| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 23:02:27
Spellbinding if not spell corrected, "Inglourious Basterds" is well worth the time it takes to view (a full 2.5 hours). While I figure that Brad Pitt was joking around when he called "Valkyrie" ridiculous (though so much truth lay in that quip), by comparison (or not, even) "Basterds" is ridiculously good.
Knowing how long the film was, I thought I was going to get butt awareness, like I sensed during "Watchmen" (that's the feeling you get when you've been sitting longer than you really want to have been sitting; though, don't get me wrong -- I liked Watchmen a lot; with a lot of that like coming from my enjoyment of the novel in the first place -- but the film had discernable limitations for me as well). What butt? I even had a large coffee before (knowing its diuretic effect!) and managed to resist the urge to go to the can until the whole film was over. That's bladder control!
Brad Pitt's characterization is not "original"; I've seen him do it before a couple of times, with slightly different accents. But his dedication to playing it is palpable and flawlessly entertaining. Christoph Waltz should never set foot in America: there's a warrant for his arrest on suspicion of stealing the show.
I love what Tarentino has done with the story! Just as "Pulp Fiction" highlighted the freedom that storytellers/filmmakers have with linear plot development (I said highlighted, not invented -- let's not forget 1983's "Betrayal"), "Basterds" reminds us of other literary freedoms that can rescue plots from the sometimes doomed feeling of fait accompli.
No need to spoil it fer ya: just go see it. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 00:59:21
Inglourious Basterds
I was a bit disappointed. It probably didn't help that I first saw it with Polish subtitles, and the German especially was just too much for me. However, I did see it again later with English ones; I saw it with someone else who had seen it before and who liked it less than the first time.
It's a good film with some hilarious or otherwise great moments, but it's not great overall. 4/5
As for clapping in the cinema, I'm too shy to do it myself but I think it's nice. Certainly preferable to applauding when a 'plane lands successfully, as Polish people disconcertingly do! |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 19:01:37
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
He still hasn't topped Pulp Fiction in terms of storytelling and character, and seems to think Kill Bill-like gore and knowing film references are enough to make a a decent film.
Pulp Fiction was a masterpiece, fresh and without compunction (which sounds like a good word to you, though I may concede objection). Your observation of the Kill Billish self indulgence that haunts Tarentino is spot on. The observation reminds me of the juvenile comedy that Eddie Murphy insists upon even in light of the critical praise he received for those few moments of stark acting he gave in Dreamgirls. I remember him trying to plug the "genius" of Norbit leading up to his Oscar nomination (I would have voted against him for plugging that shit-by-comparison to).
I read that Tarantino was so hurt by the drubbing that Jackie Brown received that he retreated back into making pulpy pastiche trash. I don't know if that's true...Jackie Brown has its flaws but it still stands up as a decent film .. and yes, it's actually a mature film that deals with what it's like to feel as if your best years are way, way behind you. I thought Kill Bill was a laugh-riot because there was no question I was watching anything other than a cartoon, and the gore doesn't bother me at all...because although Kill Bill is a cartoon, it's a cartoon with a decent story (if a bit long). Inglourious Basterds has a great story idea (actually, a couple of them) but it wastes them. It's one of Tarantino's "movie-movies", and it suffers because of it.
And hey, he's making Kill Bill 3!
He needs to hire himself out as a director for someone else's script (for a producer who won't tolerate his self-indulgence). He's hinted he'd like to do a Bond film....I'd love to see him apply his pop-pulpy-genre sensibilities to something like that ... or do a version of Macbeth a la Luhrman (say what you want about Baz Luhrman's Romeo+Juliet, but it's fun to watch) ... then again, Tarantino doing Shakespeare just sounds like a Robot Chicken sketch, so perhaps we should forget it...
|
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 03:38:13
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
He still hasn't topped Pulp Fiction in terms of storytelling and character, and seems to think Kill Bill-like gore and knowing film references are enough to make a a decent film.
Pulp Fiction was a masterpiece, fresh and without compunction (which sounds like a good word to you, though I may concede objection). Your observation of the Kill Billish self indulgence that haunts Tarentino is spot on. The observation reminds me of the juvenile comedy that Eddie Murphy insists upon even in light of the critical praise he received for those few moments of stark acting he gave in Dreamgirls. I remember him trying to plug the "genius" of Norbit leading up to his Oscar nomination (I would have voted against him for plugging that shit-by-comparison to). |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 18:59:07
A grown-up movie? I don't think so. (I'm guessing people think this because of some of the choices Tarantino made in regards to which characters lived and died...and the moral ambiguity surrounding the motives of a couple of characters) An extremely well-made but still adolescent, cartoonish depiction of war? Yes.
still, though, i liked it...just not as much as i was hoping i would...i deliberately avoided reading anything about it before i saw it, and i managed to avoid watching any clips, so i had only seen the trailer and heard a little about it, mostly that it was supposed to be tarantino's dirty dozen/where eagles dare men on a mission type of thing...and i was really excited about that...and although all i had seen of it was the trailer, what i remember of the trailer led me to believe i was going to see a fresh take on a gritty old boys own adventure ... and although that was there, it just wasn't there enough....i agree with the others here who have rightly praised some of the performances; in some cases the performances were better than the script, in some cases the dialogue was so damn good it threatened to overwhelm the scene and the actors ... it starts off as a western with a variation on the bad guy intimidating some local peasant (see eli wallach at the beginning of the magnificent seven; lee van cleef at the beginning of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) ... and the opening scene is, in my opinion, the best scene in the movie, and many have pointed out it would make a decent short movie in its own right. The rest didn't live up to it. The tavern scene was brilliant, but i was disappointed
SPOILER ALERT
that Fassbender's character gets killed, as he could have been one of the more interesting characters in the film. Ditto for the German who they sprang from jail.
