XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Quentin Tarantino => Topic started by: brockly on May 20, 2003, 06:05:39 AM

Title: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on May 20, 2003, 06:05:39 AM
Tarantino has already got his mind set on his followup to Kill Bill. It will be a war film set during WW2 called Inglorious Bastards. Michael Madsen (Mr Blonde) set to lead
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Duck Sauce on May 20, 2003, 09:44:44 AM
Mac, get busy, and Ive heard he wants Sandler
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 20, 2003, 10:29:14 AM
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=212
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Keener on May 20, 2003, 11:41:43 AM
Quote from: mogwai
I'm a little curious, how will Quentin fit a open-trunk-scene in a WW2 movie?


That made my day.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: markums2k on May 20, 2003, 12:15:18 PM
Is anybody else just a little bit scared?

I never had any doubts that Sandler would work in Punch-Drunk Love, but I'm not so sure about this one.

Welcome to Left Field, folks.  Have you met Inglorious Bastards?

So, is Tarantino planning another 27-year writing/directing hiatus after Bastards?  I swear, I would kill myself.  Don't make me do it.   :x
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Duck Sauce on May 20, 2003, 01:27:28 PM
I cant tell if Sandler is really committed to doing different roles, or if hes just friends with the PTA and will do that stuff. I know hes good with QT, and I am praying that he gets in IB... him and Marlon Wayans
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on May 21, 2003, 03:53:13 AM
Maybe Sandler will be playing a retard with an AK47.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: abbey road on May 21, 2003, 04:27:39 PM
i have faith in tarentino, i guess i shouldnt talk 'till ive seen kill bill, but i think he could make  a WWII something original like he does for a hitman of kung fu movie, i mean he could be washed up, but until i see it im not going to worry.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pixelnixel on May 30, 2003, 02:19:19 AM
If Nicholas Cage and Mel Gibson can be retarded (Bruce Willis too) soldiers in fictitious accounts of WW "whatever" (comma) THEN why can't Adam Sandler and Pete Rose, Larry Sanders and Kenny Rogers form a   unit in Inglorious Bastards?  Hey, I know this guy, who went over there with some other guys and they all killed some guys and came back with tears in their eyes, because they were happy to be alive, and sad to see so many missing "guys".........why don't we make the wars that occured ever the more shallow?  Is there a post analyzing this recent stretch of    futile war films????  Don't get me wrong, I loved Saving Private Ryan,  I just didn't see any worthwhile stuff afterward...wait, there's the Pianist, but that's an exception.   I don't want to see anymore: "Captain Hart's Behind the Correlian Windtalker in Enemy lines when we were soldiers at some point in time crap." Go U.S.A!  Blah, cough cough, blah blah.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Banky on October 22, 2003, 10:35:19 PM
news from an Australian paper
Q: What does Quentin Tarantino have in store for us after the two "Kill Bills"?

A: While on the promo trailer for "Kill Bill", Tarantino has been talking up his World War 2 drama "Inglorious Bastards", which was recently given the green light for shooting in mid-2004 after many years on the drawing board. The plot centres on a group of convicted US soldiers saved from execution by accepting a suicide mission behind enemy lines in central Europe. No casting moves as yet, but the buzz keeps throwing up names like Johnny Depp, Adam Sandler, Heath Ledger and "Jay & Silent Bob" legend Jason Mewes.



i can see it now "Germans you are the ones who are the ball lickers!"

I think Mewes would be excellent in a serious role in a QT movie.(not being sarcastic)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Weak2ndAct on October 23, 2003, 03:37:41 AM
Quote from: Banky
I think Mewes would be excellent in a serious role in a QT movie.(not being sarcastic)

He certainly needs the work, now that Smith is making 'serious' movies  :wink:
It could work if Mewes doesn't
1) Get thrown in jail again
2) Get back on the herion
3) Live past the first 10 minutes of the movie
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on October 23, 2003, 09:12:46 AM
My mom won't let me see this because it has "bastard" in the title.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 23, 2003, 08:07:50 PM
Quote from: ShanghaiOrange
My mom won't let me see this because it has "bastard" in the title.


Maybe she wants to hide the truth about your real dad.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: thedog on October 24, 2003, 02:58:49 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: ShanghaiOrange
My mom won't let me see this because it has "bastard" in the title.


Maybe she wants to hide the truth about your real dad.


OOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: mister mister on October 24, 2003, 04:59:02 AM
Quote from: Banky
[ No casting moves as yet, but the buzz keeps throwing up names like Johnny Depp, Adam Sandler, Heath Ledger and "Jay & Silent Bob" legend Jason Mewes.


I want Johnny Depp.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cine on October 24, 2003, 06:26:56 AM
We ALL want Johnny Depp, don't we? :roll:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: mister mister on October 24, 2003, 09:28:19 PM
Yes indeed. I'd even go see that Once Upon a Time in Mexico because he's  in it.

Let's hope he makes some better movies soon though.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cron on January 03, 2004, 11:11:44 AM
Quote from: m.o.g.w.a.i.
I'm a little curious, how will Quentin fit a open-trunk-scene in a WW2 movie?


he'll use a jeep.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: kotte on January 03, 2004, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: chuckhimselfo
Quote from: m.o.g.w.a.i.
I'm a little curious, how will Quentin fit a open-trunk-scene in a WW2 movie?


he'll use a jeep.


with a trunk?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on January 03, 2004, 11:28:59 AM
sure. (or he could shoot one out of the trunk of a beetle, in berlin perhaps)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: bonanzataz on January 03, 2004, 03:03:45 PM
was there one in pulp fiction?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: kotte on January 03, 2004, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: taz.
was there one in pulp fiction?


When Travolta and Jackson argue the fact that they should've had bigger guns.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on January 03, 2004, 11:10:51 PM
*cough*caps of every truck shot from a tarantino movie please*cough*...including from dusk till dawn... there's one in there too
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cron on January 04, 2004, 04:30:38 PM
love your avatar, brad.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on January 04, 2004, 05:20:02 PM
With the possibility of Adam Sandler being in this movie, the PT/QT-lovin' masses may end up more proud of the acting capabilities of ol' Opera Man himself
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: zerocool41 on January 07, 2004, 09:50:53 PM
what's your avatar from Brad?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on January 07, 2004, 11:29:14 PM
Quote from: zerocool41
what's your avatar from Brad?

25th hour.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Duck Sauce on January 08, 2004, 12:18:38 AM
How about Sandler, Depp, Mewes, and Cheadle just for shits
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on January 08, 2004, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: zerocool41
what's your avatar from Brad?

25th hour.


spanx.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Find Your Magali on April 10, 2004, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: Duck Sauce
How about Sandler, Depp, Mewes, and Cheadle just for shits


Yes, but to go a step further and make it the coolest WW2 movie EVER:

Sandler does his Cajun man persona
Depp does his gay pirate persona
Mewes does whatever routine it is he's doing in all Kevin Smith films
and Cheadle plays the British operative, with his Ocean's 11 accent.

And there needs to be a singing Hitler, too...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cine on April 10, 2004, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: Find Your Magali
And there needs to be a singing Hitler, too...

(http://www.garybeach.com/gary-hitler-75%25.jpeg)
Heil myself
Heil to me
I'm the kraut
Who's out to change our history
Heil myself
Raise your hand
There's no greater
Dictator in the land!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on March 23, 2005, 04:55:19 PM
Madsen on Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards
Source: Film Focus March 23, 2005

Film Focus talked to Michael Madsen who will star in Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards, about a platoon of World War II soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. He says that Tarantino might split the movie up into several parts like he did for the two "Kill Bill" films.

"He's got an interesting idea of how to make it. I think he's going to cut it up into a couple of different parts, 'cos it's a big story to tell and he doesn't want to cram it all into one show. I don't know the whole story of how he's going to do it but eventually we'll get there, you know," said Madsen.

Tarantino earlier this month commented on the movie as well. "My next film is probably going to be Inglorious Bastards, yeah. I've written scenes. I've written a lot of it but now I have to sit down and start putting it together in a script that I can start shooting. And that's a different thing," he said.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ono on March 23, 2005, 05:24:49 PM
Yawn.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: UncleJoey on March 23, 2005, 06:03:03 PM
Quote from: Michael Madsen
I think he's going to cut it up into a couple of different parts, 'cos it's a big story to tell and he doesn't want to cram it all into one show.


"and that way everyone has to buy two movie tickets and two DVD's"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on March 25, 2005, 02:49:30 AM
A Band Apart Production with Sly and Arnie?
Source: Moviehole.net

According to MTV, Quentin Tarantino announced in England this week - where he was attending the Empire Awards - that he's keen to team-up veteran action heroes Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The film? His long-planned WWII epic "Inglorious Bastards".

