| Tango01 | 28 Oct 2014 9:45 p.m. PST |
"Famed Polish actor Joseph Tura is deep behind enemy lines. It's 1939 in Nazi-occupied Warsaw, and the old hack is trying to convince a Gestapo colonel that he's really a German spy. Tura is working for the Polish resistance. He's wearing a false beard, glasses and the fancy dress of a dead man. He's attempting to feed the Gestapo misinformation. Despite his missed lines and blatant overacting, Tura pulls it off. The Gestapo officer buys his act. The resistance is safe for another night. But on the way out, Tura can't resist a little self-promotion. He mentions he'll soon be dining with the actress Maria Tura…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Big Martin Back | 29 Oct 2014 4:23 a.m. PST |
Have seen the Mel Brooks remake several times, but not the original. |
| Who asked this joker | 29 Oct 2014 6:27 a.m. PST |
I don't think I've seen it all the way through. I have seen parts of it though when I was much younger. I'll have to put that one on my list. Thanks Armand! |
| Old Slow Trot | 29 Oct 2014 6:29 a.m. PST |
Caught the original version on TCM a few weeks ago.Brooks did quite a good job too,even giving a mention of Jack Benny when a Warsaw lady tells the young aviator where he can find who he's looking for, on "Kubelski Street"(a tribute to Benny's birth surname). |
| Fatman | 29 Oct 2014 6:55 a.m. PST |
I have seen both and for once even Mel Brookes can't improve on the original, although both are brilliant. Fatman |
| clibinarium | 29 Oct 2014 8:24 a.m. PST |
There's a big dash of "Hitler; Dead or Alive" in IB.
|
| CeruLucifus | 29 Oct 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
I also have only seen the Mel Brooks version. Have to look for this Lubistch original at some point. I wondered if there was any support for the assertion that Tarentino borrowed from Lubitsch's "To Be Or No To Be" for "Inglorious Basterds". Google turns up this interview where he mentions the film. link |
| Tango01 | 29 Oct 2014 11:03 a.m. PST |
My pleasure my friend!. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| BuckeyeBob | 29 Oct 2014 2:52 p.m. PST |
I had seen the Mel Brooks version first, a couple of times before seeing the 1942 Jack Benny version. Sorry to disagree with some here, but I felt that the original was far too low key in its humor and that the Mel Brooks version, with its over-the-top renditions and sight gags, was far funnier and faster paced than the Benny version. |
| charared | 29 Oct 2014 6:03 p.m. PST |
Jack Benny's version STILL superior to Mel's really good remake! Benny's comedy, witty script (Lombard responding deadpan – but VERY interested -to young Robert Stack's assertion… "I never knew a man who could drop three tons of dynamite in two minutes."). Sig Rumann, Felix Bressart(sp?)… EXCELLANT!!! |
| jowady | 29 Oct 2014 9:27 p.m. PST |
I liked the Brooks version and also Benny's. Benny was always very subtle in his humor and so it was played differently, there was also an immediacy to what Benny did since the war was going on when he did it. Brooks has always been broader in his humor. I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, it's a question of personal preference. As for IB I have to admit, and I realize that I am in the minority here, I have tried to watch it many times and I just can't get into it. For me I can't believe that Tarantino made it because it bores the Hell out of me. Again I know that's just me, if you like it fine, it's why God gave us both chocolate and vanilla. |
| nazrat | 31 Oct 2014 10:02 a.m. PST |
|
