Inglourious Basterds (1 Viewer)

[MacGruber]

Loved it. Someone said earlier in the thread they didn't get the whole Waltz laughing hysterically when she tells him she got hurt while mountain climbing. That may have been my favorite moment in the whole film.

That first scene was just stellar. I have a few friends who hated this movie. Just kind of have to shrug and feel bad they can't appreciate a movie like this. How anyone who claims to be a movie buff can't love this movie is beyond me.

 

[Hack Attack]

Watched this last night.I enjoyed the first 30 or so minutes a great deal.The last two hours were extremely boring and uneventful.The movie was pretty much a huge letdown.I'd give it a D- and tell anyone I can not to waste their time with it.ETA: The ending was a horrific letdown.

I didn't go in with any expectations so I wasn't let down but agree with the rest. Thought the first 30 minutes were good but by the end I was annoyed it was still going. Around 2 hours or so I grabbed the box to see the run time so I knew how much longer this would go.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

I'd have liked to see more of Aldo and the commando Jews. The movie focused too much on the Shoshana character who was extremely boring. I also had a problem with a few of the scenes that dragged on and on. I get that they were trying to build tension, but it didn't work for me.

If this movie had a fault, this was it. I would not have been upset at all if the movie had an additional 30 minutes of running time comprised primarily of nazi scalping and backstories of the basterds.

Mrs. Dogg made the same comments.

agreed.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Loved it. Someone said earlier in the thread they didn't get the whole Waltz laughing hysterically when she tells him she got hurt while mountain climbing. That may have been my favorite moment in the whole film. That first scene was just stellar. I have a few friends who hated this movie. Just kind of have to shrug and feel bad they can't appreciate a movie like this. How anyone who claims to be a movie buff can't love this movie is beyond me.

Yep. I understand that tastes are always different. But I wonder if this movie isn't entertaining, then what the hell is?

 

[Ghost Rider]

ETA: The ending was a horrific letdown.

Call me crazy, but I think the last 10 minutes is one of the most satisfying movie endings ever.

Yep. I understand that tastes are always different. But I wonder if this movie isn't entertaining, then what the hell is?

 

[Capella]

Finally saw this last night. Surprised Tanner and especially Truck didn't like this. I thought it was a lot of fun.

I loved Pitt's performance. Perfectly over the top.

I do wish there were more time spent on the Basterds, but I'm not surprised that Tatantino did that. Typical of him leaving you wanting more.

Baseball bat scene ruled.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Best movie of last year.

 

[McJose]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

 

[Capella]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

 

[McJose]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

 

[Zaxxon]

Best movie of last year.

 

[Capella]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

Didn't find any of it to be patronizing.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

Shtick?

 

[Hoart Petterson]

I loved Pitt's performance. Perfectly over the top.

I disagree with this though. Miscast. One-note. I get why he was in the movie just wish he didn't have to be.

 

[McJose]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

Didn't find any of it to be patronizing.

"We could use film. It's very flammable!"[insert a 20 second montage of flammable film]OMG Shoshanna is meeting Landa, the guy who killed her family![Overly loooooooong take of her face because, well, you might not know she's crapping bricks]

 

[Capella]

I loved Pitt's performance. Perfectly over the top.

I disagree with this though. Miscast. One-note. I get why he was in the movie just wish he didn't have to be.

Nah, his scene while he was bumbling through Italian was hilarious. Also his facial expressions when he realized they were busted. Thought he played the dumb hick role pretty well.

 

[Capella]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

Didn't find any of it to be patronizing.

"We could use film. It's very flammable!"[insert a 20 second montage of flammable film]OMG Shoshanna is meeting Landa, the guy who killed her family![Overly loooooooong take of her face because, well, you might not know she's crapping bricks]

Pretty small gripes. Seems like you're looking for things to complain about.

 

[Sack Boy]

I loved all the scenes with Christoph Waltz but WTF casted Mike Myers?

The Churchill scene made me want to throw up.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

Didn't find any of it to be patronizing.

