Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: The Firecracker on August 06, 2008, 02:55:47 PM

Title: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 06, 2008, 02:55:47 PM
Not a remake of Castellari's, somewhat entertaining, WW2 actioner (Tarantino ripped the name because he couldn't think of anything more badass on his own).

I have the script if anybody is interested.
Send me an email if you want dibbs...

spag_fan@yahoo.com
(Just watch the movie now you silly goat)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 06, 2008, 04:48:58 PM

Lately, my excitement of this film has rubbed off a bit do to some of the casting choices. Furthermore, until I see Sly, Arnold and Bruce's name's attached to this film, I won't get all that excited.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 06, 2008, 04:51:32 PM
Lately, my excitement of this film has rubbed off a bit do to some of the casting choices. Furthermore, until I see Sly, Arnold and Bruce's name's attached to this film, I won't get all that excited.

They already have a cast set up?

I to I'm none too excited about this.
I'm just interested in seeing how much can Tarantino botch up a WW2 flick (hence, why I wanted the script).
He better hope this is a success.
If this is another Grindhouse he can kiss his career goodbye (for a long while anyway).
This will probably end up being the biggest budget he has ever been given.
Hope he makes the hand that feeds him happy.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 06, 2008, 05:15:59 PM
They already have a cast set up?

I to I'm none too excited about this.
I'm just interested in seeing how much can Tarantino botch up a WW2 flick (hence, why I wanted the script).
He better hope this is a success.
If this is another Grindhouse he can kiss his career goodbye (for a long while anyway).
This will probably end up being the biggest budget he has ever been given.
Hope he makes the hand that feeds him happy.

Yeah, Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Eli Roth (director of the Hostel films) to name a few.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on August 06, 2008, 06:11:06 PM
Yeah, Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Eli Roth (director of the Hostel films) to name a few.

Is this from a credible source or IMDB?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 06, 2008, 07:28:32 PM
Is this from a credible source or IMDB?

Yes, credible. I've read it on various websites other than IMDB.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 07, 2008, 04:54:44 AM
Well, I was admittedly a mite interested when I first heard about this project, but Tarantino's been putting it off for years. Are we sure this is actually going to be made?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on August 07, 2008, 05:06:02 AM
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in a Dirty Dozen kinda flick? LOL!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Silenzio on August 07, 2008, 10:18:10 AM
I respect Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction enough to wait and see Tarantino's final vision before I pass judgment.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 07, 2008, 10:47:44 AM
Well, I was admittedly a mite interested when I first heard about this project, but Tarantino's been putting it off for years. Are we sure this is actually going to be made?


It's happening.
It will be released next year if all goes well.
I'm just questioning the casting choices which I haven't heard anything as of yet.


SPOILERS*****************
The script, so far, is damn good, there are several character in the story that will all come together for the big final (at least that is where the script seems to be heading).
The "Inglorious Bastards" are a platoon of Jewish Americans who are sent into Nazi oocupied France to eradicate as many German soldiers as possible, as gruesomly as possible. Their platoon captain (sargent, commander, whatever) asks them to have 100 nazi scalps tied to them by the end of the war.
This protion of the script is entertaining but overly silly.
The real meat of the movie involves a young Jewish girl whose parents were brutally murdered by a nazi S.S. officer known as the "Jew Hunter" (this guys opening scene has reflections of LVC's entrance in GBU). The young Jewess ends up being hidden in a French cinema for several years. She eventually becomes the owner of the joint and is one day visited by a young German private who is also a war hero. The private (thinking the Jewess is french) is smitten by the girl and arranges his fellow soldiers, and a german director, to hold a premiere of a film in her cinema. The Jewess gets the idea of burning down the place during the premiere which will hold some of Germany's most well known war criminals including the "Jew Hunter".
SPOILERS***************
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on August 07, 2008, 11:36:35 AM
I respect Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction enough to wait and see Tarantino's final vision before I pass judgment.
Yeah, but on the other hand I don't really respect Kill Bill.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 07, 2008, 12:26:33 PM
Yeah, but on the other hand I don't really respect Kill Bill.

Funny thing is, I think "Jackie Brown" is QT's best and most mature work, yet nobody respects it. I'm one of those who likes "Kill Bill." There's so many homages I absolutely love in that film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 07, 2008, 12:30:40 PM
Funny thing is, I think "Jackie Brown" is QT's best and most mature work, yet nobody respects it.


I think that is his best work to date as well.

The two films before it are very good to (RD kinda loses steam when the Mr. Orange story shows up though).
Everything after Jackie Brown I have mixed feelings about.
Kill Bill volume 1 is pretty fun but the second installment (truthfully, the second half of the film) is just a drag in most parts.
Death Proof was terrible.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on August 07, 2008, 10:18:08 PM
Ironically, QT once said that ''Jackie Brown'' is the only movie he entirely directed that wasn't his 'child', so somewhere during the shooting he lost the inspiration and finished it routinely, without much delaying.

The truth is that the 'routine' made the movie better, because there wasn't any time/inspiration/space for the proverbial dialog overloading (that culminated in PF), that doesn't make any sense at all (and bores you to death). Yeah, I'm talking about the 'Killy Billy' ones.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 07, 2008, 10:26:37 PM

I think that is his best work to date as well.

The two films before it are very good to (RD kinda loses steam when the Mr. Orange story shows up though).
Everything after Jackie Brown I have mixed feelings about.
Kill Bill volume 1 is pretty fun but the second installment (truthfully, the second half of the film) is just a drag in most parts.
Death Proof was terrible.

I know you don't like "Death Proof" FC but I have a soft spot for 1970's chase films. I thought QT did a fantastic job with his chase sequences here and it reminded me of those films. And how can you not love Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike? I think the character is hilarious. Yes, I'm a Kurt Russell fan so I'm being a bit biased when I talk about him I guess.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on August 07, 2008, 10:44:15 PM
Speaking of ''Planet Terror/Death Proof'', I've had trouble rating them since I saw them, and don't really know if I like them or not. But, since it's been said like a million times that they were made in honor of those other bad movies from the past that everybody seemed to love, I'm giving them (and QT) the 'pass key'.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 07, 2008, 10:47:16 PM
I know you don't like "Death Proof" FC but I have a soft spot for 1970's chase films. I thought QT did a fantastic job with his chase sequences here and it reminded me of those films. And how can you not love Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike? I think the character is hilarious. Yes, I'm a Kurt Russell fan so I'm being a bit biased when I talk about him I guess.

I've already stated my reasons for not liking the movie a hundred times in its respective thread.
No need to go into here, I'm sure you know what I think of the film (QT phoned it in).
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2008, 06:55:42 PM
Back on topic:

Quote
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117990231&categoryid=1970

To print this page, select "PRINT" from the File Menu of your browser.
Posted: Thurs., Aug. 7, 2008, 3:20pm PT
Brad Pitt is officially a 'Bastard'
Pegg, Kinski, Krumholtz in talks to join film
By MICHAEL FLEMING, TATIANA SIEGEL, TATIANA SIEGEL
Brad Pitt has closed his deal to star in "Inglorious Bastards," the WWII drama that Quentin Tarantino will direct for the Weinstein Co. and Universal.

Additionally, Nastassja Kinski is in early talks to play one of the sole female roles in the film. Casting the German-born actress jibes with Tarantino's habit of resuscitating dormant careers. Kinski, who has stayed away from mainstream American films for nearly a decade, would play a German movie queen.

Much of the pic's dialogue is in French or German, and subtitles will be used, though Pitt will speak English in his role as a Tennessee hillbilly who assembles a team of eight Jewish-American soldiers to take on the Nazis.

Simon Pegg, David Krumholtz and B.J. Novak are also in talks to join the project. Pegg would play a British lieutenant, while Krumholtz and Novak would play Pitt's underlings.

Pic begins production Oct. 13 in Germany. Tarantino, who wrote the script, is aiming to complete the film and have it ready for next year's Cannes Film Festival. Lawrence Bender is producing, with Erica Steinberg and Harvey and Bob Weinstein as executive producers. Pilar Savone is associate producer.

Deal puts Pitt back in business with Universal; apparently he and the studio have patched things up following his last-minute exit from "State of Play" late last year.

Under the terms of Tarantino's deal, he receives 20% of first-dollar grosses. That percentage can be reduced if a first-dollar gross star like Pitt joins the cast, though it's unclear if Tarantino is ceding any of his points to the star.

Bender said casting should be complete in about a week or two. Eli Roth will play Sgt. Donnie Donowitz, and Tarantino is locking in the other actors to play the soldiers who make up the Bastards team. Tarantino regular Tim Roth had been in contention to join the cast but couldn't work out the scheduling because of his upcoming TV series "Lie to Me."

While Pitt will be working for the first time with Tarantino as director, he does have on his resume a small but memorable turn as a stoner in the Tony Scott-directed "True Romance," a script that Tarantino wrote between "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction."

Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990231.html
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 03, 2009, 01:11:50 PM
August 21st is the release date for the US.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 03, 2009, 05:45:50 PM
The Castellari original is fine but no great movie in itself. It's easily the most fun of the Italian war pictures I've seen. Lenzi's BATTLE FORCE (1978) with Gemma, John Huston, Henry Fonda, Stacy Keach, Samantha Eggar, Ray Lovelock, Helmet Berger, Edwige Fenech, Andrea Bosic, etc... is pretty good, too.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 11, 2009, 02:03:24 AM
Morricone ain't going to touch QT's half good WW2 epic...

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/01/ennio-morricone-wont-be-scoring.html


....and I don't blame him.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 11, 2009, 01:18:18 PM
Is Ennio Morricone seriously scoring, or is Tarantino going to use tracks from GBU again?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 11, 2009, 01:20:11 PM
Read FC's post above.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 11, 2009, 01:22:28 PM
Read FC's post above.
:D


It's for the best. Morricone should devote his time to better films.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: PowerRR on January 11, 2009, 01:25:41 PM
oh, dont care about that movie anymore.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 11, 2009, 01:33:21 PM
Maybe he's too busying doing the score for Lenningrad  ;)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 11, 2009, 01:40:24 PM
Maybe he's too busying doing the score for Lenningrad  ;)

Nope.

"Instead he's chosen to work with longtime collaborator and "Cinema Paradiso" director Giuseppe Tornatore once again on his new film, "Baaria - La porta del vento." And it stands to figure, Morricone has written the music for every Tornatore feature aside from his 1986 debut, "Il Camorrista""
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 11, 2009, 01:42:55 PM
Nope.

"Instead he's chosen to work with longtime collaborator and "Cinema Paradiso" director Giuseppe Tornatore once again on his new film, "Baaria - La porta del vento." And it stands to figure, Morricone has written the music for every Tornatore feature aside from his 1986 debut, "Il Camorrista""

Somewhere, Jenkins is weeping.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 11, 2009, 01:46:48 PM
Nope.

"Instead he's chosen to work with longtime collaborator and "Cinema Paradiso" director Giuseppe Tornatore once again on his new film, "Baaria - La porta del vento." And it stands to figure, Morricone has written the music for every Tornatore feature aside from his 1986 debut, "Il Camorrista""

I haven't seen any of Tornatore's films. I really want to see Cinema Paradiso, The Legend of 1900 and Malena.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 11, 2009, 01:47:38 PM

Well, I still want to see this. I am curious at the idea of QT doing a war film and I'm definitely curious to see how Brad Pitt performs here.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 11, 2009, 01:50:49 PM
Somewhere, Jenkins is weeping.

Jenkins: "There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend. . . those who like Cinema, and those who like Cinema Paradiso. . ."

Well, I still want to see this. I am curious at the idea of QT doing a war film and I'm definitely curious to see how Brad Pitt performs here.

He was on Charlie Rose show, said something in the redneck/hillbilly accent he had cooked up. I'm still interested in this movie as well. Mostly because of Pitt though.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 11, 2009, 01:52:14 PM

Pitt is usually hit or miss with me but I can't say that I dislike the guy.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 12, 2009, 02:15:20 AM
What about Mike Myers in the cast? Is anyone going to take him seriously?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 12, 2009, 02:20:00 AM
What about Mike Myers in the cast? Is anyone going to take him seriously?

No one will take him or Eli Roth seriously.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 12, 2009, 02:22:32 AM
I don't even know what Eli Roth will look like.

And the plot sounds retarded.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 11:36:59 AM
And the plot sounds retarded.

There are two plots that come together for the finale.

The plotline about a Jewish girl whose family is wiped out by a special forces Nazi named "The Jew hunter" ( ::)) hides out in a cinema in Paris. She eventually becomes the owner of the joint and learns that the Jerries want to hold a movie premiere there. There will be many attendees including Mr. Jew Hunter himself. She then plots to burn the place down during the screening of the movie.

The other story is a group of Jewish American super soldier who go around killing nazis with Baseball bats and scalping knives.
Seems to me QT wants to "homage" some of the sillier entries in the spaghetti war films that were released between the westerns and the giallos. Movies like Parolini's Five For Hell in which Gianni Garko chucks grenades disguised as baseballs at the enemy. At least that's what it feels like he's going for.
Quite frankly I'm more interested in the Jewish girl story. The other plot seems to be an excuse for QT to satisfy his thirst for useless exploitation elements. It kinda gives me a big yawn.

Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 12:14:42 PM
Reading that plot description made me lose all interest in this film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 12, 2009, 12:40:32 PM
Reading that plot description made me lose all interest in this film.

You just don't like QT.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 01:03:32 PM
I haven't seen any of his films, so how could I hold an opinion? ::)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 01:04:21 PM
I haven't seen any of his films


 :o
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 01:06:02 PM
I've said this several times before, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
I've said this several times before, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here.

I must have not read that before.
Pretty shocking to say the least.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 12, 2009, 01:07:50 PM
I've said this several times before, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here.

This is the kind of things that stay exactly as surprising everytime you say it. But you know... i've heard of a movie teacher who didn't even know who Steven Spielberg is, so...
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 01:08:26 PM
I've just never felt any great desire to see his movies. I've been meaning to see Reservoir Dogs at least for awhile but I've never gotten around to it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 01:09:02 PM
i've heard of a movie teacher who didn't even know who Steven Spielberg is, so...

He must have been a very snobby froggy. :D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 12, 2009, 01:09:28 PM
I've just never felt any great desire to see his movies. I've been meaning to see Reservoir Dogs at least for awhile but I've never gotten around to it.

Seriously, i'd bet you will never like one of his movies.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 12, 2009, 01:11:01 PM
He must have been a very snobby froggy. :D

lol
They only thing she had done was a documentary. About crayfishes.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 01:23:54 PM
Seriously, i'd bet you will never like one of his movies.

All the more reason to go on not seeing them. I might indulge myself in one or two films for experimentation purposes, but that's about it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 01:24:43 PM
All the more reason to go on not seeing them. I might indulge myself in one or two films for experimentation purposes, but that's about it.

At least watch his first three.

You can skip everything afterwards.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 02:34:42 PM
At least watch his first three.

You can skip everything afterwards.

Will keep that in mind. My brother has the Kill Bill films on DVD though.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 12, 2009, 02:35:45 PM
My brother has the Kill Bill films on DVD though.

Not the best way to begin with QT IMO. You'd better watch the first three in the chronological order.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 12, 2009, 02:58:13 PM
I'm just noting. I'm not at home anyway.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 12, 2009, 03:16:15 PM
I've just never felt any great desire to see his movies. I've been meaning to see Reservoir Dogs at least for awhile but I've never gotten around to it.

