only seen this maybe 3x, years ago, it wont be so bad. Shit, it was excellent!!! At the end I thought, ok, yes everyone's right ole QT can really make a film! Even though it was only 1 good one out of the last 4 I watched, it was fricken awesome! Then I watched Death Proof for only the second time, and thought well Rosario Dawson's lil dance scene in the bar was worth the movie. So I gave ole QT another pass. At last I pulled out the master piece Pulp Fiction. I mean, how many times did I watch this in 1994 and declare to my friends, QT is a genius? At the end, I swear I said to myself, what the fuck? After Bruce Willis comes on the screen, the rest of the movie is shit! Then yesterday I watched Inglorious Basterds, and I was amazed! I thought, there was an inventive, kinda original idea. I also thought QT took a chance on casting someone like Brad Pitt. Then this morning I re-watched it, and at the end agreed with Brad Pitt. I think this is QT's masterpiece.

Anyway maybe in 10 years I'll think this is just as shitty as all QT movies, but for now, Jackie Brown, Death Proof and Inglorious Basterds(QT's masterpiece) are A-OK with me!
 
Tarantino is far from a genius, but he makes a very entertaining film now and again. Inglorious Basterds was certainly one of them, but it wasn't great. Personally, I thought Bruce Willis was very well cast in Pulp Fiction. But the gem moment from that film was when Jules and Vincent are in Jimmy's bathroom washing up and Vincent has a bit of trouble washing up real proper.

"I used the same fuckin' soap you did and when I got finished, the towel didn't look like no goddamn Maxi-Pad." That's among the best lines in cinema history.

The bacon/swine dialogue is good as well.

But QT ain't no mother-fucking genius. There ain't but 10 of them and most of them are dead.
 

Ambreen

Sordide Sentimental
I Then I watched Death Proof for only the second time, and thought well Rosario Dawson's lil dance scene in the bar was worth the movie.
It's not Rosario Dawson but Vanessa Ferlito (). This latter dies whereas Rosario Dawson belongs to the second group of girls, those who kick Kurt Russell's ass.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
Wow, thanks for the correction, guess I aint much of a Rosario Dawson fan to have misunderstood that. Still, a pretty sexy lap dance all the same.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
I cannot tell you how happy I was when I found out this movie was coming out, I'm sure it will have it's own thread once released, but man, Machete looks insane!
 
I don't think Tarantino has done anything of note since Jackie Brown, and that was just an OK film. The Kill Bill's were an expensive overwrought Kung Fu flick. He's basically lived on his laurels since Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, which are two excellent films. But since then he's just become a B movie maker with an A class Hollywood budget.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
I totally disagree, Inglorious Basterds was an amazing flick. Sure you can throw some of QT's movies out the window, but basterds was amazing, of course, just my opinion. And Jackie Brown, just an ok flick? WHAT? I think Jackie was by far better than Dogs, and I think it's held up over time way more than Pulp Fiction, but hey, I'm just saying...
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
WOW! scooter, Reservoir Dogs was too bloody for my taste but Jackie Brown was much better than just Okay. Kill Bill was great because it was a top notch violent fight fantasy movie that was visually superior to most stuff you see these days. Who else can create the sound and visual beauty of the final fight scene in the snow with that neat little bamboo fountain tapping and clicking in the background? You must be looking for something else all together in your movies to not appreciate Quinton Tarantino.
 

mjp

Founding member
Inglorious Basterds was an amazing flick.
It's been sitting in our TiVo for some time, unwatched, because it's more than two and a half hours long.

Tarantino is in love with himself and editing his movies must be the most painful thing he ever does. I'm sure he believes every frame is genius and none should be cut. His shit is always way too long.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
that doesn't work. my wife always gets loaded and she says I'm never the right length.


hey-ooooo!
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
Hahhahahha, Hooch that was funny, Holy Mackeral! hahahah. mjp, I think that was one of my main reasons for staying away from basterds for so long. I kept thinking, eh I don't have the time, and the reviews, trailers, etc never made me want to see it too badly. So one random morning I said, ok I'm watching it. It certainly did not seem that long, and when it was over, I wanted more. Give it a shot, some of the actors were pretty damn amazing and I gotta say, I was even impressed with Pitt.
 
C

Composer

I've seen it 3 times so far, and I think Christoph Waltz give a superb, multi-level performance. On the surface, he first appears charming and sophisticated, a man you'd like to have over for dinner. Underneath is a heart as cold as stone. He doesn't hunt Jews so much because he hates them, but because it's his job and he has no feelings at all.

But there's more. At the end of the film, he reveals another nature - an insecure, silly little man who postures as a cold-hearted villan n order to survive, but who will throw it all out to save his skin.

