Export thread

The old thread's been blinked out of existence, and I just saw this for the first time yesterday SO


wow! What a great movie! The slow burn, the commanding performance by Christoph Waltz, the awesome shots, the tension throughout, and the nearly orgasmic ending. I loved this a whole lot. I loved that this was a movie where movies and film in general was another character and driving force in everything. I also really loved the dude that played Zoller, he was terrific.

This is definitely my favorite movie of 2009, and my short list for best movie of 2009. Granted, there are still a handful of good movies I haven't seen, but this was just tremendous.

I didn't go in the old thread obviously, so uh, feel free to continue talking about whatever was in there.

Inglourious Basterds

I was so glad to see Landa become the villain of the movie, rather than Hitler.

I was genuinely worried that the movie would become Wolfenstein 3D or something.

And what an excellent villain!

Overall the movie was really satisfying.

Inglourious Basterds

I would like the Academy to cancel the best supporting actor race and just hand Waltz the Oscar right now.

Inglourious Basterds

Yes please.

Inglourious Basterds

Yeah, that dude fucking tore that celluloid up. The first scene and the bar scene still burn vividly in my head...had me at the edge of my seat the whole time. Tarantino + Warsploitation = mega yesssss

Inglourious Basterds

As I expressed in the last thread, I loved this movie. That is all.

Inglourious Basterds

Watched the movie today. I loved it. Absolutely loved it. I still think District 9 is my favorite film of the year, but this is a close second, with Star Trek bringing up third place.
My gawd Waltz was an absolute joy to watch. One of the best villains I've seen since the Joker. Even though it's a hell of a suspenseful moment, I could not stop smilling through the entire first chapter.
The bar scene was amazing. One of the best Mexican standoff situations that Tarantino has ever pulled off.

My roommate disliked the film however. Too boring for him apparently. Said he almost slept through most of the scenes with Shosanna. Which is a real pity for him.

But anyway I leave with...
"Say "auf Widersehen" to your Nazi balls!"

Inglourious Basterds

Sunday matinee!

Delayed on account of boring clothes shopping...

Inglourious Basterds

Just came back from it. Loved it. Pure Tarantino.

If Waltz doesn't get the oscar for this, there's something very very wrong with the world.

Inglourious Basterds

That scene in the movie theatre...I had the weirdest reaction to it.

Shawnacy said:

Even though it's a hell of a suspenseful moment, I could not stop smilling through the entire first chapter.

Click to expand...

I've read several reviews claiming that is the best part of the movie, and as much as I loved the whole thing, I'm not sure they're wrong.

Inglourious Basterds

Spoilers!

I saw it today and thought it had some strong points and some bad points to it. My opinion will be rather unique, since I'm a history buff and some of these things in this movie just reeked of Americana. All I can say is Tarantino has personality in his movies, direction, not so much.

Like many others, I thought the Hans Landa actor was incredible. The first scene was amazing and every scene he was in, he stole the show, except the end. The part where he was ordering and eating his strudel was HILARIOUS that had me and my friends in sheer tears. "J'ai oublie de commander la creme!" LOL. Just the way he said it, with the tension was HILARIOUS. However, watching his turn at the end of the movie was pretty weak, I thought it was all part of a massive swerve until I realized, it was for real. It didn't make sense cause he murdered the woman who was a traitor before turning into one himself. It lacked coherence and made him weak... inconsistent. Which ruined the film for me.

I personally thought Brad Pitt was miscast. A pretty boy with a bad haircut and mustache is still a pretty boy. Sorry, I just didn't feel him in this movie. A hard-nosed soldier type? I don't think so.

Diane Krugar was impressive in this movie, especially in the bar scene. Her finale... was epic. I also enjoyed the various languages, I was able to follow all of them, which was sort of neat. Zoller shooting the bitch was... gratifying... she bored me to tears.

This brings me to the finale.... so... all the top officers of the SS, along with Hitler are watching a movie... and they are protected by 2 men? SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK. Hitler coming in unannounced to his guests when he was supposedly there to motivate his troops? Was there even some kind of research on the guy? Italians walking around top-level Germans in 1944? Anyone who followed any sort of history would know better. I know this is entertainment but if you're going to play the card of being "detailed" in things in one scene you shouldn't be completely ignoring them in the next.

The last 15 minutes was a typical pro-Americana hogwash. Jesus Christ. I should have known better than to watch a QT film but I liked period films in WW2.

Godamnit.

Inglourious Basterds

You'd be surprised who QT also wanted in his film, Jay. You'd probably be okay with just Brad Pitt knowing that Adam Sandler was to be the Bear Jew originally but had to bail out for Funny People. Sean Penn was to also star as the British Officer that joins the Basterds for Operation Kino. I think casting turned out pretty decently without the big names. I think Mike Myers cameo may even save his career. He was to this film what Tom Cruise's was in Tropic Thunder. He needed a quirky role like this to undo the damage of Love Guru.

