Movie: Inglourious Basterds

[Soulstation1]

Gotta see the movie before I can look at thread any more

I bet over 98 percent of the people that see this movies are male

[medjuck]

I saw it with a large crowd and I think it was about 40% female.

[AllenLowe]

I'm not a Tarantino fan, though I liked Jackie Brown (was that the name it?) They seem like insider movies, for the pop culture crowd who thinks that it's enough to be self-referential and who don't read enough literature to know that his dialog is really not that great (though Tarantino calls it "my poetry"). Reminds me of what Richard Gilman once said about the cinema crowd, whose writing always, he said, sounded like Sam Goldwyn trying to talk his way in to see Immanuel Kant.

that said I know I am in the EXTREME minority here and that this expressed opinion will likely result in further ostracism, and threats against my dog.

Edited August 23, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Jim Alfredson]

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

[AllenLowe]

better lock up your dog

[Chuck Nessa]

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one.

After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids.

[Free For All]

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one.

After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids.

I also would add Reservoir Dogs as one of his best. I'm almost always curious to see his films, though.....

[Chuck Nessa]

Me too.

[T.D.]

I loved Pulp Fiction, but am overall not a huge QT fan. Didn't even bother to see Kill Bill (seemed too violent, and an insider view of a genre I know or care nothing about).

I did see IB today, and it was excellent, better than I expected. The Euro cast really killed it, especially Waltz/Landa, who oughta get nominated for an Oscar IMO. Quite a few female viewers, but it was a college student crowd, so can't draw any big demographic conclusions.

[thedwork]

I'm not a Tarantino fan, though I liked Jackie Brown (was that the name it?) They seem like insider movies, for the pop culture crowd who thinks that it's enough to be self-referential and who don't read enough literature to know that his dialog is really not that great (though Tarantino calls it "my poetry"). Reminds me of what Richard Gilman once said about the cinema crowd, whose writing always, he said, sounded like Sam Goldwyn trying to talk his way in to see Immanuel Kant.

that said I know I am in the EXTREME minority here and that this expressed opinion will likely result in further ostracism, and threats against my dog.

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one.

After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids.

basically agreed w/ all of the above, except i have a much greater dislike of him than you guys it would seem. tarantino annoys me to no end. i suppose you have to give him some credit technically, but for me he's all style and no substance. and that can be ok sometimes but not w/ him imo. he reminds me of a little kid yelling "Look at me Ma, look at me!!! Look! Look at me Ma!!" and when Ma (ie: the audience) looks, he's either purposefully picking a booger or flippin' you the bird like it's the funniest thing ever. he's mainly a snotty, immature brat who got lucky. "Made ya look, made ya look!" somebody should slap him upside the head. and he also represents another thing that annoys the shit out of me: overly self-conscious 'irreverence.' as if irreverence for irreverance's sake without any creative underpinning or point being made is sooooo cool and hip. it's not. it's childish. "Look at me, look at me! i'm being irreverant! i said something non 'P.C.' aren't i cool? you're not the boss of me! violence, crudeness, ha ha ha. i'm so irreverent. look at me, look at me! nobody is as irreverant as me. just look at all this blood. i'm so hip." people who see his hyper violence, lack of development, and overly self-conscious lazy comedic 'irreverance' as great film-making are mistaking creative for blank. i think he gets wayyyyyy too much praise. often he's merely a skilled button-pusher. and i don't think that's a very positive, or creative, skill to use in and of itself.

sorry (not really). had to get that off my chest. what can i say - i'm not a fan. though i will of course have to go see IB since everyone is talking about it and i consider myself a movie freak. and i'm also a fan of Pitt so that's a plus.

much more excited to see In The Loop. will be seeing that next week for sure...

[Larry Kart]

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one.

After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids.

Yes, but the death of Bridget Fonda in "Jackie Brown" is one of the great moments in movie history -- or maybe I mean the history of male-female relations.

[Alexander]

Well, I think there's a LOT more to QT and his films than just trying to provoke people (I think it's fairly obvious that the first thing he's trying to convey is his absolute adoration of film - all film...any film. This is a guy in love with THE MOVIES). He's not Michael Bay, for example, who simply confuses blowing things up for filmmaking. The violence is almost never the point in QT's films. In fact, its almost incidental. I LIKE the fact that he will take a moment before the mayhem begins to talk things over (the Bride and Bill's climactic battle (which is played as ANTI-climax, in fact) is put off in favor of a long discussion). This is not to say that QT doesn't have FUN with violence. Of course he does. The fact that he goes SO far over the top with the violence in his films makes it far less "gritty" than people imagine. As I said before, it's more of a cartoon (or, as has been noted, a comic book). It's fantasy violence with an emphasis on "fantasy."

Yes, he's self-consciously clever a good deal of the time. I can see where that might annoy people. I personally find Adam Sandler to be UNBEARABLE, but some people think he's funny. I think QT is brilliant, but I can see where some might dislike him.

