Inglourious Basterds [sic]

Started by brockly, May 20, 2003, 06:05:39 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New Feeling

just wanted to note the great weekend box-office (37.6mil).  This outgrossed Gindhouse in 2 days.  I'm pretty certain it will easily beat Pulp Fiction's total gross too.  Very pleasing to see Quentin have another bonafide hit after all these years. 

Also predicting that this is a shoe-in for a best picture nod this year, as well as a bunch of other noms.  Very exciting.   

Stefen

It appears to be a hit. Well deserved. I'm sure nobodies more happy than the Weinstein's.

I don't think it's going to get a best pic nod. This year is stacked and the best has yet to come (Tree of Life should just get all 5 nods)

EDIT: Forgot about there being 10 nods. Yeah, it will probably get one.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

New Feeling

 I bet everything that Tree of Life will be 2010

MacGuffin

Pssst! Here's 'Inglourious Basterds'' secret Oscar campaign strategy
Source: Los Angeles Times

Surely, the question has occurred to you: Why isn't Oscar-mad Harvey Weinstein releasing "Inglourious Basterds" in Oscar-friendly November or December? Doesn't he have faith that "Inglourious Basterds" can run the derby? Hey, Quentin Tarantino proved himself in 1994 when "Pulp Fiction" was nominated for best picture and Tarantino won best screenplay.

Last year, Harvey held back "The Reader" to the last possible stretch, giving it a limited opening in Los Angeles and New York in December, then wide release in January. The strategy paid off with five Academy Award nominations -- including a surprise bid (to some, not us) for best picture -- resulting in the Big Win at Long Last for Kate Winslet as best actress.

Answer: Harvey plans to reserve that last-minute, ambush strategy he employed for "The Reader" for his other major Oscar pony, "Nine," Rob Marshall's adaptation of the Tony-winning musical starring Penelope Cruz, Daniel Day-Lewis and Marion Cotillard. For "Inglourious Basterds," he plans to use the "Crash" campaign model.

By releasing "Inglourious Basterds" in theaters now, Harvey can give the flick a second wave of ballyhoo when the DVD comes out late this year. Because the DVD will be a mass release, it won't need to be watermarked with numerals identifying each disc with the name of an academy member or other award voter. That's one of the sneaky ways "Crash" beat front-runner "Brokeback Mountain" for best picture of 2005 -- Lionsgate blitzed Hollywood with more than 120,000 cheap DVDs.

To manufacture and ship a watermarked DVD costs about $20. The cost for a non-watermarked equivalent: $5.

Beware, Hollywood. Given how red rivers flow in Tarantino pix, the town will be engulfed in a blood tide this December when Harvey unleashes his "Inglourious Basterds" DVD campaign. It will probably pay off with two Academy Award nominations: best screenplay (Tarantino) and supporting actor (Christoph Waltz). Maybe more. "Pulp Fiction" got nommed for best picture when there were only five slots; this year there will be twice as many.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pozer

well considered me :shock: too. i'm not allowed to doubt on the guy ever again. in fact, i thought about how the 14 year old me coming out of Pulp Fiction for the first or fourth time i watched it in the theater wouldve Bear Jewed my pissin on QT ass.

i just wasnt terribly into this from the moment the script hit the net covered with the misspelling of the title and WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY ME ME ME! never read it save for the title page which said to me the thing would read as pretentious and the final product would be nothin but. and there are too many title misspellingy moments in this movie that desperately needed to be done without - couldve been a classic if they were done without. neverthelessious, this was a version i'm surprised he went with but could not have been more pleased that he did.

i met QT once back in '99. it was following a screening of some forgetful indy movie called Shoeshine Boys and he stuck around afterwards so we stuck around afterwards and we listened to him talk about what he liked about the film. we listened to this dude standing before us in a small theater, wearing a flight jacket, board shorts and monkey boots ramble on and on and on and on. and on. at the time i could have listened to the guy go many more 'and ons' but he did stop which reaches my point. he told us that this movie we just watched which from what i remember did have a few decent funny moments had inspired him and he was working on a script at the moment that involved these type of disturbing comedic scenes. the script was about World War II and he told us he was off to work on it and then he left. i only wonder now what that version in progress was like compared with the one i saw last night. the final product. the movie filled with such rich flavors i did not expect such a product would be fulluv.

like brockly said somehow the guy has me hooked with but a credit sequence. save for the music, an otherwise bland credit sequence at that. how does one accomplish such a thing? it brought me back to 14 year old me witnessing PF's credit sequence. how too does one introduce a character as a terrorizing soul by simply having the character request a glass of milk?? during such talky tension building scenes he has used such props as cheeseburgers, leather gloves, flutes, truth darts and now spoilerd strudels.

as said and said, what a find Waltz was. i could imagine all those other considered yadas in so and so roles but i could not do so for his. loved every ounce he gave and hope he gave even more to deleted scenes to come. speaking of deleted scenes, is that where the Basterds are? the movie needed more of what the title claimed it to be about. spoilerds alls we pretty much got with the title characters was them carrying out the same plan Shoshanna was conducting. more back Bastard stories should have been. how they ALL came to be such Basterds. btw, fyi, Shoshanna putting on her war paint makeup to Bowie was the best scene i've seen in a film for some time.   

anyways, thanks for not making Kill Bill WWII, Quentin and for reminding pushing thirty year old me of how great you can be.         


squints

Quote from: Pozer on August 25, 2009, 12:02:20 AM
spoilerds  Shoshanna putting on her war paint makeup to Bowie was the best scene i've seen in a film for some time.   