"We could use film. It's very flammable!"[insert a 20 second montage of flammable film]OMG Shoshanna is meeting Landa, the guy who killed her family![Overly loooooooong take of her face because, well, you might not know she's crapping bricks]

The burning film as a weapon metaphor was pretty much what the movie was. As far criticizing the choice to stay on Shoshanna's face, kind of a nitpicker if you ask me. Waltz gives one of the greatest performances in the last 20 years. The once upon a time opening scene, the bar/basement scene, the gasoline song scene, every second of the movie with waltz...what's not to love??

 

[Hoart Petterson]

I loved Pitt's performance. Perfectly over the top.

I disagree with this though. Miscast. One-note. I get why he was in the movie just wish he didn't have to be.

Nah, his scene while he was bumbling through Italian was hilarious. Also his facial expressions when he realized they were busted. Thought he played the dumb hick role pretty well.

Agree to disagree.

 

[McJose]

Pretty small gripes. Seems like you're looking for things to complain about.

Those are just 2 examples. I've got a laundry list in this thread.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Pretty small gripes. Seems like you're looking for things to complain about.

Those are just 2 examples. I've got a laundry list in this thread.

Poster Posts jdoggydogg 129 McJose 42 Joe Bryant 25 Harry Manback 19 Andy Dufresne 18

 

[McJose]

Pretty small gripes. Seems like you're looking for things to complain about.

Those are just 2 examples. I've got a laundry list in this thread.

Poster Posts jdoggydogg 129 McJose 42 Joe Bryant 25 Harry Manback 19 Andy Dufresne 18

Exactly. Now, good day.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Best movie of last year.

Mmmm hmmmm.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You guys are high. That movie was a piece-meal, Tarrantino spank session. Looooong periods of 'hey, watch me direct' punctuated with fits of 'omg, isn't this crazy?'

Movie was fun as hell. Not sure what you're talking about here.

It was slip-shod and patronizing.

Deja vu.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Pretty small gripes. Seems like you're looking for things to complain about.

Those are just 2 examples. I've got a laundry list in this thread.

That you keep repeating over and over.

 

[Abrantes]

Firmly in McJose's camp on this one, much as it pains me to admit. Call me when Tarantino goes back to directing actual movies, as opposed to fetishist jerk-off sessions.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Firmly in McJose's camp on this one, much as it pains me to admit. Call me when Tarantino goes back to directing actual movies, as opposed to fetishist jerk-off sessions.

Wow. I don't understand this at all.

 

[Abrantes]

Firmly in McJose's camp on this one, much as it pains me to admit. Call me when Tarantino goes back to directing actual movies, as opposed to fetishist jerk-off sessions.

Wow. I don't understand this at all.

Siding with McJose? Yeah, I didn't understand that either, but it happened. Yes, he's always made fetishist jerk-off sessions, but he used to populate them with actual characters, bound with story and structure. I don't get that from him anymore.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Firmly in McJose's camp on this one, much as it pains me to admit. Call me when Tarantino goes back to directing actual movies, as opposed to fetishist jerk-off sessions.

Wow. I don't understand this at all.

Siding with McJose? Yeah, I didn't understand that either, but it happened. Yes, he's always made fetishist jerk-off sessions, but he used to populate them with actual characters, bound with story and structure. I don't get that from him anymore.

Name a better character he's written than Landa? ..and the structure critique? Say what?

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Firmly in McJose's camp on this one, much as it pains me to admit. Call me when Tarantino goes back to directing actual movies, as opposed to fetishist jerk-off sessions.

Wow. I don't understand this at all.

Siding with McJose? Yeah, I didn't understand that either, but it happened. Yes, he's always made fetishist jerk-off sessions, but he used to populate them with actual characters, bound with story and structure. I don't get that from him anymore.

Name a better character he's written than Landa? ..and the structure critique? Say what?

When Pulp Fiction or Reservoid Dogs came out and if this board was around, there would have been people bashing those films as well. Tarantino has a habit of dividing film goers into either loving or hating his work. I don't understand it either as I find IB his best work since Fiction, but people either have unrealistic expectations surrounding a film or just don't get it. Many films I don't get either, so whatever.

 

[trout]

I liked the movie.

 

[Abrantes]

Firmly in McJose's camp on this one, much as it pains me to admit. Call me when Tarantino goes back to directing actual movies, as opposed to fetishist jerk-off sessions.