Well, truth be told, there's virtually nothing in his films that somebody else hasn't done already. The only thing he ever did that I got excited about was KILL BILL and that was okay, yet hugely disappointing at the same time. RESERVOIR DOGS is probably the best thing he's done, IMO.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 03:20:09 PM
Btw, has anybody ever seen this short film which compares QT's debut film and a Hong Kong movie City On Fire that came out a few years before RS?

The similarities are more than just mere coincidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY&feature=related

The director of this film (and its sequel You're still not fooling anybody) is now the subject of ridicule.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 12, 2009, 03:21:22 PM
Btw, has anybody ever seen this short film which compares QT's debut film and a Hong Kong movie City On Fire that came out a few years before RS?

The similarities are more than just mere coincidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY&feature=related

The director of this film (and its sequel You're still not fooling anybody) is now the subject of ridicule.

That's old news. The CITY ON FIRE comparison was made almost as soon as RESERVOIR DOGS came out.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 03:22:09 PM
That's old news.


Really old :D

But I'm certain not everybody here has heard about it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 12, 2009, 03:32:03 PM
If this movie bombs, it will most likely be the end of QT's career, or at least his financiers will pull the reigns in on projects he deems worthy. I can't imagine studios continuously giving him millions to deliver movies that don't deliver.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 03:35:58 PM
I can't imagine studios continuously giving him millions to deliver movies that don't deliver.

Well, there was really no problem until Grindhouse.
Before that his movies consistently delivered in the money department regardless of their quality.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 12, 2009, 03:44:52 PM
Well, there was really no problem until Grindhouse.
Before that his movies consistently delivered in the money department regardless of their quality.

Well, when you take into consideration what was spent on some of his movies, it shows there isn't a massive audience interest. Neither of the KILL BILL movies was the huge success they were assumed to be (they seemed to have been better received overseas like Japan) and JB only did decent because the budget was low. The masses aren't flocking to theaters just because his name is above the credits.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 12, 2009, 03:50:38 PM
Point taken.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 12, 2009, 06:56:21 PM
Well, when you take into consideration what was spent on some of his movies, it shows there isn't a massive audience interest. Neither of the KILL BILL movies was the huge success they were assumed to be (they seemed to have been better received overseas like Japan) and JB only did decent because the budget was low. The masses aren't flocking to theaters just because his name is above the credits.

But QT is good enough as a marketing guy to find money for his next movies. I don't think it will ever be a problem for him, as long as he doesn't try too many epic movies. I mean, may be, at a point, he might not be able to fond a king kong movie, but he could do another kill bill without any trouble.
Morever, if i were a movie producer, i'd see QT as a possibility to bring millions of dollars to my compagny. After all, he's the guy who almost created Miramax.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 21, 2009, 07:57:24 PM

Here's a look at the first poster for the film featuring Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark. The poster has that old-school look to it as I'm sure the film will.

http://www.tarantino.info/2009/01/21/our-inglourious-basterds-coverage-starts-with-pictures/

(http://www.tarantino.info/wiki/images/FrauleinDoktor_big.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2009, 12:44:02 AM
I'm not impressed by QT's ability to mimick old poster styles. :D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2009, 03:05:50 PM


(http://www.tarantino.info/wiki/images/FrauleinDoktor_big.jpg)

Pretty lousy poster if you ask me.
There is nothing on it except for that X on the top left hand corner.
Perhaps it is warning us that the movie will be just as empty?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 22, 2009, 03:07:46 PM
I love most of the death proof's posters (QT's best (posters)), but i really don't like this one. Empty, as you say. Flat, too. Bad looking, also.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2009, 07:22:43 PM
It's a poster for a movie within the movie. It isn't an actually poster for IB advertising.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 25, 2009, 10:22:37 AM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/movies/pride-ofthe-nation-inglourious-bast.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 25, 2009, 12:47:20 PM
What's that? Jean-Pierre Léaud as a nazi?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 25, 2009, 08:27:53 PM
What's that? Jean-Pierre Léaud as a nazi?

Daniel Brühl as a nazi in the film within the film: Stolz Der Nation.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 26, 2009, 12:07:17 AM
Daniel Brühl as a nazi in the film within the film: Stolz Der Nation.

Brühl! i was wondering where i had seen this guy. Am i the only one the think he looks very much like spiderman? It disturbs me since I have seen him in Goodbye Lenine.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 26, 2009, 12:13:48 AM
Brühl! i was wondering where i had seen this guy. Am i the only one the think he looks very much like spiderman? It disturbs me since I have seen him in Goodbye Lenine.

He looks like Emile Hirsch to me.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 26, 2009, 12:21:26 AM
He looks like Emile Hirsch to me.

I guess he does. Still:

(http://www.zoom-cinema.fr/media/film/2471/photo/huge/spiderman31.jpg) (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/movies/pride-ofthe-nation-inglourious-bast.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 26, 2009, 12:27:48 AM
I guess he does. Still:

(http://www.zoom-cinema.fr/media/film/2471/photo/huge/spiderman31.jpg) (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/movies/pride-ofthe-nation-inglourious-bast.jpg)

God damn, you've convinced me Noodles! O0
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on February 10, 2009, 07:47:57 PM
Okay, I am totally seeing this.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: PowerRR on February 10, 2009, 08:29:34 PM
Sneak peek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-AFa3W47sI
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 10, 2009, 10:13:41 PM

I can't say I'm excited about that sneak peak. I'll wait and see the trailer before I make my final judgement about my excitement or lack of it regarding this film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 10, 2009, 11:24:37 PM
I can't say I'm excited about that sneak peak. I'll wait and see the trailer before I make my final judgement about my excitement or lack of it regarding this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWfkENxN_ZA

Different preview. Longer length, worse quality.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 11, 2009, 12:04:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWfkENxN_ZA

Different preview. Longer length, worse quality.

Longer, especially since they use 3 or 4 times the same shots :) and the bad quality is due to the fact that the guy who posted it apparently shot his TV with his videocamera :)
It's difficult to have an idea of what the film will look like... isn't the official trailer due on thursday?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 11, 2009, 01:38:29 AM
Longer, especially since they use 3 or 4 times the same shots :) and the bad quality is due to the fact that the guy who posted it apparently shot his TV with his videocamera :)
It's difficult to have an idea of what the film will look like... isn't the official trailer due on thursday?

From what I've read the official trailer is due out this Friday/Thursday at 12pm--it's suppose to air in front of Friday the 13th remake.

Due to... "Aaand I wuhant ma' scapls!" and swastikas engraved in men's foreheads , I'll be watching this movie.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 12:02:18 PM

I'll be seeing this film regardless if I like the trailer or not. The film will entertain being a QT film but will it be quality is the question. I've been dying for a good war film lately. This sure has a lot of hype to live up to.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 11, 2009, 12:21:51 PM
I'll be seeing this film regardless if I like the trailer or not. The film will entertain being a QT film but will it be quality is the question. I've been dying for a good war film lately. This sure has a lot of hype to live up to.

Sure... have you seen Flag our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 12:27:29 PM
Sure... have you seen Flag our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima?

Of course. Both great films with "Letters From Iwo Jima" being the masterpiece.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 11, 2009, 12:44:38 PM
I thought they're both very good but flawed... When i saw Letters in the theatres, i thought that was the one i perfer. After that i saw Flags again on DVD, and he got my preference. Still need to see Letters a second time... I own the DVD, and i wanted to bring it with me here in Ottawa... the other day i tried to watch it, and... i had only brought the bonus DVD  :'(
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 12:48:53 PM
I thought they're both very good but flawed... When i saw Letters in the theatres, i thought that was the one i perfer. After that i saw Flags again on DVD, and he got my preference. Still need to see Letters a second time... I own the DVD, and i wanted to bring it with me here in Ottawa... the other day i tried to watch it, and... i had only brought the bonus DVD  :'(

That sucks you brought the wrong DVD. I guess you'll just have to wait it out until you get home. You could always rent it though if you want. Like I said, there's some flaws with most films so I don't nitpick all that much but I do think "Flags" had some more pacing problems than "Letters." Two great films though in my opinion.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 11, 2009, 01:24:03 PM
The promo makes the film look pretty exciting.
If it weren't for that "sticks out like a sore thumb" Zoom QT employed for whoever is firing that pistol the movie would look nothing like  a QT flick.









Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: PowerRR on February 11, 2009, 03:40:32 PM
Official Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcoPxyxpE9A

UGH, looks fucking absolutely atrociously terrible. Like Uwe Boll bad. Like Postal.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 03:40:32 PM

Here is the full length teaser trailer:

http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/11990378/standardformat/
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on February 11, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
It looks really bad.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 03:47:13 PM

Yeah, I'm not impressed. I was hoping for a gritty looking war picture. This looks to be comedic. I don't like that shit.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 11, 2009, 04:00:48 PM
It's a QT movie... I don't know what you guys expect. It certainly looks nothing on the level of an Uwe Boll film. Trailer still didn't really show shit. Brad yappin' about wanting scalps, and splices of scenes.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 04:16:24 PM
It's a QT movie... I don't know what you guys expect. It certainly looks nothing on the level of an Uwe Boll film. Trailer still didn't really show shit. Brad yappin' about wanting scalps, and splices of scenes.

Well, I will not fully judge the film until I see it. But, I was expecting Tarantino to mature a bit as a writer here. I mean the way he has Hilter yelling at the end of the trailer looks comedic. Wtf is that?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 11, 2009, 04:17:08 PM
Well, I will not fully judge the film until I see it. But, I was expecting Tarantino to mature a bit as a writer here. I mean the way he has Hilter yelling at the end of the trailer looks comedic. Wtf is that?

Hitler was a bitch, I don't know? Looks like how he gave his speeches to me.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 11, 2009, 05:23:24 PM
It still is a bad trailer.
Well, the dark knight has a great trailer for an average film, and the leone movies have terrible trailers for the best movies ever, so...
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 11, 2009, 05:52:13 PM
Uh, that trailer makes the film look . . . really cheap. Like they used a cast of 12 and filmed it all in Quint's backyard.

Oh, and, I guess the title of this thread needs to be changed again, as the title appears to have a second misspelling: "Inglourious". Is the retarded spelling supposed to be funny?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 11, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
I was expecting Tarantino to mature a bit as a writer here.


Why on earth would you ever expect that?

Jackie Brown (his most mature work) didn't work out for him so he now has to resort to infantile bullshit like this.
Don't get me wrong, this looks like a good romp and I will watch it.
Feels like his homage to Italian war films of the 60's and early 70's, which is obvious from the title but other suddle things like the baseball bat.
In Parolini's Five For Hell Gianni Garko chucks grenades disguised as baseballs using a bat.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 11, 2009, 07:44:47 PM
Love the Hope-nosis graphic. Yeah, Slumdog is seeming better and better . . .
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on February 11, 2009, 07:50:08 PM
On the other hand, it could be just a prank.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 11, 2009, 08:35:47 PM
I was hoping for a gritty looking war picture.


It looks gritty even if it will employ some rather silly gimicks. The most interesting bit will be about the French Jew girl (we see her running in the trailer) who hides away in a cinema in Nazi occupied Paris.
The "Bastards" themselves don't get much screen time until half way through the picture.
At least that is how it is written in the screenplay.

My main gripe is the casting of Eli Roth.
What happened? Nobody wants to finance any of his shit movies anymore?
Was QT doing him a favor?
What's with that shit eating grin he's got?
Makes me want to punch him in the face.


And thanks DJ. I fell upon it while searching "Hope-Nosis".
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 11, 2009, 10:04:28 PM

We still could get gritty here but I don't see it in the trailer with all of QT's comedic shock violence. We've already seen that will Kill Bill. I want to see something different here.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 11, 2009, 10:25:23 PM
We still could get gritty here but I don't see it in the trailer with all of QT's comedic shock violence. We've already seen that will Kill Bill. I want to see something different here.

And I'm with ya on that but I knew what to expect, so what I got wasn't exactly disappointing.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 11, 2009, 10:26:37 PM
Just no.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 12, 2009, 02:28:13 AM
And I'm with ya on that but I knew what to expect, so what I got wasn't exactly disappointing.

I guess I'll never learn. I honestly was expecting something more serious, not that we can fully notice any evidence of that yet.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 12, 2009, 05:31:26 AM
I guess I'll never learn. I honestly was expecting something more serious, not that we can fully notice any evidence of that yet.
It seems that QT is getting more and more un-serious. I'm just about ready to announce him a talentless hack (only need to see this and Grindhouse first :D) Hitler was the best part of that trailer, in my opinion.

And the spelling. WTF? Is this another way of showing that he's Quentin fucking Tarantino? Like "I'm so fucking great that I don't have to care about anything. Look, I can say 'fuck you' to the biggest of authorities...spelling!"
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 12, 2009, 02:56:26 PM
Maybe he's just trying to ape Teddy Roosevelt. :D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 12, 2009, 10:01:53 PM

Did you guy's know that Tarantino is nortorious for being a bad speller? They say his mind is brilliant in terms of dialogue and meaning of words but he can't spell for shit. Maybe the misspelling of the title is a homage to himself? haha.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 12, 2009, 11:53:08 PM
This looks stupid.

Lt. Aldo Ray?!?!?

More of the same it seems. So much for his serious movie.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 13, 2009, 10:14:11 AM
Doesn't it get any credit for having an actor named Omar Doom in the cast?

This looks stupid.

Lt. Aldo Ray?!?!?

Yeah, where's Colonel Leone the bumbling Italian officer, or Monsieur Godard the heroic French Resistance fighter, or tough guy Sergeant Sam Fuller? Shame on you, QT, for letting us all down.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 13, 2009, 10:17:35 AM
Here is the full length teaser trailer:

http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/11990378/standardformat/

Pathetic. Just pathetic. I was reluctant to watch this and actually watching it shows why. It confirms all of my prejudices/suspicions.

This movie looks like shit, and I'm not going to bother seeing it. Maybe on DVD or Pay-Per-View, but no way in hell am I shelling out $8-10 bucks for something as shitty-looking as that.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 13, 2009, 12:22:54 PM
Doesn't it get any credit for having an actor named Omar Doom in the cast?

Yeah, where's Colonel Leone the bumbling Italian officer, or Monsieur Godard the heroic French Resistance fighter, or tough guy Sergeant Sam Fuller? Shame on you, QT, for letting us all down.

Those guys are probably in there somewhere, or on the cutting room floor....or perhaps they are going to be in INGLORIOUSLY DUMB BASTERDS volume 2 and 3. I read elsewhere that supposedly this was another long 'un.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 13, 2009, 12:56:58 PM
God help us.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 13, 2009, 01:02:01 PM
I looked at the IMDB page and it says Pitt's name is 'Aldo Raine' (?) But upon looking further down the list QT has given one of his characters the name of 'Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz'. ;D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 13, 2009, 01:12:34 PM
What.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 13, 2009, 01:24:03 PM
The more I see/read, the more I'm convinced QT doesn't think his own film is any good.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 13, 2009, 01:37:40 PM


Lt. Aldo Ray?!?!?




It doesn't stop there...

Mike Myers' character is called General Ed Fenech.

Har Har.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 13, 2009, 02:26:24 PM
The more I see/read, the more I'm convinced QT doesn't think his own film is any good.