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I am SO glad, however, that QT's original choice for Landa didn't work out: Leonardo DiCaprio. I think Leo has had some good moments on film (I loved him in "Catch Me If You Can"), but I don't think he could have pulled this part off...

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one.

After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids.

Yes, but the death of Bridget Fonda in "Jackie Brown" is one of the great moments in movie history -- or maybe I mean the history of male-female relations.

Even better is the scene were DiNiro tries to explain what happened to Samuel Jackson:

"Is she dead, yes or no?"

"Pretty much."

[AndrewHill]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY Leo DiCaprio could pull off Col. Landa. Waltz was a perfect fit for that roll and did it brilliantly! Bravo Christoff!

[Tom Storer]

I enjoyed it but with serious reservations. On a moment-by-moment level I was in it all the way. My reservations echo some of those stated by others in the thread, including the sense that Taratino is above all concerned with the meta-movie aspects; technique, style and reference are all great but the story here was, as Alexander admitted, thin. A simplistic revenge fantasy about killing the bad guys--that was it.

In addition, although in general I would agree with the idea that "it's only a movie," there were nonetheless aspects I wasn't comfortable with. Typically Tarantino's over-the-top technicolor gore is in contexts of crime and individuals, not politics and history. Here he does two things that made me uneasy: he leads the audience into cheerfully accepting extremely brutal on-screen violence as great fun because it's against the bad guys; and he trivializes the history of Nazi Germany. The kid in the audience who asked "Is that how it really happened?"--OK, he's woefully ignorant, but still, it's indicative of something. I don't like the idea of turning Hitler and the Nazis into just another cultural legend that people provide their own variations on until young people aren't sure what really happened or if it's important to make the distinction. It's too recent. IMHO.

Acting-wise, yes, Christoph Waltz as Landa stole the show, I thought. Pitt didn't have much of a role at all, actually. He just had to read his lines with a good hillbilly accent and collect his paycheck.

(An anachronism in the scene in the tavern revealed that Tarantino is not familiar with the history of whisky. They order a "33-year-old single malt," but between the mid-18th century and the latter part of the 20th century, single malts were virtually unknown outside Scotland. Whisky meant blended whisky, even to whisky lovers.)

[Alexander]

I enjoyed it but with serious reservations. On a moment-by-moment level I was in it all the way. My reservations echo some of those stated by others in the thread, including the sense that Taratino is above all concerned with the meta-movie aspects; technique, style and reference are all great but the story here was, as Alexander admitted, thin. A simplistic revenge fantasy about killing the bad guys--that was it.

In addition, although in general I would agree with the idea that "it's only a movie," there were nonetheless aspects I wasn't comfortable with. Typically Tarantino's over-the-top technicolor gore is in contexts of crime and individuals, not politics and history. Here he does two things that made me uneasy: he leads the audience into cheerfully accepting extremely brutal on-screen violence as great fun because it's against the bad guys; and he trivializes the history of Nazi Germany. The kid in the audience who asked "Is that how it really happened?"--OK, he's woefully ignorant, but still, it's indicative of something. I don't like the idea of turning Hitler and the Nazis into just another cultural legend that people provide their own variations on until young people aren't sure what really happened or if it's important to make the distinction. It's too recent. IMHO.

Acting-wise, yes, Christoph Waltz as Landa stole the show, I thought. Pitt didn't have much of a role at all, actually. He just had to read his lines with a good hillbilly accent and collect his paycheck.

(An anachronism in the scene in the tavern revealed that Tarantino is not familiar with the history of whisky. They order a "33-year-old single malt," but between the mid-18th century and the latter part of the 20th century, single malts were virtually unknown outside Scotland. Whisky meant blended whisky, even to whisky lovers.)

Some good points here, I thought. It did occur to me that the Basterds go far beyond soldiers doing their duty and becoming immune to brutality. These guys are psychopaths. But it reminds one that a serial killer who would be hanged in civilian life could, in the context of war, be regarded as a hero (I mean, that's pretty much what Stiglitz is: He's a serial killer who's been recruited).

[BruceH]

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used.

[Tom Storer]

It did occur to me that the Basterds go far beyond soldiers doing their duty and becoming immune to brutality. These guys are psychopaths. But it reminds one that a serial killer who would be hanged in civilian life could, in the context of war, be regarded as a hero (I mean, that's pretty much what Stiglitz is: He's a serial killer who's been recruited).

Yeah, but what disturbed me was that there was no sense in the movie of anything than rah-rah delight--and pushing the audience to feel rah-rah delight--when he smashes the Nazi to pulp with the baseball bat. (Not in combat, for those who haven't seen it yet--an unarmed prisoner.)