Obviously Tarantino thinks he'll be able to do for Sly and Arnie's acting careers - especially the formers - what he did for John Travolta, Robert Forster and Bo Svenson's.

Tarantino has long-planned to have Adam Sandler involved in the film too, and that doesn't seem to have changed. He believes the funnyman would be right-at-home in a pair of army boots and bullet belt.

"I've written scenes. I've written a lot of it, but now I have to sit down and start putting it together in a script that I can start shooting", says the banana-chinned film whiz.

Interestingly, Sly and Arnie have been looking for a project to work on together for years, coming close to teaming in 1999 for an unspecified picture. 2006, and nearing the latter end of their careers, it might just happen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on March 26, 2005, 09:22:07 AM
the man should really lay off the extacy. i'm not kidding.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: I Don't Believe in Beatles on March 26, 2005, 10:01:46 AM
Banana-chinned?  

(http://www.senoh.com/tarantino/tarantino.jpg)

(http://www.thestudentzone.com/articles/images/banana.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on March 26, 2005, 07:54:22 PM
Quote from: Ginger
Banana-chinned?

(http://www.octopus.kiev.ua/mugs/tarantino.gif)
(http://www.gercekhayat.com/169/tarantino.jpg)

it's more in the profile.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: I Don't Believe in Beatles on March 27, 2005, 10:28:20 PM
Yeah, you're right.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on March 27, 2005, 10:53:52 PM
Tarantino still wants Arnie, Sly and Bruce  

TheArnoldFans.com report, that QT still wants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone for Inglorious Bastards. He also expresses his strong will to push this into production in order to have it released 2006. While the site cites no source or mention where or when QT said this, here are the quotes:

"I've said it once and I am going to say it again. I want Bruce, Sly and Arnold for my World War II epic. I have always dream of having these 3 superstars together in a movie. Initially Inglorious Bastards was suppose to be in production way back in 1998 with these casts but I shifted my attention on my other projects such as Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction and Sin City. And right now I think it's the best time to have them. I am very well free right now to focus on this big project that I have had in mind for quite a number of years. I am very well getting this into production this year for a 2006 release. Yes he [Arnie] is Governor and he has his movie coming up by 2006 called The Kid and I... so I hope he can make it for my movie too. We'll see. Maybe during the holidays. We'll shoot the movie quickly. It's possible."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on March 27, 2005, 10:56:14 PM
i have no idea if thats true, but there were years that i dreamt of a movie combining these guys.  seriously, during my youth when all i could do was wait till the next movie from one of these guys came out, it was a dream to think that oneday they would be in a movie together.  the closest thing i had was Tango & Cash with Sly and Kurt Russell, which was sweet as hell.  also: i just watched The Dirty Dozen for the first time last night, it was badass.  i hope this banana chinned film whiz can make it happen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 27, 2005, 11:25:05 PM
I almost feel Willis is being demoted by being lumped into this group. An action star, sure, but he's had much more versatality to his career than Arnie and Sly. Their careers were made and broken on action films. I actually think Willis is an excellent actor and he is still a major star.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on April 01, 2005, 03:54:21 PM
BBC's Talking Movies talked to JOHN TRAVOLTA and he confirmed that he has indeed heard from Quentin Tarantino about Inglorious Bastards. "I'm intrigued...we have talked....he's got some wild ideas", Travolta said. "If it's this, or something else, I'd love to work with Quentin again".
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gabe on April 06, 2005, 11:37:51 PM
I'm just curious what other people imagine when they think of this movie, like how it will look visually. Every time I hear the name, I imagine it in the same format as that Band Of Brothers tin Case.
When I picture a visual, I think of Sylester Stallone, in some wet, muddy trench, looking at someone off camera and about to say some War Dialogue. I imagine this film being very Dark, wet and Gray, that doesn't seem Tarantino to me. Does anyone else have any stylized vision for this film before we all actually see it and can look back and laugh at our predictions?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cron on April 07, 2005, 12:05:49 AM
the guns of the navarone


or some obscure blaxplotaiton japanese wwii films.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 25, 2005, 02:41:33 PM
Exclusive: Madsen lets slip Inglorious Bastards casting
Source: Filmfocus.co.uk

Always one of the nicest men to run into, we caught up with Michael Madsen this evening at the premiere of Sin City in London (full report soon) and he gave us a bit of a status update on his next Tarantino collaboration, Inglorious Bastards.

Back in March we exclusively broke the news that the film would be in two parts, thanks to Michael, and now he's read the script he was able to tell us a little more about the project.

"Quentin's written it now," he told FilmFocus, "but we've not started shooting yet. I've read it and you know the Dirty Dozen? It's a bit like that."

But while Madsen was remaining tight-lipped on his role in the film, he did drop a few casting hints. Adam Sandler and Bo Svenson have been attached to the film at various points, and while Svenson wasn't on the list Madsen gave us, a couple of other interesting names are. "It's going to be myself and Tim Roth," Madsen told us most assuredly, "Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy are in it too."

Roth has, of course, worked with Tarantino before on Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but Sandler and Murphy will both be new additions to Tarantino acting circle and, as with all things Quentin, they seem to be inspired choices.

So there you have it - we've heard all manner of names attached to the project, or projects if you think of it in its two-volume entirety, which Madsen told us is definitely going before the cameras later in the year. That is, provided dear ol' Quentin doesn't get distracted in the mean time.

Talking to us back in March, Madsen said of working with Tarantino, "when you work with the guy, you come off the set at the end of the day and you know you're going to come out with something worthwhile and something worth looking at. You know you're not going to have some piece of shit that you're not going to be able to live with."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on May 25, 2005, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Talking to us back in March, Madsen said of working with Tarantino, "when you work with the guy, you come off the set at the end of the day and you know you're going to come out with something worthwhile and something worth looking at. You know you're not going to have some piece of shit that you're not going to be able to live with."

pointedly, the article makes no mention of kill bill..
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 25, 2005, 10:40:03 PM
haha, seriously.  this had better not be 2 volumes.  i dont care if its one 4 1/2 hour movie, but i'll be goddamned if i'm paying twice to see it (once).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Myxo on May 25, 2005, 11:23:16 PM
Eddie Murphy in a QT film.

Hmm..
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: nix on May 26, 2005, 12:29:10 AM
eddie murphy and adam sandler in a qt ww2 epic?

Hmmm....
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Satcho9 on May 26, 2005, 01:25:36 AM
If he gets Eddie Murphy to say "Fuck" again this would make me the happiest person ever...

Just stay away from the Red Leather Jumpsuits.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: nix on May 27, 2005, 03:53:54 AM
I was at a party tonight and "raw" was on. I do miss that Eddie Murphy. Hope QT brings a bit of him back.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Ultrahip on May 29, 2005, 12:05:48 AM
Tarantino better have Murphy stuff a banana down a gunbarrel while in combat.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on May 29, 2005, 08:39:34 AM
I haven't seen Murphy in any truley wonderful movie since trading places so this gives me hope.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reinhold on June 07, 2005, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: JaruebiFor Now
Does anyone else have any stylized vision for this film before we all actually see it and can look back and laugh at our predictions?


i imagine that it'll be brighter but not necessarily more lighthearted looking than band of brothers. reds more saturated.  

anyway, i see a few of them pinned down in some horribly unfortunate position.one person stands up bravely to kill all the motherfuckers shooting at them. the camera follows a bullet out of the german barrel and into whoever stood up. the violently red blood sprays across the solemn faces of the other guys. there's some smoke in the exit wound as the hit man falls back, dead.

i'm interested to see a movie that portrays a band of soldiers just trying to get through it... not glorifying them or trying to make a statement about the brotherhood about soldiers. i want to see some characters who aren't portrayed as noble or whatever, but instead actual inglorious bastards. i think that qt is the man to do this.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on June 07, 2005, 01:22:29 PM
Quote from: Reinhold Messner
i'm interested to see a movie that portrays a band of soldiers just trying to get through it... not glorifying them or trying to make a statement about the brotherhood about soldiers. i want to see some characters who aren't portrayed as noble or whatever, but instead actual inglorious bastards.


(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000648X7.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: mogwai on June 07, 2005, 02:33:52 PM
^

i'm sorry, but is that katie holmes on the third left?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reinhold on June 07, 2005, 02:40:23 PM
i've never heard of that. usually, unless it's super mainstream, it's not advertised out here.

i'll request that the library buys it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Find Your Magali on November 28, 2005, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: Reinhold Messner
i'm interested to see a movie that portrays a band of soldiers just trying to get through it... not glorifying them or trying to make a statement about the brotherhood about soldiers. i want to see some characters who aren't portrayed as noble or whatever, but instead actual inglorious bastards.

