Inglourious Basterds

[Justin]

Don't know if this has been posted, but Berardinelli has reviewed it. He gave it four stars and says it is Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.

[Pop Trash]

Don't know if this has been posted, but Berardinelli has reviewed it. He gave it four stars and says it is Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.

J. Hoberman loved it too. Getting excited...

[Spun Lepton]

Woof, the reviewer at Guardian UK loathed it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/aug/19/inglourious-basterds-review-brad-pitt-quentin-tarantino

[number8]

About to see it for a third time, with Tarantino Q&A!

[ledfloyd]

About to see it for a third time, with Tarantino Q&A!
you basterd.

[number8]

So I had a wonderful night.

Saw it 3rd time, it was still awesome. Q&A was a blast. Afterwards, I went to my favorite hangout bar to meet up with the wife and her friends. Lo and behold, QT was there sitting at the bar, hanging out. After a few drinks in me, I went up to him and drunkenly rambled about how much I love Battle Royale. He gave me a hug.

[Sxottlan]

^ Cool.

I can't believe I agreed to work Friday and now have to put this off a week.

[Winston*]

This movie was awesome.

[Boner M]

This movie was awesome.Indeed it was.

[Watashi]

Yeah right, Inglorious Bastards will be there right next to WKW's The Lady from Shanghai. Please. He has been "working" on this thing for years off and on, and now he has a draft written and suddenly it will be out in less than a year? He's notorious for putting off projects and changing his mind. He has made six features in over fifteen years of work and somehow constantly stays in the public's interest.
lol

[Boner M]

lol
You've been waiting a while to quote that, haven't you.

[Amnesiac]

You've been waiting a while to quote that, haven't you.

I actually admire his patience and cunning.

[Amnesiac]

So I had a wonderful night.

Saw it 3rd time, it was still awesome. Q&A was a blast. Afterwards, I went to my favorite hangout bar to meet up with the wife and her friends. Lo and behold, QT was there sitting at the bar, hanging out. After a few drinks in me, I went up to him and drunkenly rambled about how much I love Battle Royale. He gave me a hug.

Did you praise any of his films as well? And who was he with? A rare opportunity indeed. Sounds like a good night.

[number8]

Did you praise any of his films as well? And who was he with? A rare opportunity indeed. Sounds like a good night.

Nope. I didn't even say I was a fan, I just went straight to, "Hey, I gotta tell you something... Listen... Battle Royale is my favorite fucking movie in the whole fucking world --" "Oh, it's a great movie man!" And we went back and forth about how great it is, and I told him it's really cool that he loves it so much, and then he pulled me in and hugged me.

He was just with his girlfriend, this small tomboyish Asian lady, just drinking and chilling, talking to whoever comes up to him. He's incredibly nice to people.

[trotchky]

midnight showing with a few friends. very excited.

[number8]

My review is up. Will write about the Q&A later.

[Watashi]

QT's best movie only gets a 9?

[number8]

One day, I'm going to do away with ratings entirely. Just to avoid comments like that.

[Watashi]

One day, I'm going to do away with ratings entirely. Just to avoid comments like that.
Heh.

[Ezee E]

So I had a wonderful night.

Saw it 3rd time, it was still awesome. Q&A was a blast. Afterwards, I went to my favorite hangout bar to meet up with the wife and her friends. Lo and behold, QT was there sitting at the bar, hanging out. After a few drinks in me, I went up to him and drunkenly rambled about how much I love Battle Royale. He gave me a hug.
No bowing I hope.

[number8]

No bowing I hope.

I hate you.

[Grouchy]

So you just talked Battle Royale?

I would have asked him his opinion on every movie I've ever seen.

[Sycophant]

You're a classy guy, Mr. Ponto.

[BuffaloWilder]

So you just talked Battle Royale?

I would have asked him his opinion on every movie I've ever seen.

"Australians know how to shoot cars in a way that just makes you want to jerk off."

[origami_mustache]

Going to the Midnight showing at Arclight. Tarantino is introducing the film.

[baby doll]

Going to the Midnight showing at Arclight. Tarantino is introducing the film.So the film probably won't start till five in the morning.

[Rowland]

Great Tarantino interview by resident cine-blogger-hottie Kim Morgan. (http://sunsetgun.typepad.com/sunsetgun/2009/08/talking-to-tarantino-inglourious-basterds.html)

[Sycophant]

...I'll give you all that the cartoon cartoon character construction of Quentin Tarantino is annoying, but the man himself is really a badass who knows his shit.

[megladon8]

So has anyone seen the original?

Is it as awful, boring and stupid as I've heard?

[Spun Lepton]

Okay.

So, after this movie hits theaters, how many people do you think will start regularly spelling "bastards" as "basterds" on the Internet? Will it become the new "your/you're" idocy that's plagued the Internet from day 1?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Okay.

So, after this movie hits theaters, how many people do you think will start regularly spelling "bastards" as "basterds" on the Internet? Will it become the new "your/you're" idocy that's plagued the Internet from day 1?

I'm predicting "definately" levels, here.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm predicting "definately" levels, here.

Their you go.










:frustrated:

[Ezee E]

I think we're already at a loss as far as spelling errors go.

[megladon8]

Let's not forget that "basterds" is not the only misspelled word in the title.

[Spun Lepton]

Let's not forget that "basterds" is not the only misspelled word in the title.

How many people use the word "inglorious" frequently enough for it to become an issue? Aside from Rowland, I mean.

[Watashi]

Heh. Our theater tickets print it out as "Inglorious".

[Sycophant]

Actually, until about an hour ago, I didn't realize there was that extra U in there.

[Amnesiac]

Aside from Rowland, I mean.

This guy has taken so much crap for his verbosity lately. :lol:

[MadMan]

...I'll give you all that the cartoon cartoon character construction of Quentin Tarantino is annoying, but the man himself is really a badass who knows his shit.I can see that, although at the same time I donno if I still wouldn't find him annoying in public. But I guess if we started talking film I'd look past that.

And I'm actually jealous that number8 got to meet him. I'd tell QT that Reservoir Dogs is one of my all time favorite movies, and I'm sure at some point we'd just start rambling on about how amazing The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly truly is. I bet he's seen the SE extended copy that was released back in 2003 a million times.

[Spun Lepton]

This guy has taken so much crap for his verbosity lately. :lol:

Just good-natured ribbing on my part.

[Spun Lepton]

If I met QT, first thing I'd tell him about was how in Jackie Brown, Robert DeNiro looked exactly like my father with that big moustache, and how the scene with him and Bridgette Fonda humping pretty much scarred me.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/466540555_34d096ed86.jpg?v=0

It's uncanny!!!

[Derek]

Just good-natured ribbing on my part.

Rib-tickling jocularity has a tendency to assuage the arduousness of mundane daily existence, so it's all good.

[Sycophant]

Rib-tickling jocularity has a tendency to assuage the arduousness of mundane daily existence, so it's all good.

That's what she said.

[Amnesiac]

Rib-tickling jocularity has a tendency to assuage the arduousness of mundane daily existence, so it's all good.

This coruscating reply demonstrates keen alacrity and some impeccable wit. It deserves accolades of the highest order and brand.

[Rowland]

This guy has taken so much crap for his verbosity lately. :lol:I have? :cry:

[Watashi]

I'm literally foaming at the mouth from anticipation right now.

I started reading Chaw's review but I got too giddy and didn't want to spoil myself.

[Amnesiac]

I have? :cry:

Maybe I've noticed the comments more than you.

[trotchky]

this movie is meta as hell. i need to see it again, it's so fucking meta.

it's also a masterpiece, of some kind.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I loved it, more than I could have ever thought. I'll definetely try to put together some thoughts in the next few days, but... seriously... love.

[ledfloyd]

I loved it, more than I could have ever thought. I'll definetely try to put together some thoughts in the next few days, but... seriously... love.
dammit, now i'm through the roof excited. i don't know how i'm going to make it to 6:30 tomorrow.

[number8]

this movie is meta as hell. i need to see it again, it's so fucking meta.

Yeah, no kidding.

Especially the transition from Zoller gunning down Americans from a bell tower in Nation's Pride to Eli Roth gunning down Germans from a theater balcony. Superb.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, no kidding.

Especially the transition from Zoller gunning down Americans from a bell tower in Nation's Pride to Eli Roth gunning down Germans from a theater balcony. Superb.

I was more impressed with how, right after Shosanna rewrites the in-movie's ending, Tarantino rewrites history's ending. Both are shocking, and both are welcome.

And this film was a blast. Took a while to rev up, with a couple conversations that circled too long before landing, but it builds and builds, and the performances are fantastic, and the finale is Tarantino's most satisfying since Pulp Fiction finished with Winfield's hard-won wisdom.

[ledfloyd]

armond weighs in (http://www.nypress.com/article-20225-nazi-junkie-jamboree.html)

it's a film fit for hipster holocaust deniers.

[Sycophant]

If I ran into Tarantino, I think I'd start with props for putting Audition on his recent list, then comment on a couple of my favorite Miike films from the same era. That is, if I could speak.

T minus eight hours.

[BuffaloWilder]

armond weighs in (http://www.nypress.com/article-20225-nazi-junkie-jamboree.html)

it's a film fit for hipster holocaust deniers.


QT’s shock tactics—from the use of David Bowie’s 1982 “Cat People” for a theme song to Pitt carving swastiskas into flesh—inhibit catharsis. It’s less meaningful than Indy Jones’ succinct “Nazis! I hate those guys.” Unlike Spielberg, QT takes the complexity out of war, racism, history and heroism.


:confused:

[Derek]

I know I should just stop reading/commenting on him, but it's too amazing how consistently full of shit the man is. He must be on a high-fiber diet.

[Boner M]

I just want Spielberg to ghost-direct the next Tarantino film.

[Boner M]

Also, "the use of David Bowie’s 1982 “Cat People” for a theme song to Pitt carving swastiskas into flesh" - Do I just have a really bad memory, but did that song NOT ACCOMPANY THOSE IMAGES AT ALL???

[Watashi]

This was incredible.

[Pop Trash]

I just want Spielberg to ghost-direct the next Tarantino film.

Strange how this movie is bringing out a Spielberg vs. Tarantino debate with critics. Scott Foundas' positive IB review in Film Comment took a swipe at Schindler's List and now Armond's negative review is exalting Spielberg.

[Watashi]

The opening was like a glorious mini-masterpiece in itself.

Also, I'll say it here first.

Christoph Waltz > Heath Ledger

[Spun Lepton]

Armond White's inanity would no longer be an issue if people would stop clicking over and reading his bullshit. He's successfully proving that you can vomit on the Internet and people will flock to gulp it up.

[EvilShoe]

Also, "the use of David Bowie’s 1982 “Cat People” for a theme song to Pitt carving swastiskas into flesh" - Do I just have a really bad memory, but did that song NOT ACCOMPANY THOSE IMAGES AT ALL???
Nope, it didn't.
It was played when Mélanie Laurent's character was getting ready for the premiere.
Good movie.
I see no need to compare Waltz to Ledger. You kids and your love for ranking.

[number8]

Yeah, no. You know, "putting out a fire with gasoline"?

[number8]

The opening was like a glorious mini-masterpiece in itself.

The bar scene, as well.

[Boner M]

Actually the tavern scene was the only one I thought went a little longer than necessary and where I could feel my involvement waning, although a second viewing could change that.

Also, I pretty much fell in love with Mélanie Laurent in this.

[Boner M]

Michael Koresky's excellent review at Reverse Shot (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/inglourious_basterds[/url).

