You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Inglourious Basterds

Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 5:20am

Post 1 of 37

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

EXCELLENT Film!


Discuss.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 5:33am

Post 2 of 37

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

I'm torn wether or not to see it at all really. Seems like with all Tarantino films. Everyone seems to love them, I tend to find them all (with the only exception of Reservoir Dogs) incredibly boring... can't seem to get a hang of Mr Tarantinos style at all. But who knows. He's got a great international cast together. If I have the urgent feeling of going to the cinema and there's really nothing better in there, I might give it a watch.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 6:50am

Post 3 of 37

Jrad

Force: 230 | Joined: 30th Apr 2005 | Posts: 478

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Like a lot of Tarantino films, they can get to me pretty fast and send me to sleep. But for some reason, this kept me entertained. I thought it was going to be more Pitt vs Nazi's, but was "pleasantly" surprised.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 3:13pm

Post 4 of 37

EED

Force: 1210 | Joined: 8th Mar 2005 | Posts: 9

VisionLab User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I have to agree with Sollthar. I think Tarantino is a hit and miss. For me this movie was a little boring, though was really good at the same time. The problem is that there is way too much unnecessary dialogue in the film. For me this had also ruined "DeathProof" and "Kill Bill Vol 2", although Kill Bill wasn't too bad. "Pulp Fiction" worked because you had John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken (In one of the funniest segments), and of course Samuel L Jackson carrying the dialogue and film.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 8:12pm

Post 5 of 37

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarantino is definitely a matter of taste. I imagine that a great deal of moviegoers find sections of his films to be boring, but I tend to enjoy those long stretches. It depends on what pace and what sense of humor you're willing to tolerate. It's all subjective, but in my view, the 'Basterds' delivered. One of the best films of the year.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 9:01pm

Post 6 of 37

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I find him a bit self-indulgent. That's fine, many directors are, but it doesn't really float my boat.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Aug 2009, 9:43pm

Post 7 of 37

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm an unabashed Tarantino fan... I know he's a complete dick - but I enjoyed every second of Inglourious Basterds - as I did of all his other movies. I'm one of the few people I know who still holds that Death Proof was better than Planet Terror in Grindhouse.

The movie will go for long stretches where you don't quite know why a certain scene is in the movie at all, until finally you realize why almost 10-15 minutes after the fact. The movie takes its time, but it's worth it because often the payoff is just so damn good.

I think that this movie is unique in that it's less "Tarantino-esque" than any of his other movies though. The long, talky dialouge scenes are still there, but they're well written and the characters are so well developed that it's a joy watching them. The movie is completely linear as well, something Tarantino has been know to not do as well - and the film also includes a much more traditional climax than any of his other films.

So if you're apprehensive about seeing a Tarantino movie, know that a lot of the things that make a token Tarantino movie are absent here. But not in a bad way.
Posted: Mon, 24th Aug 2009, 1:14am

Post 8 of 37

JasonX1024

Force: 1390 | Joined: 13th Jan 2008 | Posts: 492

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

EED wrote:

I have to agree with Sollthar. I think Tarantino is a hit and miss. For me this movie was a little boring, though was really good at the same time. The problem is that there is way too much unnecessary dialogue in the film. For me this had also ruined "DeathProof" and "Kill Bill Vol 2", although Kill Bill wasn't too bad. "Pulp Fiction" worked because you had John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken (In one of the funniest segments), and of course Samuel L Jackson carrying the dialogue and film.
I see that too, like in Kill Bill it was such an amazing movie yet, the dialogue made the characters sound so fucking boring like bill and the superman talk at the end of vol. 2...so long and pointless really...pulp fiction was amazing, as was death proof which didnt really have too much un needed dialogue
Posted: Mon, 24th Aug 2009, 2:16am

Post 9 of 37

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Okay, to explain why I do not think the dialog-heavy scenes are boring: I like to watch people. Quentin, apparently, does too. We don't need constant action to be pleased. A motion picture doesn't have to be all plot and necessary details. Technically, there's no such thing as "unnecessary" dialog. It's all up to the mind and intent of the writer. Of course, to each his own taste. If you prefer constant movement, then Tarantino's films are not for you.
Posted: Mon, 24th Aug 2009, 5:17pm

Post 10 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

I'm torn wether or not to see it at all really. Seems like with all Tarantino films. Everyone seems to love them, I tend to find them all (with the only exception of Reservoir Dogs) incredibly boring... can't seem to get a hang of Mr Tarantinos style at all. But who knows. He's got a great international cast together. If I have the urgent feeling of going to the cinema and there's really nothing better in there, I might give it a watch.
I don't think you've ever hit as many solidly agreeable points about an opinion with me than just now. Whoa. Basically exactly my thoughts, Solly.

