Inglourious Basterds

[Ezee E]

It's written on Brad Pitt's bat that way. I'm guessing he's not very educated and thought that's how it was spelled. Hence, the title as a result. They just decided not to show the scene, if it's actually there.

[ledfloyd]

Her.

oops, sorry.

[Grouchy]

It's written on Brad Pitt's bat that way. I'm guessing he's not very educated and thought that's how it was spelled. Hence, the title as a result. They just decided not to show the scene, if it's actually there.

Yeah, that's what I think as well.

[Qrazy]

Also the new spelling turns it into 'our' which has some interesting connotations. That is to say they are the protagonists... those which we root for... but to what degree should we? They are also 'our' boys... America... nationalism... etc.

[number8]

Uhhh, if you want the real answer, it's because Quentin Tarantino doesn't know how to spell.

[BuffaloWilder]

This would not surprise me.

[number8]

I have some of QT's original scripts. He's really just abominable when it comes to spelling. Worse of all is that his vocabulary is superb, so he uses big words a lot (correctly), but misspells them.

[balmakboor]

I re-watched the first four chapters this afternoon and then got sidetracked, but I was definitely digging what I was seeing a whole lot more than the first time. I'm sure it will follow the same path for me as so many other Tarantinos.

1st viewing - meh
2nd viewing - great
3rd viewing - classic

I'll probably watch chapters 4 and 5 tomorrow and know for sure.

Two Tarantinos didn't follow that path for me though. Jackie Brown and Death Proof were both:

1st - great
2nd - classic
3rd - classic

[[ETM]]

Pretty awesome commissioned posters for Inglorious Basterds by Alex Pardee, Sam Flores, David Choe, and about 10 others to be sold only six prints each, $300 a piece, proceeds go to Haiti.

[balmakboor]

Pretty awesome commissioned posters for Inglorious Basterds by Alex Pardee, Sam Flores, David Choe, and about 10 others to be sold only six prints each, $300 a piece, proceeds go to Haiti.

Only six each and signed by Tarantino and looking that awesome. Why are they giving them away for $300.00? They should be able to get ten times that if they do this properly.

[[ETM]]

Only six each and signed by Tarantino and looking that awesome. Why are they giving them away for $300.00? They should be able to get ten times that if they do this properly.

Agreed. They could auction them off for insane amounts.

[DavidSeven]

Six months late to the party as usual. I’m sure anything smart to be said about the film was well covered in this thread. I will just add that it is in this moment, some 16 years later, that Tarantino finally removes himself from the shadow of Pulp Fiction. This film’s characters and scenarios are perhaps not as immediately iconic as the one that earned him a career’s worth of good will, but it is certainly his richest piece to date. In many respects, it is a film that I, and I am sure others, did not even realize he had in him. I’m a huge fan. Always was. But the thematic complexity, use of imagery, and restraint on display here break free from the limitations we placed on him (as we do to all directors) as his body of work developed. This all while he avoided compromising what we actually like about him as a filmmaker and while hitting a level of naturalism that he has strained for since Jackie Brown. We have not seen Tarantino construct individual scenes this riveting, this precise, and this memorable in ages. Landa’s introduction, The Tavern, and The Revenge of The Giant Face join the ranks of The Bonnie Situation, Vincent and Mia, and Hopper vs. Walken. Add to that an unexpected social insightfulness and marked evolution in technical competence and we have a new benchmark in Tarantino’s canon. I recall that Tarantino was once asked in an interview (circa ’94) if he thought he would ever make his own Schindler’s List (a film that would transform him from a genre filmmaker to a “serious” one). He responded that he would love to make a movie as cool as Schindler’s List one day. Sorry Quentin, looks like you have actually made something 100 times cooler.

I apologize and understand if the gushing is passé and even sickening at this point. I was unaware of this film's critical/MC reception going in, and this damned thing knocked me off my feet.

[Qrazy]

Naturalism and restraint are the two last words I'd use to describe this film. Precision fits though.

[DavidSeven]

Naturalism and restraint are the two last words I'd use to describe this film. Precision fits though.

Naturalism in the sense that I felt the dialogue, characters, etc. didn't feel forced or at least as self-conscious as they did in something like Kill Bill.