The other characters seemed far less defined. Brad Pitt's Tennessee accent is hilarious, though not at all believeable, and most of the rest are pretty one-dimensional.
 

mjp

Founding member
We watched it this weekend and I felt every long, droning minute of it. It is typical Tarantino. All surface gloss, no guts. There is no undercurrent, subtlety or surprise in anything he does, in any character he writes. It's all out there to see, and it's all very shallow and stupid crap wrapped in a thick layer of "ironic" pop culture detachment.

He's nothing more than a tragically wannabe hipster Roger Corman with a bigger budget. None of his movies will stand the test of time. The older ones already look like the stinky cheese that they are. Put them into a time capsule with everything Spike Jonze ever did and bury them deep in the ground in an ironic, self-referential time capsule for the ironic worms to enjoy.

Aside from that I have no real opinion on the matter.
 

mjp

Founding member
I've been thinking about it, and Tarantino's movies are certainly entertaining, as long as you go into them without any great expectations. What fries my noodle is when people talk about him being a great director or a great artist. He is neither. Shock and gore is cheap and easy, and that's all he's got.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
You know, after having re-watched all his movies in the last year. I was just shocked at how it felt like water torture getting through Resevoir Dogs, Kill Billl I/II, and especially Pulp Fiction. I mean, I was floored, sitting there thinking, didn't I used to LOVE these movies? I still say I found Jackie Browne as entertaining as I always have, actually liked it more nowadays. But I really could not believe how hard it was to sit through Pulp Fiction. I don't think I will ever watch it again, ever. I'll have to watch Basterds again in a couple of years and see how it holds up for me.
 
It's fashionable to hate on Tarantino and fuck fashion I'm of the singular mind-set he's a brilliant filmmaker. Every film he makes I look forward to and I could care less what the naysayers say. Pulp Fiction is a classic. It created a cottage-industry in Hollywood for years - countless films were created in its wake. Doesn't much sound like it was much but what do I know?! That's sarcasm in the best of terms. Industry changing focal points must be dull and listless. Right? Punk rock, anyone?!
 

mjp

Founding member
It created a cottage-industry in Hollywood for years - countless films were created in its wake.
Such as?

Imitation is not an indication of quality. Every Sunset strip band form the 80s is painful testament to that.

Industry changing focal points must be dull and listless. Right?
Not sure what that means. It it's a defense of shock and gore and smirking irony being the only elements of your "art," then it's not a very good defense.

Tarantino's movies have no soul. They are detached and self-aware, as all ironic art is. His characters are trite, cliched and one dimensional, so you can't ever relate to or empathize with any of them. None of them have any love or passion for anything. In fact, love and passion in any form are completely absent from every Tarantino movie.

You can work within those limitations and be a good filmmaker, but you will never make great films.
 
Shock and gore is cheap and easy, and that's all he's got.

There's some humor too.

Jules: I used the same soap as you and my towel didn't end up lookin' like no goddamn maxi pad.

Wolf: Now let's not start suckin' each other's dicks just yet.

Marcellus and Butch with ball gags?

But you're spot on about not having any expectations other than some entertainment.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
he borrows excessively from other films and pieces together the borrowed bits with lots of irony glue. sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's entertaining, but I always have the feeling when I'm watching his films he thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and it's smarmy and condescending. there's always an element of 'let's see if the rubes can figure out what Japanese film that was never released I'm referencing now!'

but I liked Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs when they first came out.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
It's fashionable to hate on Tarantino

Fashionable where? I know no one would probably say he sucked to his face. But in June as my FNG iPOD was being stolen out of my car, I was outside of the Viper room smoking a cigarette as some local homeless guy came telling me and a few other people Tarentino was a few feet behind him with two girls, and had just given the homeless dude $20 bucks....Sure enough he was, as he came strolling up the sidewalk two minutes later. All of a sudden the 15 people outside smoking turned into 50, each one of them telling Tarentino what a genius he was. He certainly seems to be pretty well liked and adored around here. In addition all my friends, every single one of them, it's a very small circle, but anyway every single one of them thinks he's BRILLIANT! On and on we sit and argue why I think M. Night Syhmalan was 10X the writer and director Tarentino ever was! But, I don't know, I think, as far as I've ever known, it was more fashionable to worship Tarentino in these parts.

Hooch, couldn't agree more, I thought both Pulp and Resevoir dogs were amazing when they came out, and now I can't sit through either one of them, especially Pulp.
 
he borrows excessively from other films and pieces together the borrowed bits with lots of irony glue. sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's entertaining, but I always have the feeling when I'm watching his films he thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and it's smarmy and condescending. there's always an element of 'let's see if the rubes can figure out what Japanese film that was never released I'm referencing now!'

