[Abyss]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on May 22 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

Tarantino made Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Killl Bill, and Jackie Brown. For that he has earned the right for me to go into each of his new movies with my mind uncluttered by reviews and optimistically hoping for and expecting the best. I hope this movie is great.

You fail for not ref'ing TRUE ROMANCE - his best flic by far.


- Abyss, also loves Tarantino for punching Jennifer Garner in the face.

[polishgenius]

I for one am glad that it wasn't just a whole film about the Basterds- I mean that would have been fun but what we got was much more interesting.

Curious dichotomy between it being Tarantino's most visually cinematic film to date- he's always a good visualist but this is his most archly iconic in composition- and his least traditional structurally- despite being in order.

[Old Magic]

True Romance was only written by Quentin, directed by Tony Scott.. but was nothing without him.. (same with natural born killers, four rooms, from dusk till dawn..)

Basterds is kickass! his best ending/climax.. great performances as usual.. go forth and see it..

[RangerSG]

Old Magic, on Aug 26 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

True Romance was only written by Quentin, directed by Tony Scott.. but was nothing without him.. (same with natural born killers, four rooms, from dusk till dawn..)

Basterds is kickass! his best ending/climax.. great performances as usual.. go forth and see it..

Natural Born Killers was rewritten almost completely from QT's original script. If you ever want to get him mad, just suggest that as one of 'his' scripts. He'll rant for hours. Oliver Stone thought that the script wouldn't sell, so he 'fixed' it.

[Mushroom]

Just saw this movie last night.

I was fairly disappointed I must say.

The dialogue scenes went on for way toooo long. A couple I felt were even completely unnecessary.

The movie was nowhere near violent or brutal enough. I was thoroughly disappointed on that regard.

The storyline was quite disjointed and for the most part an epic fail.

It was unnecessary I thought to say 'Chapter 1 - X' and now.. 'Chapter 2 - Y' ... Not only did it not really seem to flow that well between chapters but adding in that made it flow less.

I have to say as well; This is not a War movie! It is a movie About blowing up a Cinema When it should have been a movie about the inglorious bastards going around killing as many Nazi's as possible. We saw very little of that, which is where the movie failed the most.


Mushroom: Fails to see what is so great about Quentin Tarentino

This post has been edited by Mushroom: 31 August 2009 - 12:14 PM

[Slow Ben]

Went to see this this weekend. This movie was fanfuckingtastic!

Would have enjoyed to see some more basterds and a little less of Landa, but still enjoyed it.

[Tarcanus]

Mushroom, on Aug 31 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

Just saw this movie last night.

I was fairly disappointed I must say.

The dialogue scenes went on for way toooo long. A couple I felt were even completely unnecessary.

The movie was nowhere near violent or brutal enough. I was thoroughly disappointed on that regard.

The storyline was quite disjointed and for the most part an epic fail.

It was unnecessary I thought to say 'Chapter 1 - X' and now.. 'Chapter 2 - Y' ... Not only did it not really seem to flow that well between chapters but adding in that made it flow less.

I have to say as well; This is not a War movie! It is a movie About blowing up a Cinema When it should have been a movie about the inglorious bastards going around killing as many Nazi's as possible. We saw very little of that, which is where the movie failed the most.


Mushroom: Fails to see what is so great about Quentin Tarentino

No offense, Mushroom, but it sounds like this movie really wasn't your kind of thing. The dialogue was great, and went hand in hand with the Chapter setup to create a kind of drawn out humor to the entire movie. When it comes to the senseless violence thing, I'm always surprised that people go to see movies strictly for that.

[Tapper]

Slow Ben, on Aug 31 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Went to see this this weekend. This movie was fanfuckingtastic!

Would have enjoyed to see some more basterds and a little less of Landa, but still enjoyed it.

Landa made the movie, imho. So many priceless moments with that SS prick. I thought it was a pity Stiglitz and the Brit had so few scenes, but that shoot-out in the cellar was awesome.

All in all, it was good entertainment but not an epic movie I'll continue to watch at least five times a year like Pulp Fiction.

