What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Inglourious Basterds (3 Viewers)

Timmay, I have some bad news. We all took a poll, and decided that I should be the one to tell you:

About Battlefield Earth...

 
This film made me think about it a lot afterwards, which I see as the sign of a good movie.

Was QT drawing attention to how we view terrorists? Don't Islamic terrorists view us like we viewed the Nazi's? Wouldn't they want to set fire to a building while shooting GWB in the face? Do they draw a similar comparison between the Basterds scalping and something like the beheading of Daniel Pearl? Weren't the two Basterds at the end suicide bombers?

Yeah, I've been drinking.

What stood out for me the most was the shot of Shoshanna's "film face" being projected on the billowing smoke in the theatre as the fire consumed the Nazi patrons. Easily one of the top ten shots in the history of cinema IMO. Even watching it a second time, that shot blew me away.

 
What stood out for me the most was the shot of Shoshanna's "film face" being projected on the billowing smoke in the theatre as the fire consumed the Nazi patrons. Easily one of the top ten shots in the history of cinema IMO. Even watching it a second time, that shot blew me away.
:missing: I saw it for the first time yesterday, and almost wanted to go see it again today, just to see the last ten minutes or so again. Like you said, that shot is amazing. Overall, fantastic movie. :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When the Bear Jew kills the Nazi with the bat, the Nazi came off by far as the best guy in the scene. He showed incredible bravery accepting his fate. Donowitz came off poorly as just a hack executioner and then looked stupid with the "went yaahd" dance after. I wonder what Tarantino was trying to do there?
the reason they came off as hack executioners was because they were hack executioners. They're called the Inglorious Basterds, there definitely isn't any hidden meaning about what kind of people they are.
This, and they wanted to get the other Nazi to talk. The Basterds don't care that some Nazi died for his country. He died so the Basterds could get what they wanted. I definitely didn't come out of that part thinking "that Nazi was the best guy in the scene".
As the Basterds cheered their buddy bashing the guy's head in with a baseball bat while he knelt stoic and defenseless, what was your take on the guys in that scene?J
I thought the noise of the bat being hit on something as he walked in the cave was the scene stealer. It really built up the moment. It went downhill after he came out of the cave. I dont mean it was a bad scene but it was the builup that I liked.
 
When the Bear Jew kills the Nazi with the bat, the Nazi came off by far as the best guy in the scene. He showed incredible bravery accepting his fate. Donowitz came off poorly as just a hack executioner and then looked stupid with the "went yaahd" dance after. I wonder what Tarantino was trying to do there?
the reason they came off as hack executioners was because they were hack executioners. They're called the Inglorious Basterds, there definitely isn't any hidden meaning about what kind of people they are.
This, and they wanted to get the other Nazi to talk. The Basterds don't care that some Nazi died for his country. He died so the Basterds could get what they wanted. I definitely didn't come out of that part thinking "that Nazi was the best guy in the scene".
As the Basterds cheered their buddy bashing the guy's head in with a baseball bat while he knelt stoic and defenseless, what was your take on the guys in that scene?J
I thought the noise of the bat being hit on something as he walked in the cave was the scene stealer. It really built up the moment. It went downhill after he came out of the cave. I dont mean it was a bad scene but it was the builup that I liked.
I was a bit shocked by the result, I half expected the head to explode in an overly dramatic fashion, but the sound of the bat on the skull, followed by the moaning/gurgling...wow, it was shocking.
 
Yes, I get the point. I was listing minor historical flaws, not the obvious major historical flaw that we all know about and that I didn't want to mention. That one was obviously deliberate; I have a feeling that the others were errors.
If only they had you as a historical consultant, they could have avoided the embarrassment! (I don't think historical accuracy is what QT was going for.)
 
I think you guys need to lay off Tim a bit, I thought it was interesting that the Germans didn't round up the jews in France until later.

Seriously, if it were anyone but Tim who made the comment, I doubt anyone would have made any smartass remarks.

:unsure:

 
I think you guys need to lay off Tim a bit, I thought it was interesting that the Germans didn't round up the jews in France until later.

Seriously, if it were anyone but Tim who made the comment, I doubt anyone would have made any smartass remarks.

:shrug:
Well duh. It's another take on the tale-as-old-as-time Boy Who Cried Wolf. ;) Actually, I agree with you, and with Tim. The idea that the movie starts from a false premise is a bit distracting.

But hey, it wouldn't be as interesting if this movie took place in Poland as opposed to France, now would it?

