Inglourious Basterds Thread!!!NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!!

[airphilippines]

Originally Posted by IncredibleEv

you guys are nuts for saying this dialogue was boring and mundane and not entertaining.

chapter 1 - Landa playing with the Frenchman...pretty much flawless scene in terms of dialogue. AU REVOIR SHOSHANNAHHHH!!!

chapter 2 - great lines from Aldo (business is a-boomin, "if you ever wanna eat a sauerkraut san'ich again, take ur weinerschnitzel lickin finger and put it on this here map...) i can go on, also the Bear Jew in this scene and the part where they recruit Stiglitz "seein if you wanna go pro"

chapter 3 - admittedly it dragged a little but the exchanges with Shoshannah and Zoller were character explorations...a Nazi hitting on a Jew, it makes for interesting conversation. plus this had the strudel scene which was one of my favorites in the movie.

chapter 4 - i liked the dialogue with Mike Myers and Churchill and Hicox even though its Tarantino self-indulging in his movie love. lots of foreshadowing in this chapter (Hicox telling Stiglitz to remain calm cause they arent getting into danger...just meeting the contact...heh), then the bar scene which is almost as flawless as the first scene when it comes strictly to the dialogue. from when the Major sits with them through their game until the end, incredible.

chapter 5 - really great Landa in this scene from the Italian part to the exchanges with Aldo and Utivich.

this movie is so +#+%$!@ good man, it is meant to be seen multiple times. do it. Christoph Waltz is a lock for best supporting Oscar...prob should get Best Actor

Indeed, $+*@!*! brilliant.

 

[18key]

Originally Posted by recycledpaper

movie was trash, don't waste your cash

Lemme guess, too much talking in foreign languages?

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

ahem

I said my only real problem was with chapter 3...

I think about 20-25 mins give or take could have been edited...or replaced with the lost basterd scenes...you found the dialouge interesting because it was in another language? can we at least agree it's less entertaining than any of the basterd scenes?

listen this wasn't kill bill with jews. People need to get past that if they want to enjoy the movie. The dialogue was critical, it set up theaction scenes. Could some of it have been cut? I suppose. But people will question a director with every movie. You can argue that every spike lee moviebesides do the right thing could be cut by about 20 minutes. Hell half of 2001: a space Odyssey probably could have been cut but it's still the best sci-fimovie ever made.

I understand your frustration though, because just like you I pretty much DID expect kill bill with nazis. plus I was mad at all the subtitles, not because Idislike them, but I like to have prior knowledge that the movie is in 3 languages. I smoked way too much bud before walking into the theater and I has littlesleep so I felt like I missed some parts and just wasn't in the mood to read. It is what it is, previews do that sometimes. Unlike you i was pleasentlysupprised. To be honest the most memorable scenes had little or no action in them

first scene- As many people stated, was absolutley perfect.
strudel scene- excellent tension building up. When he orders her milk you start to think that he KNOWS
the first two scenes where nazi hits on the girl- great scenes. It was just eerie to think about.
the bar scene- The only reason the action was so incredible is because of alllll the lead up to it. Talking about his son, that king kong black joke, the cardgame.
the interviewing of the soldiers. There is this whole drawn out scene of pitt asking the nazi how much he knows about the basterds and asking for info. Thenone of the soldiers answers his question in one second.

 

[craftsy21]

I never understood why people would hold it against a movie that it wasn't what they expected. 9 times out of 10, that's a good thing to me... and thefew times that I'm disappointed because of that fact, it's mostly because the movie was just horrible on all levels.

I don't think there's anybody worth a damn who can say this is a bad film... you can say it didn't appeal to you, that it wasn't done exactlythe way you wished it was, but you can't argue the style, the story-telling techniques, and the details in the sounds and visuals. There just aren'tmany movies made this way right now, especially not with the type of star power and budget that QT movies now carry.

I think my favorite scene as of today is the opener.. i thought both actors played off each other so well, it just set the tone for the movie perfectly.