Wow. I don't understand this at all.

Siding with McJose? Yeah, I didn't understand that either, but it happened. Yes, he's always made fetishist jerk-off sessions, but he used to populate them with actual characters, bound with story and structure. I don't get that from him anymore.

Name a better character he's written than Landa? ..and the structure critique? Say what?

When Pulp Fiction or Reservoid Dogs came out and if this board was around, there would have been people bashing those films as well. Tarantino has a habit of dividing film goers into either loving or hating his work. I don't understand it either as I find IB his best work since Fiction, but people either have unrealistic expectations surrounding a film or just don't get it. Many films I don't get either, so whatever.

It's not a matter of getting it. As I hinted above, I love a lot of Tarantino's other stuff.As for characters, I have the feeling we're not gonna see eye-to-eye very much if you feel the need to ask that. I thought Waltz gave a great performance, but in terms of a believable, fleshed-out character, there's a handful of characters in Pulp Fiction that I found more compelling, plus a few more in Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown.

I don't see what's the confusion with the structure critique. It was a simple story, but the narrative was all over the place. Felt like it would've worked better as a movie half its length, which could've still managed to say all he wanted to say.

 

[trader jake]

It was a simple story

You can give a simplistic synopsis of the film...that doesn't mean the film was simple. IB has multiple layers, meanings, and stories going on throughout the film. Frankly, there was nothing simple about it.A majority of people that came away disappointed did so because of the length of individual scenes. They became so concerned with moving the plot along that they missed the content of the film. Basically, they wanted the payoff now and forgot that a story can be told in a manner where the journey is as rewarding as the destination. Just my 2 cents.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Though I really like this movie, I'm not surprised that some people do not. After all, there's scarcely a more polarizing director than Tarantino.

What I find perplexing are all these references to Tarantino's wankery, gimmickry, and egotism. All these elements exist fully-fledged in Tarantino's previous efforts. I'm always interested his seeing the detractors' top ten film list from 2009, because I find it hard to believe you've seen 10 better movies than Inglourious Basterds last year.

 

[Sack Boy]

Though I really like this movie, I'm not surprised that some people do not. After all, there's scarcely a more polarizing director than Tarantino. What I find perplexing are all these references to Tarantino's wankery, gimmickry, and egotism. All these elements exist fully-fledged in Tarantino's previous efforts. I'm always interested his seeing the detractors' top ten film list from 2009, because I find it hard to believe you've seen 10 better movies than Inglourious Basterds last year.

When you're an established director like Tarantino, working with a nice size production budget of $70 million and mega stars like Mike Meyers begging to be in your movie, it is very tempting to be a little self indulgent. NTTAWWT

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Wow. I don't understand this at all.

Siding with McJose? Yeah, I didn't understand that either, but it happened. Yes, he's always made fetishist jerk-off sessions, but he used to populate them with actual characters, bound with story and structure. I don't get that from him anymore.

Name a better character he's written than Landa? ..and the structure critique? Say what?

When Pulp Fiction or Reservoid Dogs came out and if this board was around, there would have been people bashing those films as well. Tarantino has a habit of dividing film goers into either loving or hating his work. I don't understand it either as I find IB his best work since Fiction, but people either have unrealistic expectations surrounding a film or just don't get it. Many films I don't get either, so whatever.

It's not a matter of getting it. As I hinted above, I love a lot of Tarantino's other stuff.As for characters, I have the feeling we're not gonna see eye-to-eye very much if you feel the need to ask that. I thought Waltz gave a great performance, but in terms of a believable, fleshed-out character, there's a handful of characters in Pulp Fiction that I found more compelling, plus a few more in Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown.

I don't see what's the confusion with the structure critique. It was a simple story, but the narrative was all over the place. Felt like it would've worked better as a movie half its length, which could've still managed to say all he wanted to say.

If you didn't like it, you obviously didn't "get it". I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that what Quentin Tarantino put out didn't gel with you. For lots of us it did. If his structure, narrative, characters and film length didn't hit you, then there is nothing wrong with that. For many of us it was the best film of 2009. If we all agreed, i'd be worried.

 

[Ned]

I fell asleep about 45mins in.

 

[Sack Boy]

I fell asleep about 45mins in.