 
Here's a question :
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("I was thinking it had to do with how Von Hammersmark actually was what Landa would later insist he be portrayed as - a double-agent hero who directly helped bring WWII to a halt. Having her around and her knowing that he was a fraud might've made that portrayal difficult in the post-war world.

Just a guess though, it's a good question. *** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();
 
I think you guys need to lay off Tim a bit, I thought it was interesting that the Germans didn't round up the jews in France until later.

Seriously, if it were anyone but Tim who made the comment, I doubt anyone would have made any smartass remarks.

:shrug:
Well duh. It's another take on the tale-as-old-as-time Boy Who Cried Wolf. ;) Actually, I agree with you, and with Tim. The idea that the movie starts from a false premise is a bit distracting.

But hey, it wouldn't be as interesting if this movie took place in Poland as opposed to France, now would it?
Nope, not at all.I have no problem with it not being historically accurate, as that clearly wasn't the movies intention, but I wasn't aware that the beginning wasn't accurate, and being a fan of constantly educating myself, I appreciated knowing that.

 
Yes, I get the point. I was listing minor historical flaws, not the obvious major historical flaw that we all know about and that I didn't want to mention. That one was obviously deliberate; I have a feeling that the others were errors.
I don't. The film needed to take place in France in 1941 in order for Shoshanna to be young enough to not be noticed later. QT stretched history a bit in order to make the rest of his film work and his characters be the way he wanted. It was a bit of a stretch, kinda like Hitler getting killed in a movie theater.
 
Here's a question :
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("I was thinking it had to do with how Von Hammersmark actually was what Landa would later insist he be portrayed as - a double-agent hero who directly helped bring WWII to a halt. Having her around and her knowing that he was a fraud might've made that portrayal difficult in the post-war world.

Just a guess though, it's a good question. *** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("I think Landa was the typical Nazi. The word that best describes him is "grifter".

Before he killed Von Hammersmark, the best angle for him was to be the good Nazi, loyal to the party. But then afterwards, I think he realized that the better angle for him would be to use the opportunity afforded him by Von Hammersmark & Co. to cut an even better deal with the Allies.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne said:
PatsWillWin said:
Evilgrin 72 said:
Here's a question :
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("I was thinking it had to do with how Von Hammersmark actually was what Landa would later insist he be portrayed as - a double-agent hero who directly helped bring WWII to a halt. Having her around and her knowing that he was a fraud might've made that portrayal difficult in the post-war world.

Just a guess though, it's a good question. *** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("I think Landa was the typical Nazi. The word that best describes him is "grifter".

Before he killed Von Hammersmark, the best angle for him was to be the good Nazi, loyal to the party. But then afterwards, I think he realized that the better angle for him would be to use the opportunity afforded him by Von Hammersmark & Co. to cut an even better deal with the Allies.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();
I dunno why yall are still using spoiler tags and I dont know how so, here goes:Didnt he already throw the dynamite under the seat prior to choking her? Maybe not.

As far as the security question, Landa was in charge of security. If he knew of a plot to kill Hitler, etc. and was ok with it, maybe he was lax in security.

 
I think you guys need to lay off Tim a bit, I thought it was interesting that the Germans didn't round up the jews in France until later.Seriously, if it were anyone but Tim who made the comment, I doubt anyone would have made any smartass remarks. :lmao:
I'm usually pretty liberal with the smartass remarks. The movie is, at its core, a revenge fantasy. I don't think historical accuracy was very high on the list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Minor story flaw:

So in the original Operation Kino, they were going to have Stiglitz go into the cinema with all those Germans that would undoubtedly recognize him? Not likely.

Oh. And the reason tha Landa killed Von Hammersmark? She was no longer necessary to the story. Simple as that, IMO.

Saw it a 2nd time last night. If Christoph Waltz (Col. Landa) doesn't win an Oscar for Best Supporting, they should just shut it down. The guy is phenominal. Mélanie Laurent probably deserves at least a nom as well.

 
German radio operator = Landa's lover?

Anyone else get that feeling? NTTAWWT. :goodposting:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you guys need to lay off Tim a bit, I thought it was interesting that the Germans didn't round up the jews in France until later.Seriously, if it were anyone but Tim who made the comment, I doubt anyone would have made any smartass remarks. :goodposting:
:cry:
 
Minor story flaw:

So in the original Operation Kino, they were going to have Stiglitz go into the cinema with all those Germans that would undoubtedly recognize him? Not likely.
I noticed this during the movie and I'm glad you brought it up to refresh my memory. That made no sense really. Could he have been muscle for the basement? Possibly, but didn't seem like that was the plan, because I think they wanted a German speaking entourage for Von Hammersmark.
 