 

[38816]

I argue that the 20 minutes before the strudel scene and the 25 minutes after the initial meeting of the chick and nazi dude were wasted, slow, boring, had noeffect on the plot and....hurt the chapter.

like I've said countless times before, QTs dialouge is at its best when juxpositioned with times of great tension...

too many scenes in this movie were just babbling....do I care that QT knows the subtlties of french and german film from the 40s? lol

not at all.

yeah, I was expecting the movie to be about the basterds, but I'm not dissapointed that it wasn't, I'm dissapointed that this movie was hyped anddidn't live up to it, I'm dissapointed that basically 80 percent of chapter three is death proof with subtitles....

actually, death proof was more interesting, at least you could gaze into rosario dawsons rack

I think you cats are caught up in the QT hype...just because it's QT 20 mins of babbling is "interesting" to yall...

 

[craftsy21]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

I argue that the 20 minutes before the strudel scene and the 25 minutes after the initial meeting of the chick and nazi dude were wasted, slow, boring, had no effect on the plot and....hurt the chapter.

like I've said countless times before, QTs dialouge is at its best when juxpositioned with times of great tension...

too many scenes in this movie were just babbling....do I care that QT knows the subtlties of french and german film from the 40s? lol

not at all.

yeah, I was expecting the movie to be about the basterds, but I'm not dissapointed that it wasn't, I'm dissapointed that this movie was hyped and didn't live up to it, I'm dissapointed that basically 80 percent of chapter three is death proof with subtitles....

actually, death proof was more interesting, at least you could gaze into rosario dawsons rack

I think you cats are caught up in the QT hype...just because it's QT 20 mins of babbling is "interesting" to yall...

I'm not a QT-hype guy at all... i wasn't even going to see this movie based off the previews until I heard my favorite radio host say thatit was nothing like the previews, and that it was somewhere between Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction..

You talk about the all this time being cut out because it didn't drive the story, but what you're missing was the plot was actually a very small pieceof this movie... you can sum it up in about 2 sentences. It's about the characters interacting with each other, given the circumstances of the time andthe plot. If you aren't getting that, then you just aren't getting the movie.

It's whatever - you didn't like it, big deal. But don't act like there is a full 45 minutes of wasted dialogue just because you found it boring. This was as much a dual-character piece as it was a movie about the Basterds... seeing a girl get her revenge for her family's slaughter, watching a manwho seemingly had all the answers make such a stupid mistake to turn himself over to the Basterds thinking they'd protect him. Turning the idea'sabout the holocaust on their ear, yet still dealing with the raw emotions of the period.

You're viewing this movie as an action movie that moved way too slowly and had too little action, whereas it needs to be seen as an exciting drama moviewith many moments of tension split up with fun action sequences. That seems to be where you got lost.

Again - i don't give a damn if you enjoyed it or not... but I just don't think a person in their right mind, with movie-watching experience in thiscurrent generation, can tell me that there are other film makers doing a better job right now than QT. The movie is completely engrossing, despite being fullof itself at times.

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

---

You're viewing this movie as an action movie that moved way too slowly and had too little action, whereas it needs to be seen as an exciting drama movie with many moments of tension split up with fun action sequences. That seems to be where you got lost.

 

[incredibleev]

maybe its just my personal interest of WW2 and anything dealing with it, but Death Proof is NOT more interesting than this movie, im sorry

to me, this film is an experiment in film structure and in particular scene structure. if you can't handle QT making a scene 10 minutes longer than itshould through dialogue, then you arent ready to appreciate this film...because he is totally doing it on purpose. He's asking the audience "can youhandle any more talking?? can you???" and some people might succumb and say "aw man this is enough already!" but many others like myself willsay "wow, im still interested in this scene even though theyve been talking for 15 minutes" and to me that is incredibly impressive from a filmmakers and author's standpoint.

also wanna point out that the Oscar's best picture category is 10 films now instead of 5...I think this should get consideration even though it most likelywon't win.

 

[craftsy21]

also wanna point out that the Oscar's best picture category is 10 films now instead of 5...I think this should get consideration even though it most likely won't win.

Wow really? Didn't hear about that... not sure why they'd do that considering it's almost only a 2-horse race or so every year... with 3 films noteven really having a shot despite getting the nomination.

