Jump to content

Inglourious Basterds


TDFFFreak
 Share

Recommended Posts

The best Quentin Tarantino movie since Pulp Fiction IMO.

 

Funny, gripping, great dialogue and well acted. My only real complaint is that it's a little too long (as are most Tarantino films). It's a very talky film so go in and be prepared to hear a lot of yappin' and not too much action, but I was really on the edge of my seat much of the movie because it's pretty unpredictable. I give the film an A-. I really liked this film and it's up for best movie of summer 2009 along with Star Trek and Up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previews look stupid as hell, but maybe I'll rent it.
I thought the same thing. Brad Pitt's accent just sounded dumb. I really enjoyed the movie though.

 

The only thing I didn't like was the lack of historical accuracy. WWII was an actual event. While you can have a completely fictional story about events set in that era, there are a few major events that you can't easy just rewrite. I won't give it away, but a similar rewriting of history would be if Japan attacked London instead of Pearl Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the same thing. Brad Pitt's accent just sounded dumb. I really enjoyed the movie though.

 

The only thing I didn't like was the lack of historical accuracy. WWII was an actual event. While you can have a completely fictional story about events set in that era, there are a few major events that you can't easy just rewrite. I won't give it away, but a similar rewriting of history would be if Japan attacked London instead of Pearl Harbor.

I think you just have to go with it. This movie is a bit tounge in cheek, but the fact that you don't know what could happen adds to the enjoyment of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you just have to go with it. This movie is a bit tounge in cheek, but the fact that you don't know what could happen adds to the enjoyment of the story.
There is a difference though between suspension of disbelief and completely changing the historical outcome of an event or era.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw it and it was great. Long movie, but it didn't feel like it at all. Typical Tarantino with long, dialogue-filled scenes, but great action as well. The guy who plays the Jew Hunter is fantastic. Yea, he rewrote history, but I don't know why that would really affect anyone's enjoyment level of the movie.

 

I'd rate it around the same level of Reservoir Dogs, but below Pulp Fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you just have to go with it. This movie is a bit tounge in cheek, but the fact that you don't know what could happen adds to the enjoyment of the story.

Related story. When I was in Germany, I watched a Russian made film about WWII on tv. The next day I was telling some of my German colleagues about the film but I told them that I didn't want to spoil the ending. One of them laughed and said, "that's ok, we know how it ends". :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the same thing. Brad Pitt's accent just sounded dumb. I really enjoyed the movie though.

 

The only thing I didn't like was the lack of historical accuracy.

 

Haven't seen the movie, but I pretty much gathered from the previews that historical accuracy goes out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw it and it was great. Long movie, but it didn't feel like it at all. Typical Tarantino with long, dialogue-filled scenes, but great action as well. The guy who plays the Jew Hunter is fantastic. Yea, he rewrote history, but I don't know why that would really affect anyone's enjoyment level of the movie.

 

I'd rate it around the same level of Reservoir Dogs, but below Pulp Fiction.

Pretty much how I felt except I thought that it was better than Dogs. The Jew Hunter actor should be in line for some awards. An awesome performance and he is in some of the best scenes of the movie. "She'll have milk."

 

Related story. When I was in Germany, I watched a Russian made film about WWII on tv. The next day I was telling some of my German colleagues about the film but I told them that I didn't want to spoil the ending. One of them laughed and said, "that's ok, we know how it ends". :wacko:

:D Yeah, I think we know how it ends and I recognized this as entertainment and not pure reality, so I liked that QT mixed it up.

 

Haven't seen the movie, but I pretty much gathered from the previews that historical accuracy goes out the window.

Go see it with that in mind and enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh.

 

There were some technical things I liked about it (sets, costumes, acting, writing, etc.), and some individual scenes that were breathtaking (like the opener; the dinner scene with Goebbels), but there was a lot of non-action going on when the film could have used some. 2 1/2 out of 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh.

 

There were some technical things I liked about it (sets, costumes, acting, writing, etc.), and some individual scenes that were breathtaking (like the opener; the dinner scene with Goebbels), but there was a lot of non-action going on when the film could have used some. 2 1/2 out of 4.

If you are looking for action and action only, you will be disappointed. This is mostly a talkfest, but a very good one at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are looking for action and action only, you will be disappointed. This is mostly a talkfest, but a very good one at that.

 

straight action movies are "meh" to me.....because they rarely have substance....

 

Inglorious Basterds is a movie I definitely need to see....because the movie seems to have "it" and plus the Tarantino dialogue..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was bored as hell by this movie. It could have lost 1.5 hours, and that would have made it... okay.

 

The music was God-freaking-awful throughout. I finally mentioned it to my buddy, and he said "I think it's intentional". What was the intent, exactly?

 

I usually love Tarantino flicks, and this was not up to par at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
There is a difference though between suspension of disbelief and completely changing the historical outcome of an event or era.

 

MOST historical movies are ridiculously inaccurate. I think if you pinned QT down this would obviously be "playing in the WW II sandbox" without being beholden to the actual facts; it's ART, not history.