[Slow Ben]

Let me change that. I enjoyed Landa, that first scene was friggin brilliant. But by the end he started to get a little annoying.

[Mezla PigDog]

I saw this today. On a purely entertainment level, I enjoyed it. Not Tarantinos best but it was alright and probably one of his better plots.

However...... are we really in a world where the Holocaust can be turned into something as stylised as Starship Troopers? I'm not sure!

[Cold Iron]

Mezla PigDog, on Sep 1 2009, 07:30 AM, said:

I saw this today. On a purely entertainment level, I enjoyed it. Not Tarantinos best but it was alright and probably one of his better plots.

However...... are we really in a world where the Holocaust can be turned into something as stylised as Starship Troopers? I'm not sure!

My sentiments exactly. This movie is pretty insulting to both jews and germans and to be frank really showcases a staggering lack of both sensitivity and mental complexity.

[Agraba]

I've been disappointed with the last couple of convergences in the Malazan series and the reason is that they have become less like the ones from earlier in the series, and more like the climax/convergence in Inglorious Basterds - on that note, that's probably my main grievance with the movie. I was very hyped up and excited to see how the two plot threads would come together, seeing as how it was well illustrated that they were converging to the same point; and impending plot to burn the theater was beginning to merge with the Basterds' plot to attack the Nazis there. Then they both just... happened. Neither one really depended on the other, nor did one really affect the outcome of the other in any way, even though they were both in the same damn place! It seemed like either the whole encounter with the jewish woman and the war hero in the projection room was completely pointless because the Basterds would've done away with the Nazis anyways, or the negotiation between their leader and the "Jew Hunter" was completely pointless because the jewish woman would've burned them all anyways. Like many people said, it could have just been two movies. That was my biggest disappointment with the film.

[Mushroom]

Agraba, on Sep 1 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I've been disappointed with the last couple of convergences in the Malazan series and the reason is that they have become less like the ones from earlier in the series, and more like the climax/convergence in Inglorious Basterds - on that note, that's probably my main grievance with the movie. I was very hyped up and excited to see how the two plot threads would come together, seeing as how it was well illustrated that they were converging to the same point; and impending plot to burn the theater was beginning to merge with the Basterds' plot to attack the Nazis there. Then they both just... happened. Neither one really depended on the other, nor did one really affect the outcome of the other in any way, even though they were both in the same damn place! It seemed like either the whole encounter with the jewish woman and the war hero in the projection room was completely pointless because the Basterds would've done away with the Nazis anyways, or the negotiation between their leader and the "Jew Hunter" was completely pointless because the jewish woman would've burned them all anyways. Like many people said, it could have just been two movies. That was my biggest disappointment with the film.

Yep, pretty much how I felt as well. I kinda expected there to an actual convergence between the two storylines and that never happened. We could almost been watching two different movies/stories neither dependent on other. Neither story all that well fleshed out as well.
The movie could have easilly, easilly been 30-50 minutes shorter and the overal quality of the movie would have improved as well. They should have focused on one storyline and tried to perfect it.


BTW has anyone seen the original Inglorious Bastards?
More of a Comedy than this one is for sure and had a better storyline as well.
Though still kinda avearage.

This post has been edited by Mushroom: 01 September 2009 - 04:11 AM

[Sinisdar Toste]

gawd oi gotta say that all youse naysayers is crazy. that basement scene was so freaking awesome. the way tension is built higher and higher in the scene was magnificent and then when it snaps... freaking awesome. the same kind of awesome as the opening scene. and damn, that hans landa guy was the best actor in the movie! i agree with an earlier poster that when a new QT movie comes out i dont read reviews or watch previews, i just go to the theatre with no expectations and see what awesomesauce he's come up with this time. the climax was totally bitchin. the brutality was there, the basterds got their glory so i don't know how anyone can complain about that. i mean, how many times do you have to stab a gestapo officer in the face before its "brutal" enough?

but hey, im not surprised at some of these reactions. leave it to SE fans to slam a movie with two seperate but related plotlines that don't have any effect on each other.