[Watashi]

After seeing the movie, can anyone imagine Leonardo DiCaprio as Hans Landa?

[Boner M]

After seeing the movie, can anyone imagine Leonardo DiCaprio as Hans Landa?
That would be awful.

[Winston*]

The only casting I felt was a little bit iffy was Mike Myers. Too much of an Austin Powers inflection in his voice.


This guy is in every Nazi killing movie.
http://www.humboldt-portal.de/mediaarchiv/grab_pic_chris.php?id=10845
Udo Kier II

[Rowland]

Just revisited Reservoir Dogs for the first time in ages, and I feel like a fanboy for saying it, but the film is brilliant, even better than I remembered. Just watching it was a restorative experience, and despite having seen the picture half a dozen times in the past, it remains remarkably riveting. It's probably second only to Pulp Fiction, though I'd like to revisit the rest of his work over the next week as well.

[Melville]

Also, "the use of David Bowie’s 1982 “Cat People” for a theme song to Pitt carving swastiskas into flesh" - Do I just have a really bad memory, but did that song NOT ACCOMPANY THOSE IMAGES AT ALL???
You dropped the introductory "from" in your quoted text. White is saying that QT's shock tactics range from the choice of theme song to the depiction of swastika-carving, not that the song accompanies the carving.

I dislike most of Tarantino's films, and I don't think he has anything interesting to say either in his movies or his interviews, but all the positive responses (especially from reliable sources like Boner and Derek) are making me think maybe I should see this one.

[Boner M]

You dropped the introductory "from" in your quoted text. White is saying that QT's shock tactics range from the choice of theme song to the depiction of swastika-carving, not that the song accompanies the carving.
Oops... Sorry Armond. Your sins are forgiven.

[Henry Gale]

Fuckin' fantastic. I can't remember the last time I felt such a rush from a movie and have then had those feelings slowly fade in such an effective way as I left the theatre. The final chapter is just one extraordinary dream-like spectacle and that's such a perfect bombastic end to it (a movie that for its majority is so epic in the complexity of more subtle exchanges).

So yeah, doesn't quite top Moon for my favourite of the year, but it definitely comes extremely close.

[Ezee E]

Each scene had that Hitchcockian suspense going for it, drawing it out for so long that I was holding my breath at times, even in the cafe scene.

Great freaking movie.

Two nitpicks though:
-Eli Roth is an awful, awful actor.
-I'm not completely convinced by the Jew Hunter's decision at the end. He seems smarter than that. I still loved it, but that's bothering me a bit. Anyone want to comment on this motivation?

But even with those nitpicks, there's far too many great scenes, and the use of suspense is the best I've seen in years, so its still a masterful movie.

[Bosco B Thug]

Just revisited Reservoir Dogs for the first time in ages, and I feel like a fanboy for saying it, but the film is brilliant, even better than I remembered. Just watching it was a restorative experience, and despite having seen the picture half a dozen times in the past, it remains remarkably riveting. It's probably second only to Pulp Fiction, though I'd like to revisit the rest of his work over the next week as well. Hmmm... I constantly undermine this film in my mind as something I can confidently say must be his lesser work. But yeah, I'm gonna stop doing that and re-watch it before I rank it.


Inglourious Basterds is a wonderful movie. A vibrant and sensitive resurrection of old-fashioned filmmaking, when films could move slowly, with full-bodied dialogue scenes, as long as they are taut with drama and emotions. "Supreme entertainment," as cinema once offered, to paraphrase an RT blurb I saw. Also, his channeling of Godard is finally clicking since Tarantino and his staccato beats are now working with the most political and genuinely rarefied symbols he's dealt with yet - period pomp, officers in full raiment, old movie posters, etc.

Most importantly, thank God, the film's also educated, highly researched, and "a war movie about war" (to paraphrase the venerable Walter Chaw, whose review I haven't read yet but will do shortly and I'm sure will be chock full of ideological admiration) that is straightforward and clearheaded, not just the Nazi-revenge fantasy label it's been slapped with.

[number8]

I'm not completely convinced by the Jew Hunter's decision at the end. He seems smarter than that. I still loved it, but that's bothering me a bit. Anyone want to comment on this motivation?

One thing I love is the subtle change in Landa's character in the unseen 4 years between chapters 1 and 3. in Chapter 1, Landa loves his Jew Hunter moniker, and he's Hitler's top manhunter.

Somehow, he later ends up as just more or less a security guard. He tells Aldo that Jew Hunter is "just some name that stuck." It's because he's smart that he knows he's on the losing side, and engineers a switch. Which I think started way before he found out about Bridget von Hammersmark. He knew that Emmanuelle is Shosanna ("For the mademoiselle... A glass of milk.") and deliberately let her go, to see what she would do to the Nazi high command given the opportunity.

Landa asks for the Medal of Honor. I think that's his primary motivation, to be celebrated, and not--as White said--a longing desire for Nantucket.

[Ezee E]

One thing I love is the subtle change in Landa's character in the unseen 4 years between chapters 1 and 3. in Chapter 1, Landa loves his Jew Hunter moniker, and he's Hitler's top manhunter.

Somehow, he later ends up as just more or less a security guard. He tells Aldo that Jew Hunter is "just some name that stuck." It's because he's smart that he knows he's on the losing side, and engineers a switch. Which I think started way before he found out about Bridget von Hammersmark. He knew that Emmanuelle is Shosanna ("For the mademoiselle... A glass of milk.") and deliberately let her go, to see what she would do to the Nazi high command given the opportunity.

Landa asks for the Medal of Honor. I think that's his primary motivation, to be celebrated, and not--as White said--a longing desire for Nantucket.
But I'd still think he'd be smarter than dealing with the rowdy Basterds as his way out. I loved that he knew who Emmanuelle was right from the getgo. My audience gasped at that line like none other.
Going to see this again during the week.

Watching Jackie Brown right now. It's completely different in its structure.

[trotchky]

saw it again this afternoon; brought certain motifs into clarity; still a masterpiece. planning to see it a third time with my father, either this weekend or next.

ranking time:

1. pulp fiction
2. inglourious basterds
3. jackie brown
4. reservoir dogs
5. kill bill
6. death proof

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh, and the

image of Shosanna laughing as the fire burns beneath her

is one of the best images I've seen in a film in years. Absolute genius.

[Boner M]

Oh, and the

image of Shosanna laughing as the fire burns beneath her

is one of the best images I've seen in a film in years. Absolute genius.
I was sure that spoiler was gonna mention the projected images still flickering in the smoke. I think that might be the single best image Tarantino's conjured; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he wrote the entire climax for it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I was sure that spoiler was gonna mention the projected images still flickering in the smoke. I think that might be the single best image Tarantino's conjured; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he wrote the entire climax for it.

I kinda consider those part of the same image.

[Chac Mool]

Certainly the finest American film I've seen this year, and among Tarantino's 2-3 best, which is certainly saying a lot.

What's most remarkable is that although Tarantino remains one of the slyest and most idiosyncratic "major" directors, he is increasingly wearing his heart on his sleeve. Inglorious Basterds may be among his most emotionally charged films, and not just in terms of characters like Shosanna -- it seems to me like the entire film is a cathartic release, an attempt to rewrite history and exorcise demons.

[Bosco B Thug]

I was sure that spoiler was gonna mention the projected images still flickering in the smoke. I think that might be the single best image Tarantino's conjured; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he wrote the entire climax for it. That was stunning.

Another thing I loved: I love how Pitt's "I want my scalps" and "weinerschnitzel finger" lines aren't annoying one-liners in the actual film. Breathed a sigh of relief. A lot of the trailer's beats are effectively diffused in the actual film - as is usual, but here even more thankfully since the finished product is so good.

[origami_mustache]

Pretty mediocre. I don't foresee Tarantino having much left in his tank.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Armond White a lot on this one.

[Ezee E]

That was stunning.

Another thing I loved: I love how Pitt's "I want my scalps" and "weinerschnitzel finger" lines aren't annoying one-liners in the actual film. Breathed a sigh of relief. A lot of the trailer's beats are effectively diffused in the actual film - as is usual, but here even more thankfully since the finished product is so good.
Very much so. Even Hitler's "Nein nein nein," is pretty downplayed.

Curious how the Freaks & Geeks died in the deleted scenes

[ledfloyd]

i don't think i loved it as much as you guys. but i liked it alot. more later.

[Ezee E]

And can I say how hilarious Pitt was once he had the Italian thing going. Even when Landa and Hammersmark are talking, he was cracking me up with that face in the background. He has incredible comedic presence.

I also haven't heard that many gasps in the theater in a long, long time. If ever.

[number8]

"A-rear Vadare-chee."

[ledfloyd]

And can I say how hilarious Pitt was once he had the Italian thing going. Even when Landa and Hammersmark are talking, he was cracking me up with that face in the background. He has incredible comedic presence.

I also haven't heard that many gasps in the theater in a long, long time. If ever.
pitt and eli roth looking at each other while landa was cracking up made me fucking lose it.

crazy as it may sound, i actually liked eli roth in this...

[Pop Trash]

Strange how this movie is bringing out a Spielberg vs. Tarantino debate with critics. Scott Foundas' positive IB review in Film Comment took a swipe at Schindler's List and now Armond's negative review is exalting Spielberg.

Strange that I wrote that before seeing the movie. Now that I have seen it, it doesn't seem that far off from some sort of Nazi era fantasia ala Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just more talky, violent, and audacious. Instead of some fictional Nazi flunky like in Raiders, here we get to melt the real Hitler and Goebbles.

I did like it a lot, but I don't think it will change the minds of Tarantino detractors. Tarantino will always be Tarantino and those who thought perhaps he was growing up and going in a more mature direction with Jackie Brown, obviously were mistaken with the movie geek fantasias of Kill Bill, Death Proof, and now Inglourious Basterds.

[Pop Trash]

crazy as it may sound, i actually liked eli roth in this...

I didn't like him at first, but he does have that crazy glint in his eye that is perfect for this character. The look he gives while
shooting a ton of lead into Hitleris quite striking.

And yeah Pitt was mostly awesome in this. Again, I think his performance cut into the initial trailer didn't do him justice. He's one of those guys whose good looks will always undercut the fact that he's a pretty dang good comedic actor.

[Sycophant]

Oh, man. This was a goddamned Movie. Tarantino really, really knows how to build a scene. The bar scene is just incredible.

I'm going to need to take some time to reflect on this, and then probably watch it again in the near future to figure out exactly what to do with it.

There was a lot of talk among the friends I saw it with about the picture being somewhat troubling in its celebration of violence. Indeed, it was somewhat disconcerting, to see people in my theater--even at the end--cheering wildly any time some German got his shit fucked up. But then, one of these people was wearing a shirt that said "Tell your girlfriend thank you."

[Sycophant]

I also prefer the trailers that play before comedies to the endless shrieking and thumping and breathing and beating of the trailers that play before movies like this. Goddamn.