And why get Rod Taylor out of retirement and into makeup for thirty seconds of screen time?
The climax at the cinema was pure bollix, and Eli Roth should stick to directing torture porn because, as he proved in Deathproof, he can't act and is as annoying as hell.
However, it was certainly better than Deathproof! Then again, what isn't? A return to form for Tarantino?? Maybe. He still hasn't topped Pulp Fiction in terms of storytelling and character, and seems to think Kill Bill-like gore and knowing film references are enough to make a a decent film. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 09/09/2009 : 20:13:59
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Actually they do intersect rather nicely if you don't consider Aldo and the Basterds to be the main focus of the story, just instrumental in the story set up at the very start between Landa and Shosanna. Landa would probably have died in the cinema fireball if he hadn't suspected Bridget Von Hammersmark as a spy after finding her shoe after the basement massacre - leading him to uncover the Basterd's plot and then construct his own escape from Germany. Given Landa is a "likeable" villain it seems smarter writing for his retribution to be at the hands of Aldo and his hunting knife than in a burning cinema with all the other Nazis.
A "likeable" villain? I did not like him. |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/09/2009 : 17:55:56
Actually they do intersect rather nicely if you don't consider Aldo and the Basterds to be the main focus of the story, just instrumental in the story set up at the very start between Landa and Shosanna. Landa would probably have died in the cinema fireball if he hadn't suspected Bridget Von Hammersmark as a spy after finding her shoe after the basement massacre - leading him to uncover the Basterd's plot and then construct his own escape from Germany. Given Landa is a "likeable" villain it seems smarter writing for his retribution to be at the hands of Aldo and his hunting knife than in a burning cinema with all the other Nazis. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 09/09/2009 : 12:20:41
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I agree. I liked the two plots and wondering if they would get in the way of each other. As it turned out, they did work well together. The IBs did have some effect on the outcome. Made it more exciting to wonder if both plots would fail somehow.
EM :)
I'm with you, to a point.
There is indeed a good deal of dramatic tension regarding how the two plots will interact. Will they interfere with each other's success? Would they each have failed on their own but somehow come together to succeed? But it turns out, no, each plot works independently of the other, rendering them redundant. I suppose that's part of the point, as MguyX said. I just found it to be a... curious choice.
Mind you, this is all a small nitpick of a film I liked a lot.  |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 22:24:33
I agree. I liked the two plots and wondering if they would get in the way of each other. As it turned out, they did work well together. The IBs did have some effect on the outcome. Made it more exciting to wonder if both plots would fail somehow.
EM :) |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 20:29:12
Regarding that matter you pointed out, Wheelz: it mirrors reality in that any number of things can be going on at once. That's my take. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 16:27:41
One thing is for sure: Tarantino ain't for everybody.
He does have a very "hey-look-at-me!" directorial style that I can see putting people off.
He deals more in caricatures than characters, though some of his actors (Laurent, Waltz) rise above this.
And boy, does he love over-the-top, graphic violence. Had me cringing more than once.
This particular film relied on some highly unlikely coincidences and a deus ex machina or two to move things along. And one point that was never addressed and I'm having a hard time getting past is that Shoshanna's plan at the theater worked perfectly. Therefore the Basterds' presence there was entirely inconsequential. The title characters had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the film's climax!
Despite all of this -- maybe partially because of it -- what QT has done here is to make one hell of an entertaining movie. My feeling is that's all he really set out to do, and I say he succeeded glouriously.
It's a fun and exciting ride. I loved it and I'd see it again in a heartbeat.
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 15:40:06
I really enjoyed IB. It doesn't have to fit neatly into any one category for me to enjoy a movie. In fact, it's better if it doesn't.
I agree T borrows heavily from lots of different sources. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he has acknowledged this on several occasions. He spent his time before becoming a writer/director watching movies. Digesting them. Disecting them. Didn't he work in a video store?
That said, IB was one wild ride. Pitt does play a caricature. But, the whole thing is bigger than life, so that fits.
Lots of great performances. And, as MguyX said, I was able to resist the urge to run to the restroom, which says a lot, because usually 2 hours and I'm looking at my watch wondering when the heck it will be over. I was surprised when I learned it was 2 1/2 hours.
And loved the ending.
Don't be hating on T. He's entertaining. When you consider some of the other dreck out there (All About Steve. Hello?), it is refreshing to be able to see something that isn't the norm. Borrowed, or not.
EM :)
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 05:01:58
Did somebody say PUP FICTION?
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/07/2009 : 23:43:20
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
But, you know, in the interim since Reservoir Dogs and Pup Fiction ...
Was that second one an animated feature? I never noticed the canine motif before!  
Woof! Woof!
|
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 09/07/2009 : 21:13:21
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
But, you know, in the interim since Reservoir Dogs and Pup Fiction ...
Was that second one an animated feature? I never noticed the canine motif before! |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 09/07/2009 : 11:57:07
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
No, surprise surprise QT didn't invent cinema.
But he acts like he did. |
|
|