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000648X7.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

The flick STILL never came out in widescreen, did it?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on December 13, 2007, 02:22:18 AM
Tim Roth Still Up For Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious’ WWII Flick
Source: MTV

It’s official: Quentin Tarantino’s World War II opus, “Inglorious Bastards,” has now taken longer than World War II itself. The movie, about a group of scoundrels given a suicide mission through Nazi-occupied France is reportedly a 600 page masterpiece. But just one would be enough for Tim Roth (that would be the title page), who for years has been rumored to star in the “Dirty Dozen” homage alongside Michael Madsen.

“I love [Quentin] to bits. If he ever does it of course I’d like to be in it. It’s entirely up to him,” Roth said. “It would be fun to be in a big Second World War movie. My dad was in that war.”

Of course, it’s the “if he ever does it” that’s the rub. The motor-mouth maestro has been talking up the project since “Jackie Brown.” In an interview with MTV News in 2005, he said it was his next project after “Grindhouse.” Meanwhile, Roth’s still waiting.

“It’s a conversation we had a long time ago,” he sighed.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Fernando on May 27, 2008, 10:49:44 AM
From Joblo.com 

Host: What are the next films that you are going to be making? We're hearing KILL BILL 3, KILL BILL 4, which one is it?

Tarantino: The next movie I'm doing is my World War II movie. I just finished up the first draft and if ALL GOES WELL, I will be here, in Cannes, in 2009 with INGLORIOUS BASTARDS!

http://www.joblo.com/tarantinos-next-is


By QT shooting standards there's no way he will have ready IB for Cannes next year, and still first draft? So yeah, not gonna happen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on May 27, 2008, 12:09:29 PM
That was probably an interview from 2002. In 2002 he had just finished the first draft and hoped to have it ready for Cannes 2009.

Now? He probably just finished the second draft and hopes to have it ready by Cannes 2013.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on June 10, 2008, 01:49:17 PM
Tim Roth Talks 'Inglorious Bastards' and 'Pulp Fiction' Spin-Off!
Source: Cinematical

I just got off the phone with Tim Roth, who, of course, stars as Emil Blonsky/Abomination in The Incredible Hulk (due out on Friday). We'll post our entire interview later this week, along with two reviews of the new (and definitely improved) Hulk, but to whet your appetite, here are a few non Hulk-related nuggets from the man himself. When I asked Roth about Inglorious Bastards and how Quentin Tarantino claimed to be heading for pre-production, he had this to say: "It's something me and Quentin had talked about over the years, and I don't know what's happening. If Quentin wants me, I'm there. But it's been years and years in the making. It's gonna be fun, though. If it's coming from Quentin, it's gonna be fun. I'm perfectly happy to roll up; I don't even need to read the script. Just tell me where to stand."

Additionally, and I thought this was kinda fun, I asked Roth if there were any characters of his he'd like to revisit at some point down the line. That's when he replied, "I'd like to do the Pulp Fiction character." I asked if he'd talked with Tarantino about doing a spin-off flick with Pumpkin and Honey Bunny: "Yeah, we did -- we talked about it before, because he thought they would've been good in Natural Born Killers; those two characters. We've often talked about it -- day dreams -- about taking those characters and making a film around them."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on June 14, 2008, 12:12:07 PM
what i don't understand is where this idea came that Inglorious Bastards is a "real movie", as in it will be different from all the other homages and re imaginings that came before. What do we know about this project except that it is a WWII movie? That sounds like a genre picture to me, filled with Leone, Peckinpah, and who knows what other million references. It sounds like an escape film, maybe, with music from old films played in it during important set pieces De Palma style.

I don't find anything bad with any of that. Tarantino is awesome. He can be a total geek with such love for his own references and time periods that you fall in love too. If this is going to be a homage to those 50's and 60's war films then great. I think people expecting otherwise will be disappointed. That said, it would also be incredible if the guy did something different this time around.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on June 14, 2008, 01:06:16 PM
I always thought that type of criticism for tarantino was unfounded.  his movies wouldn't be half as engaging / entertaining if they were actually what people said they were.  they're not remixes; you can't just re-do pekingpah and mix it with sergio leone or whatever the critics are always saying.  he's not an armchair filmmaker.  he uses a ton of shorthands, wears his taste on his sleeves, and brag about them whenever he can, but as a filmmaker he's usually way more than that.  vintage and recycle are not the same thing.  the geek in him lets the audience in on a lot more of his craftsmanship; he likes to draw attention to the shit that he's doing, but beneath all of the flash he is a great storyteller - very few people can set up, build tension, and pay off all in one scene, but his characters are always changing their minds, being charmed, commiting second/third degree murders, or just otherwise exchanging drama, midways through the scene.  he also differs from genre filmmakers in that his characters always feel very vulnerable, and the violence depicted matter-of-factly in most genre films is usually more consequential in the context of his films.  even when he's being boring or just plain cheesy - like the end scene in kill bill 2, he's doing it on his terms. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on June 15, 2008, 11:30:35 AM
i think the complaints were not about his storytelling and filmmaking talents, but about what he chose to do with them. precisely because he is so obviously and hugely talented some folks get frustrated that he has chosen to make his own versions of old movies he loved than to try to incorporate his influences in some sort of "new" thing. Also because his first two films were a full surprise and then it appeared that the films that came after were ones in which the "concept" being homaged (blaixplotation in JB, kung fu 70's films in KB, slasher 70's in DP) seemed to be the first more important thing about them. One thing that was remarkable about his first two films and even Jackie Brown is that for all their hipness and attitude and references they still felt like movies taking place in the real world, with characters closer to everyday people, whereas in Kill Bill and Death Proof we are in movie universe, with characters resembling archetypes from the same movies he is referencing. I was frustrated by this before, when I heard the premise for Death Proof I was turned off because I do wish he went back to use reference as a backdrop and not as the very definition of the movie, but after seeing it I really can't complain. He knows his shit and does it with class and precision. Few directors can guarantee a true fun time in the theatres like him...And he keeps trying new things in terms of what he demands of himself as writer and director. He's not really repeating himself and even if you would prefer he did something else with his time, what he does is done perfectly.

Wes Anderson is getting the same shit for being repetitive and getting deeper into his own movie universe. The difference with him is that, at least for me, his films have been getting progressively less and less good.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 21, 2008, 02:22:51 AM
Tarantino Cuts "Bastards" In Half
By Garth Franklin
Friday, June 20th 2008 12:52am



For the upcoming DVD release of the classic ensemble WW2 movie "Inglorious Bastards", Quentin Tarantino did an interview with the film's director Enzo Castellari which has been included in the set.

Now, AICN has seen that interview and garnered some new facts from it about Tarantino's long in-development remake of the property which he claimed he finished the script for last month.

First up the film will be split into two ala "Kill Bill" and is said to be keeping much of the original's setup. That film had a group of hardened criminals escape custody when Nazis attack the military convoy transporting them. The cons decide to make their way to Switzerland, fighting off both the Allies and Nazis to get there.

Most important though is that all the rumored names mentioned so far for the film can be chucked out as he's "decided to write the characters with no specific actor in mind". QT is also considering "an epic slow motion scene".
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Convael on July 05, 2008, 02:44:26 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7487072.stm
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on July 05, 2008, 10:12:27 AM
Finished by Cannes 2009?  :shock:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on July 05, 2008, 04:00:01 PM
Now, AICN has seen that interview and garnered some new facts from it about Tarantino's long in-development remake of the property which he claimed he finished the script for last month.

For some reason, I've always had in mind that he was only reusing the title, not doing a remake of the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 08, 2008, 03:13:15 PM
Quentin Tarantino Unveils 'Inglorious Bastards' To 4 Major Hollywood Studios
Source: Deadline Hollywood

EXCLUSIVE: Quentin Tarantino has just gone out with his long-anticipated script about World War II. But here's the weird thing sources are telling me: not only is Laurence Bender attached to produce Inglorious Bastards, but there's also "a possibility" that Harvey Weinstein will be producing as well but not financing it. This certainly adds fuel to those rumors that The Weinstein Co is having movie money woes. After all, one of the ways that The Weinstein Co attracted investors was by hyping its creative connection to the Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill 1 & 2 writer/director who has long made a lot of money for a lot of people. But now only Harv, and not his investors, could potentially profit from the connection? Unreal. And let's not forget that The Weinsten Co produced and financed Quentin's last pic Grindhouse/Death Proof that tanked at the box office because of Weinstein's own admission that he erred in releasing it in the U.S. market as half of a too-long 3-hour, 12-minute double-feature.