[ledfloyd]

i suppose my main problem with the film is i wish the style was more consistent. the title cards and such. to use an example, if i remember the script correctly there was much more narration. as it stands in the film, both instances of it seemed a bit out of the blue. another thing i would've liked to see kept from the script is the madame mimieux stuff. i felt it lent shosanna's character a bit more depth.

that's all beside the point though. it's about the movie as it exists. the opening is wonderful. christoph waltz deserves a supporting actor nomination if not the fucking oscar itself. i liked pitt quite a bit. i think cousin ernie might be having a bad effect on QT. there were some bits of gratuitous gore here and there that seemed exploitative. in a bad way, it didn't work for me like it did in kill bill.

the much lauded bar scene might be my biggest hang up with the film. it seems unnecessarily long. the pacing is off. and it brings the film to a halt. the dialogue is good, and i imagine that's why quentin couldn't let it go. but it seems like there should be a much more economical way to get from act 3 to 5. or maybe i just want the film to be something it's not. a film about shosanna.

the final chapter is pitch perfect. from the opening with shosanna and the bowie song, through the italian stuff, right up to the beautiful image boner pointed out. startlingly good filmmaking. reminds me of the house of blue leaves chapter closing out kill bill vol. 1. the kind of thing that has you walking out of the theater high on cinema.

i really need to watch it again to get a better read on it. i wasn't blown away but i liked it alot.

[Pop Trash]

I found the whole Frederick/Shosanna thing to be very interesting. Obviously he likes her cuz she works in a movie theater and is a fellow cinephile. She doesn't like him back, no matter how charming and handsome and movie-loving he is, cuz he's a FUCKIN' NAZI! Then the whole thing in the projection room: she continues to ward off his advances, he nearly rapes her, she kills him, sees his face on the silver screen, possibly falls back in love with him, then she sees him move and goes to embrace him...but then he blows her the hell away as well. It's all quite meta and emotional.

[Thirdmango]

I loved this movie.

The biggest part of the movie I loved was how the movie The Nazis were watching was just as sensational as the movie we were watching. Basically showing us that we allow ourselves to glorify violence as long as the person who is being violenced we believe to be evil or deserving of it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

One of my favorite elements of the film is the casual racism of the Nazis, and how Quentin Tarantino plays against that by

allowing Shosanna a relationship with a back man, and never really indicating toward it. All he does is present it as it is, and it becomes a lovely counterpoint, shown instead of told.

Yeah, this is top-tier Tarantino and top-tier cinema.

[ledfloyd]

I found the whole Frederick/Shosanna thing to be very interesting. Obviously he likes her cuz she works in a movie theater and is a fellow cinephile. She doesn't like him back, no matter how charming and handsome and movie-loving he is, cuz he's a FUCKIN' NAZI! Then the whole thing in the projection room: she continues to ward off his advances, he nearly rapes her, she kills him, sees his face on the silver screen, possibly falls back in love with him, then she sees him move and goes to embrace him...but then he blows her the hell away as well. It's all quite meta and emotional.
amazing. i'm leafing through the script again. there is a bit cut out during their first conversation about his family having owned a movie theater in germany. adds a bit of depth that is lost by cutting it out. but i suppose they wanted to keep things moving.

another thing cut from the script that bugged me a bit, though i didn't realize it had been cut at the time. there is a bit about training bj novak's character to be a chauffeur. i remember when he ended up having been caught having no idea where the hell that came from. apparently he was outside int eh car

[ledfloyd]

I loved this movie.

The biggest part of the movie I loved was how the movie The Nazis were watching was just as sensational as the movie we were watching. Basically showing us that we allow ourselves to glorify violence as long as the person who is being violenced we believe to be evil or deserving of it.
Hitler laughing at the violence in the propaganda film was an interesting counterpoint to all the teenagers laughing at the Basterds violence. did it completely go over their heads or did Tarantino fail to make his point clearly enough. this is something else that bugs me about the film.

[Thirdmango]

Hitler laughing at the violence in the propaganda film was an interesting counterpoint to all the teenagers laughing at the Basterds violence. did it completely go over their heads or did Tarantino fail to make his point clearly enough. this is something else that bugs me about the film.

This was a thought that went around after I had brought about my point among those I did, and I think he did it to a perfect amount. That yes there will truly be people who don't get it, and that is fine, cause if everyone got in then conjecture on it afterward would be meaningless. I think that it was supposed to be subtle so people could "figure it out" and thus it would have more impact then him giving it away and people just feeling like they've been told the point.

[ledfloyd]

This was a thought that went around after I had brought about my point among those I did, and I think he did it to a perfect amount. That yes there will truly be people who don't get it, and that is fine, cause if everyone got in then conjecture on it afterward would be meaningless. I think that it was supposed to be subtle so people could "figure it out" and thus it would have more impact then him giving it away and people just feeling like they've been told the point.
good point. i can go ahead and say almost nobody in my theater got it. it sounded like a comedy during the basterds stuff.

[number8]

There's something about the climax that I concluded onto in my first two viewings (this film being the American propaganda counterpoint to Nation's Pride, which is a thesis I based my entire review around) that was really brought to the surface when I saw it a third time with a crowd. Namely, the cheering. I found it immensely fascinating that mere minutes before my theater erupted into a joyous celebration of violence, was that shot of Marcel peeking into the theater to see the German audience clapping and cheering at Zoller carving a swastika on the floor. This isn't some bawdy revenge fantasy. This is calculated brilliance.

[Thirdmango]

good point. i can go ahead and say almost nobody in my theater got it. it sounded like a comedy during the basterds stuff.

I think also though that for most people this particular point may not be "gotten" until after the movie ends. So that you realize you were guilty of doing it yourself during the movie. That way those who claim a "holier then thou" attitude can actually see themselves in a mirror and realize to some extent they might be somewhat guilty of it too.

[Dead & Messed Up]

There's something about the climax that I concluded in my first two viewings (this film being the American propaganda counterpoint to Nation's Pride, which is a thesis I based my entire review around) that was really brought to the surface when I saw it a third time with a crowd. Namely, the cheering. I found it immensely fascinating that mere minutes before my theater erupted into a joyous celebration of violence, was that shot of Marcel peeking into the theater to see the German audience clapping and cheering at Zoller carving a swastika on the floor. This isn't some bawdy revenge fantasy. This is calculated brilliance.

Do you think the purpose is to indict the audience, judging them for enjoying things on the same level as the Nazis? Or do you think the purpose is to humanize them in a way, showing how basic human responses course through us all? There are probably other interpretations as well.

My original thought, coming out, was simply that Tarantino wanted us to recognize how goddamn powerful filmmaking is. How equalizing it can be.

[number8]

Do you think the purpose is to indict the audience, judging them for enjoying things on the same level as the Nazis? Or do you think the purpose is to humanize them in a way, showing how basic human responses course through us all? There are probably other interpretations as well.

My original thought, coming out, was simply that Tarantino wanted us to recognize how goddamn powerful filmmaking is. How equalizing it can be.

None of those. I don't think Tarantino's point was to indict or explain anybody's actions. I'm with you. This is obviously a film about films, and the point of it is how powerful it is, like you said. The war's outcome was being determined by making movies. More on this (http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/5738-inglourious-basterds.html).

[Bosco B Thug]

I found the whole Frederick/Shosanna thing to be very interesting. Obviously he likes her cuz she works in a movie theater and is a fellow cinephile. She doesn't like him back, no matter how charming and handsome and movie-loving he is, cuz he's a FUCKIN' NAZI! Then the whole thing in the projection room: she continues to ward off his advances, he nearly rapes her, she kills him, sees his face on the silver screen, possibly falls back in love with him, then she sees him move and goes to embrace him...but then he blows her the hell away as well. It's all quite meta and emotional. The Shosanna/Fredrick relationship was one of my favorite things in the film. Haven't developed much ideas on it, but it certainly illustrates

cinephilia losing the war against the enemy... in this case, the wartime roles both have bought into. That last scene with them is awesome, although Shosanna's death felt a little too operatic.


One of my favorite elements of the film is the casual racism of the Nazis, and how Quentin Tarantino plays against that by

allowing Shosanna a relationship with a back man, and never really indicating toward it. All he does is present it as it is, and it becomes a lovely counterpoint, shown instead of told.

Yeah, this is top-tier Tarantino and top-tier cinema. Another favorite thing! Marcel was awesome.


Hitler laughing at the violence in the propaganda film was an interesting counterpoint to all the teenagers laughing at the Basterds violence. did it completely go over their heads or did Tarantino fail to make his point clearly enough. this is something else that bugs me about the film. Perhaps... I was glad of the very little Basterds Nazi-killing action we got, but yeah, perhaps some monotonous Nazi-killing would've helped drive the point you mention a bit more.

Although I don't know if we can assume Tarantino's actually wanted to make that point in the film. The fake film alone was a strong enough indictment of barbaric cinema, without needing to indict his own film.

[number8]

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but this is what QT had to say about the Shosanna/Zoller relationship:

He said that he considers it very romantic. That last scene was them consummating their courtship, his "bullets" finally "penetrating" her. They are Romeo & Juliet. At another time, they could be lovers, but here, they cannot escape the fact that they are a Nazi and a Jew.

[Dead & Messed Up]

More on this (http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/5738-inglourious-basterds.html)...

For starters, it ended up not being a film about WWII, but about film culture instead.

This comment is so right on. Great review - I got the same impression from that final line, too. And it's not an outrageous claim.

[Bosco B Thug]

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but this is what QT had to say about the Shosanna/Zoller relationship:

He said that he considers it very romantic. That last scene was them consummating their courtship, his "bullets" finally "penetrating" her. They are Romeo & Juliet. At another time, they could be lovers, but here, they cannot escape the fact that they are a Nazi and a Jew. That's great.


I don't get cheering audiences. Sure there's things here to cheer about, but I don't think the film tries at all to elicit cheering.

Even Hitler death is sudden, dark, besodden.

I have similar thoughts regarding Death Proof.

[ledfloyd]

Perhaps... I was glad of the very little Basterds Nazi-killing action we got, but yeah, perhaps some monotonous Nazi-killing would've helped drive the point you mention a bit more.

Although I don't know if we can assume Tarantino's actually wanted to make that point in the film. The fake film alone was a strong enough indictment of barbaric cinema, without needing to indict his own film.
this is why i find it unsettling. if he's not indicting his own film than he is guilty of what he accuses hitler and goebbels of to some extent.

[trotchky]

One of my favorite elements of the film is the casual racism of the Nazis, and how Quentin Tarantino plays against that by

allowing Shosanna a relationship with a back man, and never really indicating toward it. All he does is present it as it is, and it becomes a lovely counterpoint, shown instead of told.

Yeah, this is top-tier Tarantino and top-tier cinema.

all he does is present it as it is...yes, well said, and i think that's true of most of the movie, including the violence. more than any of his other films, tarantino is challenging his audience to respond to what's on screen, and to then reflect on their responses. the majority of viewers and critics seem to have only taken the first step--from laughing and cheering at scenes of nazis being scalped and beaten to death to accusations of glorifying violence to accusations of holocaust denial, people seem to be taking their own reactions and projecting them as tarantino's motives.

how much of the movie is actually supposed to be funny? how much of it is supposed to be fun? i don't think there are simple answers to those questions, and hearing audience members giggling and groaning and going "oh, that's gross" comes off as a nervous reaction, a way of shirking responsibility for how we respond to these things by dismissing them quickly and handily. that isn't to say it's wrong to howl with laughter as eli roth beats a man to death with a bat, and i'll certainly take that over the kind of dogmatic horseshit armond white spews, but both reactions seem to prove a fundamental theme of inglorious basterds: the role (responsibility?) of the audience in relation to what is shown to them.

[ledfloyd]

Even Hitler death is sudden, dark, besodden.
the shot of eli roth machine gunning hitler's corpse is one of the few bits of violence that really rubbed me the wrong way. and one of the moments the audience i saw it with seemed to find most amusing.

[trotchky]

this is why i find it unsettling. if he's not indicting his own film than he is guilty of what he accuses hitler and goebbels of to some extent.

i think we've had enough movies about the tyranny of the director and the need for socially responsible media. what's so fascinating about inglorious basterds is that it also questions the culpability of the audience.