Quentin Tarantino: If my movie didn't make you crave for strudel then there is something wrong with you!

 

[Sack Boy]

i did not care for the casting of Mike Myers in that role. that scene felt out of place with the rest of the film. but that's nitpicking--this is a great movie.

I asked Quentin about that and he said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was brutal but it made nice bookends with the strudel."

 

[jdoggydogg]

Though I really like this movie, I'm not surprised that some people do not. After all, there's scarcely a more polarizing director than Tarantino.

What I find perplexing are all these references to Tarantino's wankery, gimmickry, and egotism. All these elements exist fully-fledged in Tarantino's previous efforts. I'm always interested his seeing the detractors' top ten film list from 2009, because I find it hard to believe you've seen 10 better movies than Inglourious Basterds last year.

When you're an established director like Tarantino woring with a nice size production budget of $70 million and mega stars like Mike Meyers begging to be in your movie, it is very tempting to be a little self indulgent. NTTAWWT

I think most artists are self-indulgent.

 

[Sack Boy]

Baseball bat scene ruled.

I credit Tarantino for his restraint. He scratched a scene where the Bear Jew used the bat on a dog.

 

[Arch Stanton]

It was a simple story

You can give a simplistic synopsis of the film...that doesn't mean the film was simple. IB has multiple layers, meanings, and stories going on throughout the film. Frankly, there was nothing simple about it.A majority of people that came away disappointed did so because of the length of individual scenes. They became so concerned with moving the plot along that they missed the content of the film. Basically, they wanted the payoff now and forgot that a story can be told in a manner where the journey is as rewarding as the destination. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with this second paragraph completely. I even started feeling that way during the first scene, thinking uh-oh Q's going crazy with dialogue and this is going to be a long drawn out movie. Then all of a sudden Aldo turns evil and blood flies. Lather, rinse, repeat. The long scenes on Shoshana's face? Only serves to show the measure of self control she had with her breakdown as soon as Aldo leaves. Pitt as a redneck Sgt? Might've been awful if the Basterds were more of a focus of the film but he was great and his Italian was side-splitting. Q is a master of seemingly rambling dialogue that pulls together for something pretty shocking and a lot of people won't or don't like that. But as soon as you settle into the knowledge that this isn't My Dinner With Andre, that the dialogue is going to end in blood, it's great to sit back and watch his characters play verbal chess by setting their pieces and then start the bloodbath. I don't know if it's his best, I'll have to see it again to see if I like it better than PF or RD but it's a damn fine movie, one of the best of last year and a serious contender for best picture in any year that didn't have the highest grossing movie of all time in it.

 

[Sack Boy]

It was a simple story

You can give a simplistic synopsis of the film...that doesn't mean the film was simple. IB has multiple layers, meanings, and stories going on throughout the film. Frankly, there was nothing simple about it.A majority of people that came away disappointed did so because of the length of individual scenes. They became so concerned with moving the plot along that they missed the content of the film. Basically, they wanted the payoff now and forgot that a story can be told in a manner where the journey is as rewarding as the destination. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with this second paragraph completely. I even started feeling that way during the first scene, thinking uh-oh Q's going crazy with dialogue and this is going to be a long drawn out movie. Then all of a sudden Aldo turns evil and blood flies. Lather, rinse, repeat. The long scenes on Shoshana's face? Only serves to show the measure of self control she had with her breakdown as soon as Aldo leaves. Pitt as a redneck Sgt? Might've been awful if the Basterds were more of a focus of the film but he was great and his Italian was side-splitting. Q is a master of seemingly rambling dialogue that pulls together for something pretty shocking and a lot of people won't or don't like that. But as soon as you settle into the knowledge that this isn't My Dinner With Andre, that the dialogue is going to end in blood, it's great to sit back and watch his characters play verbal chess by setting their pieces and then start the bloodbath. I don't know if it's his best, I'll have to see it again to see if I like it better than PF or RD but it's a damn fine movie, one of the best of last year and a serious contender for best picture in any year that didn't have the highest grossing movie of all time in it.

Huh? If Tarantino had mastered the art of suspense like Hitchcock then the audience wouldn't feel the scenes were too drawn out.