This latest Tarantino epic, originally for Miramax and originally set for 2001, has been so long in the works that some people thought it might never see the light of day. Tarantino himself has described it as a Spaghetti Western meets World II film that's an homage to 1967's The Dirty Dozen and its derivatives with a story about a group of soldiers on their way to be executed who get the chance of a reprieve. I hear it's gone out to Universal, Warner Bros, Paramount (all yesterday) and Sony (today). As usual, there's a lot of secrecy surrounding this Quentin project sent out by William Morris. In a BBC documentary done around the time of Pulp Fiction's release, Tarantino said that he always wanted to do a "guys on a mission" film and thought Where Eagle's Dare was the best of the genre. Some believe that Quentin's latest script is inspired by the 1978 Italian movie Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato which he has gushed over in interviews and is a more extreme version of The Dirty Dozen. Tarantino's script comes out just as the Enzo G. Castellari inspiration is heading to DVD...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 09, 2008, 09:24:34 AM
Tarantino's "Bastards" Shoots In October
By Garth Franklin
Wednesday, July 9th 2008 12:13am


It looks like Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Bastards" is finally moving ahead after all at The Weinstein Company says The Hollywood Reporter.

The long-gestating World War II action tale follows a group of Dirty Dozen-like group of soldiers behind enemy lines.

The Weinsteins will co-finance the film, distribute it domestically and oversee production and worldwide marketing.

Shooting will take place in Europe starting in October and will be put through an accelerated production schedule to be finished in time for next May's Cannes Film Festival.

Deadline Hollywood Daily adds that Brad Pitt is in discussions to play a role.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on July 09, 2008, 07:59:47 PM
from nymag.com...

We’ve Got Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Bastards’ Script (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/07/weve_got_quentin_tarantinos_in.html)

…and it is exactly as batshit over-the-top insane as we hoped.

The copy we acquired includes a handwritten cover page which we think might actually be in Tarantino's handwriting, reading, "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS." This misspelling of "bastards" continues through the screenplay, suggesting we were right when we guessed Tarantino was writing really, really fast. He doesn't even have time to spell-check if he's gonna get this movie turned around by Cannes!

The script is 165 pages long and follows a squad of American soldiers called the Bastards — a guerrillalike force who travel behind German lines in 1944, striking terror into the hearts of Nazi soldiers. The Bastards are headed by Lieutenant Aldo Raine — the role we'd imagine Tarantino is hoping to land Brad Pitt for — described by the script as a "hillbilly from the mountains of Tennessee," who has around his neck a scar from where he survived a lynching. ("The scar will never once be mentioned," Tarantino writes.) In a parallel story, Inglorious Bastards follows a French Jewish teenager named Shosanna who survives the massacre of her family and flees to Paris, where she winds up running a movie house during the Nazi occupation.

The Bastards' and Shosanna's stories intersect when a gala premiere of a Goebbels-produced propaganda film is put on in Shosanna's theater, with Hitler and most of the German High Command scheduled to attend. Both the Bastards and Shosanna launch plots intending to end the war a little earlier than anyone expected.

The script's divided into five chapters:

    Chapter One: Once Upon a Time … Nazi Occupied France

    Chapter Two: Inglorious Basterds

    Chapter Three: German Night in Paris

    Chapter Four: Operation Kino

    Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Face

The first chapter, set in 1941, introduces Shosanna and the film's antagonist, a Nazi officer named Landa who's known as the "Jew Hunter." The second chapter introduces the Bastards and their tactics: They kill Nazis on sight, take their scalps, and — when they let one go — carve a swastika into his forehead. The third chapter, set in 1944, reintroduces Shosanna in Paris ("This whole Chapter will be filmed in French New Wave Black and White"). The fourth sets up the Bastards' attack on the theater. And it all comes together in Chapter Five, which plays fast and loose with history, to say the least.

The script is definitely the ur-text of Quentin Tarantino's career up to now; it combines his love of old movies (war movies, Westerns, and even prewar German cinema), his attraction to powerful female protagonists, his love of chatter, and his willingness to embrace the extreme — visually and in his storytelling. (The flashbacks have particularly Tarantinoian flourishes: a thought bubble pops out of a character's head to introduce one, while another is shot spaghetti Western style.) All in all, it reads like Kill Bill meets The Dirty Dozen meets Cinema Paradiso.

We wondered at times if this script was a fake, and it's still possible that it is — but if so, it's such a skillful fake that the author has even mastered Tarantino's ability to write moments that seem almost like parodies of his own tastes. Such as, for example, our favorite moment in the screenplay, with a mix of fetishism and inspired comedy that feels authentically alive. Late in chapter four, the Nazis are preparing Shosanna's movie theater for its big premiere, and Goebbels tells her that he appreciates "the modesty of this auditorium." Then he suggests sprucing the place up a bit, with a chandelier from Versailles and a couple of Greek nudes from the Louvre scattered around the lobby. A quick montage shows this happening, and then Tarantino describes the result:

We see Workers trying with incredible difficulty, to hoist the huge, heavy, and twinkingly fragile chandelier, in Shosannas auditorium, which now resembles something out of one of Tinto Brass's Italian B-movie rip-off's of Visconti's "The Damned".

If anyone is crazy enough to fund it, this movie is gonna be awesome.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Marty McSuperfly on July 10, 2008, 01:40:52 PM
From the script:

My name is Lt. Aldo Raine, and I’m putting together a special team. And I need me eight soldiers.  Eight – Jewish – American – Soldiers.  Now y’all might have heard rumors about the armada happening soon.  Well, we’ll be leavin a little earlier.  We’re gonna be dropped into France, dressed as civilians.  And once we’re in enemy territory, as a bushwackin’ guerilla army, we’re gonna be doin one thing, and thing only, Killin Nazi’s.  The members of the Nationalist Socialist Party, have conquered Europe through murder, torture, intimidation, and terror.  And that’s exactly what we’re gonna do to them.  Now I don’t know about y’all.  But I sure as hell, didn’t come down from the goddamn smoky mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half Sicily, and then jump out of a fuckin air-o-plane, to teach the Nazi’s lessons in humanity.  Nazi ain’t got no humanity. There the foot soldiers of a Jew hatin, mass murderin manic, and they need to be destroyed.  That’s why any and every son-of-a-bitch we find wearin a Nazi uniform, there gonna die.  We will be cruel to the Germans, and through our cruelty, they will know who we are.  They will find the evidence of our cruelty, in the disemboweled, dismembered, and disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us.  And the German will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, and our boot heals, and the edge of our knives.  And the Germans, will be sickened by us.  And the Germans, will talk about us.  And the Germans, will fear us.  And when the Germans close their eyes at night, and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they’ve done, it will be with thoughts of us, that it tortures them with.  But I got a word of warning to all would be warriors.  When you join my command, you take on debit.  A debit you owe me, personally.  Every man under my command, owes me, one hundred Nazi scalps.  And I want my scalps.  And all y’all will git me, one hundred Nazi scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred Nazi’s or you will die trying.

-Lt. Aldo Raine aka Aldo the Apache
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on July 10, 2008, 02:51:25 PM
No link yet?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Satcho9 on July 10, 2008, 11:19:41 PM
Does anyone have this script yet? It seems like I'm one of six people in LA who don't have it...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on July 11, 2008, 01:38:23 AM
Damn that was good.

Plese sir, can we have some more?

From the script:

My name is Lt. Aldo Raine, and I’m putting together a special team. And I need me eight soldiers.  Eight – Jewish – American – Soldiers.  Now y’all might have heard rumors about the armada happening soon.  Well, we’ll be leavin a little earlier.  We’re gonna be dropped into France, dressed as civilians.  And once we’re in enemy territory, as a bushwackin’ guerilla army, we’re gonna be doin one thing, and thing only, Killin Nazi’s.  The members of the Nationalist Socialist Party, have conquered Europe through murder, torture, intimidation, and terror.  And that’s exactly what we’re gonna do to them.  Now I don’t know about y’all.  But I sure as hell, didn’t come down from the goddamn smoky mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half Sicily, and then jump out of a fuckin air-o-plane, to teach the Nazi’s lessons in humanity.  Nazi ain’t got no humanity. There the foot soldiers of a Jew hatin, mass murderin manic, and they need to be destroyed.  That’s why any and every son-of-a-bitch we find wearin a Nazi uniform, there gonna die.  We will be cruel to the Germans, and through our cruelty, they will know who we are.  They will find the evidence of our cruelty, in the disemboweled, dismembered, and disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us.  And the German will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, and our boot heals, and the edge of our knives.  And the Germans, will be sickened by us.  And the Germans, will talk about us.  And the Germans, will fear us.  And when the Germans close their eyes at night, and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they’ve done, it will be with thoughts of us, that it tortures them with.  But I got a word of warning to all would be warriors.  When you join my command, you take on debit.  A debit you owe me, personally.  Every man under my command, owes me, one hundred Nazi scalps.  And I want my scalps.  And all y’all will git me, one hundred Nazi scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred Nazi’s or you will die trying.