Oh, trust me. QT thinks all his films are brilliant. He's a bit arrogant.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Atlas2112 on February 13, 2009, 03:55:14 PM
and he's dyslexic to boot.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on February 13, 2009, 10:57:41 PM
As I said, it looks like a bad joke. I'm perturbed just as you guys, but let's wait for the final product before we start the lynch.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: ShortFuse on February 13, 2009, 11:30:31 PM
If Leone were still alive today. He would have filed a restraining order against QT.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2009, 12:07:36 AM
I won't bother seeing this unless I get hold of the script and it wows me. But I doubt it very much.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 14, 2009, 02:16:27 AM
I won't bother seeing this unless I get hold of the script and it wows me. But I doubt it very much.
I can send it to you. I never read it, though.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 14, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
I can send it to you. I never read it, though.

Can you send me a copy? I've been wanting to read it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 14, 2009, 01:49:17 PM
Can you send me a copy? I've been wanting to read it.
Sure. Just PM me your email address.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2009, 02:27:37 PM
Giving the script a quick look-see, I find it amusing that QT can't even spell Herr. Unless he's referring to the "Heer", but I very much doubt that since the character is supposed to be SS. ;D

Scene also takes place in 1941 but Reinhard Heydrich's assassination (June 1942) is mentioned.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2009, 05:02:08 PM
Just got done with Part I, some thoughts...

The early scene with the Nazi Colonel and the French farmer is quite bizarre. It seems like QT trying to write intelligent or serious dialogue, and he doesn't quite get it (although he sneaks something about blacks being gorillas which is nice). I could imagine this scene working cinematically though, I'll give him that, but in terms of tone and dialogue QT seems out of his element here.

The story moves rather abrupty after that, and turns into an outright cartoon before long. The Basterds are introduced (except not really), then we move right to Hitler's reaction and a flashback. I hope QT rearranges the chronology somewhat or does more to flesh out these scenes, they just don't work as written.

The scenes with Shosanna could be interesting but on the written page they don't amount to much - again, it seems like QT trying to adopt a serious tone and not really succeeding, although his frequent film buff moments take up a lot of space. Again, we'll have to see how they translate to the screen, but what's here isn't promising. Might I point out the obvious and suggest interweaving the two stories?

Obviously QT can't spell worth a damn and that gets irritating at times - it's like I'm reading a seventh grader trying to write a war film. Which, to be fair, is very much in keeping with the rest of the script. The scenes with the Bear Jew are just pathetic and I can't imagine them working in any context.

I'll check out part two tonight but so far this doesn't seem very promising. Sometimes there's value to being prejudiced towards a film, and everything new I hear and see has confirmed my suspicions so far.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2009, 06:03:26 PM
Part Two = WTF?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2009, 10:12:49 PM
Not to be monopolizing the thread, but head over to the Inglorious Basterds board on IMDB if you want a few laughs.  :D

I like this one in particular:
Quote
i have no problem with QT being his own fan. in fact, i think that's really great

 :D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 15, 2009, 02:31:34 AM
Quote
i have no problem with QT being his own fan. in fact, i think that's really great
Yeah, that really makes him like one of us, his fans. that's like über-cool!!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 15, 2009, 08:24:20 AM
Looking at the trailer again, I got more of a chuckle this time (and I more fully appreciated the Leone homages). This film might work if it's all done for laughs. I said "might."
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 15, 2009, 10:22:14 AM
Yeah but the QT fans keep raving about how this is going to be a "serious war movie" and not a shoot-'em-up flick, so... :D

Although, I do remember reading several places that the script I've been sent was significantly revised for the final shooting script, so we've no way of knowing for sure how it will be.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on February 16, 2009, 07:49:35 AM
Looking at the trailer again, I got more of a chuckle this time (and I more fully appreciated the Leone homages). This film might work if it's all done for laughs. I said "might."

Gunnery Sgt. Hartman?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 17, 2009, 02:41:15 PM
Quentin sheds some light on the title...

 
Why the extra u in Inglorious?


"I can't tell you!" says Tarantino mysteriously. "But the 'Basterds'? That's just the way you say it: Basterds."

..........................................
That "I can't tell you" response sounds like an explanation of the extra "U" can lead to a spoiler.
Grogs, you read the whole script, is this true? 
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 17, 2009, 02:55:17 PM
Yes.

I thought the misspelled title was more a tribute to QT's illiteracy than any deep, hidden "meaning".
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 20, 2009, 03:47:33 AM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/inglourious-posters.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 20, 2009, 10:46:10 AM
QT must've had to suck a few cocks to get that poster out into the theatres because I hear the MPAA are a bit snippy with blood depicted on posters.

Or I could be getting confused about blood in trailers.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Amaze on February 20, 2009, 11:47:54 AM
looks more like a rodriguez movie than tarantino. think I'll pass
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 20, 2009, 12:05:57 PM
looks more like a rodriguez movie than tarantino.
Pretty well put O0
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 20, 2009, 04:08:43 PM
QT must've had to suck a few cocks to get that poster out into the theatres because I hear the MPAA are a bit snippy with blood depicted on posters.

Or I could be getting confused about blood in trailers.

I think you're confusing blood in trailers with posters.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on February 26, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
damn.you guys are hating so much right now ;D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 26, 2009, 09:43:13 PM
I think you're confusing blood in trailers with posters.

I don't know...

Why would the MPAA be so anal about trailers and not posters (which anybody can see if the cinemas put them up as advertisement).

I'm tellin' ya... (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/adult/bj.gif)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 19, 2009, 12:57:17 PM
Apparently, this is the soundtrack:

Quote
The Green Leaves of Summer: Dimitri Tiomkin (from the film The Alamo)
After The Verdict: Ennio Morricone (from the film The Big Gundown
L'incontro Con La Figlia: Ennio Morricone (from the film The Return of Ringo)
White Lightning: Charles Bernstein (from the film White Lightning)
Il Mercenario (Reprisa): Ennio Morricone (from the film Il Mercenario)
Slaughter: by Billy Preston (from the film Slaughter)
Algiers, November 1954 (from the film The Battle of Algiers)
The Surrender (La resa): Ennio Morricone (from the film The Big Gundown)
One Silver Dollar (Un Dollaro Bucato): Gianni Ferrio (from the film One Silver Dollar)
Bath Attack: Charles Bernstein (from the film The Entity)
Davon Geht Die Welt Nicht Unter: Bruno Balz, Michael Jary
The Man With The Big Sombrero: Phil Bouteljie, Foster Carling (from the film The Man with The Big Sombrero)
Ich Wollt Ich Waer Bin Huhn: Hans-Fritz Beckmann, Peter Kreuder
Cat People (Putting Out The Fire): David Bowie (from the film Cat People)
Mystic and Severe: Ennio Morricone (from the film Death Rides A Horse)
The Devil's Rumble: Mike Curb/The Arrows (from the film Devil's Angels)
Zulus: Elmer Bernstein (from the film Zulu Dawn)
Un Amico: Ennio Morricone (from the film Revolver)
Tiger Tank: Lalo Schifrin (from the film Kelly's Heroes)
Eastern Condors: Rabbia e Tarantella: Ennio Morricone (from the film Allonsanfan)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 19, 2009, 01:58:14 PM
A lot of that soundtrack (perhaps all of it) doesn't make any sense.
Almost all of those tracks are from post WW2.
You have to keep with the timeline or you'll look like a total baffoon (A Knight's Tale).
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 19, 2009, 01:58:45 PM
The first screening of this is tomorrow at Canne.

Expect reviews by thursday.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: T.H. on May 19, 2009, 02:14:23 PM
A lot of that soundtrack (perhaps all of it) doesn't make any sense.
Almost all of those tracks are from post WW2.
You have to keep with the timeline or you'll look like a total baffoon (A Knight's Tale).

seriously. that movie is embarassingly bad.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 19, 2009, 03:40:23 PM
A lot of that soundtrack (perhaps all of it) doesn't make any sense.
Almost all of those tracks are from post WW2.
You have to keep with the timeline or you'll look like a total baffoon (A Knight's Tale).

Why?
btw it's 'buffoon'
:)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 19, 2009, 03:48:55 PM
White Lightning: Charles Bernstein (from the film White Lightning)
Slaughter: by Billy Preston (from the film Slaughter)

Not sure how these two fit in with a film about WW2.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 19, 2009, 03:50:26 PM
White Lightning: Charles Bernstein (from the film White Lightning)
Slaughter: by Billy Preston (from the film Slaughter)

Not sure how these two fit in with a film about WW2.

If it were a doc. you might have a point.
How does a 12 string electric guitar fit in a western  (OUTIW)?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 19, 2009, 03:55:41 PM
If it were a doc. you might have a point.
How does a 12 string electric guitar fit in a western  (OUTIW)?

Very well obviously.

I don't see how a theme song to a blaxploitation movie fits within the parameters of a film dealing with WW2. Maybe the song will be played amidst the scalping scenes. ::)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 19, 2009, 03:57:48 PM
Very well obviously.

I don't see how a theme song to a blaxploitation movie fits within the parameters of a film dealing with WW2. Maybe the song will be played amidst the scalping scenes. ::)

IT WILL BE INTEReSTING to see!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 19, 2009, 04:01:07 PM
.

I don't see how a theme song to a blaxploitation movie fits within the parameters of a film dealing with WW2.

How does a Bach cantata fit with a film dealing with WWII and being unstuck in time (SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE)?

we could play this game forever.
short answer: if it works it fits
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 19, 2009, 04:15:34 PM
Why?
btw it's 'buffoon'
:)

I just got fed a big dose of irony. :-[
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on May 19, 2009, 04:15:43 PM
Right. IF it works

To argue about logic when it comes to Tarantino isn't a logic idea either :)

I loved the way he worked with recycling (music) for KILL BILL1. 'loved
that film. A real filmmakers' odyseey. Great film. Not much story just style and excellent direction.

KILL BILL2 I liked too, but not as much.
One problem was the soundtrack actually. Being American, I suppose Tarantino missed for
example the fact, that the MERCENARIO soundtrack is very very well known over here. Among others he uses / used.
When I saw / heard it in BILL2, I was back with Corbucci. Tarantino lost me there
for a few minutes. That's bad film making.  

We'll see.
I'm so afraid of this film, I hate the trailer.
DEATH PROOF was the first Tarantino I didn't like that much.
I hope he surprises me again.
But Til Schweiger will make it difficult for me.



Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 19, 2009, 04:16:26 PM
How does a Bach cantata fit with a film dealing with WWII and being unstuck in time (SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE)?

we could play this game forever.
short answer: if it works it fits

There's no game to play, guy. The theme song to SLAUGHTER directly correlates to the character in the film. The SONG IS ABOUT THE CHARACTER IN THE FILM. THERE IS NOTHING ORCHESTRAL ABOUT THE THEME SONG THAT WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION IT COULD "FIT" IN ANOTHER MOVIE.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 20, 2009, 12:56:54 AM
I've always thought that using familiar pieces of music (movie scores or popular music) in movies is risky business. There's always the possibility that a viewer has previous emotional connections to the song and those might be totally unsuitable to the scene or movie in question. An example: When I heard Beethoven's seventh symphony in Les amants, all I could think about was The Fall which had used the same piece of music very effectively.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on May 20, 2009, 01:13:17 AM
Very risky.

When Tarantino uses OUATIA 'Amapola' someday, I might use the time making a call outside the theater in the meantime...

He probably watched too many 70's Hongkong Kung Fu flicks. They used EVERYTHING.
Pink Floyd, Rocky and what have you.

Even my hero Bruce Lee did it. And what? Leone / Morricone of course.
(only three notes. in WAY OF THE DRAGON as Chuck Norris theme.
But the most popular film tune ever - HARMONICA  from OUATITW)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 05:56:19 AM
Looking at the trailer again, I got more of a chuckle this time (and I more fully appreciated the Leone homages). This film might work if it's all done for laughs. I said "might."

I'm not clear on what Leone homages there are in the trailer aside from "Once Upon a Time in Occupied France" (ho ho!).
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 07:19:54 AM
Here's the first review I've come across so far. Seems to confirm most of my suspicions, and also that the leaked script some of us have is very legitimate.

Quote
An intermittently-inspired World War II epic which illustrates both Quentin Tarantino’s brilliance and his tendency towards indulgence, Inglourious Basterds is composed of a series of long-running vignettes strung together by a slender story thread. The problem is that no one character or set of characters runs through the entire two-and-a-half hour running time, and, with some of the scenes running up to half an hour each, the thread of the drama is left disjointed and the focus ever-changing.

Above-the-title star Brad Pitt plays the captain of a troupe of Jewish American renegades dubbed the Inglorious Bastards, but Pitt is far from the centre of attention and both French actress Melanie Laurent and German actor Christoph Waltz both have more screen time and juicier roles. That, combined with the fact that most of the film is in French and German, will limit the film’s box office prospects, principally in the subtitle-wary US where The Weinstein Company is opening wide on August 21. A big launch weekend should be guaranteed on the names of Pitt and Tarantino and the strong advance campaign which has been building on the internet, but like the Kill Bill films, it might fall fast in subsequent weeks.

Universal Pictures co-financed the film in return for international where audiences will be more receptive, especially in Europe. Results in Germany are unpredictable. A version of the script was leaked on the internet last year and already caused a firestorm in the German media, especially since the film – in which ordinary German soldiers are seen beaten and scalped – received considerable public funding from the government.

The Cannes world premiere ran to a shorter-than-expected 154 minutes but it still offers considerable challenges to the attention span of mainstream audiences. Even though there is some action and a fair smattering of Tarantino’s customary blood-spilling, the film-maker devotes much of the running time to dialogue. As might be expected, Tarantino, the screenwriter shows off his ear for a witty back-and-forth or monologue with flamboyant frequency, often to the detriment of dramatic momentum.

And while much of the camerawork is tighter and more restrained than usual in a Tarantino opus, as befits the period, he still can’t resist imposing a myriad of ostentatious references to other films on his original story (only the title is borrowed from Enzo Castellari’s 1978 film). From constant references to Pabst and Riefenstahl to pieces of score from Dimitri Tiomkin (The Alamo), Ennio Morricone (multiple Italian scores, The Battle Of Algiers) and even snatches of music lifted from more recent horror movies like The Entity and Cat People (David Bowie’s song Putting Out Fire) to hints of every war movie ever made, Tarantino once again insists on wearing his cinephilia on his sleeve. Some film lovers might appreciate his homages, others might view it as an obtrusive demonstration of a dearth of original ideas.

The opening scene alone, in which SS colonel Hans Landa (Waltz, perfectly evil) intimidates a French farmer (played by Denis Menochet) in 1941, runs to over 20 minutes, an indication of how the film is to continue. The result of the “friendly” interrogation is the massacre of a Jewish family hiding out under the floorboards although the teenage daughter of the family Shosanna (Laurent) escapes.

The second scene – already previewed in trailers – sees Lt Aldo Raine (Pitt, one-note in heavy Tennessee accent) briefing 12 Jewish American soldiers on their upcoming mission which is to fly behind enemy lines and kill as many Nazis as possible. Each is charged with collecting 100 Nazi scalps. Among the group are Sgt Donny Donowitz (Roth) who becomes famous for beating his victims to death with a baseball bat and a German soldier who has defected to the Allied side called Hugo Stiglitz (Schweiger, who doesn’t say a word in the film).

The drama, scattered among so many characters as it is, eventually evolves into a 1944 plot called Operation Kino to blow up Goebbels, Goring, Bormann  and other members of the German High Command at a cinema in Paris where a Goebbels propaganda film starring “the German Sergeant York” Daniel Bruhl is to have its premiere. The cinema is owned by Sosanna, now masquerading as a gentile, who has attracted the unwanted romantic advances of Bruhl.