 

[Arch Stanton]

It was a simple story

You can give a simplistic synopsis of the film...that doesn't mean the film was simple. IB has multiple layers, meanings, and stories going on throughout the film. Frankly, there was nothing simple about it.A majority of people that came away disappointed did so because of the length of individual scenes. They became so concerned with moving the plot along that they missed the content of the film. Basically, they wanted the payoff now and forgot that a story can be told in a manner where the journey is as rewarding as the destination. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with this second paragraph completely. I even started feeling that way during the first scene, thinking uh-oh Q's going crazy with dialogue and this is going to be a long drawn out movie. Then all of a sudden Aldo turns evil and blood flies. Lather, rinse, repeat. The long scenes on Shoshana's face? Only serves to show the measure of self control she had with her breakdown as soon as Aldo leaves. Pitt as a redneck Sgt? Might've been awful if the Basterds were more of a focus of the film but he was great and his Italian was side-splitting. Q is a master of seemingly rambling dialogue that pulls together for something pretty shocking and a lot of people won't or don't like that. But as soon as you settle into the knowledge that this isn't My Dinner With Andre, that the dialogue is going to end in blood, it's great to sit back and watch his characters play verbal chess by setting their pieces and then start the bloodbath. I don't know if it's his best, I'll have to see it again to see if I like it better than PF or RD but it's a damn fine movie, one of the best of last year and a serious contender for best picture in any year that didn't have the highest grossing movie of all time in it.

Huh? If Tarantino had mastered the art of suspense like Hitchcock then the audience wouldn't feel the scene was too drawn out.

Huh? Where did I say he mastered the art of suspense?And I guarantee you that if Hitchcock made his greatest movie today there would be people on this board ripping it to pieces.

 

[Sack Boy]

Huh? Where did I say he mastered the art of suspense?And I guarantee you that if Hitchcock made his greatest movie today there would be people on this board ripping it to pieces.

You didn't say so but that's what Quentin was shooting for in Basterds.

 

[squidrope]

Wow Lots of luv/hate for this flick. I say mehhh...

 

[El Floppo]

Siding with McJose? Yeah, I didn't understand that either, but it happened.

Yes, he's always made fetishist jerk-off sessions, but he used to populate them with actual characters, bound with story and structure. I don't get that from him anymore.

Name a better character he's written than Landa? ..and the structure critique? Say what?

When Pulp Fiction or Reservoid Dogs came out and if this board was around, there would have been people bashing those films as well. Tarantino has a habit of dividing film goers into either loving or hating his work. I don't understand it either as I find IB his best work since Fiction, but people either have unrealistic expectations surrounding a film or just don't get it. Many films I don't get either, so whatever.

It's not a matter of getting it. As I hinted above, I love a lot of Tarantino's other stuff.As for characters, I have the feeling we're not gonna see eye-to-eye very much if you feel the need to ask that. I thought Waltz gave a great performance, but in terms of a believable, fleshed-out character, there's a handful of characters in Pulp Fiction that I found more compelling, plus a few more in Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown.

I don't see what's the confusion with the structure critique. It was a simple story, but the narrative was all over the place. Felt like it would've worked better as a movie half its length, which could've still managed to say all he wanted to say.

If you didn't like it, you obviously didn't "get it". I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that what Quentin Tarantino put out didn't gel with you. For lots of us it did. If his structure, narrative, characters and film length didn't hit you, then there is nothing wrong with that. For many of us it was the best film of 2009. If we all agreed, i'd be worried.

Disagree."Not getting it" = not understanding, so not liking.

"Not liking it" = understanding, but not liking.

I wasn't a fan of this one, and I'd like to think I "got it". Nothing really new to dissent with that hasn't been voiced by the others, although I don't think I disliked the film as much as some of the others. Just was kind of meh to me.

 

[Corporation]

I always hate when people say they don't like a movie, and then someone moves in with the condescending "you must not get it". Different strokes for different folks.

I got the movie by the way and loved it, top film of 2009 IMO.

 

[McJose]

Pretty small gripes. Seems like you're looking for things to complain about.

Those are just 2 examples. I've got a laundry list in this thread.

That you keep repeating over and over.

It's not my fault there are people that like this abortion of a movie and keep postin here.