[Winston*]

That eli roth shot, that a reference to Come and See right? Undoing history and whatnot.

[ledfloyd]

That eli roth shot, that a reference to Come and See right? Undoing history and whatnot.
maybe i need to see come and see then.


i think we've had enough movies about the tyranny of the director and the need for socially responsible media. what's so fascinating about inglorious basterds is that it also questions the culpability of the audience.
i agree. but i feel like he's asking us to reject his film as immoral propaganda to some extent.

[Watashi]

Seen it twice. No one was cheering the violence in any of my screenings. It's a funny film, but the violence isn't one of them.

[trotchky]

i agree. but i feel like he's asking us to reject his film as immoral propaganda to some extent.

to some extent, yes. he wants us to acknowledge his film as inherently propagandist; in doing so he considers, and wants us to consider, cinema, particularly a cinema of recorded history, as shared experience, and with that shared experience comes shared responsibility. hitler laughing at the projected image of zoller gunning people down, the german audience cheering and applauding it, is just as important as the projected image itself. it stands to reason, then, that donnie and omar gunning down a german audience from the theater balcony is just as important as the reaction of the audience watching inglorious basterds to it.

"history is written by the victors" seems a persistent truism in inglorious basterds, made particularly evident by the fact that the victors, the people in power, change throughout the movie.

aldo raine's "masterpiece" is a final statement by the victor in the movie--satisfying his own blood-lust and branding landa as the enemy for life--and the one outside of it--tarantino's tight close-up of the swastika being carved into landa's forehead is a final stroke of satisfaction for a blood-thirsty director. but as pitt leers and smirks down into the camera, tarantino conflates the two, raine and himself, and therefore, for the first and only time, asks us straight out: do we accept this?

edit: perhaps "accept" is the wrong word to use. the question is more like, how do we feel about this? and an intelligent audience capable of critical thought would then wonder why they feel that way, and hence discussion, rather than definitive conclusions and dogmatic answers, is born.

[trotchky]

Seen it twice. No one was cheering the violence in any of my screenings. It's a funny film, but the violence isn't one of them.

i agree, the violence isn't funny, although i've seen it twice as well, and both times people laughed at the violence. it's a litmus test for the viewer, really.

[trotchky]

the more i think about the movie the more i am tempted to call it tarantino's best work. it's certainly his most important, from a social standpoint, if that means anything.

[ledfloyd]

Seen it twice. No one was cheering the violence in any of my screenings. It's a funny film, but the violence isn't one of them.
my audience laughed at several bits of violence. the closeup scalping, eli beating the guy to death with the bat, shooting hitler's corpse, they laughed when everyone died in the bar scene, especially when stiglitz was stabbing the german. the only bit i'm positive nobody laughed at was the opening scene and shosanna's death.

maybe i was more disturbed by my audience than the film itself.

[trotchky]

i had one woman laugh out loud when hitler says something about "jewish swine." in that case, though, i'm pretty positive it was nervous laughter.

[origami_mustache]

Give me a break guys. There is nothing really important about this film aside from perhaps the performance of Waltz. All it is is a big budget exploitation revenge film done QT style. This might as well been a Kill Bill sequel. Tarantino once again proves how amazing he is at writing gratuitous dialogue sequences, stealing music from his favorite movie scores, name dropping more important historical filmmakers than himself along with his knowledge of pre and post war German cinema, and satisfying his foot fetish.

Those drawn out scenes are anything but, suspenseful, seeing as by the time we are less than half way through them we already have predicted the outcome. The movie is called Inglourious Basterds, but we almost learn nothing about any of the Basterd's backgrounds, in fact they really don't even occupy too many scenes. Apparently room had to be made for Samuel L. Jackson to interject with his wise knowledge of the combustibility of nitrate film among other things.

Laughing at the violence in Trash cinema is perfectly acceptable and likely welcomed so I don't find that disturbing. I suppose the disturbing part is that a Trash film surrounding the Holocaust was even made to begin with.

[Ezee E]

Many pits of violence are certainly intentional. The scalpings are edited, and interject with the dialog for comedic intentions. To say otherwise would simply be lying or simply trying to think you're smarter than the rest of the audience. But that's something that also makes the movie brilliant.

Therefore: Tarantino is smarter than Haneke. :)

Now, that's not to say that all the violence is intentionally comedic. The bar scene, Shoshanna, the beginning, plenty of parts are taken seriously, and those are also just as effective. I have a feeling there's a great essay that will come out of the violence in this movie because I can't really think of a movie that's used violence in so many different ways, whether it's to elicit suspense, comedy, drama, or even horror.

[ledfloyd]

Give me a break guys. There is nothing really important about this film aside from perhaps the performance of Waltz. All it is is a big budget exploitation revenge film done QT style. This might as well been a Kill Bill sequel. Tarantino once again proves how amazing he is at writing gratuitous dialogue sequences, stealing music from his favorite movie scores, name dropping more important historical filmmakers than himself along with his knowledge of pre and post war German cinema, and satisfying his foot fetish.
this is harsh. setting aside whether or not the film works, you have to admit it's more than an exploitation revenge film.

i'm holding off finalizing my opinion until i see it again. i reread the script last night, and this might be a rare instance where i think the script is better than the finished film. i'm interested to see the maggie cheung deleted scenes.

if i'm rating things right now the script is a 9 and the film is a 7 or 8.

[Sycophant]

ledfloyd, you're making the perfect case for why one should never read the script before seeing the movie.

[Bosco B Thug]

this is why i find it unsettling. if he's not indicting his own film than he is guilty of what he accuses hitler and goebbels of to some extent.
I have a feeling there's a great essay that will come out of the violence in this movie because I can't really think of a movie that's used violence in so many different ways, whether it's to elicit suspense, comedy, drama, or even horror. I actually think E's description above fits Death Proof much more than this film. This is because, to reply to ledfloyd's complaint, I don't really think the film has much to be guilty or culpable for.

The Basterds' long history of barbarity is peripheral at most, and the violence never really shown for gratuitous effect, with the exception of the two pivotal moments involving the two most hated people in the film (probably).

[ledfloyd]

ledfloyd, you're making the perfect case for why one should never read the script before seeing the movie.
i know :/


The Basterds' long history of barbarity is peripheral at most, and the violence never really shown for gratuitous effect, with the exception of the two pivotal moments involving the two most hated people in the film (probably).
there is also

the close up scalping and stiglitz stabbing the nazi guy in the head, just off the top of my... head

[eternity]

That's great.


I don't get cheering audiences. Sure there's things here to cheer about, but I don't think the film tries at all to elicit cheering.

Even Hitler death is sudden, dark, besodden.

I have similar thoughts regarding Death Proof.There's a part in the baseball bat scene where there is like a 5 second pause to let the audience savor the applausyness of it.

[number8]

There's a part in the baseball bat scene where there is like a 5 second pause to let the audience savor the applausyness of it.

Which is completely intentional, since Eli Roth was playing to them. "TEDDY FUCKING WILLIAMS KNOCKS IT OUT OF THE FUCKING PARK!"

[eternity]

Which is completely intentional, since Eli Roth was playing to them. "TEDDY FUCKING WILLIAMS KNOCKS IT OUT OF THE FUCKING PARK!"
It was something Brad Pitt said during his "sauerkraut sandwich" exchange. But yes, Eli knocked that scene out of the park, pun so intended.

[balmakboor]

Give me a break guys. There is nothing really important about this film aside from perhaps the performance of Waltz. All it is is a big budget exploitation revenge film done QT style. This might as well been a Kill Bill sequel. Tarantino once again proves how amazing he is at writing gratuitous dialogue sequences, stealing music from his favorite movie scores, name dropping more important historical filmmakers than himself along with his knowledge of pre and post war German cinema, and satisfying his foot fetish.

Those drawn out scenes are anything but, suspenseful, seeing as by the time we are less than half way through them we already have predicted the outcome. The movie is called Inglourious Basterds, but we almost learn nothing about any of the Basterd's backgrounds, in fact they really don't even occupy too many scenes. Apparently room had to be made for Samuel L. Jackson to interject with his wise knowledge of the combustibility of nitrate film among other things.

Laughing at the violence in Trash cinema is perfectly exceptable and likely welcomed so I don't find that disturbing. I suppose the disturbing part is that a Trash film surrounding the Holocaust was even made to begin with.

I pretty much agree with you after one viewing. I was actually bored by much of it. I've never felt the length of his extended dialog scenes nearly as acutely as I did here.

I also found myself asking "Has he gone nuts? Dialog riffs on Quarter Pounders and foot messages is one thing, but what made him think people will enjoy dialog about G.W. Pabst and France's respect for movie directors?"

I did have some fun with it though. Whenever Waltz was on screen, I was engaged. The whole first chapter was amazing. And I really perked up when the David Bowie song kicked in. I thought "Finally, some energy and excitement."

I didn't think it was particularly well executed, but it was interesting how Tarantino wove a connection between King Kong and Africans abducted into slavery. Or at least I'm pretty sure that's what he had in mind with the combination of the saloon game and the black projectionist attacking the audience. Do I dare read White's review to see if he mentioned this? It seems like his kind of thing.

I'll watch this again at some point. I know that Kill Bill Vol. 1 similarly underwhelmed me at first, but it is now (combined with Vol. 2) one of my favorite movies.

[Spaceman Spiff]

This was a seriously awesome movie.

As a Jew, I got a tremendous kick out of all the Nazi ownage, I shall admit. But I didn't expect this to be as layered, interesting and well-crafted as it ended up being. Loved it, loved it, loved it.

Loved it.

[balmakboor]

The baseball bat scene almost made me sick. Not the scene itself -- hell, I sat through Irreversible and kept my food on the inside -- but the men sitting behind me who laughed out loud at a guy getting his skull busted. Plus nothing about the scene seemed to be intending humor. Was it?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Also, Melanie Laurent (or at least Shosanna Dreyfus) is essentially my dream girl.

You all need to know this.

[number8]

The baseball bat scene almost made me sick. Not the scene itself -- hell, I sat through Irreversible and kept my food on the inside -- but the men sitting behind me who laughed out loud at a guy getting his skull busted. Plus nothing about the scene seemed to be intending humor. Was it?

Eli Roth's get-up was very comical. I laughed out loud when he came out of the tunnel.

[Sycophant]

Was that Harvey Keitel on the radio at the end?

I'm thinking it's time I rewatched Reservoir Dogs.

[number8]

Yes.

[Milky Joe]

Also, Melanie Laurent (or at least Shosanna Dreyfus) is essentially my dream girl.

You all need to know this.

Right there with you. Holy bejesus.

[balmakboor]

Eli Roth's get-up was very comical. I laughed out loud when he came out of the tunnel.

???

Was he some sort of baseball player in-joke?

Maybe I just couldn't get beyond how terrible Roth's acting is. About the only director as actor worse than Tarantino.

[Wryan]

I was prepared to enjoy it, and instead I loved every full second of it. Has Tarantino been this patient before? I couldn't believe how long the tentpole scenes were allowed to run. How reflexive and thoughtful they were allowed to be. And forget an award for Waltz. Give him a medal. His gargantuan knowing laugh at "mountain climbing" had me pissing myself. I loved how ballsy QT was in just having Hammersmark look around that pocket for what felt like ages just to find a goddamn shoe that surely shouldn't have been difficult to find. I loved the theatre act; not a single second of it is wrong. I loved the use of language in the film, mature and well-honored and very sly. I loved Waltz's ability to eat strudel. What a savvy, savvy film all around.

