Inglourious Basterds

I saw it in Tuesday, there were parts where I had to turn away but over all I loved it

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I would have liked more bloodshed but i say that about a lot of movies >.>

Why would she be the one to drag you along if she's not a fan?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I don't know. I was more inclined to see District 9 and she wanted to see Inglorious Bastards more (possibly the Brad Pitt factor).

I thought as much.

Inglourious Basterds is the best film of 2009, in my own humble opinion, so far! I can't say Tarantino topped Pulp Fiction, but he sure has made a film that is as memorable as the 1994 Oscar winning classic.

Brad Pitt was hysterical as Aldo Raines. Does he deserve an Oscar nod for this performance? I doubt the Academy will give him the consideration. I mean his performance is tacky and scene-stealing, but is it as good as Benjamin Button? Not quite. However, the Oscar nods MUST be considered for 2 actors in this film; the first being Christoph Waltz as the menacing and eluding "Jewhunter", Lt. Hans Landa, and the second being Melanie Laurent as 'the jew that got away', Shosanna Dreyfus.

The cinematography was spectacular, and the dialogue was just perfect! Both categories should be getting Oscar nominations, and I do expect Tarantino to grab his second Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay in 2010.

I must admit that I am a die-hard Tarantino fan. But in no way am I being biased here. I didn't like Death Proof that much. That movie dragged on and on with the girlie talk, and the characters seemed one-dimensional. From the first viewing of Basterds, I instantly loved it. The main characters were well-rounded, especially Laurent's and Waltz's characters. I would have loved to see more of Aldo Raine's background, like the origin of the scar across his neck, and more screen time of the baseball bat executioner, "the Jew bear", played by Eli Roth.

The opening scene where Lt. Landa interrogates a French farmer on whether or not he's hiding any jews, as well as the underground cavern scene where a couple of undercover Basterds and double agents confront a Nazi General, were amazingly brilliant and breathtaking!

All in all, a very very entertaining movie, and one I will want to watch again and again and again!

Great movie. But what else would you expect from the guy who did Pulp Fiction?

After Kill Bill and Death Proof, I'd expect something crap.

I'm with you on Death Proof, but yowza, you didn't like Kill Bill?

Not really, no. It's got its moments but overall pretty mediocre.

Kill Bill: Vol 1 was pretty empty, over stylised pap that dozens off Asian films best- Zatoichi released the same year, for one.

__________________

Death Proof is much better than Kill Bill, which I didn't think too much of. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I liked Death Proof more than Pulp Fiction. Only Reservoir Dogs is better in the Tarantino cannon.

Tarantino has described Kill Bill Vol 1&2 as being the Bride's journey (and battle) through the annals of exploitation cinema.

The films are littered with references to grindhouse classics like Game of Death (The Bride's yellow outfit); Thriller: A Cruel Picture (Elle Driver's eye patch and the female revenge theme); The 36th Chamber of Shaolin & Shaw Brothers kung fu flicks (the casting of Chia Hui Liu/Gordon Liu as Johnny Mo); The Street Fighter series and Japanese Karate films (the casting of Sonny Chiba); the Hanzo the Razor series (Sonny Chiba's character is called Hanzo) etc etc...the list really does go on and on.

But despite (and perhaps because of) all this I agree the films are empty, self indulgent and over blown. I like Tarantino and what he's about; he's made me aware of lots of really cool movies, and his passion and enthusiasm for the grindhouse really is a joy to behold. It's just I think he's seen too much and can't help himself, which doesn't always make for good films. I actually prefer watching his interviews over his movies for those reasons.

I do think Inglorious Basterds is a slight return to form though (and I stress slight). The references to cult favourites are more subtle with the exception of Hugo Stiglitz*, the spaghetti western soundtrack, and the opening scene which reminded me so much of Lee Van Cleef's introduction in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I agree with Holden Pike that the film owes alot to Sergio Corbucci's spaghetti westerns, especially the way the Basterds were almost portrayed as revolutionaries. Tarantino crafts some thrillingly tense scequences; particularly the scene with the Gestapo officer in the underground bar, and Shosanna Dreyfus' apple strudel encounter with Col. Landa. I also agree with everyone else that Christoph Waltz is absolute dynamite in the film; a real find.