The most brilliant section of the film sees a British spy (Fassbender) and two of the Bastards arriving in an underground bar to rendezvous with German film star and double agent Bridget von Hammersmark (Kruger). But when they arrive, they unexpectedly find a party of Nazis getting drunk and playing games. When the British spy’s accent is questioned by one of the soldiers, a senior German major (Diehl) emerges from the shadows and a tense face off ensues.

Ironically Tarantino’s dialogue here is not as tricksy or self- consciously clever as in other sections and the scene works through sheer tension and the skills of the excellent ensemble.

Other supporting players include Mike Myers, somewhat ridiculous as an upper-crust English general, Martin Wuttke as Hitler, the venerable Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill and cameos by Inglorious Bastards star Bo Svenson and Castellari himself. Tarantino regular Samuel L Jackson contributes a jarring voiceover midway through.

The cinema-set finale – which contains more than one fantastical turn of events – is suitably dramatic, and although Tarantino ends the film with Pitt, the real heroes of the film are women – namely the characters played by Laurent and Kruger, both giving showy star turns before grisly demises. With those two on the poster, the film could have been sold as Kill Adolf, Parts 1 & 2.

http://www.screendaily.com/5001437.article (http://www.screendaily.com/5001437.article)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Novecento on May 20, 2009, 10:25:55 AM
I've always thought that using familiar pieces of music (movie scores or popular music) in movies is risky business. There's always the possibility that a viewer has previous emotional connections to the song and those might be totally unsuitable to the scene or movie in question. An example: When I heard Beethoven's seventh symphony in Les amants, all I could think about was The Fall which had used the same piece of music very effectively.

Yup I think that's one of my problems with Tarantino. All I'm gonna be thinking of is Cuchillo in those cane fields and when that theme from the "The Big Gundown" chimes in.

Plus I'm definitely more of a camera-work enthusiast than a dialogue enthusiast and Tarantino is heavily skewed to the latter.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate his desire to be different and his clear passion in what he does.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2009, 01:03:43 PM
I'm not clear on what Leone homages there are in the trailer aside from "Once Upon a Time in Occupied France" (ho ho!).
The titles are in a style reminiscent of Lardani's. The presentation of the "basterds" (stepping forward in unison, etc.) puts me in mind of the prisoners arriving at Betterville.

Now that we know more about the film itself, I'd venture that it may have any number of nods to SL. For example, how can QT do a 20 minute set piece culminating in the Nazi slaughter of a family of French Jews (hiding on a farm, no less) and NOT reference the McBain massacre?

Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 01:27:34 PM
I don't recall the script specifically alluding to it, as the massacre victims are shot through floorboards. I guess it would depend on QT's presentation of the scene.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 01:28:49 PM
The Guardian really tears QT a new asshole:

Quote
Tarantino's Basterds is an armour-plated turkey
Quentin Tarantino's wartime spaghetti western about a bunch of Nazi-hunting Americans is just Gott-awful


Like the loyal German bourgeoisie in 1945, trying to keep patriotically cheerful despite the distant ominous rumblings of Russian tanks, we Tarantino fans have kept loyally optimistic on the Croisette this week. We ignored the rumourmongers, the alarmists and defeatists, and insisted that the Master would at the last moment fire a devastating V1 rocket of a movie which would lay waste to his, and our, detractors. But today the full catastrophe of his new film arrived like some colossal armour-plated turkey from hell. The city of our hopes is in flames.

Quentin Tarantino's cod-WW2 shlocker about a Jewish-American revenge squad intent on killing Nazis in German-occupied France is awful. It is achtung-achtung-ach-mein-Gott atrocious. It isn't funny; it isn't exciting; it isn't a realistic war movie, yet neither is it an entertaining genre spoof or a clever counterfactual wartime yarn. It isn't emotionally involving or deliciously ironic or a brilliant tissue of trash-pop references. Nothing like that. Brad Pitt gives the worst performance of his life, with a permanent smirk as if he's had the left side of his jaw injected with cement, and which he must uncomfortably maintain for long scenes on camera without dialogue.

And those all-important movie allusions are entirely without zing, being to stately stuff such as the wartime German UFA studio, GW Pabst etc, for which Tarantino has no feeling, displaying just a solemn Euro-cinephilia that his heart isn't in. The expression on my face in the auditorium as the lights finally went up was like that of the first-night's audience at Springtime for Hitler. Except that there is no one from Dusseldorf called Rolf to cheer us up.

Pitt plays Lt Aldo Raine, the leader of an anti-Nazi commando unit whose avowed mission is to get 100 *beep* scalps apiece; we see the scalpings in full, gruesome detail, yet that figure is entirely forgotten about by the end. Mélanie Laurent plays Shosanna Dreyfus, a beautiful young Jewish woman whose family were slaughtered by SS Col Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz. She got away and (somehow) attained not only a new identity, but also ownership of a Paris cinema which is to play host to the premiere of Dr Goebbels's latest propaganda movie, in the presence of the Führer himself. Her plan is to incinerate the entire first-night audience by bolting the doors and igniting her vast inflammable stock of nitrate film. Meanwhile Lt Raine has his own plans for killing Hitler at the movie theatre and the Brits get involved too, in the form of suave Michael Fassbender as Archie Hicox, a crack commando making contact with exotic spy Bridget von Hammersmark, played by Diane Kruger.

There are some nice-ish performances, particularly from Fassbender and Waltz, but everything is just so boring. I was hoping for Shosanna at least to get a satisfying revenge on the unspeakable Col Landa. But no. The two Hitler-assassination plots cancel each other out dramatically and the director's moderate reserves of narrative interest are exhausted way before the end. He should perhaps go back to making cheerfully inventive outrageous films like Kill Bill. Because Kill Adolf hasn't worked out.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/20/cannes-film-festival-tarantino-inglourious-basterds (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/20/cannes-film-festival-tarantino-inglourious-basterds)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on May 20, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/05/three-new-clips-from-quentin-tarantinos.html

Three new clips from the movie.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 20, 2009, 02:05:59 PM
There's no game to play, guy. The theme song to SLAUGHTER directly correlates to the character in the film. The SONG IS ABOUT THE CHARACTER IN THE FILM. THERE IS NOTHING ORCHESTRAL ABOUT THE THEME SONG THAT WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION IT COULD "FIT" IN ANOTHER MOVIE.


SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE is the film I referenced, not SLAUGHTER, 'guy'.

I  dont like the use of music from other movies either. I esp. am not pleased that QT is using BIG GUNDOWN cues but....
99.99 percent of the audience wil not recognize that music. Just like few people recognized the Bach cantata in S5.
If you know the Bach piece you certainly might associate it with its ORIGINAL setting -  a Sunday church service
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 02:29:03 PM

SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE is the film I referenced, not SLAUGHTER, 'guy'.


If you know the Bach piece you certainly might associate it with its ORIGINAL setting -  a Sunday church service

BUT THE THEME SONG TO  SLAUGHTER (1972) IS USED IN THE MOVIE.

If you know the Preston song, you certainly might associate it with its ORIGINAL setting--a blaxploitation movie.

Especially since the damn song is about the title character and nothing at all to do with Germans, Nazis and Inglourious Basterds (as QT, whom you are obviously a fan of, prefers to spell the title to his seriously stupid movie. Hopefully, this thing will bomb and nobody will bankroll him anymore money to do retreads of far better, far more interesting movies, not to mention sparing a lot of people having to sit and listen to two or more individuals discuss better scenes in better movies than QT could muster himself. He's too self absorbed to do anything COMPLETELY original or fresh. Thankfully Toho denied him the directorial reigns of a Godzilla movie and hopefully his intention to do an oldschool kung fu movie in China with INTENTIONALLY BAD DUBBING will never surface again.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 20, 2009, 02:40:28 PM
BUT THE THEME SONG TO  SLAUGHTER (1972) IS USED IN THE MOVIE.

If you know the Preston song, you certainly might associate it with its ORIGINAL setting--a blaxploitation movie.

Especially since the damn song is about the title character and nothing at all to do with Germans, Nazis and Inglourious Basterds (as QT, whom you are obviously a fan of, prefers to spell the title to his seriously stupid movie. Hopefully, this thing will bomb and nobody will bankroll him anymore money to do retreads of far better, far more interesting movies, not to mention sparing a lot of people having to sit and listen to two or more individuals discuss better scenes in better movies than QT could muster himself. He's too self absorbed to do anything COMPLETELY original or fresh. Thankfully Toho denied him the directorial reigns of a Godzilla movie and hopefully his intention to do an oldschool kung fu movie in China with INTENTIONALLY BAD DUBBING will never surface again.

I am one who thinks JACKIE BROWN is his best film. One reaon why is it is not a RETREAD.
We are not that far apart in our opinions
But, I have to admit i thought ACROSS 110 STREET worked GREAT in JB.

lets wait and see the film
OK?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 02:52:53 PM
I am one who thinks JACKIE BROWN is his best film. One reaon why is it is not a RETREAD.
We are not that far apart in our opinions
But, I have to admit i thought ACROSS 110 STREET worked GREAT in JB.

lets wait and see the film
OK?

Yes, I agree, that is his best movie despite minor elements borrowed from EXECUTIONERS FROM SHAOLIN, CLAN OF THE WHITE LOTUS and Italian crime movie references.

BTW, ACROSS 110TH STREET is a wonderfully bleak and violent movie in its own right. Great film there.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 02:56:42 PM


 how can QT do a 20 minute set piece culminating in the Nazi slaughter of a family of French Jews (hiding on a farm, no less) and NOT reference the McBain massacre?



When I read the script I felt that the scene referenced Angel Eyes interrogating Stevens in his ranch.
The "Jew Hunter" character arrives in the Jewish household and interrogates the father of the house before murdering the occupants.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 20, 2009, 02:58:00 PM
This movie (and possibly even the man himself) has got to be an Andy Kaufman -inspired gag.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:00:05 PM
I don't recall the script specifically alluding to it, as the massacre victims are shot through floorboards. I guess it would depend on QT's presentation of the scene.

A scene such as this doesn't necessarily have to be an homage to anything in particular. In the 1968 Shaw swordplay classic, BELLS OF DEATH, the hero inadvertently sends the ruthless bandits to his home where they proceed to slaughter his entire family some of whom (including the children) are hidden beneath the floorboards of the house. Needless to say, they don't stay safe for long.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:04:10 PM
A scene such as this doesn't necessarily have to be an homage to anything in particular.

This might be better addressed to Jinkies than me.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 03:04:21 PM
This movie (and possibly even the man himself) has got to be an Andy Kaufman -inspired gag.


You mean it's a fake?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:05:33 PM
This might be better addressed to Jinkies than me.

I wasn't addressing you, Groggy, just the mention of the floorboard scene.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:07:36 PM
Found this on the curious cues for this 'War picture'. The first comment is classic when the poster asks what others think about the soundtrack selection...

In general, there needs to be more glam rock and hip-hop in WWII soundtracks.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/05/tarantino-revea.html
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:10:04 PM

You mean it's a fake?

If only.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 03:10:37 PM


In general, there needs to be more glam rock and hip-hop in WWII soundtracks.




 :D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:12:13 PM
In general, there needs to be more glam rock and hip-hop in WWII soundtracks.

Indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlufxatPxnA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlufxatPxnA)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:14:40 PM
Indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlufxatPxnA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlufxatPxnA)

Fucking hell, I hated those goddamn LEPRECHAUN movies. Only saw the first one and that was enough. How shit like that can get a greenlight while more creative works go unnoticed is beyond me.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 03:17:21 PM
Fucking hell, I hated those goddamn LEPRECHAUN movies. Only saw the first one and that was enough. How shit like that can get a greenlight while more creative works go unnoticed is beyond me.

That just proves how fucked up the industry is.


Hey! I skimmed through this Variety review of Basterds very quickly,

seems like they liked it.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940323.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&nid=2854
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:17:59 PM
The Leprechaun movies are cheap to make and people watch them. It has nothing to do with quality - I think all but the first were direct-to-video releases.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:20:22 PM
Apparently the movie has a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Make of that what you will.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:21:14 PM
That just proves how fucked up the industry is.


Hey! I skimmed through this Variety review of Basterds very quickly,

seems like they liked it.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940323.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&nid=2854

Well, skimming over that back patting write up, they spelled Bo Svenson's name wrong.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:22:37 PM
Quote
"Inglourious Basterds" is a violent fairy tale, an increasingly entertaining fantasia in which the history of World War II is wildly reimagined so that the cinema can play the decisive role in destroying the Third Reich

Good Lord... ::)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:24:41 PM
The Leprechaun movies are cheap to make and people watch them. It has nothing to do with quality - I think all but the first were direct-to-video releases.

People also watch those horrible Sci Fi Channel premieres. No doubt the new MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS starring Deborah (Debbie) Gibson and Lorenzo Lamas will appear on there as well. There's a reason why they are direct to video, too, or straight to cable.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:25:32 PM
Well, skimming over that back patting write up, they spelled Bo Svenson's name wrong.

This is certainly an interesting word...

"soldierssinglehandedly"

I guess Variety doesn't have any proof-readers.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:25:57 PM
People also watch those horrible Sci Fi Channel premieres. No doubt the new MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS starring Deborah (Debbie) Gibson and Lorenzo Lamas will appear on there as well. There's a reason why they are direct to video, too, or straight to cable.

Nothing you say contradicts anything I said above.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2009, 03:27:46 PM
Apparently the movie has a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Make of that what you will.
And it's only played at Cannes, and only once, no?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 03:29:25 PM
And many people are already commenting on it, yes?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on May 20, 2009, 03:31:23 PM
Nothing you say contradicts anything I said above.

I didn't think I was attempting to be contradictory in referencing shitty LEPRECHAUN movies with shitty Sci Fi Channel movies and those who enjoy watching them.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2009, 03:41:28 PM
Quote
". . . so that the cinema can play the decisive role in destroying the Third Reich."
Uh, I'm not an expert or anything, but it kinda seems like maybe the medications aren't working right?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 20, 2009, 04:10:03 PM
Leprechaun is one of those movies that are equally bad and strange at the same time to merit their place as a cult video horror movie. Although it is a bad  entry I've never heard anyone mentioning it in a strictly bad context. Someone would mention it, and then the laughs would come. Seems for some reason the mere mention of it would make people happy. Though, I've never <ever> heard anyone saying it's a good flick either.

Had it been made a couple decades earlier it would have been a drive-in classic.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
QT mentions Leone's STALINGRAD movie in his first sentence in this vid...

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9973.html
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 05:22:53 PM
Leprechaun is one of those movies that are equally bad and strange at the same time to merit their place as a cult video horror movie. Although it is a bad  entry I've never heard anyone mentioning it in a strictly bad context. Someone would mention it, and then the laughs would come. Seems for some reason the mere mention of it would make people happy. Though, I've never <ever> heard anyone saying it's a good flick either.

Had it been made a couple decades earlier it would have been a drive-in classic.

The first Leprechaun was awful. I think the sequels are much better in terms of camp value; they know they're bad, which I'm not sure the original did.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2009, 05:34:25 PM
QT mentions Leone's STALINGRAD movie in his first sentence in this vid...

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9973.html
The idea of shooting a WWII film as an SW is an interesting idea, and if that was what QT in fact attempted to do (as he claims now) then I'm very curious to see the end result.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Novecento on May 20, 2009, 06:38:40 PM
QT mentions Leone's STALINGRAD movie in his first sentence in this vid...

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9973.html

Wasn't it "(The 900 days of) Leningrad" rather than "Stalingrad"?