-Lt. Aldo Raine aka Aldo the Apache

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Marty McSuperfly on July 11, 2008, 03:42:58 AM
here you go...two parts

http://rs272.rapidshare.com/files/128794613/INGLORIOUS_BASTARDS_1_1_.pdf

http://rs98.rapidshare.com/files/128795912/INGLORIOUS_BASTARDS_2_1_.pdf
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on July 11, 2008, 06:42:12 AM
Here too:

http://rapidshare.com/files/128794613/INGLORIOUS_BASTARDS_1_1_.pdf

http://rapidshare.com/files/128795912/INGLORIOUS_BASTARDS_2_1_.pdf

Guess I'm going to be spending the day down the pool reading this :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cron on July 11, 2008, 07:52:22 AM
Tarantino knows shit about history. Heydrich was murdered in 42!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on July 11, 2008, 03:00:00 PM
i only read the ending.  amazing.  i don't wanna spoil the rest.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on July 11, 2008, 03:37:19 PM
Just finished it. Suffice to say this ain't your father's war movie. This is WWII by the warped mind of QT. Overall, looks promising. The final chapter is a definitely a page-turner... it may have caused me to get severely sunburnt as a matter of fact...

If you like your history movies accurate, then this isn't for you.

I do wonder whether certain elements will make it harder to gain finance? Whatever happens, I would much rather this be one complete movie and not split into two (though I don't see how it could be split). People are going to rag this movie, and like all QT there's positives and negatives I could go on about, but won't. The best bits are going to be pure exhibitions of style and coolness, regardless of everything else. And in the end, isn't that what Tarantino is all about? Count me in.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Find Your Magali on July 11, 2008, 06:24:15 PM
My two cents: Mostly entertaining, with some incredibly tense set pieces; not nearly enough of the Basterds, including Aldo; the VO narration at certain points doesn't work at all (I thought there was going to be a payoff, but there wasn't); the female lead doesn't work for me as currently written, her character takes some wild left turns; putting real historical figures in there -- man, I just don't know.

Landa is a fantastic character, though. Best role in the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Satcho9 on July 12, 2008, 05:56:11 AM
here you go...two parts

http://rs272.rapidshare.com/files/128794613/INGLORIOUS_BASTARDS_1_1_.pdf

http://rs98.rapidshare.com/files/128795912/INGLORIOUS_BASTARDS_2_1_.pdf

Thank you, sir.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 12, 2008, 10:13:04 AM
Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Bastards’ Ready To Roll! Or Is It ‘Basterds’?
Source: MTV

Finally. After about nine years in the making, Quentin Tarantino has officially finished the screenplay and is seeking producers for his latest picture, “Inglourious Basterds.”

For those of you who are skim-reading, allow me to reiterate the title: “Inglourious Basterds.” That’s right, the latest version of the script that has been leaked apparently has foregone spellcheck, not only on the title page, in what is supposedly Tarantino’s frantic handwriting, but also throughout the script. One hypothesis notes his bid to get it entered into the next Cannes Film Festival, which would explain skipping the proofread. Or is Tarantino’s unusual spelling techique all part of some masterful plan? Time will tell.

Tarantino had expected to make the flick years ago, before his action-packed character piece, “Death Proof,” part of his 2007 collaboration with Robert Rodriguez, “Grindhouse.” Seemingly adapted from the original 1978 Italian film “Quel maledetto treno blindato,” Tarantino’s upcoming project (rumored to have a role earmarked for Brad Pitt) will be the first war film of his illustious career. Set in Europe during WWII, it chronicles the mission of an American troupe called the Bastards, whose main objective is the strike fear in the hearts of Nazis. Sound unreal? Well, remember, it’s Tarantino we’re talking about.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on July 12, 2008, 02:49:59 PM
i don't think i'll read the screenplay, but i just watched Battle of Britain on TV - does it stay strictly with ground fighting, i.e. i'm wondering if QT dares to take on an air fight?

(i'm going to have to guess most likely not, as if QT wanted to take on an air battle he'd have to do the biggest of all time and would probably make it a third of the movie - which would have most likely made any newspiece on the script).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on July 13, 2008, 04:00:26 PM
the whole BastERDS thing is annoying.  either it's on purpose and is as pointless as bleeping out Beatrice, or he is just as dumbassy on paper as he is in real life.   
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on July 13, 2008, 04:17:12 PM
it should be called Ingloreeyuss Basterds.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on July 13, 2008, 04:18:27 PM
I wonder which character he's going to be?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on July 13, 2008, 04:22:02 PM
the whole BastERDS thing is annoying.  either it's on purpose and is as pointless as bleeping out Beatrice, or he is just as dumbassy on paper as he is in real life.   

Wait a year when a bunch of nerdy retarded teenagers (like some of you right here) will start using the word 'basterd' on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 16, 2008, 08:16:23 AM
Quentin Tarantino seeks 'Bastards'
Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio rumored for roles
Source: Variety

Quentin Tarantino's Weinstein Co. film "Inglorious Bastards," which has already garnered plenty of media coverage, is about to get more interesting.

The producers are searching for a co-financing partner to handle offshore territories for the WWII drama with intersecting storylines. Tarantino and Harvey Weinstein will meet with five studios from Friday through Tuesday.

After the director met Brad Pitt in France on Tuesday, those studios are already salivating over the expectation that Tarantino will land Pitt to play the key role of Aldo Raine. They'll be even keener if Tarantino's plan to meet Leonardo DiCaprio for another lead role goes well Thursday. Tarantino wants DiCaprio to play the role of Hans Landa.

Several studios said the script is vintage Tarantino and they're eager to be in business with him at a reasonable price. DiCaprio and Pitt would be appearing in a Tarantino-helmed project for the first time, though Pitt previously spoke Tarantino-scripted dialogue in a small but memorable stoner turn in the Tony Scott-directed "True Romance."

Pitt, who read "Inglorious Bastards" before studios, seems a strong logistical fit for the project. The film will shoot this fall in Germany and also in France, where Pitt and Angelina Jolie have been residing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 22, 2008, 08:39:03 AM
Barefeet count = 2

The last chapter climax is, as Sleepless said, a real page-turner. Thought it would be more of a Dirty Dozen mission, but the script is less about the Basterds, and more about The Bride Shosanna. We hardly get to know the Basterds and for being a group that strikes fear into the Nazis, they really don't bandy together and do much killing apart from their introduction. Nice to see QT going back to using the mexican stand-off again; it works here. Nice touch too with making Hitler a character, rather than being talked about in other WWII flicks.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on July 23, 2008, 03:38:13 AM
if this had gone into pre-production three years ago, as it should have, i would have cared.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on July 29, 2008, 03:46:25 PM
Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Bastards" has landed at Universal Pictures.
Studio has inked a deal to partner with the Weinstein Co. to bring the World War II drama to the big screen.

The "Pulp Fiction" helmer and Harvey Weinstein met with five studios last week, and it came down to Paramount and Universal.

Tarantino has met with Brad Pitt to play the role of Aldo Raine and Leonardo DiCaprio to portray Nazi Hans Landa.

Shooting is scheduled to begin in the fall in Germany and France.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 06, 2008, 12:12:13 AM
Eli Roth on deck for 'Bastards'
Tarantino to set full cast of war epic shortly
Source: Variety

"Hostel" director Eli Roth is on deck to play a baseball bat-swinging Nazi hunter in "Inglorious Bastards," the Quentin Tarantino-directed drama that begins production this fall in Europe for the Weinstein Co. and Universal Pictures.

Brad Pitt is in talks to play Aldo Raine, leader of a rogue band of Jewish-American soldiers who wreak havoc on the bad guys in Nazi-occupied France.

Roth is in talks to play Sgt. Donnie Donowitz.

Roth played a small role in Tarantino's "Death Proof" segment of "Grindhouse" and directed one of the fake movie trailers that played during the film. Tarantino was an executive producer and lent his name as a presenter on Roth's breakout directing hit, "Hostel."

