I completely missed the first half of the film so I'll have to watch it all again another time. However, the parts I did see were great, especially the ending massacre.

I just hope nobody expects any historical accuracy form a movie like this. :laughing:

I'm sure the ever so anal WWII nerds are typing away as we speak.

Not me...I gave up the "how America won the war" films yonks ago.

Well, this is just not a movie that begs to be analized to death.

Anyway, I'd say it's time for another one of my off topic, pretentious rants.

There are two kinds of movie fans, people who like to watch movies that make them think (aka give them incentive to rabble on like the pretentious douchebags they are) and people who like movies that are fun and a break from realitiy as they know it, considering I'm a fan of anime and video games, which one do you think I am?

Now sure, actual depth and substance can make make it a better cinematic experience, but when all a film wants is to be talked about and analized rather than be genuinely enjoyed, I'm not interested. I can appreciate the artistic side of filmmaking, because I of course know art and entertainment are not mutually exclusive, and they work best when they are combined.

But when it comes to cinema, I much prefer entertainment for entertainment's sake over art for art's sake.

I can enjoy both.
What I don't like are films that are passed off as historical fact, when it's obvious that the truth has been stretched in the name of patriotism.

Chewing gum for the eyes then?

And a big fat welcome back boo boo.

Yeah, it's from the guy behind Kill Bill and Death Proof.

No one is gonna see this expecting a sweeping historical epic. :laughing:

I don't think Tarantino wants anyone to think of this as a serious historical film. And certainly none of his fans expect it to be. We expect hilarious dialogue, great action and sh*tload of stylish camera shots. That's what Tarantino does better than anyone and I think he's a great example of why style over substance isn't always a bad thing.

But really, with this film, we just want to see a bunch of Nazis explode, I'm sure Tarantino will deliver.

I'll pass. :rolleyes:

Brad Pitt and his groupies are there for comic relief, the movie's focus is elsewhere. See it for yourself. 'The truth has been stretched in the name of patriotism'. As I said before, the Americans aren't the focus of the movie. They are comic relief. If you're not going to see it because you think it's some kind of American propaganda you're a fool.

I've seen enough American war movies to last me a life time of comic relief. Hence my comment 'The truth has been stretched in the name of patriotism'.
As for Inglourious Basterds. I won't be going to see it because it looks shit!

It's not a typical American War movie. There is no pretense of historical truth. Since you're not seeing it Hitler ****ing dies in a burning movie theater, killed by a French Jewish refugee who took over her 'aunts' movie theater. The Americans are all stupid hillbillies and the British are all ****ing James Bonds. The main actors are all foreign, the last thing this movie is is patriotic.
P.S.: Sorry for the swearing I'm not actually angry...

Except for Brad Pitt?

I do agree with you however, i doubt anybody is being brainwashed by this film. It's like calling "Finding Nemo" a nature documentary.

However, the flash and tricks Tarantino pulls out of his bag for this film fall flat for the most part for me. I especially hated the SPOILERS ending with the machine gun slaughter. Just made me uncomfortable, and not in any meaningful kind-off way, just in a "what the **** is going on" kinda way.

Tarantino pretty much said that he dosen't even consider this a war movie.

It's a spagetti western, just with WWII iconography.

It's also an homage to old Italian exploitation war movies of the 60s and 70s, sometimes called "macaroni combat".

Tarantino basically makes exploitation movies for the modern age, so complaining that he's no Jean-Luc Godard is like complaining that Frank Miller is no William Shakespeare. It's a completely different kind of medium. So people need to stop rating everything like it should be up to the standards of classical literature. :laughing:

is anyone really getting that pissed off about the movie's historical inaccuracy or tarantino's style? i haven't seen much complaints in here...aside from david but he's right. considering america needs to get over itself and it
sss post-cold war propaganda and give some wwii credit to the russians. nationalsim is boring.,

I don't see how this film is any more nationalist than your typical WWII movie.