Couple things though:

What was Landa's reason to kill Hammersmark? Seemed a little out of place if he was going to "help" them out anyway. Also, sorry, but there's no way he would have known that Shoshana was Shoshana. Four years, didn't see her from the front, I don't care how good he is at getting information, that's just silly. Not that big of a deal, though.

Bravo to this movie and to Waltz, who came essentially out of nowhere for most of us. Staggering heft in this performance. Pitt was good, but who cares.

I'm gonna see this a lot more times before it leaves the theatres.

EDIT: And Landa asking our Italian trio to repeatedly repeat their names so he could hear their accents is priceless.

[Milky Joe]

I loved Waltz's ability to eat strudel.

Laughed out loud when I read this. So true. He truly does deserve the Medal of Honor. I like your word: gargantuan performance.

[Bosco B Thug]

there is also

the close up scalping and stiglitz stabbing the nazi guy in the head, just off the top of my... head Most of the "cool" Nazi-killing was in the two or three hyper-flashbacks (e.g. Stiglitz's).

I still don't think the film's very much about cinematic exploitation. NATION'S PRIDE is an excellent abstraction of propaganda, but I didn't think the film very meta. Most of it's running time is devoted to very traditional storytelling.


There's a part in the baseball bat scene where there is like a 5 second pause to let the audience savor the applausyness of it. I don't think anything about it is necessarily applause-y. It's timed to a cut-away to a distance, and as it is in the narrative, there's really nothing that makes it any more than a meaningless act.


I loved how ballsy QT was in just having Hammersmark look around that pocket for what felt like ages just to find a goddamn shoe that surely shouldn't have been difficult to find. Ha! This didn't occur to me, but that's pretty funny thinking about it now.

[number8]

By the way, did anyone else realize that Tarantino killed Emil Jannings? That really didn't hit me until my second viewing.

[Derek]

By the way, did anyone else realize that Tarantino killed Emil Jannings? That really didn't hit me until my second viewing.

At least his best work was behind him by then. Didn't notice that, so maybe Tarantino's not much of a fan.

One other random observation that I find interesting about Tarantino is his tendency to severely emasculate his villains in the last three films. Bill would be the least extreme, but after so carefully setting his near-epic evilness in Vol. 1, seeing him make a sandwich for his kid and get taken out in the final battle in less than 2 minutes was a pretty steep drop. It's much more pronounced in the character arcs of Stuntman Mike and Landa.

[number8]

At least his best work was behind him by then. Didn't notice that, so maybe Tarantino's not much of a fan.

Well, after the war ended, Jannings was unable to get any work because of his association with the Nazis and retired to a farm in Austria, so in film terms, he did essentially die in the war.

[baby doll]

Quite good, if not nearly as good as Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, which didn't make me feel like a goon afterwards for liking them. I have a blog post up if anyone's interested.

[eternity]

When my populist-things-go-boom-yay! older brother says that "Landa guy needs to win an Oscar." and I agree with him...well, Christoph Waltz needs to win an Oscar.

[baby doll]

I also found myself asking "Has he gone nuts? Dialog riffs on Quarter Pounders and foot messages is one thing, but what made him think people will enjoy dialog about G.W. Pabst and France's respect for movie directors?"Whaa? I dunno about you, but I find G.W. Pabst to be a much more interesting topic for conversation than fast food (disgusting) and Tarantino's foot fetish (terminally boring). Then again, I'm a cinephile. Seriously, dude, what are you talking about?

[baby doll]

When my populist-things-go-boom-yay! older brother says that "Landa guy needs to win an Oscar." and I agree with him...well, Christoph Waltz needs to win an Oscar.He already won a prize at Cannes. And from a jury with Asia Argento, James Gray, and Isabelle Huppert on it. That's much cooler than winning an Oscar.

[balmakboor]

Whaa? I dunno about you, but I find G.W. Pabst to be a much more interesting topic for conversation than fast food (disgusting) and Tarantino's foot fetish (terminally boring). Then again, I'm a cinephile. Seriously, dude, what are you talking about?

While I actually think the topics covered in the tangential dialog of prior films like Pulp Fiction and Death Proof are more interesting than Pabst and "mountain" films, I at least knew what the references were, uh, referring to. I seriously doubt that anyone else in my matinee crowd had any idea who Pabst or Jannings or Riefenstahl even are. That's what I'm talking about.

Pulp Fiction could be understood by everyone. With this movie, Tarantino seems to only care about cinephiles.

[trotchky]

Quite good, if not nearly as good as Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, which didn't make me feel like a goon afterwards for liking them. I have a blog post up if anyone's interested.

i think inglorious basterds is his smartest movie, thematically, by a pretty huge margin. for that reason it's also his masterpiece; the film where his obsession with film coalesces into a cogent, profound human statement.

[balmakboor]

i think inglorious basterds is his smartest movie, thematically, by a pretty huge margin. for that reason it's also his masterpiece; the film where his obsession with film coalesces into a cogent, profound human statement.

Maybe time will tell as someone finds the words to convince me of this. Right now the only human statement I see is that the Jews can get their "revenge" by being as repulsive as the Nazis.

Of course it is his masterpiece though. He told us so in the final line of dialog.

[Boner M]

The movie is called Inglourious Basterds, but we almost learn nothing about any of the Basterd's backgrounds, in fact they really don't even occupy too many scenes.
Dude, c'mon.

[trotchky]

Of course it is his masterpiece though. He told us so in the final line of dialog.

yeah, that's exactly what the final line of dialogue was about.

seriously though, i don't know how you can't see any irony in that. as a fan of Makavejev i'd think you of all people would "get" winking, meta-textual commentary on propaganda.

[trotchky]

Dude, c'mon.

i too would have liked to know more about each of the basterds, though i attribute that to good storytelling.

[Pop Trash]

Some of the criticisms of this so far are pretty inept. I mean: movie audiences won't get references to Riefenstahl or mountain movies? Not enough background or scenes re: the Basterds? I mean did you fail to notice that it's all a bait and switch? The movie is promoted as a Brad Pitt violent action movie, in yet they are only in about a third of the scenes.

[Pop Trash]

This approach can backfire, as in Le Boulevard de mort

:|

[number8]

Once, I ran into this French dude who kept insisting that French words sound so much better than English and that it's a more sophisticated language, yadda yadda.

So I asked him, "You speak any German?"

Frenchie said, "German? No."

"We're why," I said, while sparking a cigarette and blowing smoke in his face.


Okay, that never happened, but I'm still waiting.

[trotchky]

Once, I ran into this French dude who kept insisting that French words sound so much better than English and that it's a more sophisticated language, yadda yadda.

So I asked him, "You speak any German?"

Frenchie said, "German? No."

"We're why," I said, while sparking a cigarette and blowing smoke in his face.


Okay, that never happened, but I'm still waiting.

brilliant.

[baby doll]

:|Come on, Death Proof is such a stupid title. Besides, it helps to differentiate the longer cut (which is the version I saw) from the Grindhouse cut.

[Watashi]

Come on, Death Proof is such a stupid title. Besides, it helps to differentiate the longer cut (which is the version I saw) from the Grindhouse cut.

:|

[baby doll]

Some of the criticisms of this so far are pretty inept. I mean: movie audiences won't get references to Riefenstahl or mountain movies? Not enough background or scenes re: the Basterds? I mean did you fail to notice that it's all a bait and switch? The movie is promoted as an Brad Pitt violent action movie, in yet they are only in about a third of the scenes.I'm with you on the first two counts, although I'm not sure how that's dependent on the misleading advertising. How much background do we need to understand that they hate Nazis? And Riefenstahl and Pabst are probably the least obscure movie references in the film. (How 'bout giving Brad Pitt a scar across his neck in homage to Kim Ki-duk's dumbest movie? And then never having anyone mention it in the dialogue? Incidentally, if you think Riefenstahl mountain movies are too obscure to be referenced ever, I strongly advise you don't see Guy Maddin's Careful.) Besides which, you don't need to know anything about Riefenstahl or Pabst because the film explains who they are.

[Boner M]

Tarantino is smarter than all of us

[baby doll]

i think inglorious basterds is his smartest movie, thematically, by a pretty huge margin. for that reason it's also his masterpiece; the film where his obsession with film coalesces into a cogent, profound human statement.Meta doesn't equal smart. (When did interpretations merge with evaluations?) Furthermore, I'd like to see Match-Cut retire the word "meta" altogether for at least six months. Incidentally, the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta) explaining meta is pretty interesting, although I'm afraid that when trotchky learns (unless he has already) that "meta" in Greek is the equivalent of "post" in Latin that the meta-postmodern bullshit will really hit the fan (unless it has already). I kid, I kid.

Additionally, with all due respect my old friend trotchky, how in the hell is Inglourious Basterds a "human statement"? Did you not hear the part where Brad Pitt says, "A Nat-zee ain't got no humanity," or see the part where the one character who's weak enough to feel sorry for a German soldier winds up getting killed because of it? Basically, the movie argues that if Nazis are going to act like goons, it's okay for Jews to act like goons, too. And a good Nazi-hating Jew can out-goon an evil Jew-hating Nazi any day of the week.

I remember when I was in junior high this Holocaust survivor gave a talk at our school. And all the kids asked him questions like, "If you saw Hitler, would you want to kill him?" And the guy had to explain over and over again that he doesn't hate people.

[baby doll]

Tarantino is smarter than all of usTalent doesn't equal smart.

[ledfloyd]

i agree almost word for word with soori's review.

[baby doll]

i agree almost word for word with soori's review.*shakes head, blinks*

What the hell just happened? Am I losing my edge?

[ledfloyd]

*shakes head, blinks*

What the hell just happened? Am I losing my edge?
the last paragraph in particular sums up my ambivalence about the film.

[Bosco B Thug]

i think inglorious basterds is his smartest movie, thematically, by a pretty huge margin. for that reason it's also his masterpiece; the film where his obsession with film coalesces into a cogent, profound human statement. The top honor I'd still give to Death Proof, but Inglourious Basterds does definitely do do this.

Again, I don't think the film's as meta and aiming to self-indict as everyone else, but I see the effectiveness of such an interpretation.


Additionally, with all due respect my old friend trotchky, how in the hell is Inglourious Basterds a "human statement"? Did you not hear the part where Brad Pitt says, "A Nat-zee ain't got no humanity," or see the part where the one character who's weak enough to feel sorry for a German soldier winds up getting killed because of it? Basically, the movie argues that if Nazis are going to act like goons, it's okay for Jews to act like goons, too. And a good Nazi-hating Jew can out-goon an evil Jew-hating Nazi any day of the week. Pitt's character's position doesn't characterize the film's.

I think you're denying the Zoller character much of the humanity he's allowed, and his act of brutishness struck a great chord of humanity for me.

Shosanna's death didn't strike me at all as a pithy moment of comeuppance for letting down her guard - both their deaths are probably the film's most poignant statement on the self-destructive effects of war (I have to be frank, baby_doll, you have a real tendency for diminishing films' themes into lame sententiousness).

[Derek]

Meta doesn't equal smart. (When did interpretations merge with evaluations?)

No one said that. This is you putting words into other people's mouths yet again and oversimplifying their interpretation.


Basically, the movie argues that if Nazis are going to act like goons, it's okay for Jews to act like goons, too. And a good Nazi-hating Jew can out-goon an evil Jew-hating Nazi any day of the week.

Have you not read anything in this thread aside from people mentioning its meta-ness like, perhaps, the purpose of said meta-ness?