Tarantino is expected to formalize his cast shortly.

Tarantino had planned to meet with Leonardo DiCaprio for the role of SS Col. Hans Landa, only to decide that the role should be played by a German actor.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on August 06, 2008, 04:26:23 PM
oh fuck. how big a role is that, screenplay readers?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: diggler on August 06, 2008, 09:47:39 PM
his introduction is one of the more amusing scenes in the script, there's a funny sight gag involved. nothing really too challenging acting wise, but i still think he'll be distracting. not as bad as dicaprio for hans landa, which was WAY off.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cron on August 06, 2008, 11:04:56 PM
hans landa should be a rutger hauer lookalike, or rutger hauer himself.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 07, 2008, 12:10:28 AM
B.J. Novak lines up 'Bastards'
'Office' star in talks for Quentin Tarantino film
Source: Hollywood Reporter
 
NEW YORK -- B.J. Novak could soon be going from pushing paper to fighting Nazis.

"The Office" star is in talks to play one of the soldiers in "Inglorious Bastards," Quentin Tarantino's long-gestating film about a band of Jewish resisters in Vichy-era France.

Novak is expected to play PFC Utivich, described as a soldier of slight build who comes from New York.

The WMA-repped Novak is best known for his role on the NBC hit series, where he plays former temp Ryan. Novak also has written several episodes of the show and served as co-executive producer.

On the big screen, Novak has had small parts in the Sept. 11 drama "Reign Over Me" and Judd Apatow's "Knocked Up."

Scheduling is less likely to be a problem for Novak than it might be for other television actors; he has had a less regular role on "The Office" since his character was promoted in the fourth season to run the Dunder Mifflin corporate office in New York.

Casting is being finalized on the Weinstein Co.-Universal "Bastards," which is expected to shoot in the fall in Europe and wrap in time for a potential Cannes debut in May. Brad Pitt is in talks to play the leader of the band of fighters.

The Weinstein Co. declined comment.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on August 07, 2008, 12:24:47 AM
his introduction is one of the more amusing scenes in the script, there's a funny sight gag involved. nothing really too challenging acting wise, but i still think he'll be distracting. not as bad as dicaprio for hans landa, which was WAY off.
but how big is the role? is he on screen most of the time?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on August 07, 2008, 08:20:37 AM
B.J. Novak lines up 'Bastards'
'Office' star in talks for Quentin Tarantino film
Source: Hollywood Reporter
 

Scheduling is less likely to be a problem for Novak than it might be for other television actors; he has had a less regular role on "The Office" since his character was promoted in the fourth season to run the Dunder Mifflin corporate office in New York.

And he was fucking ARRESTED.

his introduction is one of the more amusing scenes in the script, there's a funny sight gag involved. nothing really too challenging acting wise, but i still think he'll be distracting. not as bad as dicaprio for hans landa, which was WAY off.
but how big is the role? is he on screen most of the time?

He's one of the main few soldiers, from what I remember he'll be around for most of the movie. Hardly talks though.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 08, 2008, 05:57:08 AM
Brad Pitt, Simon Pegg hang with 'Bastards'
David Krumholtz, Nastassja Kinski also circle WWII project
Source: Hollywood Reporter
 
Brad Pitt officially has gone inglorious.

The actor has joined the cast of Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Bastards," signing on to play Lt. Aldo Raine, the head of the Jewish resistance in the auteur's World War II film.

Additionally, Simon Pegg is in discussions to join the cast. David Krumholtz has an offer but may have a scheduling problem. Nastassja Kinski is meeting with Tarantino for the part of a German actress.

Pitt's character is a Southern rebel who leads a band of eight Jewish American soldiers as they exact vengeance on Nazis in German-occupied France.

Pegg would play a British lieutenant. Krumholtz's part would be that of a member of Pitt's team.

Producer Lawrence Bender said the alchemy of Pitt and Tarantino, who have never worked together as actor and director, will yield unique results. "They're going to push each other and really help make something special," he said.

Pitt's character is a voluble, freewheeling outlaw in the manner of Samuel L. Jackson's Jules Winnfield in "Pulp Fiction," prone to saying things like "we're gonna be doing one thing, and one thing only, and that's killing Nazis," according to those familiar with the script.

The signing of Pitt, who first saw the script in early July, means that the production has locked down a key role as it moves forward on an accelerated schedule.

The Weinstein Co./Universal co-production starts shooting Oct. 13 in Germany, with the plan to debut at the 2009 Festival de Cannes. "It's going to be a nine-month sprint marathon," Bender said.

Pitt has a relatively clear schedule for the fall, though he is set to start shooting the boxing drama "The Fighter" for Paramount late this year or early next year.

Bender, in Berlin scouting locations, said casting is under way for a German actor to play Hans Landa, the Nazi leader targeted by the resistance. B.J. Novak and Eli Roth are in talks to play soldiers in Pitt's rogue army, with the pair playing PFC Utivich and PFC Danowitz, respectively.

The Weinstein Co. and Universal are co-financing and co-presenting the film, with Bender producing and Erica Steinberg, Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein exec producing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 14, 2008, 11:15:04 PM
Mike Myers enlists in 'Bastards'
Tarantino recruits actor to play British general
Source: Variety

Mike Myers has been recruited by Quentin Tarantino to join the ensemble cast of "Inglorious Bastards," the Tarantino-scripted pic that the Weinstein Co. and Universal will put into production Oct. 13 in Germany.

Myers will play British Gen. Ed Fenech, a military mastermind who takes part in hatching a plot to wipe out Nazi leaders.

Brad Pitt recently committed to star in the film, along with Eli Roth, and Tarantino is also courting Simon Pegg, Nastassja Kinski, David Krumholtz and B.J. Novak.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on August 14, 2008, 11:25:48 PM
That just became even weirder... I hope he plays the general like Dr. Evil
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: john on August 15, 2008, 12:01:41 AM
It's strangely admirable how Tarantino is casting this film solely based on whoever he happens to be hanging out with at the time.

Or lazy.



Still psyched.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: diggler on August 15, 2008, 01:23:06 AM
somewhere out there mike myers is suggesting that he play the general as scottish instead of british.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 16, 2008, 05:55:15 PM
I think he just misses the good ol' days of SNL.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 18, 2008, 04:51:50 PM
Pegg Not a Bastard
Hot Fuzz star reteaming with Nick Frost instead.

Hot Fuzz and Star Trek star Simon Pegg will not be appearing in Quentin Tarantino's World War II movie Inglorious Bastards after all. He was to have played a British lieutenant in the film.

Ain't It Cool pointed out a blog entry at Pegg's MySpace page where the funnyman actor disclosed that he had to drop out of Inglorious Bastards "due to insurmountable scheduling difficulties. We really tried to make it work but in the end, it just was not possible without severe ramifications elsewhere."

Pegg later posted some better news regarding Paul -- his reunion project with Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead co-star Nick Frost -- where he revealed that Superbad helmer Greg Mottola will direct the comedy. Pegg previously told IGN that Paul is "a road movie set in America about two British comic book geeks that get into an adventure across America."

Inglorious Bastards, starring Brad Pitt, begins filming this October in Germany.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 19, 2008, 11:28:52 PM
Fassbender in talks for 'Bastards'
German actor eyes role in Tarantino film
Source: Variety

Teutonic thesp Michael Fassbender is in final negotiations to join the cast of Quentin Tarantino’s "Inglorious Bastards."

Simon Pegg had been in talks for the role (Lt. Archie Hicox), but was forced to ankle after what he described on his website as "insurmountable scheduling difficulties."

Brad Pitt has signed on for the lead role as a Tennessee hillbilly who assembles a team of eight Jewish-American soldiers to take on the Nazis. Also on board are Mike Myers and Eli Roth. Tarantino is courting Nastassja Kinski, David Krumholtz and B.J. Novak.

Role would arguably be the highest-profile yet for Fassbender, who has begun to draw comparisons to Daniel Day-Lewis for his intense dedication to his work. Thesp emaciated himself to play Sands in the latter stages of his hunger strike.

Fassbender is also attached to play the iconic role of Heathcliff in "Wuthering Heights."

That project, however, has been hit by high-profile departures.

Helmer John Maybury ankled recently after creative disagreements over the script. Natalie Portman, who had been set to play Heathcliff’s ill-fated lover Cathy, left the project in May because of a scheduling clash. Aussie thesp Abbie Cornish has since taken over that role.