Anyway, it's nice to have a nod in its direction, but personally I'm waiting for Tornatore to get his hands on that one. Plus I doubt Leone would have wanted it associated with the SW genre in any case. Although anything with Leone's name is of course inextricably linked to it purely by virtue of his SWs being the epitome of the genre.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 08:40:17 PM
Wasn't it "(The 100 days of) Leningrad" rather than "Stalingrad"?



Indeed it was, good call!

I think it's one of the DYS special features where Chris Frayling (or somebody equally as important) describes the opening sequence of the film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 20, 2009, 09:24:17 PM
Apparently the movie has a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


It's now at 56% only because there are 12 reviews in total and 4 have been negative.
We'll have to wait until we near august before we get a proper assesment from the critics.
Not that the reviews mean much since it's all relative anyway.
No one truly knows if the movie is for them or not until they sit in front of it and watch it.


The main gripes in the negative reviews are all the same.
Historical inaccuracies, not enough action and the overuse of subtitles.
None of that truly bothers me as I knew that from the get go.
And who but an illiterate lazy fuck complains about reading subtitles?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 21, 2009, 02:42:55 AM

You mean it's a fake?
You know, he makes a deliberately bad movie and gets a big kick out of the controversy it arouses :D

But I think you said it best:
We'll have to wait until we near august before we get a proper assesment from the critics.
Not that the reviews mean much since it's all relative anyway.
No one truly knows if the movie is for them or not until they sit in front of it and watch it.

The main gripes in the negative reviews are all the same.
Historical inaccuracies, not enough action and the overuse of subtitles.
None of that truly bothers me as I knew that from the get go.
And who but an illiterate lazy fuck complains about reading subtitles?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on May 21, 2009, 03:55:32 AM
Thanks for posting the reviews! :-\

My buddy just called me up. He saw it last night and thinks I'll hate it.  :-[
I still hope I won't. But it's obviousely more DEATH PROOF (a lot of dialogue, not not nearly as good as in PULP or JACKIE)
And it hasn't the visual power of KILL BILL at all which was a feast for my spoiled eyes.
After that's what Tarantino sttod for for my money.
I don't need 'trashy films about European subjects done by ignorant Hollywood people on a big scale - without
the x-factor that made some of these 70's turkeys so enjoyable.' (he quoted a fellow director sitting in the audience)

The only good news so far is that Til Schweiger has no dialogue. ^-^

I'd like to read a really good review (?)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Novecento on May 21, 2009, 04:30:52 AM
Indeed it was, good call!

Just corrected that to "900 days of..." after checking my sources

I think it's one of the DYS special features where Chris Frayling (or somebody equally as important) describes the opening sequence of the film.

Pages 196-198 of Simsolo describes the introductory sequence. It's over page long but basically starts with one long opening scene beginning with a close-up of Shostakovich's hands playing on the piano, searching for the notes for "The Symphony of Leningrad", as the camera then moves out of the open window to follow the civilians heading off to fight to then cut, as the explosions start, to a huge Shostakovich concert. I really hope Tornatore uses it almost completely as Leone describes it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 21, 2009, 05:40:59 AM
Frayling discusses it in the last chapter of Something Do With Death, I believe.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Novecento on May 21, 2009, 06:37:32 AM
Yes he does, particularly as regards the background and funding etc, but I have only found an actual detailed discussion of the opening scene in Simsolo.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 21, 2009, 01:16:30 PM
whenever a critic complains about 'historical inaccuracies' it usually means it is a good film
Usually.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 21, 2009, 02:58:07 PM
Yes he does, particularly as regards the background and funding etc, but I have only found an actual detailed discussion of the opening scene in Simsolo.

The very beginning of Frayling's final chapter describes the scene in question in some depth.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on May 21, 2009, 02:59:40 PM
whenever a critic complains about 'historical inaccuracies' it usually means it is a good film
Usually.

Historical inaccuracies are almost always irrelevant to a film's quality. Especially considering the film in question, such complaints strike me as ludicrous.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on May 22, 2009, 10:46:35 AM
Historical inaccuracies are almost always irrelevant to a film's quality. Especially considering the film in question, such complaints strike me as ludicrous.

Grog, I am pleased at your progress.
keep it up bandito!
 O0
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Novecento on May 24, 2009, 07:17:07 AM
The very beginning of Frayling's final chapter describes the scene in question in some depth.

Groggy, I just checked Frayling's book again and you're entirely correct. Still nice to see it in Leone's words though.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on July 23, 2009, 06:53:18 PM
Special screening at Comic-Con on Saturday.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41763 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41763)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 20, 2009, 03:09:45 PM
Possibly won't do the kind of box office it wants to:
http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2009/08/19/inglourious-basterds-hardly-blockbuster-material/

An interesting report on how German critics are receiving the film, but be warned: a major spoiler occurs in the second and third paragraphs:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.fdc24718ee84a912c2aa2914ba6c8c60.5c1&show_article=1

Here's a Jewish chick who uses the film for vicarious revenge thrills (not sure that that's very healthy):
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/7280/movie-of-the-year-inglourious-basterds/

Anyway, I'm sure I'll see it tonight or tomorrow ....
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 20, 2009, 03:25:10 PM
Possibly won't do the kind of box office it wants to:
http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2009/08/19/inglourious-basterds-hardly-blockbuster-material/

I've been saying that ever since I read the script.
They're billing it as an action extravaganza(!) and it isn't.

It won't help that 70% of the script (if not more) is in a language other than English, which means A LOT of subtitles.
Which is a big "no-no" for the American box office.

I predict this will do well for the first weekend (might even get the #1 movie of the week) but it will eventually fail to find an audience after week 1 (50% dropout I'm thinking).

I'm watching it tonight at midnight.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 20, 2009, 03:56:50 PM
For what it's worth (i.e. nothing), most of the geeks on IMDB's Film General board seem to like it. Let us know what you think, FC.

I'm not expecting it to do well at all, to be honest.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 20, 2009, 04:17:29 PM
Here's a Jewish chick who uses the film for vicarious revenge thrills (not sure that that's very healthy):
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/7280/movie-of-the-year-inglourious-basterds/

Aeh, where is the movie industry heading if the best picture of the years gets (only) four Reagans...
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 20, 2009, 04:26:18 PM
Aeh, where is the movie industry heading if the best picture of the years gets (only) four Reagans...

Now I wanna write movie reviews and give them Bill Clintons.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 20, 2009, 05:10:11 PM
Now I wanna write movie reviews and give them Bill Clintons.
Porn movie reviews?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 20, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
Porn movie reviews?

Now you're gettin' it!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on August 20, 2009, 09:30:15 PM


It won't help that 70% of the script (if not more) is in a language other than English, which means A LOT of subtitles.
Which is a big "no-no" for the American box office.


I wouldn't say it's a no no as much as I would say it's a gamble. If a Chinese film released in its original language with subs can gross over a hundred million in America.....although I wouldn't expect this one to do that.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 12:51:20 AM
Another rave: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/08/20/2009-08-20_inglourious_basterds_quentin_tarantino_grows_up_in_bloody_movie_with_more_humani.html
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 21, 2009, 01:15:48 AM
I wouldn't say it's a no no as much as I would say it's a gamble. If a Chinese film released in its original language with subs can gross over a hundred million in America.....although I wouldn't expect this one to do that.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was the exception, not the rule.


Just got back from the theatre.

Not much positive to say aside from a very good beginning and half decent finale.
Some good stuff punctuates the tiresomely long middle (a tense espionage esq. scenario played out in a claustrophobic underground pub) but not enough to warrant a positive review.

I think the most annoying bits are all the name droppings.
There is a scene where Brad Pitt and two other "Basterds" disguise themselves as Italian servants.
The names they give themselves are directors of Italian exploitation films, one of which being Enzo G. Castellari ("Enzo Girolami" in the film), this joke (which was really a set up for a funny gag) just annoyed the hell outta me.
As did the various music cues from Big Gundown and One Silver Dollar.
When the theme to Il Mercenario played I wondered why I wasn't watching that instead of the infantile claptrap that was on the screen.

The worst bit of all is the ending...


SPOILER ALERT


Landa's deal with the allies makes the character look like a complete buffoon (something we're led to believe THROUGHOUT the movie that he is not). In reality they would have just shot him after the extermination of Hitler and his crew was a success. Pitt's character wouldn't get "chewed out" by his superiors for it.



SPOILER FINISHED



It's better than Death Proof but it's still a low point for QT.
I think he has a giant B.O. Turkey on his hands.
Hopefully it'll bomb horribly... maybe it'll be the wake up call he needs to go back to making good movies.

5/10


Grogs: a few pages back you mentioned there was a reason for QT misspelling "Bastards".
I don't recall any of that in the film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 21, 2009, 02:05:52 AM

Around 4.5 K votes on IMDb already, average vote: 8-point-3.

Rated 89% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (Top Critics - 88%, RT Community - 84%), Consensus: A classic Tarantino genre-blending thrill ride, Inglourious Basterds is violent, unrestrained, and thoroughly entertaining.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 21, 2009, 02:37:06 AM
Mark Kermode's "hit the nail on the head" review for IG. I just wish he'd show a little respect to Enzo G. Castellari by having the patience to pronounce his name correctly.


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMx3lCbj5Q

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrRaixX8bGk&feature=related


Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 21, 2009, 06:15:19 AM
Quote
Grogs: a few pages back you mentioned there was a reason for QT misspelling "Bastards".

I did? ???
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 21, 2009, 08:42:04 AM
Mark Kermode's "hit the nail on the head" review for IG.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMx3lCbj5Q

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrRaixX8bGk&feature=related

I have yet to watch IG but yeah, he had some very good points concerning Tarantino's movies here. The part about the but-licking fanboys probably being the most true. I didn't much like the abusive take on the way he talks, I mean, I don't understand what's that got to do with his movies. You don't like his (newer) movies - fine - no need to go full circle of hate.

Quote
I just wish he'd show a little respect to Enzo G. Castellari by having the patience to pronounce his name correctly.

Didn't like that too: he sounded extremely ignorant and snobbish.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on August 21, 2009, 09:16:04 AM
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was the exception, not the rule.



Grogs: a few pages back you mentioned there was a reason for QT misspelling "Bastards".
I don't recall any of that in the film.

I knew that was gonna be your response. A foreign film detailing genre conventions alien to anyone unfamiliar with the source materials (most of America) isn't an exception. Maybe a fluke, but no doubt a lot of positive word of mouth helped that film succeed. It's funny because a lot of Chinese hate that movie.

I mentioned the "basterds" note elsewhere unless someone else did, too. That's what was reported by the man himself as well as misspelling of the word "inglorious" as "inglourious". He says there's some hidden shit in the movie. He did this same thing in KILL BILL with the Beatrix Kiddo name.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 04:11:46 PM
Just got back from a showing and I was thoroughly entertained. I don't know what FC is on about--what a grouch! The name dropping and musical cues are part-and-parcel of the film's conceit--that Cinema was the Allies' secret weapon, and that it won the war for them. Also, Landa's deal was in keeping with those--presumably--made by many who, on terms, escaped or delayed judgment (Eichmann, Mengele, perhaps von Braun). Besides, having the story take that turn allowed for the final "masterpiece" at the end. Anyway, why begrudge a light entertainment its comic plotting?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 21, 2009, 04:55:04 PM
I don't know what FC is on about--what a grouch!

Is a consistently solid film too much to ask for from the man who brought us Jackie Brown?

... I don't seem to think so.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 05:13:48 PM
That's Mark Kermode's line too, apparently. I take the point, but I expect considerably less from Tarantino these days. He showed where he could go with JB, but then decided to retreat back into infancy. He just doesn't want to collaborate with someone on the level of Roger Avery or Elmore Leonard anymore. Disappointing, sure, but he still manages to make films that are more entertaining than those of his contemporaries.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 21, 2009, 05:21:30 PM
Quote
that Cinema was the Allies' secret weapon, and that it won the war for them

So you're saying it's BS?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 21, 2009, 05:36:04 PM
That's Mark Kermode's line too, apparently.

He says something along those lines in his review, yeah.

I take the point, but I expect considerably less from Tarantino these days. He showed where he could go with JB, but then decided to retreat back into infancy. He just doesn't want to collaborate with someone on the level of Roger Avery or Elmore Leonard anymore. Disappointing, sure, but he still manages to make films that are more entertaining than those of his contemporaries.

Then we're coming from two different standpoints.
I understand you now.

"Retreating into infancy" isn't what I would have called it though.
I don't think RD or PF (I just noticed this pattern of QT's movie titles only being two words) are childish movies.
The past three films he's gone back to the style of RD and PF but added the power of 10 to them.
His movies are more style over substance than ever before.
I expect a little more than that from the best director of the 90's.

I get why you liked this movie but I'm still scratching my head as to why you liked DP as much as you did.
That movie has nothing to offer the audience.

And what has Avery done on his own, besides The Rules Of Attraction (which I understand the hype for but I just don't care about it), that's of any value?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 06:24:10 PM
I get why you liked this movie but I'm still scratching my head as to why you liked DP as much as you did.
That movie has nothing to offer the audience.
It has Kurt Russell, and in top form, I'd say.

Quote
And what has Avery done on his own, besides The Rules Of Attraction (which I understand the hype for but I just don't care about it), that's of any value?
Fair enough. But that's a little like pointing to the Plastic Ono Band and saying, What'd Lennon do after the Beatles? Or McCartney, for that matter. The two on their own were incapable of the kinds of music produced by the synergy they created between themselves. I'm guessing it's the same with Avery-Tarantino. Or at least, where Tarantino is concerned, he just needs a writing partner. When he adapted Elmore Leonard he did even better. Maybe if he's taken up Walker Percy's The Moviegoer, as Kit Carson wanted him to after Pulp Fiction, he would have produced an even more fabulous film. All I'm saying is that without a strong partner, someone to vet Tarantino's ideas, QT will never achieve the true greatness he is undoubtedly capable of. He'll remain simply a very capable entertainer.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 06:26:51 PM
So you're saying it's BS?
Well, yeah, but that's the kind of film it is. Think: Alternate History.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 06:57:36 PM
Another thumb up: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/inglourious-basterds-is-glorious-filmmaking/

The reviewer is wrong to compare the opening set piece to OUATITW; what is clearly evoked there, rather, is Angel Eyes' visit to the Stevens ranch in GBU.

Oh, yeah, I noticed the V.O. by Sammy L. as well. But there was another vocal "cameo" which I think was even more clever near the end: did you "spot" it, FC?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 21, 2009, 07:22:30 PM
Oh, yeah, I noticed the V.O. by Sammy L. as well. But there was another vocal "cameo" which I think was even more clever near the end: did you "spot" it, FC?


Why would Keitel's voice over the phone be "clever"?

For the record I didn't recognise his voice when I heard it.
I read about it when I got home.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2009, 08:13:01 PM
I didn't read about it, but I recognized it. When I heard that the Wolf was on the case, I knew everything was gonna be okay. :D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on August 22, 2009, 12:16:20 AM
I bought the dvd of the Kurt Russell's movie a year ago and still didn't find a reason to watch it. Actually, after having realized that the trailer to this new movie wasn't meant for a laugh every farthest idea to watch the former movie got itself into a closet. So I won't go to see this at the cinema (it is going to be released over here in September). Thanx for the warning up anyway.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 22, 2009, 06:59:12 AM
I didn't read about it, but I recognized it. When I heard that the Wolf was on the case, I knew everything was gonna be okay. :D

Your geeking out over the film because of silly cameos isn't exactly making me eager to se the film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 07:31:30 AM
When did what I say ever made you want to see a film?