[Bosco B Thug]

Oh yeah: really, there's nothing tangential about Death Proof's dialogue. It's all character development. There's no non-sequiturs, no anecdotes, no nothing. I really don't see the criticism at all.

Inglourious Basterds is the same way, except it's all plot development and historical exposition instead of character development.

Re-watched Kill Bill. It's all fantasy, but it's really resonant, well-made fantasy.

[baby doll]

Pitt's character's position doesn't characterize the film's.

I think you're denying the Zoller character much of the humanity he's allowed, and his act of brutishness struck a great chord of humanity for me.

Shosanna's death didn't strike me at all as a pithy moment of comeuppance for letting down her guard - both their deaths are probably the film's most poignant statement on the self-destructive effects of war (I have to be frank, baby_doll, you have a real tendency for diminishing films' themes into lame sententiousness).
The position of any one character is not necessarily the position of the film, but in this case, I find there's little to challenge it. As far as I can tell, the movie's position is that it's okay for Jews to act like goons because "they started it." There are definitely nuances there (in the baseball bat scene, the guy doesn't want to do anything that would endanger German lives, although the fact that he specifies German lives might be read as a strike against him), but still my impression is that the movie thinks it's okay to kill people if they kill people first. Whatever happened to taking the high road and not acting like Nazis? It's not like they're doing these things as part of some larger strategy to win the war; it's just for the characters' own personal enjoyment and satisfaction (as well as our vicarious enjoyment of the ensuing spectacle).

[baby doll]

No one said that. This is you putting words into other people's mouths yet again and oversimplifying their interpretation.trotchky said it was his masterpiece because of its thematic richness, as opposed to the little things that I over-emphasize (character, story, style).


Have you not read anything in this thread aside from people mentioning its meta-ness like, perhaps, the purpose of said meta-ness?Dude, there's like twelve pages of this stuff. I have things to do.

[baby doll]

Oh yeah: really, there's nothing tangential about Death Proof's dialogue. It's all character development. There's no non-sequiturs, no anecdotes, no nothing. I really don't see the criticism at all.

Inglourious Basterds is the same way, except it's all plot development and historical exposition instead of character development.Yeah, it's all developing these characters who are complete idiots. All they talk about is going to a bar to get drunk, smoking pot, cars, car chase movies from thirty years ago, and French Vogue. Sure, Tarantino inserts a Film Comment into one shot, but it's not like any of these characters would care to read it. And from the sheer amount of time that Tarantino elects to spend eavesdropping on the boring, empty lives of these stupid, uninteresting people, it becomes evident that he thinks they're really cool. It's a very well made film in its thorough depiction of these brain-dead individuals, though I don't think I was supposed to be rooting for Kurt Russell to put them out of their misery. That said, what happens mid-way through the movie is just kinda gross.

EDIT: I realize this sounds harsh, and if I were to grade the film, I'd probably give it either two and a half stars, or even three stars, because there is a certain glum fascination in seeing a talented filmmaker go all the way with these characters. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen about really stupid people.

[Ezee E]

I equate baby doll to cancer at this point. His posts ruin nearly every thread. For the first time ever, I may use the ignore button.

[trotchky]

Meta doesn't equal smart. (When did interpretations merge with evaluations?) Furthermore, I'd like to see Match-Cut retire the word "meta" altogether for at least six months. Incidentally, the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta) explaining meta is pretty interesting, although I'm afraid that when trotchky learns (unless he has already) that "meta" in Greek is the equivalent of "post" in Latin that the meta-postmodern bullshit will really hit the fan (unless it has already). I kid, I kid.

i'm not entirely sure what the question in bold means, but i'm assuming you're defining "interpretation" as a movie's "meaning" and "evaluation" as its "form" or "craftsmanship" (correct me if i'm wrong). if that is the case, my answer is that the two should always be inseparable.

the rest of your post is dismissible.


Additionally, with all due respect my old friend trotchky, how in the hell is Inglourious Basterds a "human statement"? Did you not hear the part where Brad Pitt says, "A Nat-zee ain't got no humanity," or see the part where the one character who's weak enough to feel sorry for a German soldier winds up getting killed because of it? Basically, the movie argues that if Nazis are going to act like goons, it's okay for Jews to act like goons, too. And a good Nazi-hating Jew can out-goon an evil Jew-hating Nazi any day of the week.

I remember when I was in junior high this Holocaust survivor gave a talk at our school. And all the kids asked him questions like, "If you saw Hitler, would you want to kill him?" And the guy had to explain over and over again that he doesn't hate people.

it's cute that you take absolutely everything at face value and refuse to acknowledge any possible subtext, or metatextual (using the colloquial definition, alright) meaning in a film that so blatantly shoves it in the viewers face. really, it is. i find your views on film charmingly idiosyncratic. with all due respect, though, i'm afraid i find it impossible to debate you.

[trotchky]

Dude, there's like twelve pages of this stuff. I have things to do.

see, this is why i don't want to bother with you. i find you unbearably flippant and dismissive. i won't be responding to your posts any more. again, no disrespect.

[baby doll]

i'm not entirely sure what the question in bold means, but i'm assuming you're defining "interpretation" as a movie's "meaning" and "evaluation" as its "form" or "craftsmanship" (correct me if i'm wrong). if that is the case, my answer is that the two should always be inseparable.By evaluation, I simply mean how much you like the film. You said it was his masterpiece (which sounds like an evaluation to me) because of its themes. An interpretation is something outside of the story that you impose on to it. There's a good post (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=2315) on David Bordwell's blog, where he talks about the four functions of a film critic: evaluation, interpretation, description, and analysis.

[ledfloyd]

I think you're denying the Zoller character much of the humanity he's allowed, and his act of brutishness struck a great chord of humanity for me.

Shosanna's death didn't strike me at all as a pithy moment of comeuppance for letting down her guard - both their deaths are probably the film's most poignant statement on the self-destructive effects of war (I have to be frank, baby_doll, you have a real tendency for diminishing films' themes into lame sententiousness).


i agree with this.

[origami_mustache]

Dude, c'mon.

OK, you got me there.

[trotchky]

oh, i can't help it. one more:


I remember when I was in junior high this Holocaust survivor gave a talk at our school. And all the kids asked him questions like, "If you saw Hitler, would you want to kill him?" And the guy had to explain over and over again that he doesn't hate people.

it's a good thing this movie isn't about the holocaust survivor who gave a talk at your junior high school, then.



By evaluation, I simply mean how much you like the film. You said it was his masterpiece (which sounds like an evaluation to me) because of its themes. An interpretation is something outside of the story that you impose on to it. There's a good post (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=2315) on David Bordwell's blog, where he talks about the four functions of a film critic: evaluation, interpretation, description, and analysis.

i'm not interested in the "functions of a film critic" because i'm not interested in feigning objective analysis. i couldn't care less how david bordwell or anyone else thinks i should talk about movies, much less enjoy them. i approach film discussion the way i approach discussion of anything else: by trying to articulate my personal opinion. as such, if you want to debate with me, i suggest you react to the statements i actually put forth, rather than discrediting them for not fitting into the parameters of discourse defined by an established "expert." doing the latter is what we non-cinephiles call a "logical fallacy."

[origami_mustache]

Funny Games and Man Bites Dog accomplished the same sensation with the audience over a decade ago and everyone criticizes them, but Tarantino does it and he's a genius. I guess we just don't like being scolded by foreigners.

[Acapelli]

Oh, man. This was a goddamned Movie. Tarantino really, really knows how to build a scene. The bar scene is just incredible.

I'm going to need to take some time to reflect on this, and then probably watch it again in the near future to figure out exactly what to do with it.

There was a lot of talk among the friends I saw it with about the picture being somewhat troubling in its celebration of violence. Indeed, it was somewhat disconcerting, to see people in my theater--even at the end--cheering wildly any time some German got his shit fucked up. But then, one of these people was wearing a shirt that said "Tell your girlfriend thank you."
one thing i noticed at my screening was a group of hasidic jews really reveling in the violence (although probably no moreso than most in the audience) but it was a bit of a sight nonetheless. one of them even applauded when hitler was shot

and i don't see this film as a funny games-type film, where tarantino is criticizing audiences for applauding the gore in a film like this. especially when he introduced it at a premiere in this way


"So, are you ready to see some Basterds?" [Mild applause] "I said, are you ready to ready to see some Basterds fuck up some Nazis?" [Louder applause] "Yeah, motherfucker!" [Throws microphone on the floor]
as someone else in this thread said, i think it was a more cathartic experience for him (and the audience) than anything else

[baby doll]

i agree with this.I don't. I think that saying the film amounts to "a poignant statement on the self-destructive effects of war" requires a selective reading of the story. After all, Christoph Waltz cuts a deal with the Americans to save himself, rather than going down with the sinking ship. True, some of the basterds blow themselves up as suicide bombers, but only three out of eight or so volunteer, of which one gets caught and survives. Two others and the British fellow get shot by Germans in a shoot-out, and Diane Kruger gets strangled by Waltz, but that's only self-destructive if you extrapolate those scenes to mean that walking into any dangerous situation is automatically self-destructive. Furthermore, in the sequence in question, I'm just not seeing it as that. Maybe it's reductive and over-simplistic on my part, but I just can't see it in what happens on screen. For one thing, I don't remember seeing the guy holding a gun before he shot her, but I could be wrong. But even if he did, if she didn't feel sorry for him, she wouldn't have gotten shot--and I think that point is made much more forcefully than anything about the self-destructiveness of war.

Perhaps I'm simplifying your position, since maybe you don't mean to say the whole film requires to be read through that prism. And that what you're saying is that war is only self-destructive in certain circumstances, which from a thematic interpretation standpoint, makes the film sound muddled and inconclusive: war is self-destructive, except when it's not.

[Boner M]

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/melanie-laurent.jpg

[Watashi]

Indeed.

[Boner M]

I would like to apologise for my moribund contributions to this thread.

[baby doll]

i'm not interested in the "functions of a film critic" because i'm not interested in feigning objective analysis. i couldn't care less how david bordwell or anyone else thinks i should talk about movies, much less enjoy them. i approach film discussion the way i approach discussion of anything else: by trying to articulate my personal opinion. as such, if you want to debate with me, i suggest you react to the statements i actually put forth, rather than discrediting them for not fitting into the parameters of discourse defined by an established "expert." doing the latter is what we non-cinephiles call a "logical fallacy."He's not telling you anything, he's simply describing what we're all doing at any given moment around here. It has nothing to do with feigning objective analysis, since as he describes it (describing how the parts go together), all analysis is objective. It's evaluations that are subjective, although in attempting to justify our tastes, we all end up appealing to widely held criterias (as Bordwell eloquently points out). It's a good essay, well written, thoughtful, and engaging (in my opinion, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to shut yourself off to it (along with Satyajit Ray) simply to spite me.

[number8]

http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/picard-facepalm2.jpg

[origami_mustache]

I would like to apologise for my moribund contributions to this thread.

I prefer it to most of the other Tarantino ball massaging.

[baby doll]

one thing i noticed at my screening was a group of hasidic jews really reveling in the violence (although probably no moreso than most in the audience) but it was a bit of a sight nonetheless. one of them even applauded when hitler was shotI didn't even know Hasidic Jews went to the movies (yeah, I capitalize Hasidic Jews--got a problem with that?). I guess you learn something every day.