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by IncredibleEv

to me, this film is an experiment in film structure and in particular scene structure.

I think you're pushing it now. He experimented with structure much more in pulp fiction and even reservoir dogs. Basterds was stillessentially a beginning, climax, and conclusion that followed a linear path. The movie had a rear window vibe where sometimes QT seemed to be directly talkingto and about the audience which is interesting but hardly new.

I agree with you on the scene structure experimentation though.

 

[incredibleev]

by film structure i mean scene structure, obviously hes not playing with the narrative or anything in terms of jumping back and forth and stuff. but evenstill, the use of music, of mise-en-scene, he tries to apply it differently than in most movies you see so i guess thats playing with the film structure aswell.

 

[38816]

i just think yall are defending the director, not the movie...

the dialouge was very boring at times.....nothing in pulp fiction is boring...at all.

this is in no way, shape or form "in between" tow of QT's greatest films...

i said it was death proof with subtitles, not that death proof was more interesting..

the "rosario's rack" comment was lighthearted.

alls i said was chapter three should have been edited better, and the movie didn't live up to hype...

the good scenes, were awesome, but that's expected from QT, what isn't expected from QT are "dialouge scenes that move the plot along"

like i said, he's above that..

maybe my QT standards are higher than yalls

lol

this is about his 4th or 5th best movie

lol@seeing it multiple times

 

[Jordan8]

it was aight

 

[38816]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

can we at least agree it's less entertaining than any of the basterd scenes?

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

can we at least agree it's less entertaining than any of the basterd scenes?

no we can't. The first scene is better than any action that follows in the movie. The bar scene without all the build up of tension would make the violentend of the scene pointless. Maybe that card game went a little long.. and he could have cut down a bit of the nazi hitting on the girl, but I can't eventhink of which scene could be thrown out in that regard.


that evil nazi prick Landa on screen> basterds scenes.


But I'd love to see the basterds scenes that they cut out and maybe my opinion will change. They didn't have great actors in the basterds so Idon't know how much I would have wanted them on screen. And yes I think it's a movie that should be seen more than once.

 

[epidemik the great]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

i just think yall are defending the director, not the movie...

the dialouge was very boring at times.....nothing in pulp fiction is boring...at all.

this is in no way, shape or form "in between" tow of QT's greatest films...

i said it was death proof with subtitles, not that death proof was more interesting..

the "rosario's rack" comment was lighthearted.

alls i said was chapter three should have been edited better, and the movie didn't live up to hype...

the good scenes, were awesome, but that's expected from QT, what isn't expected from QT are "dialouge scenes that move the plot along"

like i said, he's above that..

maybe my QT standards are higher than yalls

lol

this is about his 4th or 5th best movie

lol@seeing it multiple times

then you apparently don't know much about QT because that's exactly what he's known for...his dialouge has ALWAYS been his strongestpoint...it's not that the movie didn't live up to it's hype, it just didn't live up to YOUR hype...since Kill Bill people are expecting sometype of unrealistic bloodbath with every Tarantino flick...it happened with Death Proof and it's happening with this...every movie before this wasn'tsome action packed type flick...the movie references was very much expected from Tarantino...

 

[aka king arthur]

movie is hard

best movie this summer by far

 

[38816]

sigh.

this is why I'm condesending....

you don't even understand what I said and you typed a paragraph response.

all those "the dialouge moved the scene well" scenes in chapter 3 are what that quoting myself was about, and none of them were more entertainingthan any basterd scene, even the basement scene....

I swear if one more dude brings up parts of the movies I never said anything about...especially the best parts of the movie...(its unfortunate that the bestscene in the entire 3 hr movie was the first scene....every other scene was weak in comparison.)

but yeah, when arguing with me about the weak scenes, be sure to mention scenes I'm not complaining about....you'll win every time..

plus, you right, death proof in french is captivating...(that's sarcasm)

I'd say overall this movie falls somewhere around jackie brown status as far as QT films go....