Still want to see this for Brad Pitt, who I think can generally do no wrong these days and is just as much fun to see work as, say, someone like Johnny Depp.
Posted: Wed, 26th Aug 2009, 5:02pm

Post 11 of 37

ChromeHeart

Force: 1950 | Joined: 30th Jan 2006 | Posts: 117

VisionLab User VideoWrap User

Gold Member

*SPOILERS*


I went into this film with relatively low expectations, despite being a Tarantino fan. The film could have been shorter, but I liked it for the most part. Christoph Waltz gave a brilliant performance as the Nazi SS Col. Hans Landa. Unfortunately, I felt this character to be one of the only memorable ones... It also makes me somewhat uncomfortable that the only character that I can relate to and admire in this film is this Nazi.

Aside from that, I thought this film had something important to say. The crowd laughs and cheers as the "Basterds" collect Nazi scalps, burn an audience alive (trapped like a gas chamber), and even * SPOILER * shoot hitler's face off. I just found it to be cleverly ironic. Vengeance can make us just as ugly as the Nazis were.

Honestly, the dialogue did not need to be as heavy as it was, and I'm not sure if I liked the usage and recycing of the Morricone score and themes. Tarantino should really hire someone to score his films instead of constantly borrowing music, especially the ones used from other films. Did anyone else feel the same way about the music? I wouldn't consider Inglourious Basterds as a Spaghetti Western.. So I was surprised to hear those songs.

Anyways, I'm going to see this film again. Maybe I'll come out of it with a different opinion. I'd be curious to see if anyone else feels the same way about this movie, let me know smile
Posted: Fri, 28th Aug 2009, 4:41pm

Post 12 of 37

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm a known Tarantino hater, so this may sound disingenuous, but I absolutely LOVED this film.

It's amount of style, awkwardness, and over-the-top scenes were all checked and balanced enough in the narrative economy to make it an effective film of the Tarantino style and not just another ostentatious demonstration of it. Violence was there, but the film wasn't just Brad Pitt vs. The Nazis. In fact, the actresses in the film and the Head of the Nazi SS each had more screen time than the 'Basterds' themselves. Did this pull the film down? No, not at all.

Rather, it elevated it to another level of cinema, because it brought its story into an interconnected, multifaceted web lightly sprinkled with misplaced morality: is Pitt right, murdering and scalping men who pledge allegiance to their country (I know, still Nazis, but still); is Mimieux, the French woman, correct in her abhorring of Zoller, a war hero who has the misfortune of being a hero for the 'bad' side of the army, despite his obvious aching humanity - a direct contradiction of the fact that 'Nazi ain't got no humanity'? Or what about when we're introduced to a Nazi who is obviously just a footsoldier trying to get home to his family and newborn boy. Yes, he's a Nazi, but what makes Pitt any different mindless killing him on the basis of political affiliation? By the time the last credit roll, most of these 'pickles' are settled and dealt with; and before you jump on me for sympathizing with the Nazis in the film, I'm not saying I agree with them - I just liked how Tarantino gave most of the nameless soldiers we saw humanity, while giving Pitt second to none. Effective role reversal, in a way.

In the end, most deaths and events that happen are checked by a moral quandary that's eventually balanced by some other action. This was nice because it was a reminder that Tarantino can tell a story about more than bloody, mindless female revenge (which is, indeed, what his last three films have been about) or talky attempts at singular character development. This was a glimpse at the bright ingenuity we saw in Reservoir Dogs. It's an exercise in storytelling that allows us to grow and develop with several characters, but doesn't get so indulgent that exposition populates the film. Rather, most dialog and 'development' is actually in there for entertainment, which is refreshing in a Tarantino film. The cutesy little puns aren't there because they sound Tarantino-esque, they're there because they're appropriate.

That being said, I felt the film could be more stylish. Little bits like snap zooms and character asides were well-executed (Samuel L. Jackson's interruption highlighting the dangers of nitrate film for a projectionist) but not peppered evenly enough through the film to take the film to that final level of stylistic catharsis.