EDIT: One Hasidic acitvist told the News, "We don't watch television. We don't go to the movies." (http://gothamist.com/2008/03/15/hasid_jews_must.php)


and i don't see this film as a funny games-type film, where tarantino is criticizing audiences for applauding the gore in a film like this. especially when he introduced it at a premiere in this way


as someone else in this thread said, i think it was a more cathartic experience for him (and the audience) than anything elseYeah, the Funny Games rationalization strikes me as a stretch. And personally, I was really glad when they shot Hitler's face even after he was dead.

[origami_mustache]

and i don't see this film as a funny games-type film, where tarantino is criticizing audiences for applauding the gore in a film like this. especially when he introduced it at a premiere in this way

as someone else in this thread said, i think it was a more cathartic experience for him (and the audience) than anything else

I personally don't see it as such either, I just seemed to notice people are lauding him for that. As I said before, to me it basically a masturbatory Tarantino exploitation film that manipulates everyone's emotions by using the ultimate revenge fantasy as a premise.

[baby doll]

By the way, what did I say that was racist?

[trotchky]

Funny Games and Man Bites Dog accomplished the same sensation with the audience over a decade ago and everyone criticizes them, but Tarantino does it and he's a genius. I guess we just don't like being scolded by foreigners.

man bites dog is a smarmy piece of shit that proves its own impotence by how little it actually pushes the audience. as for funny games, it's a great movie, but the scope of its commentary is far removed from inglourious basterd's. tarantino's film is more of a meditation on the communal force of film, weighing both the positive and negatives, whereas haneke's is more didactic, more conclusive and definitive.

haneke's film also doesn't push as hard as tarantino's and is relatively weak in comparison. the sheer force of tarantino's images, combined with their context, does all it can to deny the possibility of audience uninvolvement. i don't think i've seen another movie so determinedly about audience participation.

[Winston*]

By the way, what did I say that was racist?
Are you referring to my previously existing post? Because I didn't call you racist.

[Acapelli]

I didn't even know Hasidic Jews went to the movies (yeah, I capitalize Hasidic Jews--got a problem with that?). I guess you learn something every day.

EDIT: One Hasidic acitvist told the News, "We don't watch television. We don't go to the movies." (http://gothamist.com/2008/03/15/hasid_jews_must.php)
this makes it all the stranger. unless there are other sects that wear the hat and the curls that i may not be aware of, as my knowledge of the jewish faith isn't that deep

[ledfloyd]

teddy fuckin williams knocks it out of the fuckin pahk! fenway pahk, on your feet for teddy fuckin ballgame! he went yahd on that one on to fuckin lansdowne street!

[baby doll]

this makes it all the stranger. unless there are other sects that wear the hat and the curls that i may not be aware of, as my knowledge of the jewish faith isn't that deepMaybe Orthodox and Hasidic Jews are different groups? I dunno. Any Jewish people around here?

[baby doll]

Are you referring to my previously existing post? Because I didn't call you racist.You said something about cancer not being racist, which I took as a slam against me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[baby doll]

Incidentally, while I'm alienating y'all by suggesting that you read something some else wrote (which is of course synonymous with not thinking for myself), here's a fun essay in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/212016/page/1) about the film.

[ledfloyd]

I don't. I think that saying the film amounts to "a poignant statement on the self-destructive effects of war" requires a selective reading of the story. After all, Christoph Waltz cuts a deal with the Americans to save himself, rather than going down with the sinking ship. True, some of the basterds blow themselves up as suicide bombers, but only three out of eight or so volunteer, of which one gets caught and survives. Two others and the British fellow get shot by Germans in a shoot-out, and Diane Kruger gets strangled by Waltz, but that's only self-destructive if you extrapolate those scenes to mean that walking into any dangerous situation is automatically self-destructive. Furthermore, in the sequence in question, I'm just not seeing it as that. Maybe it's reductive and over-simplistic on my part, but I just can't see it in what happens on screen. For one thing, I don't remember seeing the guy holding a gun before he shot her, but I could be wrong. But even if he did, if she didn't feel sorry for him, she wouldn't have gotten shot--and I think that point is made much more forcefully than anything about the self-destructiveness of war.

Perhaps I'm simplifying your position, since maybe you don't mean to say the whole film requires to be read through that prism. And that what you're saying is that war is only self-destructive in certain circumstances, which from a thematic interpretation standpoint, makes the film sound muddled and inconclusive: war is self-destructive, except when it's not.
perhaps 'self-destructive' is the wrong term. basically. the war killed their relationship. it's romeo and juliet.

[baby doll]

perhaps 'self-destructive' is the wrong term. basically. the war killed their relationship. it's romeo and juliet.Except they never had a relationship, because she's in a (strictly theoretical and entirely unpersuasive) relationship with that black dude. She only starts to like him after she shoots him in the torso a bunch of times.

[baby doll]

P.S., Was it anti-Semitic to assume that a Jewish person would know the difference between Orthodox and Hasidic Jews (if there is one)? I mean, I'm familiar with the difference between Agnostics and Atheists, but that's really a no brainer.

[Bosco B Thug]

The position of any one character is not necessarily the position of the film, but in this case, I find there's little to challenge it. As far as I can tell, the movie's position is that it's okay for Jews to act like goons because "they started it." There are definitely nuances there (in the baseball bat scene, the guy doesn't want to do anything that would endanger German lives, although the fact that he specifies German lives might be read as a strike against him), but still my impression is that the movie thinks it's okay to kill people if they kill people first. Whatever happened to taking the high road and not acting like Nazis? It's not like they're doing these things as part of some larger strategy to win the war; it's just for the characters' own personal enjoyment and satisfaction (as well as our vicarious enjoyment of the ensuing spectacle). I don't know, I suppose if that was your first impression, not much one can do about that. I disagree, cuz if that was my first impression, I'd give the film a much lower score.


Yeah, it's all developing these characters who are complete idiots. All they talk about is going to a bar to get drunk, smoking pot, cars, car chase movies from thirty years ago, and French Vogue. Sure, Tarantino inserts a Film Comment into one shot, but it's not like any of these characters would care to read it. And from the sheer amount of time that Tarantino elects to spend eavesdropping on the boring, empty lives of these stupid, uninteresting people, it becomes evident that he thinks they're really cool. It's a very well made film in its thorough depiction of these brain-dead individuals, though I don't think I was supposed to be rooting for Kurt Russell to put them out of their misery. That said, what happens mid-way through the movie is just kinda gross.

EDIT: I realize this sounds harsh, and if I were to grade the film, I'd probably give it either two and a half stars, or even three stars, because there is a certain glum fascination in seeing a talented filmmaker go all the way with these characters. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen about really stupid people. Feel free to think they are unlikeable, but yes, the dialogue is constantly developing the characters' role in the emotional study that is this film.

RE: the ongoing discussion on Inglourious Basterds... is Inglourious Basterds really that boorish that it's reputation as "torture porn revenge fantasy for the Jewish" sticks, despite the fact that 80% of the film is an elaborate, educated, surprising-in-detail recreation of the international playing field at wartime, whether that field is cinema & propoganda, language barriers & ethnic identity, far-reaching political hands (Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill!), or the battlefield and a terrorist unit undermining the facade.

I'm already precipitating someone pointing out the film is hardly that in-depth. I think the film is learned enough, and it's pushed over the bar because I personally find it an elegant and humane film.

[Bosco B Thug]

and i don't see this film as a funny games-type film, where tarantino is criticizing audiences for applauding the gore in a film like this. especially when he introduced it at a premiere in this way Goddamnit Tarantino.

[baby doll]

I don't know, I suppose if that was your first impression, not much one can do about that. I disagree, cuz if that was my first impression, I'd give the film a much lower score.Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Let's have a beer, and call it a night.


Feel free to think they are unlikeable, but yes, the dialogue is constantly developing the characters' role in the emotional study that is this film.I agree, the movie establishes the characters' world like bananas. It's probably the most detailed representation of these milieus we could ever hope (or in my case, wish) for on film.

[baby doll]

Goddamnit Tarantino.It's okay, dude. Trust the tale, not the teller, and all that.

[Bosco B Thug]

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Let's have a beer, and call it a night. Done the former, I'm definitely doing the latter.

But I've yet to explain what's so great about Death Proof. The time will come...


It's okay, dude. Trust the tale, not the teller, and all that. You should be disingenuous more, you're actually sort of pleasant when it happens. ;)


one thing i noticed at my screening was a group of hasidic jews really reveling in the violence (although probably no moreso than most in the audience) but it was a bit of a sight nonetheless. one of them even applauded when hitler was shot Actually, that time to talk about Death Proof is gonna recall back to this. My last eye-opening viewing of Death Proof was with two girls - both studying feminist theory - and who aren't cinephiles. Thus they had little sense of cinematic detachment, so they were filled with a solemn and deeply genuine vehemence of Stuntman Mike; and they had little knowledge of exploitation film, so when they cheered his comeuppance (to my discomfort), it was without a trace of "This is a badass movie!" irony - just plain catharsis and release of their fears and feelings of victimization.

It was fascinating.

[ledfloyd]

Except they never had a relationship, because she's in a (strictly theoretical and entirely unpersuasive) relationship with that black dude. She only starts to like him after she shoots him in the torso a bunch of times.
i dunno, i thinks she displayed hints of interest during the diner scene. she just kept being reminded he's a nazi and there is no future there, as she is a jew in hiding.

likewise, i think being despised by the third reich is the bond that held marcel and shosanna together.

[number8]

I don't see why the violence can't be both a cathartic satisfactory release and a juxtaposition of the propaganda theme. There is no conflict there at all. You can realize the irony in your own emotional release while simultaneously accepting it. That's what good movies do. They should engage on a base level first and then allow the theme to come forward if there is a recurring motif that supports it. Art should be an emotional game, not a fastidious proving ground. Movies that have that backwards are usually drecks, ie Funny Games.

[balmakboor]

Some of the criticisms of this so far are pretty inept. I mean: movie audiences won't get references to Riefenstahl or mountain movies? Not enough background or scenes re: the Basterds? I mean did you fail to notice that it's all a bait and switch? The movie is promoted as an Brad Pitt violent action movie, in yet they are only in about a third of the scenes.

I think your criticism of our criticisms is pretty inept. Explain how my comment that Tarantino's references are becoming too esoteric for mass audiences is inept. Explain how the marketing being a "bait and switch" removes the responsibility to tell a satifying story.

I actually loved three fifths of this movie -- aided I'm sure by the fact that I am a cinephile and "got" the references. The first, third, and final chapters are pretty marvelous. And after sleeping on it, I think that Landa/Waltz is the finest character/performance in Tarantino's work just edging past Robert Forster in Jackie Brown.

[balmakboor]

yeah, that's exactly what the final line of dialogue was about.

seriously though, i don't know how you can't see any irony in that. as a fan of Makavejev i'd think you of all people would "get" winking, meta-textual commentary on propaganda.

Oh, so much tossing around of the word "meta" in this thread as if being meta somehow elevates a movie.

I do feel your post here demands some explanation if only because you edited it to take a personal swipe at me and my fondness for Makavejev.

How is the final line of dialog a "winking, meta-textual commentary on propaganda?" I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that you can't just flip something like this out without explanation. As it sits, I have no idea what's going through your head. I don't even know your working definition of meta.

(Meta means that a piece of information contains information about itself. Meta-tags in HTML contain things like who authored the page. Meta in fiction is information within the fiction that reminds one of things like the identity of its author and that it is indeed a fiction. In this respect, yes, IB is full of meta-textual information.)

Besides, the final line of dialog is certainly intended to be taken on multiple levels, one of them being Tarantino's comment on his own movie which is about as meta as you can get. Another level would be that given the quality of his handiwork and the stature of the individual bearing the handiwork it is Aldo's finest and most meaningful achievement.