I still don't get why Landa lets Shoshanna go at the beginning. Probably for the same reason that the Basterds let some of their victims go.

 
I still don't get why Landa lets Shoshanna go at the beginning. Probably for the same reason that the Basterds let some of their victims go.
Andy, if you search the net you can find things in the original script that didnt make the film. Heres something I found on that scene Movie version:

Hans Landa says "au revoir, Shoshanna!".

Script version:

Hans Landa says "au revoir, Shoshanna! Till we meet again!". He and his crew drive away from the farm house. Landa's driver asks him why he allowed Shoshanna to escape. Landa answers, "Not putting a bullet in the back of a fifteen year old girl and allowing her to escape are not necessarily the same thing. She's a young girl, no food, no shelter, no shoes, who's just witnessed the massacre of her entire family. She may not survive the night. And after word spreads about what happened today, it's highly unlikely she will find any willing farmers to extend her aid. If I had to guess her fate, I'd say she'll probably be turned in by some neighbour. Or, she'll be spotted by some German soldier. Or, we'll find her body in the woods, dead from starvation or exposure. Or, perhaps she'll survive. She will elude capture. She will escape to America. She will move to New York City. Where she will be elected President of the United States."

http://gregsdailymusing.blogspot.com/2009/...-have-been.html

Theres a few more cut scenes listed in that link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A few more things that were in the original script that never made it in the movie (copied and pasted from imdb message board)

1) Lots of lines were cut. From Landa's opening sequence talking about Negroes and their Gorilla like penises, Zoller telling Shoshanna that his family ran a theater and that Shoshanna reminded him of his sister to Goebells, making a weird allusion to incest when someone said Zoller's interest in Shoshanna is because she reminded him of his sister.

2)Shoshanna is shown in a movie theater wearing a nurse's uniform. She cajoles the mistress of the theater to let her stay. This is soon followed by her being trained on how to run the projector. This included a scene where she goes to light a cigarette in the film room and gets her face slapped knocking the cigarette out. The mistress then goes into a diatribe about how flammable the film is.

3) The flashback scene of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz buying a baseball bat at a sportshop in his Jewish Boston neighborhood. This is where the tag line "A Basterd's work is never done" originates. He goes to visit all the older Jewish people in the neighborhood and asks them to sign the name of loved ones that were stuck in Nazi occupied Europe on the bat. ( I especially wish they would have left this scene in the film).

4)When Shoshanna runs into Landa at the restaurant, in the original script after their conversation the camera pans down to reveal a puddle of piss. She pisses herself from fear.

5) When Bridget Von Hammersmark is shot in the tavern fiasco they need to find a doctor. The original script had Donny waking up the doctor out of bed and having him shoot the dogs until he agreed to help.

6) When they come up with their plan to go to the premier it is decided that Utivich (The small man) will drive against his protestation that he doesn't not know how. This is followed by Von Hammersmark remark about how "useless Americans are". Aldo then barks something about if a dumb hick from Tennessee such as himself can learn how to drive in one night then so can he.

7) The theater scene had Donny going to the bathroom and getting recognized by the first guy that they tagged with the swastika on his forehead(the one interviewed by Hitler).

8) Earlier in the film it is implied how it takes a degree of skill to change from reel to reel. Shoshanna is interrupted by Zoller just as she is about to make the final reel change(which has her "giant face") when he bursts in the room. The get in the scuffle, she is shot, and with her last dying effort she manages to make the reel change. In the film the reel change happened on its own(magically).

9)When Aldo is apprehended the original script had him screaming every type of insult he could imagine towards Germans in particular. He is led with the black hood to the truck where Utivich is also there with a black hood. Utivich is sobbing like a baby. He begins to apologize to LT. Raines about his sobbing. Raines explains that he has no need to apologize and says something about John Wayne would be crying if he was in the same position as he right now.

 
Went to see this one with 4 friends.

1. About 10 minutes in, one woman whispered to me, "I have to go to the bathroom" and never returned.

2. Another woman said she hated this film. Her view of life is when she comes home from work, she wants to decompress. She wants her entertainment to make her laugh, not think. She wanted to see "The Goods".

3. The two guys hated this film. They were stuck on asking "Why make this film now?" They didn't see a point. They wound up talking about their trips to Europe and touring the beautiful countryside more than the film itself.

I like most of QT's work but didn't care for this one at all because I think it crossed a line and TRULY glorified war and violence. All of QT's films are very violent but usually there's some other motivation at work. Here, I felt they were just showing people being violent because they enjoy being violent. Collecting scalps? A Nazi lunging over the table to personally strangle a woman? I didn't like it.