FUCK! Thats the scene i got up and went to piss during. Guess I'll have to see it again.
"The myth by no means finds its adequate objectification in the spoken word. The structure of the scenes and the visible imagery reveal a deeper wisdom than the poet himself is able to put into words and concepts" – Friedrich Nietzsche

tpfkabi

there was one cut that really bothered me - during Pitt's speech when it cuts to Roth with the douchey grin and then immediately cuts back and he's straight faced - but that's nitpicking.

minor spoils


the other thing that bothers me - no Nazis in the lobby at all? all those uppety people and not a single one excuses themselves to the restroom to pee or anything? no snack bar attendant wondering what's going on?

that might have been interesting if the guy blocking the door would have confronted a high class lady returning to the theater and how he would explain it away without her going apeshit.

it also seems you would want to save the bodies, especially Hitler, to show as proof instead of blowing them up and shooting their face up beyond recognition.

other than that - i really enjoyed it. you see returning motifs in his work - the female hero - couldn't help but be reminded of the animated KB sequence where the girl is hiding under the bed when the family were hiding under the floorboards.

then of course Tarantino's Mexican standoffs - guns at balls - reservoir dogs.
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

Gamblour.

Anyone think the last line of the film is just Tarantino's opinion of the film? How's it go? "This could be my best work yet."
WWPTAD?

Stefen

Quote from: bigideas on August 25, 2009, 07:53:27 AM
there was one cut that really bothered me - during Pitt's speech when it cuts to Roth with the douchey grin and then immediately cuts back and he's straight faced - but that's nitpicking.

minor spoils


the other thing that bothers me - no Nazis in the lobby at all? all those uppety people and not a single one excuses themselves to the restroom to pee or anything? no snack bar attendant wondering what's going on?

that might have been interesting if the guy blocking the door would have confronted a high class lady returning to the theater and how he would explain it away without her going apeshit.

it also seems you would want to save the bodies, especially Hitler, to show as proof instead of blowing them up and shooting their face up beyond recognition.

other than that - i really enjoyed it. you see returning motifs in his work - the female hero - couldn't help but be reminded of the animated KB sequence where the girl is hiding under the bed when the family were hiding under the floorboards.

then of course Tarantino's Mexican standoffs - guns at balls - reservoir dogs.

See, none of these things bother me because of the universe that the film is set in. If it was set in a more realistic universe then these may have gotten to me too. It's revisionist history so all the unrealistic stuff just doesn't bother me for some reason.

I REALLY, REALLY want to see this again.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

Pozer

Quote from: squints on August 25, 2009, 03:38:01 AM
Quote from: Pozer on August 25, 2009, 12:02:20 AM
spoilerds  Shoshanna putting on her war paint makeup to Bowie was the best scene i've seen in a film for some time.   

FUCK! Thats the scene i got up and went to piss during. Guess I'll have to see it again.

you need, http://www.runpee.com/ great iphone app too.

pete

Quote from: socketlevel on August 22, 2009, 08:43:11 PM
SPOILER***

they didn't know the explosives were there, probably high on the killing nazi's and were going to leave after all their mags were out... but didn't get the chance.  if i'm not mistaken didn't the jew hunter plant it there?

no 'cause aldo had some on his legs too
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Stefen

I remember Lantz telling Aldo and Little Man that he planted the bombs right next to Hitler and Goebbel's so he had a part in their killing too.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

tpfkabi

Quote from: Stefen on August 25, 2009, 01:27:36 PM
I remember Lantz telling Aldo and Little Man that he planted the bombs right next to Hitler and Goebbel's so he had a part in their killing too.

didn't it cut to a shot showing him sliding the bombs he took from Aldo underneath their chairs?
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

B.C. Long

I guess I'm the only one who was annoyed by Tarantino's stylistic choices.

There were some incredible parts to this film, no doubt. The opening scene for example. Just incredible and it really shows how god damn good of a writer Tarantino is. He writes scenes like a musician writes music. There's something so lyrical about them, they start slow, build up, and then reach a crescendo and it's absolutely beautiful. However, there are other scenes I just can't get over. The Bowie song, followed by the 80s montage. I mean really? That scene made me what to punch Tarantino in the face. I feel like his boner for shitty cinema gets in the way of him making something truly meaningful because some of his stuff just borderlines on the self-parody. I also felt that Brad Pitt was the worst part of the movie. Was his southern accent that bad on purpose? He just seemed like a caricature that somehow superimposed itself over another performance.


john

Quote from: B.C. Long on August 25, 2009, 02:14:23 PM
However, there are other scenes I just can't get over. The Bowie song, followed by the 80s montage. I mean really? That scene made me what to punch Tarantino in the face. I feel like his boner for shitty cinema gets in the way of him making something truly meaningful because some of his stuff just borderlines on the self-parody.

I don't think Tarantino is obsessed with "shitty" cinema. Tarantino's preferences are based on films that interest him. That's the defining characteristic of "good" cinema. It's either interesting, or it's not. And Tarantino is rarely influenced by anything straight-up boring or tedious.

As far as the '80's montage, maybe I'll have to go back and revisit it because, other than using an '80's-era Bowie song, I didn't find it particularly representative of that era. I liked it. It was one of the first things I discussed when I saw the film, how that moment was pretty well chosen. Not just an anachronistic wink like some directors can be guilty of. It was an appropriate song used to fine effect.
Maybe every day is Saturday morning.