[BruceH]

In addition, although in general I would agree with the idea that "it's only a movie," there were nonetheless aspects I wasn't comfortable with. Typically Tarantino's over-the-top technicolor gore is in contexts of crime and individuals, not politics and history. Here he does two things that made me uneasy: he leads the audience into cheerfully accepting extremely brutal on-screen violence as great fun because it's against the bad guys; and he trivializes the history of Nazi Germany. The kid in the audience who asked "Is that how it really happened?"--OK, he's woefully ignorant, but still, it's indicative of something. I don't like the idea of turning Hitler and the Nazis into just another cultural legend that people provide their own variations on until young people aren't sure what really happened or if it's important to make the distinction. It's too recent. IMHO.

Those two points are extremely germane, Tom, and you put them really well.

[medjuck]

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used.

And I could have done without Mike Myers.

[thedwork]

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used.

this "barely-disguised hostility" (i refer to it as rage) you mention is what made Sandler perfect for Anderson's Punch Drunk Love. one of my absolute favorite movies. and his 'hyper-recognizability' didn't hurt the film at all in my opinion. the flip side to Sandler's rage is his seeming 'hyper-sensitivity.' seems to me Anderson wrote the role w/ this exact combination in mind and maybe w/ Sandler in mind because that's already his M.O. for anyone paying attention. maybe the character was even inspired by Sandler himself. i'll write Anderson a letter...

but since i haven't seen IB, i can't speak to Sandler in it (or not).

[BruceH]

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used.

And I could have done without Mike Myers.

Oh God, yes! That was the worst casting decision in the whole film.

[Big Wheel]

I'm not a Tarantino fan, though I liked Jackie Brown (was that the name it?) They seem like insider movies, for the pop culture crowd who thinks that it's enough to be self-referential and who don't read enough literature to know that his dialog is really not that great (though Tarantino calls it "my poetry"). Reminds me of what Richard Gilman once said about the cinema crowd, whose writing always, he said, sounded like Sam Goldwyn trying to talk his way in to see Immanuel Kant.

that said I know I am in the EXTREME minority here and that this expressed opinion will likely result in further ostracism, and threats against my dog.

Tarrantino peaked with Pulp Fiction. The rest have been enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable. Kill Bill had some moments but was rather self-indulgent.

This is all imo.

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one.

After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids.

basically agreed w/ all of the above, except i have a much greater dislike of him than you guys it would seem. tarantino annoys me to no end. i suppose you have to give him some credit technically, but for me he's all style and no substance. and that can be ok sometimes but not w/ him imo. he reminds me of a little kid yelling "Look at me Ma, look at me!!! Look! Look at me Ma!!" and when Ma (ie: the audience) looks, he's either purposefully picking a booger or flippin' you the bird like it's the funniest thing ever. he's mainly a snotty, immature brat who got lucky. "Made ya look, made ya look!" somebody should slap him upside the head. and he also represents another thing that annoys the shit out of me: overly self-conscious 'irreverence.' as if irreverence for irreverance's sake without any creative underpinning or point being made is sooooo cool and hip. it's not. it's childish. "Look at me, look at me! i'm being irreverant! i said something non 'P.C.' aren't i cool? you're not the boss of me! violence, crudeness, ha ha ha. i'm so irreverent. look at me, look at me! nobody is as irreverant as me. just look at all this blood. i'm so hip." people who see his hyper violence, lack of development, and overly self-conscious lazy comedic 'irreverance' as great film-making are mistaking creative for blank. i think he gets wayyyyyy too much praise. often he's merely a skilled button-pusher. and i don't think that's a very positive, or creative, skill to use in and of itself.

What he said.

For masochists only: watch all 10 minutes of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX8aUixCpek.

[BruceH]

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used.

this "barely-disguised hostility" (i refer to it as rage) you mention is what made Sandler perfect for Anderson's Punch Drunk Love. one of my absolute favorite movies. and his 'hyper-recognizability' didn't hurt the film at all in my opinion. the flip side to Sandler's rage is his seeming 'hyper-sensitivity.' seems to me Anderson wrote the role w/ this exact combination in mind and maybe w/ Sandler in mind because that's already his M.O. for anyone paying attention. maybe the character was even inspired by Sandler himself. i'll write Anderson a letter...

but since i haven't seen IB, i can't speak to Sandler in it (or not).

Quite. My impression was that Anderson did indeed fashion the role with Sandler in mind; it certainly wouldn't surprise me at least. Something about Punch Drunk Love didn't work for me, though...it was only a half-successful movie as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, Sandler was fine in Funny People (not his fault the film was too long.) I feel strongly that using him as the "bear Jew" in IB would have been stunt casting of the worst sort, and a distraction. As Mike Myers WAS a distraction, though a more minor one.

[Soulstation1]

A guy at the bar said this movie is the Jewish Rocky

LMAO

[Alexander]

Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting?

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used.

And I could have done without Mike Myers.

Oh God, yes! That was the worst casting decision in the whole film.

What bothered me about Myers was less his being in the film, than in the decision to make him up so heavily as to make him "unrecognizable." It didn't work, of course. It just looked like Myers in a ton of make-up. It was indulging his fantasy that he is the Second Coming of Peter Sellers. Now Sellers could have done that role AND pull it off AND make himself unnoticeable...too bad he's dead.