On the downside I still thought the film was a little self indulgent, uneven in tone, and overlong (It'd be interesting to see Tarantino bring in another ninety minute movie). Plus unlike alot of people on these boards I really didn't care for Brad Pitt's performance at all. I thought he was mugging the whole time and cringe worthy. That said I did laugh out loud when he was attempting to speak Italian and Landa kept making him repeat himself; brilliant. Overall I'd give Inglorious Basterds -

* For those who don't know Hugo Stiglitz is a mexican actor well known among fans of Italian horror as the star of Umberto Lenzi's cult zombie crapfest Nightmare City. It's long been known that Tarantino is a fan of that movie. You could also speculate that Tarantino naming one of the Basterds after a Mexican actor further evidences the parallel with the revolutionaries of Corbucci's westerns (a stretch maybe). Oh and when Stiglitz' name flashes up in huge letters, Tarantino uses the same type face from They Call Her One Eye aka Thriller: A Cruel Picture.


The real Hugo Stiglitz.

[EDIT] I almost forgot, Tarantino name drops a cult Italian director with one of the Basterds calling himself Antonio Margheriti (in the cinema when they're posing as Italians). Antonio Margheriti made spaghetti westerns, gialli, and war movies, but is probably best known (at least in the UK) for his classic nasty Cannibal Apocalypse. Once again Tatantino is a fan of that movie.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

I mostly know Stiglitz from all the crap he made for director René Cardona Jr. in the '70s and '80s which somehow kept getting distributed in the U.S. Yes, don't ask me why, but back when I was younger, I watched Blood Feast, Tintorera, Secrets of the Bermuda Triangle, Guyana: Cult of the Damned, Treasure of the Amazon, etc. They constitute a yuckarama.

I've seen my share of Margheriti ("Anthony M. Dawson") flicks too, but many of them are watchable.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Did you ever see Cyclone Mark? It's the one where they're adrift at sea and turn to cannibalism (before getting ripped apart by the shyest looking man eating sharks ever). The finale is very gory, but it takes an age for anything to happen. Stiglitz played the airline pilot in that one.

I wanna see it just because it's a Quentin Tarantino film and because you guys seem to love it... but the TV spots do not interest me.

I am hesistant... even with Brad Pitt starring in it! Although, I hate the mustache, and I usually like mustaches. What's wrong with me?

"Inglorious Basterds".

Epic, weird, off the wall, nasty, twisty, fanboyish, suspenseful, well crafted....Too long, padded, schizo, FLAWED.
It is indeed like a WW2 "Pulp Fiction" mixed with...er...er...er.......something strange.

Ending would have been better with a FULL FACE carving!

The Bastereds do very little but mess things up or follow on behind...But they do provide some of the most entertaining sequences.
A film of parts stuck together with chaos. But a big leap upwards from "Death Proof" and "Kill Bill 2" for Tarantino.

And how good it was to hear a bit of the wonderful score form the wonderful "Kelly's Heroes".

I've never been a big fan of QT to begin with, but this movie left me feeling a little weird. I think the fact that it's been 65 years has left the general public desensitzed to the emotions/motivations of WWII; the Germans were simply evil, and that's about all anyone really remembers.

Obviously, it's a film for 2009 audiences. But, I think if you gave Goebbels the script to Inglourious Basterds in 1939 he'd say "Thank You", make a few minor changes, and release it himself. Let me explain:


Is it conincidence or ironic that the whole movie revolves around the unveiling of a propaganda film? Is this a big prank by Tarantino on the public to show how little they understand history?

I take a different approach: I think Tarantino's wallowing in the fact that he can do anything to the Nazis without the viewers feeling too bad for them, and I think he's making (perhaps facetiously) the point that the only way to deal with Nazism is to match them in cruelty. For example...


I disagree, of course, as I take the view that failing to match the cruelty of such an enemy is precisely why we were fit to oppose them in the first place, and I think Tarantino probably agrees, but I think he's making a deliberately disingenuous point about having to stoop to evil's own level to combat it.

Thanks for helping me with my post Yoda.

I think I agree with you. Perhaps, Tarantino is trying to make a point about our current War on Terror, and the issue of water-boarding/torture and not stooping to the level of your enemy.

But, my concern is, do you think 99% of people seeing this movie get that? People applauded at the end when I saw it. Were they applauding the message of not stooping to the level of your enemy?