Longer review later, but I really really liked the movie. Unquestionably better than Pulp Fiction in my book, purely by virtue of the fact that it was like a similar, Nazi-fied version of it with less needless dialog and more cinematic punch.

9/10
Posted: Fri, 28th Aug 2009, 5:29pm

Post 13 of 37

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm glad I have company here.

I'd go so far as to say that this film is a masterpiece of modern cinema. And no I'm not joking.
Posted: Fri, 28th Aug 2009, 7:28pm

Post 14 of 37

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

My love of this movie can be summed up in one word: Booornjiourrrno
I'm still hoping they release "Learn Italian with Aldo Raine" as a tie in.

Seriously though this was easily the best thing Tarantino's done in my opinion which is especially good given how disappointing Kill Bill and Death Proof (especially) were. Go and see it now!
Posted: Fri, 28th Aug 2009, 10:55pm

Post 15 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hmmmmmm, I'd say for certain obvious directorial over-indulgences and some unevenly-spread 'flair' bits (like Ben says, the Samuel L. narration, funny titles, etc.) it doesn't quite push into 'masterpiece' territory, especially of modern cinema.

But, it is a very finely-made film. Largely succeeding on the backs of the actors that play the Nazis. And Eli Roth.

And, while I did really like this movie and it had a very visceral, fun quality to it- I can't help but feel it came out a little confused and uneven in genre territory. For a single viewing, this works fine- but because it plays as over-the-top as it does, there isn't much room for the humor to fully set in like it does in, say, Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction, nor does it gather enough pace to create any real dramatic, emotional resonance- even the cheap kind. (ala Resevoir Dogs)

And because of this, while I do believe it to be the least Tarantino-y of QTs films and also, ironically, the best- I feel like Inglourious Basterds' success is majorly a product of a culmination and amalgamation of QTs previous genres and of successful facets of his other projects.

The trick to that is, once you start taking the best bits of your previous things, it's hard to enter 'masterpiece' or 'timeless' category in any of them because they aren't and can't be built on in a slow-burn kind of way that they could in the previous movies. Simply because they're just there to be fun little bits.

But the movie works with them, and I generally liked it. There's no need for it to be a masterpiece; and it most-certainly isn't. But it's a good movie, and I'll give it that.

Now if only QT would have someone score his movies. Or at least not use scores from other movies. Songs from music producers like, say, 'Twist N' Shout' are one thing- recalling in my head scenes from The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly because you use Ennio Morricone's score is another. But other than those things, I can't complain. Basterds get their glory, there's a decent 'Amerrrrricccaaaa!!!1111' moment, and Eli Roth is in the movie with a baseball bat. Enough said.
Posted: Sat, 29th Aug 2009, 5:42pm

Post 16 of 37

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

I'm glad I have company here.

I'd go so far as to say that this film is a masterpiece of modern cinema. And no I'm not joking.
After letting it sink in for a while, I'm forced to agree with you.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 4:07am

Post 17 of 37

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

This is probably one of my favorite films of all time... I've seen it 3 times in the past week. Of course Tarantino is my idol so I may be an itsy bit bias.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 2:38pm

Post 18 of 37

mikeh

Force: 1025 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 330

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I really disliked this movie. In my opinion it was incredibly boring, not-funny and akward. It was just stupid, and I was going to walk out had I not spent $10.50 on it.

(Spoilers)

Some things that just stand out is Brad Pitt's terrible fake accent that made me uncomfortable watching, and the lack of good action scenes. One scene that stands out was the meeting in the basement bar, where we watched the characters talk and build up suspense for quite some time, and then all of the action happened before you could even realize it.

Probably the worst movie I've ever seen.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 3:25pm

Post 19 of 37

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

mikeh wrote:

I really disliked this movie. In my opinion it was incredibly boring, not-funny and akward. It was just stupid, and I was going to walk out had I not spent $10.50 on it.

(Spoilers)

Some things that just stand out is Brad Pitt's terrible fake accent that made me uncomfortable watching, and the lack of good action scenes. One scene that stands out was the meeting in the basement bar, where we watched the characters talk and build up suspense for quite some time, and then all of the action happened before you could even realize it.

Probably the worst movie I've ever seen.
This movie is so great because it is a direct response and directly criticizes the movies you love on purpose. It is this negating of the "MTV" culture of moviemaking that is precisely what makes it a modern masterpiece.