I'm no history major so I won't argue the type of protection Hitler should have around his person. I'd imagine there would be some severe detail. Supposedly they had their best detective on security detail so maybe they dropped their guard a bit. Doubt they would know he would turn traitor.

Regarding Landa's motivation at the end: I have no idea. Perhaps, after he strangled Hammersmark, he started considering his options.

Inglourious Basterds

About the historical aspect. I really found the movie to be a fairy tale of sorts. I think this bizarre separation from actual history takes place over the course of the movie. The first act is the quietest, slowest, and probably closest to actual history, and as the stories develop and become intertwined, reality sort of starts unspooling until you can actually accept the ludicrousness of the ending.

I mean, aside from the historical inaccuracies pointed out, how about the girl who ends up face to face with her family's murderer, and then working for Goebbels? Come on, it's absurd. But I ate it up.

This, thinking back on it, is why the historical details didn't bother me or, frankly, even occur to me too much. And is not to be taken as "Oh loosen up, it's just a movie." This is my own take on why that aspect didn't seem important.

Yeah it was obviously a fantastical take on WW2, which I expected. I was just glad that Hitler wasn't the final boss, otherwise they might as well have just called the movie Return to Castle Wolfenstein or something.

SeriousJay, you couldn't have missed the point of the movie more.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

SeriousJay, you couldn't have missed the point of the movie more.

Click to expand...

To be fair, that's not as hard as it might've been. Felt to me like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a self-indulgent fantasy or a sendup thereof, and tried to go for both at the same time.

I believe the term is called "warsploitation".

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Also, I should point out, when viewing any Tarantino film, you have to realize that Tarantino operates in a VERY different world--one that is built on the tropes, icons, and pop culture establishments that he's sending up, cloying to, and vying for.

The guy's movies are made quite purposefully in a world that only makes sense in the movies.

Shawnancy, I think you meant Simon Pegg, not Sean Penn.

Iaculus said:

To be fair, that's not as hard as it might've been. Felt to me like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a self-indulgent fantasy or a sendup thereof, and tried to go for both at the same time.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The first three chapters brought a form of credibility to the story... and the movie was doing things just right until Landa was interrogating the jingoistic Aldo... then the movie fell completely apart and went Americana. The huge plot holes and security breeches was laughable and for a minute when the fire started I was half expecting the Nazi's to turn into vampires and the Basterds would have needed to break out their wooden stakes. The movie went from being one thing to nearly comical.

Movie had its personality but lacked coherence.

But, I guess we'll enjoy the new e-fad with this B movie.






AND MY FAVORITE

Twitch said:

Shawnancy, I think you meant Simon Pegg, not Sean Penn.

Click to expand...

I did. Must have been tired. Thanks.

Killin' Natzees?

ElJuski said:

The guy's movies are made quite purposefully in a world that only makes sense in the movies.

Click to expand...

Well said. Anyone else catch the Wilhelm scream? (Or screams, but I know there was at least one.)

ZenMonkey;249555][quote=ElJuski said:

The guy's movies are made quite purposefully in a world that only makes sense in the movies.

Click to expand...

Well said. Anyone else catch the Wilhelm scream? (Or screams, but I know there was at least one.)[/QUOTE]

Yes, but I forgot where exactly. But I remember going, "HEH!"

Wilhelm was in the German movie about Zoller. Kurt Russell's Death Proof scream was in the burning theater somewhere

YESSSSS now I remember. Ahh Tarantino, it's meta-detail like that that makes this movie awesome.

Twitch said:

IMG
Killin' Natzees?

Click to expand...

Knowing Sean Penn? He'd probably be trying to convince the world they are just misunderstood.

Of all the criticisms you could lob at this movie, stepping out of line with reality seems really weird, especially for a Tarantino movie where that's practically par the course. I was actually worried he'd go historical on us (or "wuss out") in the ending and try to play it off like this really happened. Then everything went crazy and I was satisfied in the fantasy of it.

I adore Tarantino's dialogue; that and his ear for music are big reasons I love his movies. Like Death Proof, this felt a bit wordy, with conversations not contributing a lot to character or plot--except when I watched Death Proof again, those seemingly meaningless conversations revealed a ton just by knowing what was going to happen and having the time to notice little details. I imagine this will age well in that same regard, improving upon multiple viewings.

escushion said:

Of all the criticisms you could lob at this movie, stepping out of line with reality seems really weird, especially for a Tarantino movie where that's practically par the course. I was actually worried he'd go historical on us (or "wuss out") in the ending and try to play it off like this really happened. Then everything went crazy and I was satisfied in the fantasy of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that wasn't a problem. Throwing two contradictory messages at us, though - 'war makes lunatics of us all' and 'killin'/mutilatin' Natzies = awesome', often scant seconds apart, did get kind of puzzling, though. I'm fine with a film letting us decide the merits of two sides of an argument by ourselves, but that tends to require a measure of impartiality, whereas this'n often seemed to argue both with equal, delighted gusto. Felt like it was trying to have its cake and eat it.