 
Went to see this one with 4 friends.

1. About 10 minutes in, one woman whispered to me, "I have to go to the bathroom" and never returned.

2. Another woman said she hated this film. Her view of life is when she comes home from work, she wants to decompress. She wants her entertainment to make her laugh, not think. She wanted to see "The Goods".

3. The two guys hated this film. They were stuck on asking "Why make this film now?" They didn't see a point. They wound up talking about their trips to Europe and touring the beautiful countryside more than the film itself.

I like most of QT's work but didn't care for this one at all because I think it crossed a line and TRULY glorified war and violence. All of QT's films are very violent but usually there's some other motivation at work. Here, I felt they were just showing people being violent because they enjoy being violent. Collecting scalps? A Nazi lunging over the table to personally strangle a woman? I didn't like it.
She's posting in "your closest calls" right now.And is it weird that I actually like the movie more because of this review?

 
Went to see this one with 4 friends.1. About 10 minutes in, one woman whispered to me, "I have to go to the bathroom" and never returned.2. Another woman said she hated this film. Her view of life is when she comes home from work, she wants to decompress. She wants her entertainment to make her laugh, not think. She wanted to see "The Goods".3. The two guys hated this film. They were stuck on asking "Why make this film now?" They didn't see a point. They wound up talking about their trips to Europe and touring the beautiful countryside more than the film itself.I like most of QT's work but didn't care for this one at all because I think it crossed a line and TRULY glorified war and violence. All of QT's films are very violent but usually there's some other motivation at work. Here, I felt they were just showing people being violent because they enjoy being violent. Collecting scalps? A Nazi lunging over the table to personally strangle a woman? I didn't like it.
Y'all prefer checkers to chess, yes?
 
I don't like war movies, with the exception of The Great Escape. But I trusted Tarantino and this could have been set in any genre.

It's already in my top 10 of all time and I have been thinking about it every day since I saw it (nine days ago). I'll definitely be seeing it again soon.

The blu-ray release can't come too soon. I hope that it includes some of the deleted scenes, maybe an extended cut, and the Charlie Rose interview (which was excellent).

I agree with most of the comments. Hitchcock meets the Coens, done Tarantino style. The Dialogue was masterful.

A couple of things I would like to add:

Zoller and Shosanna meeting and talking about cinema was an excellent scene. Especially the line, "we respect our directors in France."

I liked Pitt's closing claim that this just might be his masterpiece.

This kind of humor works better than any comedy I can think of. I liked it the same way I liked Fargo.

Tarantino takes the most mundane things and makes them incredibly interesting. I loved the opening scene and the rat speech.

Finally, the memorable use of music in a scene. Cat People was incredible.

 
A few more things that were in the original script that never made it in the movie (copied and pasted from imdb message board)1) Lots of lines were cut. From Landa's opening sequence talking about Negroes and their Gorilla like penises, Zoller telling Shoshanna that his family ran a theater and that Shoshanna reminded him of his sister to Goebells, making a weird allusion to incest when someone said Zoller's interest in Shoshanna is because she reminded him of his sister.2)Shoshanna is shown in a movie theater wearing a nurse's uniform. She cajoles the mistress of the theater to let her stay. This is soon followed by her being trained on how to run the projector. This included a scene where she goes to light a cigarette in the film room and gets her face slapped knocking the cigarette out. The mistress then goes into a diatribe about how flammable the film is.3) The flashback scene of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz buying a baseball bat at a sportshop in his Jewish Boston neighborhood. This is where the tag line "A Basterd's work is never done" originates. He goes to visit all the older Jewish people in the neighborhood and asks them to sign the name of loved ones that were stuck in Nazi occupied Europe on the bat. ( I especially wish they would have left this scene in the film).4)When Shoshanna runs into Landa at the restaurant, in the original script after their conversation the camera pans down to reveal a puddle of piss. She pisses herself from fear.5) When Bridget Von Hammersmark is shot in the tavern fiasco they need to find a doctor. The original script had Donny waking up the doctor out of bed and having him shoot the dogs until he agreed to help.6) When they come up with their plan to go to the premier it is decided that Utivich (The small man) will drive against his protestation that he doesn't not know how. This is followed by Von Hammersmark remark about how "useless Americans are". Aldo then barks something about if a dumb hick from Tennessee such as himself can learn how to drive in one night then so can he.7) The theater scene had Donny going to the bathroom and getting recognized by the first guy that they tagged with the swastika on his forehead(the one interviewed by Hitler).8) Earlier in the film it is implied how it takes a degree of skill to change from reel to reel. Shoshanna is interrupted by Zoller just as she is about to make the final reel change(which has her "giant face") when he bursts in the room. The get in the scuffle, she is shot, and with her last dying effort she manages to make the reel change. In the film the reel change happened on its own(magically).9)When Aldo is apprehended the original script had him screaming every type of insult he could imagine towards Germans in particular. He is led with the black hood to the truck where Utivich is also there with a black hood. Utivich is sobbing like a baby. He begins to apologize to LT. Raines about his sobbing. Raines explains that he has no need to apologize and says something about John Wayne would be crying if he was in the same position as he right now.
Interesting, thanks. All of these seem like wise editing choices.J
 