At least it's not bullsh*tting about it, simplyfing a complex issue? Geez, if anyone has ever seen an exploitation film or read a comic book they would kknow that Tarantino is not going for high art here. :laughing:

Seriously I don't see this movie trying to bring about any serious message or anything, it's about "killin' natzees", and uh, we don't like natzees so that kinda makes sense.

Seriously, some critics just like to make it their job to overanalize the holy f*ck out of everything.

Besides, this movie seems more like a parody than anything.

Did you finally see the movie booboo?

i wasnt calling the film nationalist i was calling the bigoted view american's have of wwii - a bigoted view that probably explains a lot of thepopularity of this film nationalist. i for one find the idea that american's are equally capable of commiting atrocities against the naizs a disturbingly ironic but pointed concept...the fact some of the absterds were jewish was a bit too much though.no doubt tarantino meant it to be some sort of weird justified revenge. the movie bored me. the only thing i liked was when marcel and shosanna had plannned to burn the nazis in the theater the rest bored/kind of horried me and left me thinking but not intheway a movie makes you think.

I think it's more bitterness than bigotry.

I mean, Hollywood has a lot of Jews. A lot of people behind these war movies are Jews, so do they villify the Nazis? Absolutely. Do I blame them? No.

Some storytellers believe in the concept of good vs evil, and it's stupid to call people bigoted just because they think Nazis were evil.

OMFG REALLY??? How could they say such a thing?

what the fuck? that's not what i was saying atall. i was saying the american view of world war two is bigoted, because they completely ignored things like the eastern front and try and pretend the biggest american contribution wasn't the fact that the US stopped selling weaponry to the nazis. that's what's bigoted, the way americans are portrayed not the fact the nazis are always portrayed as the bad guys. stop twistng my words.

secondly, i was saying i find the irony disturbing that they assembled a brigade - that was partially jewish - to torture nazis. i understand it was revenge but i believe in the higher ground. i understand it's a movie but i had a moral problem with that. it's the same reason i can't read some of alan moore's shit. i find certain things too repulsive to be enteraining.

Well sorry if I misread you but to be fair you are writing like an inebriated 12 year old right now.

Come off it boo boo.
If you don't agree with a persons opinion the last thing you should do is get personal.

Ok fair enough.

It seems like you just didn't like the film. The Basterds were comic relief. A joke. Not much more than a plot device. I don't see how showing one squad of commandos on the western front is somehow a bigoted American view of WWII. You're right about the general Amero-centricness of WWII movies and the false perception that America had anything to do with the victory in Europe (Hell, the British didn't), but this movie isn't even about the Americans, they're just a colorful cast of side characters.

There are just some forms of media that one shouldn't demand political correctness from.

Like comic books, video games, heavy metal, porn, and Quentin Tarantino movies. :laughing:

I watched this movie last night, all around I thought it was pretty fantastic. It exceeded my expectations on all levels. The final portion of the film was brutal/hilarious/exhilarating and there were tremendous performances all round (Pitt's performance has been somewhat slated for being too one-dimensional, but I personally thought he stole the show). My main qualms with Inglourious Basterds would be the lengthy card game scene, which could have been a LOT shorter and seemed to drag on needlessly. The dialogue was good, though not upto Tarantino's earlier standard of writing.

All in all, a little bit lengthy, but WELL worth the watch.

My rant more had nothing to do with the movie, even though it made almost no sense sorry.

You're right, I just didn't care for the movie. I found the way the Basterds treated the Nazis to be darkly ironic but in a way that I just couldn't enjoy. It's the same reason I have trouble with the League of Extraordinary Gentleman - Hawley Griffin is a rapist for christ sakes. It's hard for me to be entertained by things that I find morally repulsive. That was the problem I have with the Basterds. I understand they were supposed to be comedic but most of the time I was just feeling a little bit disgusted by them.

I'd like to see how you'd react to Lord Horror.

The thing about Inglorious Basterds is it's not really a movie about World War II and shouldn't be related to ideas about real people in real wars. Like pretty much everything else Tarantino has done, it's a movie about movies. In this case it's a movie largely about WWII movies just like Kill Bill was a movie largely about kung fu movies. Things that are funny in these films are funny because of how they relate to the language of cinema not how they relate to real life.