Here's another review: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/08/21/inglourious-basterds-review-2/

It contains what I consider the one valid criticism of the movie:
Quote
You have certain expectations walking into a Tarantino film and “Basterds” meets most of them. The larger-than-life characters, quotable dialogue and a camera always exactly where it’s supposed to be, but knowing the director wanted to create his own man-on-a-mission film in the vein of “The Dirty Dozen” and “Where Eagles Dare,” the lack of visual scope was a letdown. There’s no grand Nazi lair here, no guns of Navarone or vast battle scenes. The story is large but the setting’s almost too contained, especially the climax.

This pretty much expresses the one reservation I had while watching it. Tarantino is the master of the talky set piece, but in this he just hands you one after the other until the climax. Where are all the action bits in between, the transition sequences showing characters doing things? For example, a couple of times we hear about the intention to airdrop someone into Nazi-occupied France, but do we see anyone ever get near an airplane? Sure, parachuting scenes are old hat and can be elided, but Tarantino is the very man to put a new spin on things. It could have been hilarious watching some of the Basterds jumping out of a plane for the first time (especially if one of the characters suddenly realizes he left his watch behind or something). What Nolte above calls "the lack of visual scope" hurts the picture, gives too much prominence to the sets, ends up giving the whole production a cheapjack quality. Not that this ruins the picture by any means, but it did cause me to take off a point in my rating . . .
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 22, 2009, 07:39:07 AM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/orl-movie-review-inglourious-basterds,0,4336375.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/orl-movie-review-inglourious-basterds,0,4336375.story)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 22, 2009, 01:52:17 PM
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/SugarTank/Random%20Stuff/Theater.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 01:57:34 PM
Hey, that's a Seattle theater!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 22, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
It figures.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 22, 2009, 02:03:14 PM
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/SugarTank/Random%20Stuff/Theater.jpg)

Better than the Holocaust?

Which one though?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 08:07:41 PM
Kim Morgan on QT (but not on the qt): http://sunsetgun.typepad.com/
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 08:38:42 PM
The Basterds take on the aliens of District 9, and win! http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 09:47:35 PM
J. Hoberman's thoughtful piece: http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-08-18/film/quentin-tarantino-s-inglourious-basterds-makes-holocaust-revisionism-fun/

Here's the money quote:
Quote
In a sense, Inglourious Basterds is a form of science fiction. Everything unfolds in and maps an alternate universe: The Movies. Even Shosanna's Parisian neighborhood bears a marked resemblance to a Cannes back alley, complete with a club named for a notorious local dive. Inflammable nitrate film is a secret weapon. Goebbels is an evil producer; the German war hero who pursues Shosanna has (like America's real-life Audie Murphy) become a movie star. Set to David Bowie's Cat People title-song, the scene in which Shosanna—who is, of course, also an actor—applies her war paint to become the glamorous "face of Jewish vengeance," is an interpolated music video. Actresses give autographs at their peril. The spectacular climax has the newly dead address those about to die from the silver screen. Operation Kino depends not only on Shosanna's movie house and the German movie diva's complicity, but a heroic film critic (!), played by Michael Fassbender.

Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 10:35:26 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-08-18/film/quentin-tarantino-the-inglourious-basterds-interview
Money quote:
Quote
Seventeen years ago, you gave me your top five movies. Would you like to revise it?

I can tell you now. This got picked up on from [your] piece for the next five years, those top three in particular: Taxi Driver, Blow Out, and Rio Bravo. I've changed. I know I was cagey about it before, but my favorite movie of all time is The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. That's the best movie ever made. I can't even imagine myself doing better; that's how much I love it. I would also throw His Girl Friday in there. The fifth will always be however I feel at the moment. So I'll throw in Carrie, give De Palma a shout-out.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on August 23, 2009, 03:29:23 PM
Saw it today it was a hoot.  O0
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on August 23, 2009, 03:30:14 PM
It made $37 million domestic.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 23, 2009, 04:53:46 PM
37.6 according to Nikki Finke.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 23, 2009, 10:37:42 PM
I forgot to mention one positive comment.
Kodos to QT for not pussying out and having all the non-english speakers speaking their native tongue.
In a world where Tom Cruise sports an American accent while playing a German, IG was a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on August 24, 2009, 02:48:46 AM
Yea my theater was packed and nobody, nobody groaned when the subtitles appeared, the film even got applauded at the end.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on August 24, 2009, 11:34:24 AM
cj giving it 9 and FC 4 :o
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on August 24, 2009, 03:21:00 PM
Its was a fun over the top film, Once Upon A Time in WWII basically, I didn't mind the basement bar sequence at all.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 24, 2009, 05:46:57 PM
I forgot to mention one positive comment.
Kodos to QT for not pussying out and having all the non-english speakers speaking their native tongue.
Not only that, QT had a lot of fun with the idea. First, he did what a lot of filmmakers do: in the first scene, he has the German guy speaking French to the French farmer. Then he asks if it's OK to switch to English; improbably, the farmer speaks English and agrees. This is a standard Hollywood convention: the characters start out in the correct language merely to establish their bona fides, then go to English as a convenience for the (American) audience. I thought that that was what Quint was up to in this case, but then, near the end of the scene, it is revealed that Landa has done it for a very good reason as part of his scheme to flush out the hiding Jews. Of course, in doing so, the convention was still fullfilled: we got to see that the characters could speak the correct language, and we got to listen in English. Clever.

Then there is the underground pub scene, where Michael Fassbender, whose character is fluent in German, has to explain why his accent is so bad. He more or less pulls that off, but ends up giving himself away anyway ("They're on the metric system, a quarter-pounder don't mean shit to them").

Finally there's the whole bit near the end when the 3 Basterds try to pass themselves off as Italians. First of all there's Brad Pitt's hilarious accent. Then it turns out Landa is fluent in Italian and starts yakking at them incessantly, and keeps asking them to repeat their names (which they can barely do). We realize almost at once that Landa has seen through them and knows exactly who they are and is playing with them. Watching Pitt nodding and smiling while Landa is talking, pretending he understands what's being said, had me really cracking up.

I like the fact that QT not only took the piss out of WWII films, he also sent up the whole foreign-languages-in-an-American-film thingy.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 24, 2009, 07:22:58 PM
This is a standard Hollywood convention: the characters start out in the correct language merely to establish their bona fides, then go to English as a convenience for the (American) audience.

That practice was abandoned ages ago.
Now they just speak english with an accent or have no accent at all (Valkyrie).
The last time I saw the process you described was in The Hunt For The Red October.
All the Russian characters in that picture speak Russian for a few seconds then switch to English.
Except Sean Connery. He speaks Sean Connery language.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Arizona Colt on August 24, 2009, 07:37:32 PM
That practice was abandoned ages ago.
Now they just speak english with an accent or have no accent at all (Valkyrie).


The practice of speaking with no accent was as far back as Hammer horror flicks. All their vampire and Franky films take place in Germany, Transylvania, Romania, Serbia, etc....yet everyone speaks with a British accent.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 25, 2009, 11:35:30 AM
Saw the film last night and loved it.

If you went in expecting a serious film then you'll be as disappointed as FC. But if you went into the theater expecting to see a kick-ass flick like I did, then you'll love it. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Banjo on August 25, 2009, 04:26:46 PM
The practice of speaking with no accent was as far back as Hammer horror flicks. All their vampire and Franky films take place in Germany, Transylvania, Romania, Serbia, etc....yet everyone speaks with a British accent.

And so they should too! Bloody foreigners!! :D

Seriously though i've never been a fan of Lugosi's authentic Tranylvanian(or whereever he's from) accent.I think if Christopher Lee had attempted this accent  then he would've been far less sinister.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on August 25, 2009, 05:26:18 PM
Again the film was a hoot, similar in vein to The Dirty Dozen and all other WWII flicks without the usual conventions, QT dispenses with the Basterds in training sequence that the others invariably always touch upon, its a fait accompli, OT then gets right into the nitty gritty and the witty.  

Like Peacemakers says don't go into it expecting a serious take on WWII.

I also agree with DJ that there wasn't much in the way of the greater scope of things that gave you the feeling that there was a World War going on. That alone probably kept the budget manageable.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on August 26, 2009, 04:48:58 AM
saw it yesterday. better than i thought (awful trailer).
still for me his least important film. not so much because it didn't fully succeded,
but because his other films (minus DEATH PROOF) are better.

it was nice to see the German actors well-directed (Schweiger otherwise is always a bit
embarrasing. The HUGO STEGLITZ scene was terrific).
Waltz steals the film. Poor Pitt has a scene alone with Waltz and looks not that good next to him :)

I just wish to enter his house by myself for 10 minutes: I'd then destroy his soundtrack
recordings of IL MERCENARIO and LA RESA DEI CONTI. If I hear those (so well known)
music bits once more in a Tarantino film, I'll blow up and bust.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on August 26, 2009, 06:28:02 AM
I presume Siegel saw it in germany. So I wonder why in Italy it will be released on Oct. 2nd.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on August 26, 2009, 08:46:24 AM
Yes, Stoccardo :)

The Italian languaged scenes are superb by the way.  Very funny.
I didn't find Enzo Girolami in the film though :(
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on August 26, 2009, 02:30:58 PM
Been in Stoccarda in 2000.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on August 26, 2009, 03:05:08 PM
In 2000 I was in Padova.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on August 26, 2009, 07:12:39 PM
In 2000 I was in Padova.

So that's why we didn't meet.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 29, 2009, 09:19:19 AM
I'm probably going to see this movie today. Will let you know what I think when I get back.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 29, 2009, 03:43:21 PM
I just got back from watching this, you can either read my hastily scribbled comments here or wait a few hours until I've written a proper review. Either way, the message will be the same.

The movie wasn't very good, to put it in a nutshell. I'd read the script before hand (as most of you know) and thought it sucked. The movie greatly bore this out; in pretty much every respect - even QT's forte, dialogue - the film is severely lacking. Most of what's good about the movie comes from QT's direction (NOT his writing) and certain members of the cast.

The movie has no discernable point and its narrative is virtually non-existant. The Shoshanna parts were well-written though they did a poor job with Shoshana beyond establishing the character and her beef with Landa. The scenes with the Basterds are pretty damn dumb, too silly to be taken seriously, too violent to enjoy much on a dumb action level. The film lurches in tone from scene to scene, and individual set pieces go on ludicrously long (the bar scene in particular) - I think Weinstein had a point in wanting to cut this film down a bit. I see no purpose in Michael Fassbender's character although I thought the actor was great, just more padding. Surprisingly, even the fil;m's dialogue stinks - the fact that it's translated into German and French earns no points from me, lousy dialogue is lousy dialogue in any language.

On the plus side, I think QT does an excellent job of direction; the movie is more visually distinguished than any of the other films, with gorgeous art direction and fine camera work and staging. His use of found music is excellent (I pretty much had a heart attack hearing the Battle of Algiers theme pop up) except for the odd inclusion of the David Bowie song; other than that curious blip it fits the film like a glove. The various movie homages are much more obnoxious than in, say, Pulp Fiction but I could live with them on the whole; the movie had bigger problems than that.

Surprisingly (to myself) I found myself extremely put off by the film's violence. I'm usually the last person to complain about violence, however graphic and gratuitous, because I'm fairly susceptible to visceral thrill of bad guys getting machine-gunned to pieces. In this film, however, it just seemed QT wanted the audience to get a kick out of people being killed in brutal and gory ways - something we'd expect from Eli Roth, not the QT of old. It wasn't the fact of the violence, mind you, but the apparent sadism behind it; I suppose I was supposed to enjoy the Nazis getting machine-gunned in the theater but I almost felt sorry for them even though we're talking about Hitler, Goebbels and company. Not to mention the fates of Shoshanna and Bridget are pretty sadistic as well, but I suppose QT has a lifetime pass against charges of misogyny based on Kill Bill and Jackie Brown, so I'll shut my middle-class white male mouth.

The cast was pretty hit or miss. I think Christoph Waltz was good although his character had no motivation that I could see, and his treachery at the end seems pretty much pointless and out of left field. Still, Waltz deserves credit for making Landa a memorable bad guy and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got an Oscar nod out of this. Melanie Laurent was extremely one-note as Shoshanna and I found it near-impossible to get involved with her story, but here I again suspect the script and not the actress. Brad Pitt was awful and horribly out of place; the only parts with him I liked were his hideous attempts at speaking Italian. Eli Roth and Mike Myers were just as bad though fortunately their roles were pretty small. Surprisingly Diane Kruger was superb (besides being gorgeous beyond belief) - I'm as far from a fan of her as I could be, but she did a great job with what's basically an extended cameo. Daniel Bruhl, Michael Fassbender and Til Schweiger were excellent and the actors playing Hitler and Goebbels were okay if a bit over-the-top. It was fun to see Rod Taylor and Christian Berkel in blink-and-you'll-miss them cameoes but it would have been nice if they'd actually had something to do. The Keitel and Jackson "cameos" were just dumb.

I got some enjoyment of the movie the same way I would enjoy a dumb, brainless action movie, which I suppose is what this was to an extent. But it isn't anything special, and the fact that it's from such an ordinary fine director as QT makes its myriad flaws much harder to swallow.

6/10 is my tentative rating.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: BeauButabi on August 29, 2009, 03:57:29 PM
Saw it a week ago and LOVED it. Havent cared for QTs post-PF stuff, (there were bits and pieces of the KBs that I liked but overall doidn't enjoy them), but this flick is fucking great! I can hardly compare it to RD or PF because it's so different from those two, (and for the record I always prefered RD over PF), but I think that IG was more well made as a film overall than either of those two. I don't mind one bit, and perhaps even liked, that the scope of the movie was very small, even considering it's WWII setting.

One small thing though, I was hoping Rod Taylor would have a little bit more time in it, rather than being tucked away in the back of a room and given one 3-second close up and a couple lines. No biggie though, I just always loved him in The Time Machine and was looking forward to actually seeing him in a movie again. He's getting OLD!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 29, 2009, 05:44:27 PM
The full Groggy review.

Quote
My first theatrical viewing (and review) as a Pitt junior is the much-hyped Quentin Tarantino opus, Inglourious Basterds. After years of being in development hell, Tarantino finally brought his long-cherished WWII project to the big screen. I was extremely leery going in, especially after reading the less-than-great screenplay, and most of my fears were realized. Inglourious Basterds is entertaining enough on a dumb surface level, but it's a mere trifle compared to Tarantino's best works, due to a schizophrenic tone, off-putting sadism, incoherent narrative and nonexistant characters, and surprisingly for Tarantino, a poorly-conceived, if not outright shoddy script.

"Once Upon a Time in Nazi-occupied France", Jewish girl Shoshanna Dreyfuss (Melanie Laurent) sees her family slaughtered by SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), known as "the Jew Hunter", narrowly escaping death. She grows up in Paris under an assumed name, helping to run a cinema which hosts German soldiers and high officials. When she learns that Nazi bigwigs Hitler (Martin Wuttke) and Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) are planning the premier of Goebbels' latest propaganda film in her theater, she begins planning an impossibly-intricate revenge plot. Her plans intertwine with those of a gang of Jewish commandos led by sadistic American Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who have their own plans to assassinate the Fuhrer and his cohorts. Needless to say, it leads to an explosive climax.