The slowness of the movie is what expertly builds tension and rewards those who are willing to sit still and pay attention with excellent character beats and revelations. Those who aren't... well, they're missing out.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 5:35pm

Post 20 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This is one if the reasons it's always hard for me to give Tarantino films a chance: the fanbase is always snarky, condemning, and filled with that I'm-smarter-than-you attitude that just makes me want to punch someone.

I'm sorry to say in this case, it's you Evman. I liked the movie overall, yeah, but it definitely wasn't without it's boring or overlong moments, and it's silly to try and fully attribute this to a 'style' someone just doesn't understand. No, at some points in this and all movies the slow-burn technique does just get too stale and, admittedly, frustrating.

And yeah, I liked most of the characters, but I too found Brad Pitt too much, too overly-caricaturized. It just frustrated me because it just looked like poor, albeit funny, acting to me. And from such an exceent actor, this was just upsetting. I hadn't said it yet, but Brad Pitt nearly ruined this movie for me. The German character actors saved it. Which was shocking to see, really, and I still very much enjoyed the movie- but it wasn't without it's flaws, I was just willing to overlook them. Attacking someone for not doing so is just unnecessary.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 6:02pm

Post 21 of 37

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

This is one if the reasons it's always hard for me to give Tarantino films a chance: the fanbase is always snarky, condemning, and filled with that I'm-smarter-than-you attitude that just makes me want to punch someone.

I'm sorry to say in this case, it's you Evman. I liked the movie overall, yeah, but it definitely wasn't without it's boring or overlong moments, and it's silly to try and fully attribute this to a 'style' someone just doesn't understand. No, at some points in this and all movies the slow-burn technique does just get too stale and, admittedly, frustrating.
I think it's unfair of you to say that someone's acting snarky and has some kind of holier than thou attitude just because they disagree with your idea of what's boring and what isn't. All I took his comments to mean was "If you enjoy sitting and watching slow burning, tension building scenes then you'll love this". I have to admit that I agree, a lot of the charm of this movie comes from just sitting back and observing what is essentially nothing. You clearly didn't enjoy that element of the movie and so of course you won't appreciate it in the same way. That doesn't mean he's saying you're not on the same intellectual and critical level as people who did, it's just saying that you found it boring and that it's a shame you don't get the same level of enjoyment as him. I have to admit that I agree here as well. If someone recommends a film to me that they love but I hate I don't feel that their acting all superior but I do understand that feeling of loving something and wanting everyone else to be able to feel that too.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 6:37pm

Post 22 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Saying the movie is criticizing the 'movies mikeh loves on purpose', to me, is assuming mikeh only likes big explosion movies and doesn't have the tact or attention span for slow-burn, intellectual movies. When, really, the slow-burn in Tarantino movies does tend to actually get boring number one; and number two Evman has no idea what kind of movies mikeh likes. I think, inherently, it's less of saying 'it's a shame you couldn't enjoy that the way I did' and more of saying 'it's a shame you don't have the attention span/intelligence to 'get' this movie the way I did'. The attitude may entirely be accidental- a product of loving this movie- but that doesn't change the way it came out in the post.

And this is nothing new, really, it's happened with someone talking to another person on nearly every Tarantino film- so I highly doubt I'm misreading it. As someone who enjoyed the film, I'm more than willing to say I found some parts boring or unnecessary; I was just willing to overlook them. As a Tarantino fan, obviously as was Evman. But that doesn't make mikeh's view any less valid or, in this case, true.

There's more than that in his post I found snarky, it's just what stuck out. It's also, to an extent, taking a flaw of a movie and saying 'well, it's just supposed to be that way cuz that's the style!'-which we all know, while sometimes true, doesn't at all mean it's not a flaw.
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 7:40pm

Post 23 of 37

mikeh

Force: 1025 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 330

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Saying the movie is criticizing the 'movies mikeh loves on purpose', to me, is assuming mikeh only likes big explosion movies and doesn't have the tact or attention span for slow-burn, intellectual movies. When, really, the slow-burn in Tarantino movies does tend to actually get boring number one; and number two Evman has no idea what kind of movies mikeh likes. I think, inherently, it's less of saying 'it's a shame you couldn't enjoy that the way I did' and more of saying 'it's a shame you don't have the attention span/intelligence to 'get' this movie the way I did'. The attitude may entirely be accidental- a product of loving this movie- but that doesn't change the way it came out in the post.
Thanks for the defense.....