Pic producer, U.K.-based Ecosse Films, is seeking a new helmer and hopes to make an announcement in the coming weeks.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on September 01, 2008, 01:35:28 PM
Kruger, Waltz join Tarantino film
'Inglorious Bastards' also stars Pitt, Myers
Source: Variety

"Inglorious Bastards" writer-director Quentin Tarantino has set thesps Diane Kruger, Christoph Waltz and Paul Rust in the Weinstein Co./Universal drama.

Pic begins production Oct. 13 in Germany.

The trio join Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, Mike Myers, Michael Fassbender, B.J. Novak and Samm Levine.

Kruger ("National Treasure") plays German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark, who figures prominently in a plot to sabotage the Nazis. It is a role for which Nastassja Kinski was first mentioned.

Waltz, who is best known in Germany for his television work, has landed the role of Col. Hans Landa, who is the primary antagonist in the drama.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on September 01, 2008, 02:44:12 PM
BJ Novak in a war movie........this seems odd to me, but then again, I have not read the script and have no idea of what type of character he's playing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Ravi on September 01, 2008, 10:18:03 PM
Forget BJ Novak, what about Samm Levine in a war film?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: 72teeth on September 01, 2008, 10:39:17 PM
Myers anyone? this whole cast is bananas...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on September 02, 2008, 09:09:06 AM
Myers anyone? this whole cast is bananas...

oh wait, i was thinking he turned it down.
 :ponder:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: diggler on September 02, 2008, 08:36:32 PM
i think novak is perfect for the role he's supposedly playing... although i think levine can play the same character.  i liked krumholtz more in the role, but levine is pretty inspired casting. 

christoph waltz is flawless.  exactly how i pictured landa
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on September 02, 2008, 10:11:52 PM
QT must be a Freaks & Geeks fan because Krumholtz was the elder Schweiber, while Levine the younger.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on September 05, 2008, 12:15:45 AM
'Bastards' portrayals draw fire in Germany
Quentin Tarantino's script leaks, sparks controversy
Source: Hollywood Reporter

BERLIN -- Seems you can't even be nasty to Nazis anymore.

A leaked script of Quentin Tarantino's World War II drama "Inglorious Bastards" already is stirring up controversy for scenes of vengeful Americans bashing, scalping, shooting and strangling German soldiers.

What began as an Internet murmur here went mainstream with a recent article by Tobias Kneibe, film editor of the Suddeutsche Zeitung, who predicted the project could have an explosive effect similar to that of Tom Cruise's "Valkyrie," which has been savaged in the German media even though it won't hit theaters until 2009.

"All the German historians and critics who were left gasping for breath by Tom Cruise and his worthy attempts will be so shocked by 'Inglorious Bastards' that they will savage it on the spot," Kniebe wrote.

Even though he personally likes the script, Kneibe saidthat "the collision between Tarantino-style pop culture with the themes of the Holocaust and Jewish revenge (the 'Bastards' of the film are Jewish-American Nazi hunters) is unprecedented in Germany and its results are completely unpredictable."

More potential fuel for the fire: Tarantino's pulp fiction version of German history will almost certainly get German state financing. Germany's DFFF film fund gives automatic tax breaks for local shoots and "Bastards" is set to shoot almost entirely in Studio Babelsberg outside Berlin.

"I don't see how it should not be eligible for DFFF money," said Kirsten Niehuus, director of the Berlin-Brandenburg regional film fund.

Producers the Weinstein Co. declined comment but sources near the shoot said the controversy has had no effect on Tarantino or the German talent connected to the film, which includes Til Schweiger, Daniel Bruhl, Christoph Waltz and Diane Kruger.

"Most in the German industry love it that Tarantino's in Berlin," one insider said. "They love it that this kind of popcorn film is getting made here."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on September 22, 2008, 12:17:47 AM
Samuel L. Jackson Says “Oui” To Tarantino’s “Inglorious” Possibility
Published by Larry Carroll ; MTV

“Pulp Fiction” shot him to superstardom, he had a hilarious-but-intense role in “Jackie Brown,” and eagle-eyed fans might have even noticed Samuel J. Jackson behind the piano in a brief “Kill Bill” cameo. So now that Quentin Tarantino has his much-hyped script for “Inglorious Bastards” completed, and half the world has seemingly read it, will he be playing the role of African-American role?

“I called him to find out if I had to learn French or not!” Jackson laughed when we asked him this week, insisting that he’d love to reteam with QT once again. “Because the only black person in the script spoke French.”

In the Tarantino script, the character of Marcel is a French movie theater projectionist who works for the film’s beautiful young female lead Shosannna. If SLJ was to take on the part, he’d have the tall order of reciting pretty much every line of his dialogue in the language of love.

He said, “so do you know any black French actors?” I said, “what the f***?!? Yeah, me!” I gave him the name of some guys. So yeah we had a small conversation about it. We’ll see what happens. I thought the script was a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 02, 2008, 08:01:12 PM
Mike Myers 'Thrilled' To Work With Quentin Tarantino, Play A British General In 'Inglorious Bastards'
'He has such a complete vision of how he wants it to go,' Myers says of director.
Source: MTV
   
HOLLYWOOD — John Travolta. Pam Grier. Daryl Hannah. Robert Forster.

Ever since Quentin Tarantino burst onto the Hollywood scene, he has taken great pride in defiantly dusting off Hollywood talents in a career slump and making moviegoers remember why we fell in love with them in the first place. When he recently announced Mike Myers as one of the stars of his next film, "Inglorious Bastards," eyebrows were once again raised. Although the funnyman is still an A-lister, he needs a career makeover after the recent failure of "The Love Guru," and Tarantino could be just the man to give it to him.

Now, Myers is speaking about the role for the first time, and while discussing the sharp left turn with MTV News, he could hardly contain his boyish giddiness.

"I can't believe I got the call, to be honest with you," marveled Myers, who is sporting a shorter, died-black hairdo and eyeglasses these days. "It's one of those unbelievable, magical calls that you get."

Tarantino's fifth proper film (following the instant classics "Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction," "Jackie Brown" and "Kill Bill" parts one and two) will finally bring to life the now-mythical script that he's been working on since the '90s. Co-starring Brad Pitt , Eli Roth and "National Treasure" star Diane Kruger, "Inglorious Bastards" tells the dual stories of prisoners-turned-soldiers eager to strike a blow against their Nazi captors and a young Jewish woman who also holds a grudge against the same Nazis.

"I get to play a British general," Myers said of Ed Fenech, a military mastermind who devises the plan to take on the Nazi soldiers. "I get to be in a World War II movie, which has been my goal since I think I was, like, 6 years old. And I get to play one of those brainiac British generals."

At one point, Tarantino had sought out Adam Sandler for the Fenech role. The director has described the flick as his "bunch-of-guys-on-a-mission film," and such movies have a tradition of sometimes casting comedic actors like Bob Newhart ("Hell Is for Heroes") or Don Rickles ("Kelly's Heroes") in roles that play against type. Myers, a big fan of old movies and comedians dating back to the silent era, is flattered by such comparisons.

"I am so thrilled," remarked the comedian, who was in Hollywood to attend the AFI Night at the Movies event to introduce his original Austin Powers film as one of the dozen classics being screened. "I have spoken [with Tarantino]. Our conversations are supposed to be, like, 20-minute check-ins, and we end up speaking for three hours just about different films that we love."

Filming is due to begin this month, with plans to have it ready for the Cannes Film Festival in May and a theatrical release in the months to follow. An image was recently leaked on the Web of a key location for the film's German shoot, and Myers and Tarantino have been spending the last several weeks planning out the latest, most dramatic addition to his chameleon-esque stable of characters (Austin Powers, Wayne Campbell, the guru Pitka).

"Yeah, there is a lot of makeup," Myers revealed. "[Tarantino] is amazing. He has such a complete vision of how he wants it to go. I feel like I am a tube of paint in his painting, and it is a very beautiful feeling."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 15, 2008, 12:14:02 AM
Inglourious Basterds Commences Principal Photography
Source: The Weinstein Company, Universal Pictures

Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds (sic) began principal photography last week on location in Germany. The ensemble cast of Inglourious Basterds includes Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Daniel Brühl, Eli Roth, Samm Levine, B.J. Novak, Til Schweiger, Gedeon Burkhard, Paul Rust, Michael Bacall, Omar Doom, Sylvester Groth, Julie Dreyfus, Jacky Ido, August Diehl, Martin Wuttke, Richard Sammel, Christian Berkel, Sönke Möhring, Michael Fassbender, Mike Myers, Rod Taylor, Denis Menochet and Cloris Leachman.