Inglourious Basterds is a fundamentally flawed movie in many regards, most of which stems from the awful, disjointed screenplay. Tarantino seems to be making two films; an homage to old-fashioned men-on-a-mission films like The Dirty Dozen and The Guns of Navarone, and a fairly original revenge story which pseudo-cleverly takes advantage of Tarantino's considerable film-buffery. Thus, the film's tone lurches from serious to goofy to fun to gruesomely sadistic on a scene-to-scene basis. I applaud Tarantino for his ambition - the scope and scale of this movie is far beyond anything he's attempted to date - but I can't quite credit him since neither half works very well.

The film suffers in pretty much every way. The excellent opening, with Landa interrogating a French farmer (Denis Menochet) hiding Shoshanna's family (shades of Lee Van Cleef in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly), works perfectly to establish mood and suspense, but other set-pieces don't fare so well, particularly the far-too-long pub scene where British special agent (Michael Fassbender) and the Basterds attempt to contact Nazi film star/double agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger). Tarantino's dialogue isn't even good enough to make these scenes worth all the absurd build-up; the movie lurches from long-winded set piece to set piece with little apparent drive or reason. Character development is virtually nonexistant; only Shoshanna as any real motivation and it is simplistic as possible; the Basterds are sadistic nuts who like to kill and mutilate Nazis. Colonel Landa is all over the place, going from a cultured but sadistic Colonel to a self-serving traitor with seemingly no motivation. Michael Fassbender's film critic-turned-MI5 Agent is completely superfluous. In attempting to create a film of epic complexity, Tarantino simply creates a confused, underdeveloped, unfocused muddle. To be kind, I suppose one can say the film is never quite boring, but the inconsistency of tone and story prevents the movie from developing in any meaningful fashion.

I'm not ordinarily one to complain about violence, but something really rubs me the wrong way about the film's gleeful sadism. I should have been cheering at the climax, but the sheer nastiness of it put me off. The movie's violence is too sadistic and gruesome to work as goofy entertainment but too light-hearted and silly to work on a dramatic level; indeed, in this regard it comes close to cast member Eli Roth's shock gore films, spilling blood in gruesome ways to appease the bloodthirsty groundlings. If it weren't for Tarantino's history of creating strong female characters (Jackie Brown, Kill Bill) I might raise the misogyny flag for the particularly grisly fate of Bridget, but I suppose I should keep my middle-class white male mouth shut. In a film that knew what it was doing, I suppose these complaints wouldn't exist, but again, the movie is let down by its schizophrenic, confused tone.

On the plus side, Tarantino's direction is far more ambitious and impressive than his previous works. He shows a keen visual sense which works wonderfully, with gorgeous art direction, perfect use of camera and cinematography, and a general mastery of things technical. All of these are the sign of a great director who has matured impressively over the years; too bad it seems to have been at the expense of his once-brilliant writing skills. His use of "found" music is clever and often inspired (I loved the use of Morricone's Battle of Algiers theme in particular), with only a few odd blips - most notably the bizarre use of David Bowie's Putting Out Fire (from Cat People). On a technical score, there are no complaints.

The cast is equally schizophrenic. Melanie Laurent is disappointingly one-note as Shoshanna, but I supsect the script is the culprit for giving her a weak character. Brad Pitt is beyond awful, playing some hideous caricature redneck whose only good moments are his hilariously bad attempts at Italian. Eli Roth and Mike Myers (!) are equally obnoxious and out of place, but fortunately their roles are small. Christoph Waltz has gotten early Oscar buzz for his portrayal of Colonel Landa, and with good reason; his character is all over the place but Waltz manages to make Landa a menacing villain. Michael Fassbender, Daniel Bruhl, Til Schweiger and August Diehl do fine supporting work, but Martin Wuttke and Sylvestor Groth are predictably caricatured as Hitler and Goebbels. The real surprise of the film is Diane Kruger, the strikingly beautiful but minimally talented star of National Treasure and Troy; she does a marvelous job with what's basically an extended cameo, and one wishes more had bene done with this potentially fascinating character. It's nice to see Christian Berkel (Valkyrie) and Rod Taylor (The Birds) in blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos, but it would have been nicer still if they'd had anything substantial to do. Tarantino vets Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel have pointless voice-over cameos that contribute nothing aside from a glimmer of recognition from attentive audience members.

I guess if you don't have any expectations from the film beyond seeing lots of Nazis die in gruesome ways, Inglourious Basterds delivers. Although it has its share of virtues, Basterds isn't a film I'm likely to come back to. If Tarantino had focused on either story individually - the Dirty Dozen homage or the Jewish girl's revenge - he could well have made a great film. By combining the two story lines into a single film, he creates a bloated, unfocused, occasionally entertaining but mostly disappointing work.

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/08/inglourious-basterds.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/08/inglourious-basterds.html)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 29, 2009, 09:44:29 PM
Grogs: a few pages back you mentioned there was a reason for QT misspelling "Bastards".
I don't recall any of that in the film.

I skimmed through the thread and all I uncovered was this:

Quote
I thought the misspelled title was more a tribute to QT's illiteracy than any deep, hidden "meaning".

I have to say that I find Jenkins' praise of this movie quite amusing/ironic in light of his recent bitching about Public Enemies' admittedly deficient story structure. This movie doesn't even have a coherent plot, with lots of subplots that are dropped instantly, completely superfluous scenes and character development that occurs completely without motivation or explanation, and yet he loves it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 30, 2009, 12:13:41 AM
I think Christoph Waltz was good although his character had no motivation that I could see, and his treachery at the end seems pretty much pointless and out of left field.

Motivation was that he knew the Germans were going to lose the war (by 1945 it was pretty obvious).
Why be on the loser's side?

My problem comes from his way of thinking.
Is he that stupid to trust the Allied forces?
I didn't even see him sign a paper or anything.
Stupid move and it contradicts the character's supposed grand intellect.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 30, 2009, 12:33:42 AM
I could understand that but it doesn't seem to come from the character as we know him, just as a plot contrivance to prevent the assassination plot from being stopped. Quite frankly, the craven survivor element of his character doesn't have much anything to do with what we know of him up to that point.

For that matter, I don't understand why Hitler would attend a movie premiere in Paris after the Allies have landed in Normandy. This is just ridiculous, but I could probably let that slide in the movie's own universe.

What the film's ending implies though, is that while Der Fuhrer ist tot, Himmler is still alive, along with Speer and a decent collection of other Nazi officials. I'm not entirely sure things would have been better off under that circumstance.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 30, 2009, 12:45:24 PM
Quote
I'm not ordinarily one to complain about violence, but something really rubs me the wrong way about the film's gleeful sadism. I should have been cheering at the climax, but the sheer nastiness of it put me off. The movie's violence is too sadistic and gruesome to work as goofy entertainment but too light-hearted and silly to work on a dramatic level; indeed, in this regard it comes close to cast member Eli Roth's shock gore films, spilling blood in gruesome ways to appease the bloodthirsty groundlings.
On another board I read a comment about the irony of showing Hitler and Goebbels enjoying their movie about a sniper taking out 100+ victims (which we presumably are meant to deplore) only to be shown, a few moments later, Tarantino's vision of the same (which we are meant to enjoy). The poster thought the irony was intentional, that QT was playing gotcha with his audience, but I find that hard to credit.

For me, the final slaughter was the least interesting thing about the movie (I suppose it could create a certain frisson for those who hadn't been anticipating the alt history angle). For one thing, it just goes on too long. And QT's strengths have never been in his action scenes, rather in his dialogue set pieces.

I thought the film was held together by Landa. He's in the first and last scenes, and he's almost everywhere else. His ubiquity is rather hard to countenance: he's in charge of hunting Jews AND in charge of security for the film premier AND heading the investigation of a pub killing in the distant French town of Nancy. Well, that's the movies for you. Still, his continual presence propels the action, and his final fate is what the movie is leading to. That's what we're all waiting to find out about.

In terms of plot failures, the one missed opportunity was with the parallel stories concerning the movie premier. You've got the revenge thread, but also the Basterds' operation, and both are occurring independently. What would have made this more interesting is detailing how neither on their own would have been successful, but by being co-joined they allow matters to proceed to the desired goal. For example, Landa is on the trail of the Basterds, but in his attempt to foil them he could have easily overlooked what Shoshanna was up to (and in fact, that's what happened). Probably it would have been better for Landa to overplay his hand with the Basterds, thus allowing the revenge to go forward, in spite of his efforts. He thinks he's quashed the plot and then the High Command gets killed anyway. Then Landa could still have bartered with the Allies over his amnesty: after all, news traveled slowly in those days; Landa could have agreed to sell out Hitler even after Hitler was dead and no one (besides the Basterds) would have been the wiser. Anyway, these are details that could have been worked out in a single script conference.

Comparing this film with Public Enemies is just naff. PE had zero laughs and no characters; IG had yucks galore and Landa, destined to join the pantheon of Great Movie Villains.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 30, 2009, 03:06:06 PM
So your only judge of a film's quality is how much it makes you laugh?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 30, 2009, 03:18:08 PM
It depends on the kind of film it is. If a film doesn't take itself seriously (like Basterds), then the best you can hope for is how entertaining it is.Public Enemies must have had serious pretensions of some kind, but it failed to rise to those pretensions; then, it did not offer anything by way of consolation, such as entertainment. Mann would have been better off burlesquing his subject matter.

But of course, there are plenty of films that don't make me laugh that nonetheless are entertaining.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 30, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
We need not argue over the relative merits of the two films inasmuch I only prefer PE ever-so-slightly to IB. That being said, it seems higly inconsistent to praise one film despite its nonexistent narrative and bash the other for the very same reasons. PE's biggest problem is a lack of proper flow from scene to scene, and as you say, nonexistent character development for anyone but Dillinger. Tarantino has two entirely different stories grafted on the film, and despite efforts to tie the two plots together neither works and they ultimately bear little relation to each other. As you say, Landa is what (barely) ties the two stories together, but the character the kills Shoshanna's family and negotiates with Brad Pitt hardly seems the same person - and no revenge is exacted upon him aside from a trivial mutilation, which I didn't find remotely satisfying or cathartic (he was the "basterd" here, if you will, not Hitler and Goebbels, who are just comic opera clowns from a Bugs Bunny cartoon). As I said above, if QT had focused on one film or the other (preferably the Shoshana story), he could have made a great film. As it stands, he made two mediocre ones.

I'm not really tickled by this "cinema killed the Nazis" BS either, but that's another issue entirely. I'm sure it was intentional but it struck me as stupid rather than clever. If I really wanted to I could possibly see some sort of sociological point being made but I don't think QT is that deep a thinker.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: T.H. on September 13, 2009, 01:09:55 PM
I walked out after 45+ mins/10

the only positive was the basterds were given very little screen time. there wasn't one character that I found to be even remotely interesting. the dialgue wasn't horrible, but painfully mediocre -- it lacked the excitement of his first three. I knew going in that this was not an action film, but I was at least expecting something visually interesting; IB is painfully bland to look at (QT has never really understood the importance of lighting). I just couldn't sit through 2 more hours since I couldn't care any less what was going to happen. IB is easily his worst effort, judging from what I saw. as flawed as the Kill Bills were, at least they moved at a decent clip had entertaining scenes. If QT wanted to discuss german cinema, why not just discuss german cinema?

brad pitt was remarkably bad, so bad that eli roth's horrendous performance may go unnoticed.

QT needs a co-writer.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on September 13, 2009, 02:00:44 PM
Not much I can disagree with there, although I thought the cinematography/direction were the film's best points.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: T.H. on September 13, 2009, 02:53:51 PM
Not much I can disagree with there, although I thought the cinematography/direction were the film's best points.

I haven't browsed this thread in a couple weeks but I believe DJ said the movie lacked scope, which I agree comletely from what I saw. And the color palette was just really, really bland and generic. There wasn't really any intersting camera work in the first 45+ mins -- it lacked the energy that make his previous work an enjoyable watch, flaws and all.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Cusser on September 19, 2009, 06:53:53 PM
I saw this tonight, liked it a lot.  From the opening Green Leaves of Summer from the Alamo, to the "Fur Lise" arrangement from the Big Gundown, Landa menacing the farmer "beautiful daughters", so much like Stevens being menaced by Angel Eyes ("nice family").
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on September 19, 2009, 07:32:39 PM
I enjoyed some of the homages and music choices (as I said I loved the use of the Battle of Algiers theme in the Stiglitz scene) but I grew sick of them when I realized that the film was pretty much reliant on such gimmicks.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on September 20, 2009, 02:29:38 AM
Quote
the film was pretty much reliant on such gimmicks.

That is pretty much his most successful shtick nowadays.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on September 20, 2009, 09:39:06 AM
I'd only seen his first three films going in, where the homages were blended seemlessly into the work for the most part. Even if I took your word for it, I don't see that as a good thing - just means QT is getting extremely lazy and/or self-indulgent.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: uncknown on October 08, 2009, 09:51:25 PM
I enjoyed it.

It really needed another scene with the Basterds though. I found myself losing interest during the mid-section-
the strudel scene could have gone and not been missed.

to summarize:
more Aldrich and less leone and it coulda been a classic

three stars
check it out
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: mike siegel on October 09, 2009, 11:05:40 AM
I'd only seen his first three films going in, where the homages were blended seemlessly into the work for the most part. Even if I took your word for it, I don't see that as a good thing - just means QT is getting extremely lazy and/or self-indulgent.

I think so too.
It also worked for KILL BILL for it is really a powerful film.

DEATH PROOF & INGLORIOUS for the first time bored me here and there. I already commented on how much
I hate to hear really famous soundtracks in other films. When I hear MOON RIVER I see Audrey Hepburn,
when I hear IL MERCENARIO I see Franco Nero.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 20, 2009, 05:58:29 PM
Home video release in R1 on 12/15. Via the digitalbits:
Quote
Both the DVD and Blu-ray of Inglorious Basterds will be 2-disc sets (SRP $34.98 and $39.98). There will also be a single-disc, movie-only DVD ($29.98). All three versions will include extended and alternate scenes, the complete Nation's Pride film (as seen in the film) and domestic and international trailers. Both 2-disc versions will add a Roundtable Discussion (with Quentin Tarantino, Brad Pitt and film historian/critic Elvis Mitchell), 5 featurettes (The Making of Nation's Pride, The Original Inglorious Bastards, A Conversation with Veteran Actor Rod Taylor, Rod Taylor on Victoria Bitters and Quentin Tarantino's Camera Angel), the Hi Sallys gag reel, a Film Poster Gallery Tour with Elvis Mitchell, the poster gallery itself and a Digital Copy version. Finally, the Blu-ray will also feature BD-Live access.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on October 21, 2009, 06:45:38 AM
I have seen some scenes on TV and had to turn to another channel after half a minute. It looks like an hymn to voluntary imbecility.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on October 21, 2009, 08:56:34 AM
I have seen some scenes on TV and had to turn to another channel after half a minute. It looks like an hymn to voluntary imbecility.

Indeed. This movie... STINKS ON ICE!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 22, 2009, 10:18:33 PM
From the press release:
Quote
Both the Blu-ray™ and Two-Disc Special Edition DVD come with a Digital Copy of the film

for a limited time only just in time for the holiday season and over 90 minutes of startling and

engrossing behind-the-scenes bonus features.

Digital copy? Chalk up another sale!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 12, 2009, 08:48:04 PM
DVD Savant puts out a good defense of the film, although I'm not sure I buy his analysis. Be sure to read the comment at the bottom.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3082bast.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3082bast.html)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 12, 2009, 11:35:12 PM
DVD Savant puts out a good defense of the film, although I'm not sure I buy his analysis. Be sure to read the comment at the bottom.
His analysis is fine, the question is why any of it should matter. It's just escapist entertainment, after all. And the war-film-with-its-own-attached-anti-war-commentary has never been bettered since that send-up of the mother of all propaganda flicks, Starship Troopers.