Went to see this one with 4 friends.1. About 10 minutes in, one woman whispered to me, "I have to go to the bathroom" and never returned.2. Another woman said she hated this film. Her view of life is when she comes home from work, she wants to decompress. She wants her entertainment to make her laugh, not think. She wanted to see "The Goods".3. The two guys hated this film. They were stuck on asking "Why make this film now?" They didn't see a point. They wound up talking about their trips to Europe and touring the beautiful countryside more than the film itself.I like most of QT's work but didn't care for this one at all because I think it crossed a line and TRULY glorified war and violence. All of QT's films are very violent but usually there's some other motivation at work. Here, I felt they were just showing people being violent because they enjoy being violent. Collecting scalps? A Nazi lunging over the table to personally strangle a woman? I didn't like it.
Why would someone that wants fluffy entertainment watch a Tarantino movie? Why did she even go?Tarantino uses plenty of violence in the movie. And he'd admit that he likes violence for its shock value. But that's different than glorifying violence. The point of this movie isn't the glorification of violence. By killing these Nazis, Tarantino recognizes there's a ton of pain surrounding WW2, and the movie acts as a catharsis. Even in the final scene, the movie leaves the viewer sad despite the revenge. Sad because revenge doesn't really make anyone happy, and sad because the horrors of WW2 cannot be erased or healed with revenge.
 
Why would someone that wants fluffy entertainment watch a Tarantino movie? Why did she even go?
Because sometimes people do things just to go along with friends before they know what they are getting into. :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kaa said:
jdoggydogg said:
Why would someone that wants fluffy entertainment watch a Tarantino movie? Why did she even go?
Because sometimes people do things just to go along with friends before they know what they are getting into. :yucky:
Yeah...11 year olds.
 
kaa said:
jdoggydogg said:
Why would someone that wants fluffy entertainment watch a Tarantino movie? Why did she even go?
Because sometimes people do things just to go along with friends before they know what they are getting into. :)
Just sayin'. This is like hating chick flicks and then going to watch the Sex And The City movie.
 
This movie moved a lot faster the second time, and actually seemed shorter.

Here's a random question. Do you think rats and squirrels look alike save for the tails? Cause I don't see it.

 
I don't like war movies, with the exception of The Great Escape. But I trusted Tarantino and this could have been set in any genre.It's already in my top 10 of all time and I have been thinking about it every day since I saw it (nine days ago). I'll definitely be seeing it again soon.The blu-ray release can't come too soon. I hope that it includes some of the deleted scenes, maybe an extended cut, and the Charlie Rose interview (which was excellent).I agree with most of the comments. Hitchcock meets the Coens, done Tarantino style. The Dialogue was masterful.A couple of things I would like to add:Zoller and Shosanna meeting and talking about cinema was an excellent scene. Especially the line, "we respect our directors in France."I liked Pitt's closing claim that this just might be his masterpiece. This kind of humor works better than any comedy I can think of. I liked it the same way I liked Fargo.Tarantino takes the most mundane things and makes them incredibly interesting. I loved the opening scene and the rat speech.Finally, the memorable use of music in a scene. Cat People was incredible.
:lmao:
 
Has anyone mentioned how awesome that big ### pipe was that Landa smoked in the opening scene? Man, when he pulled that thing out, I about lost it. :lol:

 
Just saw this so I know I am late to the party. I've not read this thread but I thought it was ####### awesome. Tarantino is amazing and the guy who played Landa deserves a best supporting actor nomination.

 
The friends I went with to see this film still cannot stop talking about how horrible it was. They are still upset about it and its been like 3-4 days now.

 
I like this movie, but I thought it was going to be funnier.

There were a few good tense moments, but nothing like the coin flip scene from No Country for Old Men.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top