I felt there was some 4th wall poking when we see the Nazis laughing at the film of American soldiers being killed, while Americans laugh at a film of Nazis being killed. I think the circle there is pretty subtle, but very clear.

It doesn't need to beat you over the head like the WWE movie where they're killing each other on an island, with videos of it shown on TV and the internet, and then there's this speech delivered about how it's horrible to enjoy watching violence. You then see clips of the viewers lowering their heads in shame in front of their TVs and computers.

EDIT: By being clear, I don't mean a message, just that their is a circle appearing. Whether Tarantino would be condemning or enjoying, I don't know and I don't care. If anything, you can push that harder. The guy in the bell tower was based on real events (in the movie's context) and would die if he didn't fight. On the other hand, the Nazis in my opinion constitute an evil force. But pulling the circle back around, our laughter at seeing the ones killed in this film was based on a fictional, fantastical account, made solely for that purpose.

The film itself is part of a thing called "warsploitation"--it's practically the same thing as the film about Zoller. It's a movie that takes the romantic notion of good versus evil and exploits it for viewer pleasure. It's not trying to make any weird "anti-war" or "anti-violence" message. Tarantino is obviously taking the romantic appeal of WW2 Europe and of Good Guys vs. Bad Guys for the audience's pleasure. It's a movie that is lovingly recreated with those old war movies--including Zoller's movie, which is a wonderful meta--that eschews the moral mire that usually accompany's war films. No, this film is quite happily stuck in the romantic camp category, and that's how it works.

Now, take for instance Rambo 4--where the whole message is decidedly anti-war, even though it's an extremely graphically violent film at the same time.

ElJuski said:

The film itself is part of a thing called "warsploitation"--it's practically the same thing as the film about Zoller. It's a movie that takes the romantic notion of good versus evil and exploits it for viewer pleasure. It's not trying to make any weird "anti-war" or "anti-violence" message. Tarantino is obviously taking the romantic appeal of WW2 Europe and of Good Guys vs. Bad Guys for the audience's pleasure. It's a movie that is lovingly recreated with those old war movies--including Zoller's movie, which is a wonderful meta--that eschews the moral mire that usually accompany's war films. No, this film is quite happily stuck in the romantic camp category, and that's how it works.

Now, take for instance Rambo 4--where the whole message is decidedly anti-war, even though it's an extremely graphically violent film at the same time.

Click to expand...

You think? What about the sympathetic portrayal of those German soldiers given any screentime? What about the cinema-owner's full-blown maniacal laugh? Warsploitation generally doesn't go out of its way to establish that the mook who just got gunned down was celebrating his daughter's christening only a few minutes ago, for instance.

The wilhelm was the american who falls into the pool of water.

Iaculus said:

Throwing two contradictory messages at us, though - 'war makes lunatics of us all' and 'killin'/mutilatin' Natzies = awesome', often scant seconds apart, did get kind of puzzling, though.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure those messages are contradictory.

ZenMonkey;250013][quote=Iaculus said:

Throwing two contradictory messages at us, though - 'war makes lunatics of us all' and 'killin'/mutilatin' Natzies = awesome', often scant seconds apart, did get kind of puzzling, though.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure those messages are contradictory.[/QUOTE]

Depends on the context. In this film's case, they ended up, at least in my opinion, as being very contradictory, seeing as the lunacy was manifested largely via the killin' and/or mutilatin'.

Landa getting swastika'd just doesn't seem quite so cool (at least, not in the sense presumably intended) when you know the folks involved would quite happily do the exact same thing to anyone wearing a German uniform regardless of who they were otherwise.

Well it's official. My mom liked it. Everyone else who didn't is wrong now.

Once upon a time in nazi occupied france...

The beginning said it all, didn't it?

Watched the basterds yesterday, and though there is a certain amount of extreme violence, I actually enjoyed the flick...

It was a typical "Tarantino", so it's more fiction and trophwhoring than anything else. The only thing missing in this film was the typical tarantino-video-shot-from-the-trunk. IIrc, every tarantino movie had a shot in it where the camera films out of the trunk?

No, that's true; it couldn't have been straight exploitation because there were some threads of humanization and dignity given to the characters. Yet, I'm not convinced, since the movie so thoroughly demonizes the main nazi villains to such a wonderfully malicious extent, that there really was no aim for making an anti-war statement. There's a certain insane reveling in watching Hitler get his face shot to full fucking shit.

ElJuski said:

No, that's true; it couldn't have been straight exploitation because there were some threads of humanization and dignity given to the characters. Yet, I'm not convinced, since the movie so thoroughly demonizes the main nazi villains to such a wonderfully malicious extent, that there really was no aim for making an anti-war statement. There's a certain insane reveling in watching Hitler get his face shot to full fucking shit.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point: it didn't seem to be able to decide which it was. That was my gripe with it. Would have preferred either a straight tongue-in-cheek fantasy or a full subversion, myself.