 

Besides, more movies should machine-gun the crap out of Hitler and then blow up the rest of the high-ranking Nazis for good measure.

 

 

Obviously I thought it was REALLY good. Historical accuracy aside, the movie seemed overly talky until you realize that most of the scenes with dialogue sloooowly ramp up the tension until it's near unbearable, then break it one way or another. I felt individual scenes, at times, seemed longish, but when the payoff(s) hit, it was worth it - and overall the movie did NOT feel as long as it was.

 

Not sure if it will bear up to repeated scrutiny as much as Pulp Fiction does, but I'm anxious to see it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

OVER-RATED! I was expecting so much more.

 

To put this film up there with some of Tarrantino's best is an injustice to his other films. Pitt was good, but they should have shown more of him. I won't say it was terrible, but I was just expecting something a bit more epic. It was pretty "blah". It just wasn't clever enough. Tarrantino usually tricks your mind into going one place, then he surprises you by twisting in a direction you didn't see coming. This movie was somewhat predictable. To put it on the same level as Reservoir Dogs or the Kill Bill movies or anything close to that level is absurd. The acting was fine. The dialogue just wasn't as clever as it could have been. Some signature pieces, but overall a pretty flat showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OVER-RATED! I was expecting so much more.

 

To put this film up there with some of Tarrantino's best is an injustice to his other films. Pitt was good, but they should have shown more of him. I won't say it was terrible, but I was just expecting something a bit more epic. It was pretty "blah". It just wasn't clever enough. Tarrantino usually tricks your mind into going one place, then he surprises you by twisting in a direction you didn't see coming. This movie was somewhat predictable. To put it on the same level as Reservoir Dogs or the Kill Bill movies or anything close to that level is absurd. The acting was fine. The dialogue just wasn't as clever as it could have been. Some signature pieces, but overall a pretty flat showing.

You should probably stick to GI Joe and Transformers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this for the first time last night; I give it a sold "B".

 

Surprises:

* No boobs. Not much blood.

* Didn't seem 2.5hrs long.

* Expected to have Pitt in more scenes.

* Crazy bad music (what was with that David Bowie song towards the end ... or at least I think it was Bowie ... ???????)

 

Expected:

* Very good character development.

* Lavish staging / costumes.

* Clever dialog.

* No PC-esque crap (i.e., having a Jewish woman date a black man in the 1940s was pretty stout)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* No PC-esque crap (i.e., having a Jewish woman date a black man in the 1940s was pretty stout)

One thing about QT is that he drops interracial relationships into his films and doesn't really make a big deal about it. Pulp Fiction had two interracial couples in it, but nobody really mentions, or even notices it, much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should probably stick to GI Joe and Transformers

Where were these "pay-offs" you speak of? What was the dialogue ramping up towards? I'm not going to say it was a bad film, but the way you made it sound, I was going to have to watch it two or three times just to make sure I had kept up properly with what was going on, and the dialogue would be priceless. I LOVE Tarantino dialogue, so I was really looking foward to some thought-provoking fodder, but it just wasn't there. When the critics here said it was a bit "talky", I actually got really excited. I thought there was going to be lots of clever mind-tricks being played, lots of messages you could understand by reading between the lines. It ended up being rather straight-forward. The first 45 minutes were fantastic, then they never really showed the basterds again as a group. Disappointing, as they were quite entertaining. I'm trying to think of pay-off scenes. The bar scene? The showdown in the projection room? The back-and-forth with the main German charcter and Pitt at the end? I was expecting mind-blowing. It was good, but wasn't genius. I wanted genius, dammit!

Edited by Seahawks21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where were these "pay-offs" you speak of? What was the dialogue ramping up towards? I'm not going to say it was a bad film, but the way you made it sound, I was going to have to watch it two or three times just to make sure I had kept up properly with what was going on, and the dialogue would be priceless. I LOVE Tarantino dialogue, so I was really looking foward to some thought-provoking fodder, but it just wasn't there. When the critics here said it was a bit "talky", I actually got really excited. I thought there was going to be lots of clever mind-tricks being played, lots of messages you could understand by reading between the lines. It ended up being rather straight-forward.

 

 

It's less what is said and more the construction of the scenes - the building of tension in the scenes is just soooo well done.

 

In the first scene, you aren't sure if the Jews are there....until QT shows you. Then you wonder if Lapadite can outmaneuver Waltz. And it turns out the point it moot, anyway.

 

The barroom scene is terrific as well - ramping up the tension with things continually going wrong, making it more and more difficult for the Basterds to extricate themselves, and juuuust when you think they've made it.....

 

The bit at the premiere is great too, because it follows (as do the other two) Hitchcock's philosophy of "the bomb under the table" - if you want to create tension in a scene, you need to show the audience the bomb under the table. Then they sit on the edge of their seat waiting for it to go off. In the previous two scenes, the bomb is Lapadite hiding the Jews, and the Basterds trying to get in and out of the bar with the information at the premiere. In the final scene, it's "what in the hell is Waltz going to do to our heroes?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information