[lovejuice]

like it. is it QT's best? not sure. i have never been a big fan of the guy, but i really have a good time. probably my second favorite film of this year (which isn't saying anything at all.)

[baby doll]

i dunno, i thinks she displayed hints of interest during the diner scene. she just kept being reminded he's a nazi and there is no future there, as she is a jew in hiding.

likewise, i think being despised by the third reich is the bond that held marcel and shosanna together.On the first count, that seems like a fair point, but on the latter, it strikes me as somewhat of a stretch. That strikes me as something you are bringing to the film that isn't really there. There's nothing in the film that suggests their relationship is based on a mutual hatred of the Third Reich or Vichy, and if there was, it would only go towards what I said earlier about their relationship being strictly theoretical. But going back to the first point, for their relationship such as it is to qualify as a "Romeo and Juliet"-style tragedy, wouldn't we have like him in order to want them to be together? I mean, he kind of turns into a psycho in their last scene together.

[trotchky]

I do feel your post here demands some explanation if only because you edited it to take a personal swipe at me and my fondness for Makavejev.

that wasn't a personal swipe. i'm sorry if you took it that way. i love Makavejev too. as a mutual fan, it was a completely earnest comment; i meant no condescension whatsoever. i just find a lot of what inglorious basterds does to be similar to mysteries of the organism and sweet movie.

anyway, movie discussion is boring, so i don't feel i have much more to say on this matter or any.

[Pop Trash]

teddy fuckin williams knocks it out of the fuckin pahk! fenway pahk, on your feet for teddy fuckin ballgame! he went yahd on that one on to fuckin lansdowne street!

Worst line in the movie.

[NickGlass]

And can I say how hilarious Pitt was once he had the Italian thing going. Even when Landa and Hammersmark are talking, he was cracking me up with that face in the background. He has incredible comedic presence.


Nah, I thoroughly enjoyed the glee with which most of the film bounces along upon (seriously, those were quite some jubilant Nazis!), but the goofy display of incompetence that pervades this scene, in particular, undermines the dramatic irony and tension that Tarantino has rather meticulously crafted. Also, I don't consider the Basterds very inept. They have fun, but they take their work seriously. Then again, I find them the least compelling characters in the film by far, natch.


The movie is called Inglourious Basterds, but we almost learn nothing about any of the Basterd's backgrounds, in fact they really don't even occupy too many scenes.

In my view, this is a large positive. I'm sure you're aware there is absolutely no need to develop their backstories--and, of course, that also means much less Eli Roth. So, yeah, a very, very clever move. The fact that QT does give one nazi-killin' Basterd a montage, however, also shows that he has no real conviction to create a well-balanced film (which occasionally works in favor of--but a bit too many times against--the film's so-called brilliance). His lack of limitations and the artistic freedom he is given within the industry makes his films rather fascinating to watch, even if I do find his films a wee bit too surfacey.

[baby doll]

His lack of limitations and the artistic freedom he is given within the industry makes his films rather fascinating to watchSay what? You do know he doesn't have final cut of his movies? And as his Leone homages become more blatant (for starters, appropriating music by Ennio Morricone in both Kill Bill and this film), it's kind of a shame that his boss, Harvey Weinstein, won't let him make a four hour movie, like Once Upon a Time in America, without cutting it in half.

[NickGlass]

Say what? You do know he doesn't have final cut of his movies? And as his Leone homages become more blatant (for starters, appropriating music by Ennio Morricone in both Kill Bill and this film), it's kind of a shame that his boss, Harvey Weinstein, won't let him make a four hour movie, like Once Upon a Time in America, without cutting it in half.

Name a Hollywood-ish director, who casually eschews conventional storytelling structures, that has more freedom than Tarantino.

[ledfloyd]

On the first count, that seems like a fair point, but on the latter, it strikes me as somewhat of a stretch. That strikes me as something you are bringing to the film that isn't really there. There's nothing in the film that suggests their relationship is based on a mutual hatred of the Third Reich or Vichy, and if there was, it would only go towards what I said earlier about their relationship being strictly theoretical. But going back to the first point, for their relationship such as it is to qualify as a "Romeo and Juliet"-style tragedy, wouldn't we have like him in order to want them to be together? I mean, he kind of turns into a psycho in their last scene together.
yeah, that last scene is troublesome. and as far as the marcel/shosanna relationship. i just meant to imply that outsiders usually gravitate towards one another. and in nazi-occupied france they are both certainly outsiders.


Worst line in the movie.
i'm a red sox fan so i ate it up, but yeah, you have a point.


he has no real conviction to create a well-balanced film (which occasionally works in favor of--but a bit too many times against--the film's so-called brilliance).
i agree wholeheartedly with this.

[baby doll]

Name a Hollywood-ish director, who casually eschews conventional storytelling structures, that has more freedom than Tarantino.Inglourious Basterds had a pretty traditional structure, with two through-lines (the individual plots to alternately burn and explode the film premiere) which converge at the climax. He doesn't eschew ("To avoid habitually especially on moral or practical grounds") structure at all; he's very good at it, even if he characteristically relishes in lengthy individual sequences.

As for having more freedom within the system, I'm pretty sure Clint Eastwood has final cut over all his pictures, but I could be wrong.

[Ezee E]

Eastwood, Spielberg, Cameron, and Jackson all have creative control.

[Pop Trash]

i'm a red sox fan so i ate it up, but yeah, you have a point.


It could have been Eli Roth's delivery.

[Ezee E]

It could have been Eli Roth's delivery.
It had everything to do with Eli Roth's delivery.

Saw this a second time and Eli Roth is just an annoying actor. Please don't act again. Luckily his role is so minmal that I can overlook it mostly. Could've been a great character though.

Still love the movie though. I like the ending a bit more after seeing Hans' reactions to nicknames, and his hope to upgrade names. He DEFINITELY knew who Shoshanna was, even with it being four years later. His last line confirms that.

Most people like Melanie Laurent, but I adore Diane Kruger in this. Her elegant movements, and "performance" in the bar and movie theater is just lovely.

[Watashi]

I wish Adam Sandler played Donny.

[ledfloyd]

I wish Adam Sandler played Donny.
i'm not sure if that would've worked that well either. would've been better than eli though.

[Ezee E]

Heh, although the movie was changed, it's actually a minute longer than whatever was shown at Cannes.

[Sycophant]

'Cause Harvey Weinstein was all like "MOAR!!!!"

Meanwhile, I'm gonna assume the mantle of nutjob and say that Eli Roth played his role well. It worked for me.

[Ezee E]

Or how the sequences were different. I haven't come across any of the differences yet. Anyone know?

[Watashi]

I thought once Roth got into Italian mode, he was great.

[number8]

Or how the sequences were different. I haven't come across any of the differences yet. Anyone know?

It's very minimal, from what I've heard. Just pacing stuff. I think he made the bar scene longer, if I remember correctly.

[KK2.0]

I need to stop reading this thread, the anticipation is killing me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Meanwhile, I'm gonna assume the mantle of nutjob and say that Eli Roth played his role well. It worked for me.

I liked it too.

[number8]

I liked it too.

I find it better if you see him as a misguided goof from the Bronx rather than the badass he was originally reported to be in the script. Then he's hilariously great throughout the film.

I came to this realization pretty much when he stepped out of the tunnel with a wifebeater and gold chains around his neck. There's no way he's meant to be taken at face value.

[Milky Joe]

I didn't even realize that was Eli Roth. Just thought it was some guy. I thought he was great, though, particularly at the end when he was trying to seem Italian.

[megladon8]

Isn't this movie, like, VERY R-Rated?

I don't get why it's 14A here in Canada (our equivalent of PG-13).

[number8]

Isn't this movie, like, VERY R-Rated?

Not really.

EDIT: By that, I mean, it definitely earns an R rating, but not "very." There's not a lot of gore, there's probably only a few curse words, and as usual in QT's films, no nudity. Saving Private Ryan was probably 20x more obscene.

[balmakboor]

I just realized that if someone would do a fan edit cutting out everything involving the Basterds I would consider it a pretty great movie.

[Henry Gale]

Isn't this movie, like, VERY R-Rated?

I don't get why it's 14A here in Canada (our equivalent of PG-13).

Well, with 14A one has to be 14 to get in without an adult. PG-13 anyone can walk right through. But I do agree that it's weird, seeing as Kill Bill: Vol. 1 was R in Ontario when it came out (as in Restricted, as in our NC-17).

I'm also pretty sure I'll see this again sometime next week. Way too many of the film's moments have been stuck in my head since I saw this Friday afternoon.

"Oui, Shoshanna."

[Ezee E]

Hmm. The gore is quite minimal for a Tarantino movie I guess. There's no way it could be PG-13, but compared to Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction...

[Pop Trash]

I thought once Roth got into Italian mode, he was great.

Agreed...the overt hand gestures were quite funny during that scene. I think it's mostly just Roth's voice that bugs me. I actually liked him in other scenes when he wasn't talking. Like I said before, his expression when he is...

shooting the hell out of Hitler is quite awesome.

[number8]

Agreed...the overt hand gestures were quite funny during that scene. I think it's mostly just Roth's voice that bugs me. I actually liked him in other scenes when he wasn't talking. Like I said before, his expression when he is...

shooting the hell out of Hitler is quite awesome.

Actually, now that you mention, I love how in the first scene, when Aldo is talking about killing Nazis--"...at the end of our bootheels, at the edge of our knives..."--Tarantino inserts a close-up of Donnie smirking lustily.

[ledfloyd]

Hmm. The gore is quite minimal for a Tarantino movie I guess. There's no way it could be PG-13, but compared to Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction...
it's gorier than pulp fiction IMO. just alot less cursing.

[Eleven]

I liked that the subtitles kept common French words like "oui" untranslated. Speaking of which, I simply liked that a Tarantino WWII movie was heavily subtitled.

[Ezee E]

I liked that the subtitles kept common French words like "oui" untranslated. Speaking of which, I simply liked that a Tarantino WWII movie was heavily subtitled.
A friend of mine, who liked the movie, joked, "Tarantino loves his words so much that he forced us to read it while we watched the movie today."

[EvilShoe]

Doesn't QT address the language thing in a meta-way, actually?
At one point Kruger's character says to the Basterds something along the lines of "Can't you Americans speak any other language than English?".

Then again, they did speak a little Italian.

[number8]

Doesn't QT address the language thing in a meta-way, actually?
At one point Kruger's character says to the Basterds something along the lines of "Can't you Americans speak any other language than English?".

Then again, they did speak a little Italian.

"With an atrocious accent, no doubt."

It's not just that. One of my favorite bits of dialogue is when Landa asks the French farmer to switch to English. His sudden switch is hilarious, but it's also a wonderful piss-take on the American movie's tendency to homogenize foreign characters. That's why I roll my eyes at the people complaining that there are too much subtitles. Don't you realize that the movie's making fun of you for it in its first scene?

But then, of course, at the end it's revealed that there's an actual tactical purpose for the language switch. Brilliant, brilliant writing.

[DrewG]

Wow. Can't really put my thoughts together on it but I need someone to screencap me one of the best shots of the film SOMEHOW:

The shot from behind Marcel that tracks backwards as he's smoking the cigarette over the film reels pressed against the screen.

I'm pretty sure I got a boner during that. Not positive.

[number8]

By the way, this needs to be seen in a single-theater cinema house. If you see it in a multiplex, you haven't really seen the film.