Yeah don't compare this to League of Extraordinary Gentleman, that movie was horrible.

I wasn't even talking about the movie nor I was I even making a direct comparison between the graphic novel and Tarantino's movie.

Saw it a few days ago. Probably my least favorite Tarantino thus far. I realize some part of my disappointment has something to do with the immense expectations I had for the film (Tarantino is one of my favorite directors). My biggest problem was the casting of Brad Pitt. I really dislike that guy, but can tolerate him in most films as long as he's not trying to be amusing (the man just doesn't have an ounce of comedic talent). Naturally, his performance as the "comic relief" here was as grating as fingernails on a chalkboard.

Other than that, the whole Bastards subplot fell completely flat (the prime example of its complete failure was the introduction of the Jew Bear which was completely anticlimactic) which seriously affected the flow of the film for me. But I loved the first chapter and thought the Nazi "Jew hunter" was a great character. All the scenes he was in had great tension. Oh and I loved the scene in the projection booth near the end (with the music and all that) and the scenes after that with the projection of her laughter on the fire and smoke. Pretty amazing.

But, for some reason I didn't really think this was a particularly "Tarantino" film. Maybe his characteristic dialog doesn't really translate into other languages?

So yeah, kind of a let down, but still enjoyable. It probably would have been a much better film if it wasn't for Brad Pitt. God, I hate that guy..>:[

I like Brad Pit. I thought he was pretty funny in "The Mexican".

Someone actually sat through The Mexican? http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...ower/shock.jpg

I do agree with you a bit. While justice is one of things I love most, I don't like seeing a bunch of sadists have fun on screen. That is really what it was. I had to turn my head a few times because it was so morally repulsive. Sometimes it was funny because they blew it way out of proportion. However, when he pressed down on that one chick's leg that had the bullet in it I felt like turning the movie off.

I think you complaints about it being nationalistic are just stupid though. One, I am pretty sure it was not at all trying to be nationalistic and if anything it was trying to portray the dark side of Americans. Secondly, do you really feel like passing up an enjoyable film for a history documentary? I know the Russians did a hell of a lot in the war. Personally, I also think Stalingrad was one of the more heroic moments in the war. Do we need movies to be historically accurate though? I mean, The Green Berets was ****ing ridiculous. Still, don't think that you should criticize it for being nationalistic, just for being incredibly stupid.

I wasn't criticizing this film for being nationalistic - that was more an unrelated jab at World War II films in general and the American hubris and all that. I'm aware this is a Tarantino film. My only problems with it, and the reason I didn't enjoy it, was for the reasons you listed.

your too sour:mad:

That wouldn't surprise me. For example I got a lot of laughs out of Brad Pitt's over-the-top Tennessee hillbilly schtick and Eli Roth's over-the-top Boston Red Sox fan schtick, but I think that stuff is kind of culturally specific and might not translate well.

Also, I thought the part when Brad Pitt was trying to speak Italian was one of the funniest parts of the movie.

Seconded.


I loved the movie, it was one of the few times I've been to the movies and have laughed louder than just a snicker.

Oh, I think you misunderstood me (or I'm misunderstanding you now). What I meant was that seeing as how the majority of the film was in a language other than English I didn't really pick up any of his retro-American, cool witticisms...if that makes sense...I can't think of a specific example from his other films but I always felt his films feature dialog and expressions you couldn't really find in other American films.

Oh and yes, that part with the Italian was very funny. I was actually curious if people who aren't that familiar with Italian would pick up on it...I guess it's kinda obvious...(:

Ah, I see what you mean and you do have a point about that. One example from Kill Bill that always cracks me up is the tense conversation in the kitchen near the beginning of the movie when Uma Thurman says to Vivica A. Fox with a completely straight face, "Even? Even Steven?" I guess there wasn't much of that kind of thing in Inglorious Basterds. However, I thought some of the humorous ways the subtitles were used kind of picked up the slack for me.

Yeah, I think it would be hard to miss. :)