To be honest...Some of my favorite movies are long intellectual ones. Take the The Good The Bad and The Ugly, or Gettysburg for example. Some people find them boring, others (me) don't. If anything, i though Inglorious Basterds was a "MTV" style movie with pointless violence and every single war movie cliche known. It was just a weird film..
Posted: Sun, 30th Aug 2009, 8:33pm

Post 24 of 37

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Whoops. Rereading my post - it did come off a bit "snarkier" than I intended. I simply was providing a reason for my label of a "masterpiece of modern cinema", by saying it was a direct reaction and disregard of all the new-"MTV" style movies coming out. That's all I meant.

Not to say that these films are inferior - I've loved plenty of them. It was simply refreshing to see a movie that so actively undermines these new traditions in favor of older style cinema... While at the same time subverting those conventions as well...

God, I could write a dissertation on this film probably. razz
Posted: Mon, 31st Aug 2009, 1:08am

Post 25 of 37

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It ain't a dissertation, but here's a decent sized review I've written: http://thesilvermirror.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/inglourious-basterds/
Posted: Mon, 31st Aug 2009, 8:20am

Post 26 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No "Matrix gimmicks" or "Michael Bay, rapid-fire bullshit". Well, at least it's good to see you don't need to attack other movies or directors to enjoy this one. unsure
Posted: Mon, 31st Aug 2009, 5:42pm

Post 27 of 37

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Atom wrote:

No "Matrix gimmicks" or "Michael Bay, rapid-fire bullshit". Well, at least it's good to see you don't need to attack other movies or directors to enjoy this one. unsure
I was not attacking them, and disapproving of other styles of filmmaking is not required to enjoy the film! I did enjoy the first 'Transformers', and of course I enjoyed 'The Matrix'. But both styles of filmmaking have become horribly overused, so I was referring to 'Inglourious Basterds' as a breath of fresh air.
Posted: Fri, 4th Sep 2009, 9:18pm

Post 28 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I've never been much of a Tarantino fan, although I enjoyed Pulp Fiction and Death Proof, but this was one of the best movies I've seen in years. I believe it's the only 2:30+ running time movie I've watched that didn't feel overdrawn, and actually went by really fast.

Definitely one to watch.
Posted: Sat, 5th Sep 2009, 6:54am

Post 29 of 37

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Finally got around to seeing this. Freaking loved every minute of it. I really did not think I'd enjoy a movie this year more than District 9. Easily my favorite film by Tarantino. I really hope Christoph Waltz gets nominated for Best Supporting Actor because I haven't been as amazed by one's acting in a long time.

Evman wrote:

This movie is so great because it is a direct response and directly criticizes the movies you love on purpose. It is this negating of the "MTV" culture of moviemaking that is precisely what makes it a modern masterpiece.
I read this before I saw the film but didn't really understand it. After seeing it, it completely makes sense to me now. I see this film as a big slap in the face to Hollywood.
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 6:57am

Post 30 of 37

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Finally caught this one, and I've got to say, I think this was the best film Tarantino has made.

Brilliant acting on all fronts, including Pitt, namely because it was obvious the role was intended for camp. One of the best cast films I've seen in a very long time.

The cinematography was absolutely superb, often times causing me to be distracted by the complexity and/or dramatic usage of framing. Normally this would annoy me, but it actually enhanced my enjoyment of it.

Overall, Highly entertaining, pitch-perfect casting, and great writing.


(And yes, the film did slow down in areas, but it didn't hinder it for me because each scene had a high-tension situation arise at the end of them, causing me to enjoy the build up)
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 1:40pm

Post 31 of 37

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Hm, so far I've completely overlooked this at the cinema. Given the wide-ranging love here from people with usually very disparate opinions, I might have to give it a shot!

Of course, the fact I love everything I've seen of Tarantino's makes it a bit strange that I haven't seen it already...
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 1:56pm

Post 32 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This is actually in my top 10 of all time, so a Tarantino fan like yourself not seeing it could be considered a crime in many countries.
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 2:31pm

Post 33 of 37

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

I caught this a week ago and was a bit disappointed. It was entertaining, sure, and had its humorous places, definitely, but I could have died happy without having ever seen it.

Part of the problem was that I accidentally had an epiphany during the opening scene, which ruined the rest of the film.