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 01 September 2009 - 05:46 AM

[Mushroom]

You were feeling Tension in the basement scene?

Wow, I was definitely not feeling tension. Maybe a bit of boredom, that was about it.
Same thing when we waited about a full 30 seconds for that guy to come out of the tunnel to bash the soldier on the head in the second scene with the bastards. I just got tired of waiting in parts like that and had this feeling of 'Lets get this scene over and done with'.
Another thing, what was the whole point of the English officer and even the scene where he is introduced? The guy dies in the very next scene. Everyone dies in fact but the actress. It could have been just as easy for the Actress to meet with only the Bastards and cut out the english guy entirelly.

The problem was also in its predictability too. Before each scene started you could literally figure out exactly how the scene was going to play out. That bugged me as well.

I also hadn't read any reviews of the movie beforehand. The only knowledge I had of it was the seeing preview and also having seen the original.

[Mezla PigDog]

Mushroom, on Sep 1 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

Another thing, what was the whole point of the English officer and even the scene where he is introduced? The guy dies in the very next scene. Everyone dies in fact but the actress. It could have been just as easy for the Actress to meet with only the Bastards and cut out the english guy entirelly.

I think the point was so that Tarantino could caricature the Brits in the same way he had caricatured the Nazi's and American Jews! I realised I can't take a scene with Mike Myers in seriously although Churchill was rather hilarious and I do like the British actor who played the spy but I can't remember his name.

I think people forget that Tarantino is always inspired by B-movies. Most of the critisms I read about his work can be explained away by that. But I really don't think the material was appropriate. Like Cold Iron said, it lacked sensitivity or complexity. It was a B-movie mess. A B-movie mess of the Holocaust!! It is quite staggering really.

[dktorode]

people so hyper sensitive these days...gaaawd

[HoosierDaddy]

I thought the movie was funny. After the initial start, it was far less blood-thirsty than I thought it would wind up in the end. The "Basterds" were hilarious. The "Final Solution" wasn't known until well into the the war endgame in real life, and thus, this movie separates the real world from the fake at the very beginning when Pitt draws up his "Jewish volunteer brigade." After that point, all is fantasy land.

I thought it was a unique look at how a select "special forces group" could have made a difference in WW2 Era Europe, yes, it's both exceedingly violent and improbable, but that doesn't take away from the story.

3 whiskeys please.....

[Cougar]

HoosierDaddy, on Sep 1 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

The "Final Solution" wasn't known until well into the the war endgame in real life, and thus, this movie separates the real world from the fake at the very beginning when Pitt draws up his "Jewish volunteer brigade." After that point, all is fantasy land.

I thought it was a unique look at how a select "special forces group" could have made a difference in WW2 Era Europe, yes, it's both exceedingly violent and improbable, but that doesn't take away from the story.

2 points, it has become increasingly well documented in the last decade or so that the allies were very aware of the final solution, even my own research as part of masters at the national archives in the UK included plenty of references in original material that suggested the elites like SHAEF etc knew what was going on, so it's less fantasy in that respect.

The more questionable part is how well any special forces unit would have done doing what the Basterds do, I mean the techniques we now regard as common place were not really developed until the inception of the SAS's predcessors in WW2.

I tend to agree it's too fanciful to really be taken too seriously though.

[Mentalist]

Watched this today after work, with people from work

Liked it.

Landa was probably the best actor in the whole movie, some parts were hilarious, there was plenty of that random brutality people were craving (sticking your finger into somebody's gunshot wound? honestly, how often do we see that type of torture?)

as for the convergence, I found myself really laughing at the whole thing, as it was happening: Landa's going on and on about how he's ending the war single-handedly and wants all this stuff for it, whilst the whole thing would've gone down anyhow, lol

as for the choice of topic.... like dkt said, some people are being too sensitive, imo.
The movie's never trying to be serious, and you have to realize it immediately after the first chapter. After that, just enjoy the ride.