"Inglorious Basterds" Topic

Managed to catch a preview screening of this.

It's VERY definitely a Tarantino.
Takes massive license with history, a few snappy one liners, quite a bit of gory violence, cameos from a bunch of his fave actors.

Probably not in the same league as Pulp Fiction, and I think fairly self indulgent, but not too bad.

Looking forward to it.

I've a feeling this will fail to find an audience and really flop in spectacular fashion.

But I could be completely wrong. I have no sense of what the masses will do at times.

Tarantino is reminding me of Orson Wells. "Pulp Fiction" is one of the greatest movies for dialog and action that I have seen. It may be his best movie he will ever make as nothing has come close since.

I will most likely skip this one for the reasons stated above by The Hobbybox (a few snappy one liners, quite a bit of gory violence, cameos from a bunch of his fave actors).

Four Rooms wasn't so bad.

Wait til Netflix…

As someone interest the resistance movement is France and the British support for it, I can't say I'm looking forward to this one.

I'm off to see it tonight.

Saw it…liked it.

At the end, the audience was clapping. The spaghetti western theme really worked for me.

As I never really take history lessons at the cinema, I was not too worried about historical accuracy…

I laughed a lot, but could have done without the amount of gore that they showed. The gore is really my only complaint…

History nerds will need to get over it, but if you like Tarantino, you'll love it. If you like spaghetti westerns, and don't mind a civil war fight over a bridge in the middle of the desert, you won't mind the end.

It was great. Loved it. Writing was tight. Acting was good. The guy playing Colonel Landa was excellent. Brad Pitt was hilarious. Eli Roth was annoying, but good.

I'm biased cus I've always been a QT fan, and 'Inglourious Basterds' is vintage Tarantino. Like 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Kill Bill,' the story's told in episodic 'chapters,' each with a different protagonist. As in 'Pulp Fiction,' some of them cross paths and QT loves to set them up before taking them down. The soundtrack was also great. The 'Inglourious Basterds' proves once again that Tarantino can write one helluva script. Of course, it took him around 10 years.

I certainly have never come away from a film with such a mixed feeling of opinion as I did from this…

The film certainly has moments of brilliance – some fantastic dialogue and amazing moments of tension, coupled with some truly sterling multi lingual performances from the international cast. As a series of individual vinettes the film works really well with some very nicely crafted scenes.

But ultimately I have to conclude that the film is a commendable failure as it seems to never quite lives up to its original objectives. Tarantino orginally stated that he wanted this to be his 'X number of guys on a mission movie' but the Basterds in question are almost secondary thinly drawn characters in the shadows of to what would seem to be a subplot but is actually the main focus of the film concerning the revenge of a murdered Jewish family. There is nothing wrong with this story line, in fact you could cut all the stuff with Basterds out and the film would work perfectly well with just this story line.

Only three of the Basterds receive anything like significant screen time – Eli Roth and Brad Pitt both play characters that seem almost cartoon like, which grates against other performances in the film that are played less for laughs and more totally straight. So it is with these odd ingredients that Tarantino, having established that were are in something of fantasy occupied France see's fit to meddle with the enviroment (History) he has set his characters in. Now I love films like Where Eagles Dare and Kelly Heroes, all great fun stuff with a collection of the weird and wonderful and silly bad guys, just like we have here, but both of those films worked because even though they were total fantasy they were firmly entrenched in a historical enviroment that was based on an acceptable reality. Both films also focused on the journey of a small group of characters from start to finish, adding others when needed to enhance the story. Now any director should never feel the need to follow all the rules and it would certainly be boring if they did, but having set up your relative reality you then go and break it all but having Hitler turn up and do and say things that would have never happened in history (I am trying not to give too much away here)

To me this made all the lovely crafted scenes set up before it totally pointless. While I can see that QT was having fun and poking jokes at certain genres it really isn't that much fun for the audience as you really don't feel your in on the joke. If you made a fictional story set around say Tony Blairs reign as primeminister, it wouldn't work if you ended the movie with Blair dying in a gun fight as we all know this didn't happen in reality so the plot becomes redundant. So okay, then it could be an alternate reality film, okay fine, you lose alot of credibility, but fine, so then what is it? A great fun action movie? Nope, because there really isn'y much action. Is it a serious war film? No because you have already tampered with history so it can't be serious. Is it a pasthiche comedy? Well not really, because too many moments are horrorific to be considered funny.

It almost seems it try's to be too many things and ultimately fails at all of them. Prehaps QT wanted it to be a film that was hard to define and will get people talking, which I am sure it will suceed at but as the majority of people seem to be saying 'Its S@@te' that's not such a good thing.

You can't deny that Tarantino writes great dialogue, obviously has a great passion for film, but nods to Kelly Heroes soundtrack in a film that isn't anything like Kelly Heroes do not for a great film make.

I don't regret going to see it, but I cannot wholeheartedly recommend it either.

I saw it last night.

I didn't like it. I really disliked it for making the murder of unarmed prisoners comedic.

Otto
noizehive.blogspot.com

I just saw it this evening and thought it was very good. I had low expectations and I usually can't sit through gore and violence, but none of it affected me this time.

The fact that it took place during WW2 was sort of irrelevant. It could just as easily been vigilantes tracking down mobsters or something similar. Brad Pitt was the comic relief after the more intense scenes.

The opening chapter at the farm was gripping. I liked the way that Colonel Landa began each scene in a sort of friendly manner, but as the scene developed, the veneer of friendliness was slowly pealed away and the character realized that he or she was in grave danger (the restaurant scene and the farm scene and the movie house scene).

The fight in the wine cellar was an amazingly crafted scene with the a little levity and then it slowly builds up to the deadly climax. Characters die that you expect to live and visa versa.

I had low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised at what a well crafted movie it was. There are going to be a bunch of Oscars going to this picture.

I agree that the strenghts of the movie were the points made above, but I can't say that it being set in World War 2 was irrelvant, why include Hitler at all?

I do not think the film will win any of the big Oscars to be honest.

I am curious if QT ever makes anything that is wholly original instead of just a pastiche of some other genre(s), homages to his favorite films, post-modern ironic send-ups, or violent juvenile fantasies? In short, a mature piece of art that isn't always winking at its own cleverness? With some depth or resonance that isn't based on self-indulgent film geekery?

Excuse the bile, it's late and I just have never bought into the QT cult. He doesn't make movies for ME, so he can hardly expect me to be interested.

It was great. Loved it. Writing was tight. Acting was good. The guy playing Colonel Landa was excellent. Brad Pitt was hilarious. Eli Roth was annoying, but good.

Yes, actor doing Landa was genius.

actually the main focus of the film concerning the revenge of a murdered Jewish family. There is nothing wrong with this story line, in fact you could cut all the stuff with Basterds out and the film would work perfectly well with just this story line.

Absolutely, seems a bit contradictory. In interviews he states he wanted to do 'a bunch of guys on a mission' but this doesn't come through. The plot gets sidetracked to Shoshana and the premier and then the lengthy scene in the cellar.