It wasn't a revelation, but it suddenly dawned on me that i'd seen this scene before, not just once, but several times in several films and when I thought about it I realised that most of Tarantino's style is:

a) characters being unexpectedly articulate and contemplative surrounding a juxtaposed violence scene
b) those same character usually being overly verbose
c) separation into chapters
d) conspicuously matter-of-fact violence

We get it, Quentin - you like making people sound clever. Yes yes yes, we know it makes the violence somehow more chivalrous and olde worlde. Chapters? Oooh thats novel, makes it seem like a book so you're made to feel its fiction rather than truth, clever. And your violence? So gory you're forced to question your own morals, or perhaps its just about making a statement - ooh you sly fox you've really got me thinking there! Well done, sir, well done.

For me, the Tarantino empire has officially Nuked its own Fridge.
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 2:43pm

Post 34 of 37

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Hasn't that been the case with Tarantino's films from the very beginning, though? ie, it's his style, and you either like it or you don't.

It's like saying "I suddenly realised that Michael Bay always has wisecracking characters, loads of explosions, car porn and a memorable score. He's nuked the fridge!" Yes, it's not to everyone's taste...but that's what they do.

What is it about IB's Tarantino-esque stuff that bothered you when it didn't in his previous ones? Or has it always bothered you?
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 2:54pm

Post 35 of 37

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Its never bothered me before, thats the problem. I've loved all his other stuff. Theres evidently been something different about all his previous work, a set of scales finely balancing his plots with his set-pieces, that has only now been tipped in this latest film.

The point is that when i watch his other films, the fact that its following a formula a) isn't relevant b) isn't noticed. Its acceptable to do film-making-by-numbers if no one notices that how you're doing it and if it doesn't get in the way of your enjoyment of the film.

Bay's risible style at least still generates entertaining (if completely pointless) films, but in IB I found myself annoyed by Tarantino's style.
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 3:03pm

Post 36 of 37

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

IB was OK, not great. The rest of the film couldn't live up to the opening scene for me. Still, worth a watch.
Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009, 3:04pm

Post 37 of 37

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

It feels like typical Tarantino-haters were fans of this. As a typical fan of his unique style, self-aware humor, and indulgent referential cinema homages; I hate to say that I was disappointed by "Inglourious Basterds." I wanted to like it. I really did. I hyped it up all summer, and saw it on it's opening night.

I'll start with the things he got right. The casting was largely spot-on, but I found Eli Roth to be an awkward onscreen presence. Michael Fassbender and Christoph Waltz were highlights for me. I will also admit that each individual scene stands alone as a fantastic short film. Was the basement bar-room sequence incredibly suspenseful and expertly paced? Of course. Was the opening scene completely captivating? Of course. Unfortunately, there is little cohesiveness between them. Mr. Tarantino seems to concerned with the mechanics of each gesture, each beautiful lighting set-up, each uber-stylish Morricone number he ripped from another film to tend to the soul and themes of his film.

Here is my number one reason for not liking this film. During the movie's publicity, all Tarantino could talk about was how "Inglourious Basterds" was a "spaghetti western." I am thoroughly obsessed with Sergio Leone's westerns right now, so I couldn't have been more excited to see a modern tribute, and I knew Mr. Tarantino to be an unabashed Leone fan who could update the style for modern audiences. So I went into the theater expecting the next "Once Upon a Time in the West." Perhaps I got my expectations too high, but I felt that Mr. Tarantino failed to make the essence of the spaghetti western his own.

The scenes that are obvious tributes to Leone's films (namely Landa approaching the farm to a Morricone score and the Bear Jew emerging from the tunnel to a Morricone score) feel like nothing more than that, tributes. Tarantino was apparently under the impression that he could shoot a scene with some nice chin-to-forehead close-ups and slap an Ennio Morricone piece underneath it all and that would be that. It resulted in some pretty moments, but it failed to achieve the operatic harmony between image and music I have come to expect from a Leone film.

Don't get me wrong, I love how "True Romance" pays tribute to "Once Upon a Time in the West" with the subtle in-joke of a swinging lantern. I love the Leone-esque chin-to-forehead close-up of Samuel L reciting Ezekiel 25:17 in "Pulp Fiction." But considering it was a film that promised to be a true spaghetti western and not an overdone exercise in period style, "Inglourious Basterds" was a film that showed great potential, but ultimately failed to deliver.