 

[38816]

and ep, please, read more than my last post.

qt is known for dialouge when its juxpositioned with moments of extreme tension...


I hate having discussions on nt, cause they turn into circular arguments...

lol, yeah, I don't know ANYTHING about QT...or film in general...cause I think this severely pedestrian film is waaaaaaaaaay too hyped up....

like I said before, this is like QTs 5th or 6th best film...

people are going entirely too far for this movie...lol

 

[ericescobar]

saw this movie yessterday. came away impressed with some tings, and unimpressed with others.

right away, i have to give it up to the guy that played Landa (forgot his name). STOLE THE SHOW. man, i really liked the characterization of this pure bastard.he was so charming, yet so heartless. turns out he was a prickish glory-hog at the end. the high point of the film EASY. everytime he's on screen, i waslike OH SNAP SON.

the rest of the film was either 20 seconds of ultra violence or 20 mins of ultra-loquacious dialogue. QT is known for his talkative scenes, but these were justa little too cheap, imo. i was just as impatient as diggler (or whatever the name of the Nazi defector was in the bar scene). the card game scene, forinstance, was WAYYY to draggy. it just seems like one would come away a with much more understanding of the characters, considering there was much timeinvested into the dialogue. brad pitt's character (the Apache) is only half as interesting as he could have been. he's on-screen for maybe 6 mins total(or something close to that) and it isn't until near the end that i really began to see a little more potential in him. he's socially akward, unable tobend his accent for the sake of the mission. he's the secon most interesting character in the film, though he's so far behind Landa.

all in all, the movie is 2.5 hours long. it shouldn't be this long, but it is. it's QT's film and he can do what he wants. people die in some sortof faux-tragic manner. the journey to this end is long, but it is fun. i would give it a 7/10.

 

[incredibleev]

i understand where everyones coming from and i enjoy reading peoples criticism up in here

all ill say is yea, some of chapter 3 is a little draggy, but I will take that in a trade for what you get the rest of the movie. The thing I think I most likeabout this movie and QT in general is how he can take all the elements of his favorite movie genres and mold them all into a ridiculously cool, modern versionof his own, thereby making it a Quentin Tarantino film. All his films have some kind of genre-element at its core - Pulp and Reservoir Dogs were crime films,Jackie Brown is his blacksploitation/crime film, Kill Bill is obviously is homage to Kung FU/Samarai movies, and obviously Inglourious Basterds is hisrevenge/spaghetti western.

and thats where I think I grow to love this movie. This movie is The Good THe Bad and The Ugly meets Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction. It is melodrama withaction, alot like spaghetti westerns, where there are these final duels with epic music playing and showdowns. But with Tarantino, the showdowns take the formof intense dialogue exchanges. and when the drama has reached its climax, like in the westerns, BANG BANG! You see that multiple times in this movie indifferent forms.

Aldo Raine is not meant to be a deep character. He's not meant to have morals, that would make the film too deep for Tarantino's liking. He is a genrefilm/grindhouse film/spaghetti western kind of character where he's on a mission, he does his thing, and he moves on spreading the word of the Basterds.Thats the point of Pitt's character. Landa is the character with the depth because Tarantino wanted to create this kind of villain. and personally i thinkhe made an all-time movie villain.

in conclusion, my favorite thing about Tarantino is he makes these movies that force you to think, even though the premise is as simple as it gets. Buncha guyson a mission, Tarantino style.

 

[swish 22]

This was my introduction into QT's work. Very impressive. I had never seen any of his other movies before IB. It was a good story that ended in aspectacular way. My friends have been telling me to see his other stuff and I watched pulp fiction right after seeing IB because I was so curious. I amprobably one of the few people who absolutely hated pulp fiction and loved IB. I'm no film critic, just someone who goes to the movies to be entertainedfor a few hours. Most people will atleast be entertained by this movie because it is funny and has some decent action scenes. Tarantino throws ALOT of racistcomments around his movies when they are not really necessary.

 

[bobby light]

went and saw the movie today and it was good as #@!+

 

[KingParappa]

I liked it

 

[38816]

I just expect better from QT....I shouldn't be bored at any time during his films...