Restraint in that I feel Tarantino reveals a lot about the substance and narrative through very minor actions that propel the story/dialogue forward (e.g. the switch from French to English, Landa's love and then subsequent disdain for his Nazi-hunter nickname).

[megladon8]

This was really good, but I'm not "OH MY GOD, IT'S A MILLION OUT OF TEN, SO FUCKING AWESOME!!!" like some of my friends and other people I know who loved the film.

I was particularly impressed with the opening segment "Once upon a time...in Nazi occupied France". I would have loved to have seen this segment as a simple short film.

That segment, in itself, I would give a 10 out of 10. Brilliant writing, direction, acting. Just incredible stuff.

However, much of the rest of the film feels like a mish-mash of Tarantino's usual self-masturbatory tendencies, where he lets himself wander off onto too many unnecessary (or at least unnecessarily long) tangents. The segment in the bar, with Michael Fassbender, felt unending. And not in a good, stylistic way. I was bored.

The film is at its most interesting when it's dissecting the cultural importance of film, and the incredible power of acting.

I actually find it quite funny that so many here at MatchCut received this film and its analyses so well, because the film is such a testament to acting - an area of film that many MatchCutters are either uninterested in, or have little respect for. We often devote much more serious talk to the writing, directing, editing, mise en scene, etc. The acting is often an after-thought.

But every scene in the film involves the characters acting, both subtly and outright. Hans Landa bases his entire career off his incredible skills as an actor capable of keeping his emotions in reserve and hiding his true face. Hitler is pathetic and incompetent because he cannot control his emotions in any way. Every time we see him he is at the mercy of his feelings, entirely unable to keep up his act. And in Tarantino's world, this makes him a weakling.

The film has incredible, interesting layers, but Tarantino's usual excesses seem painfully out of place. When we see Shosanna dressing up for the premiere, putting on her make-up like war-paint to some '80s power ballad, it feels insincere. Like Tarantino needed to remind movie-goers that "hey, don't take this too seriously! Remember, I'm the guy who made the Kill Bill movies!" as if the dialogue and constant movie-chatter wasn't enough of a hint that it was him behind the camera and pen.

So, in the end, I really enjoyed this. A lot more than I thought I would. And I look forward to watching it again.

And while I can't say that I think Tarantino has outdone Pulp Fiction yet, Inglourious Basterds was refreshing after the oh-so-disappointing Kill Bill saga.

[Grouchy]

Can't believe you waited so long to watch this.

[megladon8]

Can't believe you waited so long to watch this.

Why?

[Grouchy]

Why?

Because it took you so long to watch it.

[megladon8]

Because it took you so long to watch it.

OK, you answered by saying the same thing.

I'm not exactly a Tarantino lover. And the movie is really long, so finding a time when I felt I could sit and watch the whole thing was hard.

And there were (and still are) about 100 2009 releases I'm more interested in seeing.

[megladon8]

So I take it this movie's been talked to death already on here.

I think I might watch it again soon.

[number8]

Almost 40 pages' worth. :lol:

[kuehnepips]

OK, you answered by saying the same thing.

:lol:

Very common here.

I'll not watch it again BTW.

[transmogrifier]

The movie is basically a string of exquisitely directed and written set pieces with very little else operating under the hood. Yes, there is a parallel between the patriotic fervor that the German's lapse into during the screening of the propaganda film and the supposed reaction of the audience to Tarantino's film, but it a hoary device, and leads to some way over-the-top, triple underlining annoyances, like Roth at the end in the theatre. And the scene in the projection booth, seeing the demise of two characters, is very poorly thought out and executed.

But forget all that, because IB is a movie of isolated moments of genius that are so impressive that it keeps you hanging in there through the blank spots (Austin Powers? Really?).

[Grouchy]

:lol:

Very common here.

I'll not watch it again BTW.

Huh, I knew I was using the same words.

Geez.

[D_Davis]

The movie is basically a string of exquisitely directed and written set pieces with very little else operating under the hood. .

They're all about suspense - IB is basically a suspense film. The tension in the major sequences is practically unbearable, and it's all built through expertly written dialog, and delivered by quality actors. Tarantino really knows how to direct these dialog-driven set pieces.