Thanks for the link, Grogs. Savant has never been more cogent. That Chris Saunders guy, on the other hand--man, does he love the sound of his own voice, or what? ;)
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 12, 2009, 11:44:07 PM
I don't think Tarantino is a deep enough thinker to have made his film with that sort of analysis in mind, I'm increasingly convinced he just throws together films and lets critics have fun with it. On the other hand, it's legitimate to look through the baggage he brings to the table. The question of whether it in any way benefits the film, of course, is another matter.

Further, I'm surprised Savant didn't make much mention of the language issue which was one of the few "clever" bits of the film I did enjoy. Otherwise it's a very good review.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 13, 2009, 03:33:13 AM
I don't have the time to go through all the posts on this topic but I finally saw it the other day and thought it wasn't that bad, or at least not as bad and idiotic I thought it'll be. For some strange reason QT decided to put his IB in a secondary role, thus making the title (and everything else around this movie) false advertising. I do not know what changed in his mind to make him do this, but it was a wise move, cause the rest of the movie saved it from their pompous imbecility and triviality. (Though Til Schweiger was excellent, that must be said.) Christoph Waltz aka Hans Landa steals the show, but because of the acting, certainly not because of the script. The character itself seems to be a hybrid between the classic ''evil Nazi prototype'' and Fyodor Dostoyevsky's detective Porfiry Petrovich, hardly original in concept.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 13, 2009, 06:41:02 AM
The character itself seems to be a hybrid between the classic ''evil Nazi prototype'' and Fyodor Dostoyevsky's detective Porfiry Petrovich, hardly original in concept.
That puts it well. Savant, in a footnote to the article Groggy links to above, points to a filmic antecedent, a character in Lang's Hangmen Also Die (which I haven't seen).

You're right about the Basterds playing support in their own movie. I guess QT started out with their story, then started to add the girl's tale, and as that began to demand more attention it crowded the Basterds out of the picture. QT probably had enough written for 2 movies, but thankfully, this time he settled for one (and as you say, he chose the better storyline to feature).
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 13, 2009, 06:43:44 PM
Malcolm McDowell also played a similar character in The Passage. However, Hangmen Also Die is perhaps the most likely reference - in the original script Landa makes specific (albeit anachronistic) reference towards Reinhard Heydrich.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 03:45:38 AM
QT's ideas about the movie (in 2001) was that it was going to be about the basterds looking for a treasure behind the lines. Kelly's Heroes II, I guess.

Out of curiosity: do you have to be french to spot the worst than terrible acting of almost EVERY french actor in the movie??? (appart from the guy in the opening scene, who only has to keep quiet) I mean, that's probably some of the worst acting in a "big" american movie since Emmanuelle Beart in the first Mission: Impossible.

PS: Ben Afleck in Paycheck and Sophie Marceau in her James Bond are serious challengers.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 14, 2009, 09:41:36 AM
I can't say I was crazy about Melanie Laurent, otherwise what French actors were there?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 14, 2009, 01:00:52 PM
Yeah I'm a bit confused myself, there were French actors in the movie?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 02:36:08 PM
The black guy (friend of melanie laurent). He had a bigger role in the script, and I'm glad they cut a lot of it, he's by far the worst actor. Mélanie Laurent, of course, and she spoils the middle part of the movie by being so bad.
The guy in the opening scene was ok as long as he kept his mouth shut; most of his lines were so so with a few bad ones (nothing terrible though). His wife and daughters are pretty bad too (they talk very few but what they say sounds bad...).
They are the only "big" roles, but many extras were terrible too as far as i can remember.

To be fair, I should add that QT probably didn't care for the sound of the french dialogues since in his versions there are subtitles when they speak French: loud music, noises and everything that make the french dialogues sound like a youtube home made video. That doesn't help the actors.


More generaly, I have a theory about directors trying to direct actors in a language they (the directors) don't speak. They seem to think it's easy, but each time i have a chance to "check", they fail.
The french actors in Inglorious Basterds sound terrible (in french).
The piano teacher in The Barber tries to sound like a french guy and that's an epic fail, while the Cohen brothers are usually great when it comes to directing actors.
Béart in James Bond (i don't know which one)
Isabelle Huppert is often bad in Heaven's Gate (while she was a great actress at the time and she's with C. Walken in half of her scenes!!)
Most little lines of french dialogues you hear here and there in movies (Marathon Man, the Usual Suspects...)
And a last example, not in french:
Many japanese perform very poorly in Eastwood's Iwo Jima.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 14, 2009, 02:48:14 PM
Is Julie Dreyfuss French?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 03:18:16 PM
Yes she is!
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 14, 2009, 06:48:01 PM
Do you include her in the stinkiness?
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 08:02:30 PM
As far as i can remember she was pretty good...
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: stanton on December 15, 2009, 01:42:47 AM
Melanie Laurent was fantastic. The acting was generally fantastic in IB, as it is mostly in QT's films.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 15, 2009, 02:14:51 AM
Well she wasn't fantastic but she was cute.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 15, 2009, 02:42:17 AM
Well she wasn't fantastic but she was cute.

That red dress with the Bowie song playing made me feel funny. >:D >:D >:D
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: stanton on December 15, 2009, 05:48:35 AM
Well she wasn't fantastic but she was cute.

both
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 15, 2009, 08:47:26 PM
Digital Copy is in the house! Col. Landa smirks again.

Amazon.com seemed to have the best price ($17.99), but they were talking about taking weeks to fill my order. So I went down to Best Buy and shelled out $22.99 so I could have it today. Well, you also get a bonus disc, a BB exclusive: an interview with QT by some woman critic at some event, the week before IG was released last August. The interview, plus questions from the audience, runs 68 minutes and is pretty informative, mostly about the making of the film. SL is invoked twice, Morricone mentioned once. QT also refers to European directors who came to America and, during the war, made WW2 movies while the war was still going on, people like Lang (who made Manhunt and Hangman Also Die), but also less obvious talents, and one French director I'd never even heard of before, Moguy (pronounced "Mogi" according to QT), who, apparently, made 3 films in the U.S., two about the war. QT went back to these directors to see how much fun war films could be, in contrast to the solemn way the subject has come to be treated in Hollywood the last 20 years or so.

Well, QT does have his uses: now I have this Moguy guy to research.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 15, 2009, 09:17:18 PM
Solemnity in WWII films was pretty much the name of the game until Guns of Navarone.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 15, 2009, 10:50:47 PM
Léonide Moguy

1936 : Le Mioche
1938 : Prison sans barreaux
1938 : Conflit
1939 : Le Déserteur
1940 : L'Empreinte du dieu
1943 : Paris After Dark
1944 : Action in Arabia
1946 : Tragique rendez-vous (Whistle Stop)
1947 : Bethsabée
1950 : Demain il sera trop tard (Domani è troppo tardi)
1951 : Domani è un altro giorno
1953 : Les Enfants de l'amour
1956 : Le Long des trottoirs
1957 : Donnez-moi ma chance
1961 : Les Hommes veulent vivre

Never heard of any of these...
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 15, 2009, 11:00:50 PM
Action in Arabia is the only one that sounds vaguely familiar.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 16, 2009, 05:35:57 AM
Melanie Laurent was fantastic.

You don't speak French, do you?

The acting was generally fantastic in IB, as it is mostly in QT's films.

Let's agree on that (even if IB is not the best acted film by QT, by far). And that's my point. Even directors who usually are great with actors (Coen...), when it comes to direct an actor in a langhage the director don't know, they cannot do anything.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: stanton on December 16, 2009, 10:03:18 AM
You don't speak French, do you?



Ha ha no, not really, I've seen only the German dub version.

But even without speaking anything she would have great charisma.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 16, 2009, 02:48:46 PM
Léonide Moguy

1943 : Paris After Dark
1944 : Action in Arabia
1946 : Tragique rendez-vous (Whistle Stop)

These are the 3 he did in Hollywood and the ones QT was referencing specifically. The first two are the war pictures, and both star George Sanders. Whistle Stop is, according to reports, some sort of near-noir. I'm keen to see these all now.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 17, 2009, 02:35:22 PM
Savant, in a footnote to the article Groggy links to above, points to a filmic antecedent, a character in Lang's Hangmen Also Die (which I haven't seen).

Having just seen the film in question (which I'll comment on in the RTLMYS thread) I can't say there's a clear antecedent to Landa here. There are a lot of interrogation scenes, and thus interrogators, but all of them are pretty much typical for the time rat-bastard Nazi swines, a far cry from the cultured, sophisticated Landa. Inspector Gruber is probably the closest to Landa and yet he's a slimy, mustachioed womanizing alcoholic - hardly an analog. Perhaps someone should ask Savant to clarify.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 18, 2009, 02:20:24 PM
I don't know if I said this before but I think Laurent was too deadpan for a role that required emotion.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 18, 2009, 02:26:06 PM
I more or less agree. Shoshanna was just too boring a character to be a suitable protagonist. I thought Diane Kruger was much better in her part.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 21, 2009, 02:21:24 AM
Well she wasn't fantastic but she was cute.
That pretty much nails it.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: T.H. on January 28, 2010, 10:04:28 PM
                                                         ********SPOILERS ABOUND*********

So I watched this in its entirety and the old adage "stay true to your instincts" springs to mind. Funny thing was that I walked out on the superior half--turns out I saw 1:15 of the movie the first go-around. Hyperbole aside, this film is an all out disaster. I'm too lazy to write a review but:

In 2.5 hours we don't know any of these characters, really IB is just a collection of random, groovy scenes built around a fire in a movie theater.

Brad Pitt was terrible, this was really an awful performance.

The restaurant scene with the chick aka Adam Banks from the mighty ducks with long hair and the SS Guy was painfully long. The dialogue isn't terrible but for every clever line will accompany 3 minutes of random words that don't further the character or the plot.

For instance, the line about rats in the first scene with the SS guy and the dude who looks like Robert Mitchum; jew hunter doesn't state why jews are "rat-like" creatures nor characteristics of rats in how they hide.

Another problem with the opening: doesn't the girl speak english? Wouldn't she make an escape when the Mitchum looking guy says "yes".

The scene with Mike Myers is completely useless, just serves as an explanation--ie the useless final scene from Psycho--yet Brad Pitt's character is completely unaware of the reason for his men to masquerade as Nazis in the pub? Wat.

Why would the movie theater girl film her explanation behind the fire when there is a reasonable alibi for a cause of fire? Additionally wouldn't it make more sense for her to seek out the basterds or some resistance group instead?

when pitt's character is captured, why is the guy from punked and the office with him? where was he prior when he entered the building with the actress and the two basterds posing as italians? and where were the rest of the basterds during this scene?

and why the hell would the jew hunter join forces with the allies? on top of that, this is a fictional account of WW2, so the audience doesn't know the Germans current situation? how is this logical? And how could he trust Pitt etc etc etc? He is going to trade in his high ranking position for a little piece of land? are you serious? Why does he strangle the actress first? so he muders her for betraying his country, then betrays his country? why wouldn't he kill pitt then? THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.

This film never exits the introductory state, it's basically 2.5 hours of exposition. We jump from set of characters to characters without knowing anything about them besides that they really hate germans or jews. The restaurant scene is painfully long, the audience is subjected to, what, 25 mins with characters we know nothing about and couldn't care less about. Why were 5-10 minutes spent with random German soldiers? Who is the person in this sequence holding it all together, to identify with? That can be said for the majority of the film.

I rambled too much, I don't want to spend any more time bitching about this lol.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2010, 10:10:40 PM
All of that sounds about right to me.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 28, 2010, 10:37:00 PM
                                                         ********SPOILERS ABOUND*********


and why the hell would the jew hunter join forces with the allies? on top of that, this is a fictional account of WW2, so the audience doesn't know the Germans current situation? how is this logical? And how could he trust Pitt etc etc etc? He is going to trade in his high ranking position for a little piece of land? are you serious? Why does he strangle the actress first? so he muders her for betraying his country, then betrays his country? why wouldn't he kill pitt then? THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.




Exactly.
The deal he made with the Allies was a stupid move.
In reality the Allies would have killed him after (or maybe before) they snuffed Hitler using his information.

+ What Groggy stated was true.
Killing Hitler wouldn't automatically end the war.
Himmler was still around.

I tried to explain this to a QT fanatic and his arguement was "It's all a fantasy".
...

what a crutch

...

It has to be based on some sort of reality.
And all these mistakes undermine the films' own logic.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: T.H. on January 28, 2010, 10:48:15 PM
Definitely cheap justification on his part.

And groggs, great review. I agree with every word of it. Very well written.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on November 01, 2010, 05:32:22 PM
I finally decided to watch it and had to force myself not to turn off the player at least 3 times. But as I give credit to the director for having made some good stuff in the past forced myself to the end. Tarantino's aim was (at least at the start) to deal with IIWW imagery the way action movies did both with American West history and contemporary reality. Good. What do you expect from an operation like this? Fast, ultra-exaggerated action scenes, witty dialogues, fast movieng plot. Instead you have the Tarantino treatment of long-drawn, inconsequential dialogues, no action scenes, overlong plot. Apparently, after having decided to make the spoof, he concentrated on the vicissitudes of the jewish girl and that didn't help to keep the structure of the movie as a whole and the whole Pitt's operation looks superfluous when it should have been the hinge of the story. So you have the story of the jewish girl keeping the attention and struggling to maintain it because you don't care for the character (at least, I didn't): not in a movie like this. And the "card" sequence with the mexican standoff? It almost put me to bed. As I wrote about DP, tarantino makes a short story long, this time without not even a small touch of brilliancy which could be found in the former movie, at least in the incident sequence. 2\10 

 
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 10, 2010, 11:44:51 AM
DVD Savant puts out a good defense of the film, although I'm not sure I buy his analysis. Be sure to read the comment at the bottom.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3082bast.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3082bast.html)
Of related interest are these two just-published reviews by Glenn Erickson of other films:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3351die.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3337dayb.html
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: stanton on November 10, 2010, 12:08:00 PM
After so much praise for IB I have to say that I think this is really a masterpiece. Maybe even QTs best.

I have re-watched it on DVD and enjoyed every flawless second of it. 10/10
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Groggy on November 10, 2010, 02:40:00 PM
Of related interest are these two just-published reviews by Glenn Erickson of other films:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3351die.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3337dayb.html

I'd really like to see Operation Daybreak. Savant seems a huge fan of Hangmen Also Die; it's cool to see that an uncut version is out there, but I'm not a huge fan of the film beyond it's totally awesome title.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: Cusser on November 10, 2010, 06:55:52 PM
After so much praise for IB I have to say that I think this is really a masterpiece. Maybe even QTs best.

I have re-watched it on DVD and enjoyed every flawless second of it. 10/10

Stanton - are the "extra features" pretty good?  I want to get the DVD for Christmas.  I saw the film in the theater and really enjoyed it as well.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: stanton on November 11, 2010, 01:45:11 AM
I only have the German DVD. There are a some extras like the complete Pride of the Nation film and two more extended scenes. The German DVDs of Tarantino films were often in the beginning a bit short on bonus material compared to the US DVDs.

The German version runs btw a minute longer with one of the extra scenes included in the film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Bastards (or "Basterds", however he wants to spell it) (2009)
Post by: titoli on November 11, 2010, 01:55:22 PM
I have the double dvd, alas, with lots of material I'll never watch.