All of which is irrelevant to me when it come to film. If he thinks he's a genius and/or people tell him he's a genius, it's not even a rat's ass to me. All I expect out a film is entertainment of some sort and he generally delivers. I expect more from books and paintings and music, so the qualities you mentioned can be more annoying in those media to me. {queue comments about pretentious prog bands I like...}
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
it's irrelevant to you because you've decided film is a lesser art form. which is fine. I can't really argue that.

my mother liked romance novels and Thomas Kincaid paintings because they made her feel good. was she right? yes. did I agree that romance novels and Kincaid paintings were the best that those respective mediums could produce? no. but that's what she wanted from writing and art.
 
it's irrelevant to you because you've decided film is a lesser art form.

While it's true that I see it as a "lesser art form," I would really like to enjoy film more. See notes below.

I can't really argue that.

You needn't argue the point that my opinion is that film is a lesser art form, since arguing about opinons is like trying to shoot mosquitoes with a musket. But that's not the point, You can certainly argue the point within a film context because I confined my position about "only expecting entertainment" to film. Therefore, there is no "lesser art form" in the context of this conversation. All else hath been removed, so all that remains is fair game.

In the film genre, I'll admit that QT does seem to try to hover above all with these smarmy ideas and presentations that are meant to speak to a cognescenti few. It's not that this is immatarial to me because I see film as a lesser form of art, but because I refuse to be sucked into that realm - that so endearing academic realm that would speak to me of his pretense. Certainly there is good film, but how much ponderousness must we endure to see the light in a visual image already spoon-fed into our weakened psyche?

I would so much rather someone write about it and let me interpret it - no need for me to get it just as the author intended; no, no. Let me be sucked in to my interpretation of your world. If your goal is to get a specific message across, why not write an editorial column?

my mother liked romance novels and Thomas Kincaid paintings because they made her feel good. was she right? yes. did I agree that romance novels and Kincaid paintings were the best that those respective mediums could produce? no. but that's what she wanted from writing and art.

Juvenile comparison. We all get the whole concept here. Tarantino's arrogance is immaterial to me because I don't care about it. Picasso's arrogance is also immaterial to me even though I do care about it.

Edited to add: Well, it would seem as though I've made your argument for you. G'night.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_Fiction_(film) pan down to Influence and reputation - I was just going to list a bunch of films but this says it better.

Not sure what that means. It it's a defense of shock and gore and smirking irony being the only elements of your "art," then it's not a very good defense.

No, not defense of the violent aspects of his films but the narrative structure, energy/vibrancy of the dialogue and composition. Surely you'll not care for his films if you don't care to watch graphic violence. I'm not so sure he even pushed the envelope that much with "shock scenes" as say A Clockwork Orange.

Tarantino's movies have no soul.
I really like Kubrick but feel this way about his films. Technically brilliant but emotionally sterile, hospital smell detachment. Don't get that same sense watching Tarantino. If you're not moved by, say the opening scene at the dairy farm from Inglourious Basterds, maybe what we define as "soul" is different.


Fashionable where?

All over the 'net, nervas. Visit a site where films are discussed and you'll probably find at least one thread devoted to bashing Tarantino. And they often get silly. He talks too fast, he has a misshaped head, his shoelace was untied.

What I just wrote took all of two hours to finish. Jesus Christ! My computer is fucked and keeps shutting down on its own. copy-notepad-paste I've now mastered and will suffice till I figure out what's wrong.
 

mjp

Founding member
Surely you'll not care for his films if you don't care to watch graphic violence. I'm not so sure he even pushed the envelope that much with "shock scenes" as say A Clockwork Orange.
I must have missed the part in A Clockwork Orange where the brains splattered all over the back seat of the car. But you inadvertently make my point for me; Clockwork was infinitely more disturbing than any Tarantino movie. Ask yourself why that is. They didn't use anywhere near the level of graphic, close-up violence or language, yet the movie really gives you the fucking creeps. That is because one was made by a filmmaker and the others were made by a shallow hipster jerkoff.

If you're not moved by, say the opening scene at the dairy farm from Inglourious Basterds
Not moved by it one bit. Good example, because it perfectly demonstrates that Tarantino is incapable making you care about any of his characters. Not to mention the fact that you knew how that scene was going to end as soon as the Nazis got out of the car.

When people meet their grizzly end in a Tarantino movie I just shrug and yawn. I have no emotional investment in any of them, and if you can't get me to care about someone, anyone, you can't make a great film. How anyone can sit through something like Deathproof and consider it anything other than one of the worst films ever made is beyond me. The final scene is nothing but gratuitous gore. You don't give a shit about any of those characters. When they are ripped apart in the oh-so-clever ways, it's like; "Oh. Okay. Is there any pizza left? Hand me the bong and that Jethro Tull album..."
 
We're just friends with two different Izzys. Izzy Not and Izzy Too and you know how those two enjoy going round and round. You've seen Deathproof? That one if you'd blinked you would have missed it at the theater. Just begs the question why do you continue to watch his films if you feel the way you do about him?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top