Inglourious Basterds reunites Tarantino with Academy Award-nominated editor Sally Menke, Academy Award-winning director of photography Bob Richardson, and production designer David Wasco. Joining Tarantino for the first time is Academy Award-nominated costume designer Anna Sheppard.

Academy Award-nominee Lawrence Bender is producing Inglourious Basterds. Erica Steinberg and Lloyd Phillips, and Bob and Harvey Weinstein are the film's executive producers. The co-producers are Charlie Woebcken, Christoph Fisser and Henning Molfenter. Pilar Savone is the associate producer.

The Weinstein Company and Universal Pictures, through its newly formed International Studio, are co-financing and co-presenting the film with TWC handling domestic distribution and Universal handling international distribution. The two companies are partners on the project.

Zehnte Babelsberg Film, a subsidiary of Studio Babelsberg AG, is producing Inglourious Basterds. The film will shoot at Studio Babelsberg as well as in Berlin, Saxony and Paris.

Inglourious Basterds begins in German-occupied France, where Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris, where she forges a new identity as the owner and operator of a cinema.

Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish soldiers to engage in targeted acts of retribution. Known to their enemy as "The Basterds," Raine's squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of The Third Reich. Fates converge under a cinema marquee, where Shosanna is poised to carry out a revenge plan of her own...

Inglourious Basterds will be released worldwide in 2009.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 15, 2008, 10:58:46 AM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2008/10/ingloriousbastardsposter.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on October 15, 2008, 11:52:50 AM
good.  now ppl will stop referring to it as Basterds.

poster somehow reminds me of There Will Be Blood's.  and somehow makes it look really good.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on October 15, 2008, 01:48:06 PM
the poster plus the news that shooting has commenced is a one-two punch of love for me.  I am so very excited.   
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on October 15, 2008, 04:52:41 PM


Actually the poster is wrong... the name will be different... check this out.

IngloUrious BastErds from /Film

The Weinstein Co today sent out a press release announcing last week’s start of production on Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming WWII film Inglourious Basterds. You might notice that both words are misspelled, much like the early screenplay that got leaked onto the internet a few months back. That is the official title of the film, likely in an attempt to distinguish itself from the 1978 Enzo Castellari film which inspired Tarantino.

You can read the full press release after the jump, which features a full cast and crew listing. New additions to the cast list include: Omar Doom and Michael Bacall (from Death Proof), Julie Dreyfus (Sophie Fatale from Kill Bill), Cloris Leachman (from The Mary Tyler Moore Show), and many others. Photo above thanks to Tarantino Archives. It is also worth mentioning that an Inglourious Basterds poster has again begun to circulate the internet movie sites. It has the wrong title spelling, so I’m pretty sure it’s fan created.

Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds (sic) began principal photography last week on location in Germany. The ensemble cast of Inglourious Basterds includes Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Daniel Brühl, Eli Roth, Samm Levine, B.J. Novak, Til Schweiger, Gedeon Burkhard, Paul Rust, Michael Bacall, Omar Doom, Sylvester Groth, Julie Dreyfus, Jacky Ido, August Diehl, Martin Wuttke, Richard Sammel, Christian Berkel, Sönke Möhring, Michael Fassbender, Mike Myers, Rod Taylor, Denis Menochet and Cloris Leachman.

Inglourious Basterds reunites Tarantino with Academy Award-nominated editor Sally Menke, Academy Award-winning director of photography Bob Richardson, and production designer David Wasco. Joining Tarantino for the first time is Academy Award-nominated costume designer Anna Sheppard.

Academy Award-nominee Lawrence Bender is producing Inglourious Basterds. Erica Steinberg and Lloyd Phillips, and Bob and Harvey Weinstein are the film’s executive producers. The co-producers are Charlie Woebcken, Christoph Fisser and Henning Molfenter. Pilar Savone is the associate producer.

The Weinstein Company and Universal Pictures, through its newly formed International Studio, are co-financing and co-presenting the film with TWC handling domestic distribution and Universal handling international distribution. The two companies are partners on the project.

Zehnte Babelsberg Film, a subsidiary of Studio Babelsberg AG, is producing Inglourious Basterds. The film will shoot at Studio Babelsberg as well as in Berlin, Saxony and Paris.

Inglourious Basterds begins in German-occupied France, where Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris, where she forges a new identity as the owner and operator of a cinema.

Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish soldiers to engage in targeted acts of retribution. Known to their enemy as “The Basterds,” Raine’s squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of The Third Reich. Fates converge under a cinema marquee, where Shosanna is poised to carry out a revenge plan of her own…

Inglourious Basterds will be released worldwide in 2009.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on October 15, 2008, 05:32:09 PM
movie sucks again.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 15, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
IngloUrious BastErds

Thom Yorke got a hold of that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on October 15, 2008, 06:19:44 PM
werst tytle evar.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on October 15, 2008, 06:45:28 PM
Fuck Christoph Waltz. That guy banged my girlfriend.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on October 15, 2008, 08:49:52 PM
poster is a fake, also.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: john on October 15, 2008, 08:56:16 PM
poster is a fake, also.

Good to hear.

It's a nice poster, in general... but dishearteningly prestigious for the film I'm anticipating.


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 17, 2008, 03:05:01 PM
First Look: Brad Pitt in 'Inglourious Basterds'


(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2008/10/pittbasterds-(2).jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cine on October 17, 2008, 04:08:31 PM
ive barely read a thing in this thread.... but that is ONE fucked up cast.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on October 17, 2008, 05:51:20 PM
it's fucked up in a good way. minus eli roth.

cloris leachman wins.  :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Ghostboy on October 17, 2008, 10:10:02 PM
I refuse to use the official spelling until I've been given a good enough reason to do so.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 17, 2008, 10:23:52 PM
I refuse to use the official spelling until I've been given a good enough reason to do so.

Same reason why I haven't changed the title of the thread yet.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on October 17, 2008, 10:27:20 PM
I refuse to use the official spelling
i'm with you.

until I've been given a good enough reason to do so.
not gonna happen.

(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh275/bzden/QuentinTarantino.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Fernando on October 31, 2008, 12:36:08 PM
what a :shock: !!

Jackson joins Bastards
from: joblo.com

You know it was just a matter of time - Sam Jackson has joined the cast of Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. OK well Jackson won't seen on screen alongside Brad Pitt but he'll instead serve as the narrator of the piece where he'll read lines like:

"Needless to say, once the Basterds got heard about him, he never got there."

"For in the other world, the gods only respect the ones they test first. Well Sgt., this is your test. And the gods are watching."

It just wouldn't be a Tarantino film without just a little Sam Jackson in there so I'm glad he's found a place. Also joining the cast is Maggie Cheung who will play Madame Mimieux, the French owner of a cinema where a good deal of action takes place. As The Playlist reports, it is slightly odd that Tarantino cast a Chinese woman to play a French woman but Mimieux speaks fluent French so perhaps it won't be as big a problem as we imagine. BASTARDS is currently shooting for a premiere at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 04, 2008, 02:15:55 AM
spoilers or whatever:

so, i finally read the screenplay for this last night. what the fuck is up with him changing the course of history?!?!

besides that, it was alright i guess.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on November 05, 2008, 05:54:03 PM
spoilers or whatever:

so, i finally read the screenplay for this last night. what the fuck is up with him changing the course of history?!?!

besides that, it was alright i guess.

God please I know this is light but still...SPOILER ?!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 07, 2008, 12:09:33 AM
you guys crack me up. you give people shit for not putting spoiler warnings in there. AND you give people shit for putting spoiler warnings in there... is there a handbook out there i should read on the subject!?

anyways, i put the spoiler warning there (and if you notice, i put" whatever" after it, meaning it maybe didn't need it.) because the fact that he changed the course of history is A MAJOR PART OF THE FILM...

btw,

SPOILER
admin edit: MOVIE RUINING SPOILERS



QT loves the smelly feet!!!





if you read that, it's your own fault.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on November 07, 2008, 05:03:09 PM
i read it, it was my own fault.  i have tried to help out the rest of you.  learn from my mistakes.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on November 07, 2008, 05:34:22 PM
this is bullshit!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 07, 2008, 10:35:02 PM
damn!  sorry mod... i guess i should have made the severity of my spoiler more known to you guys.

i know how tempting it can be to read spoilers, even when you know you shouldn't... i've done the same thing many times. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on November 08, 2008, 09:50:45 AM
you just ruined my life!!!

*jumps out 80th story window sans parachute*
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on November 08, 2008, 02:40:36 PM
i just don't see the point of putting the spoiler temptation out there at this point when anyone who would want the movie ruined for them can read the script like you did.

*throws jtm's post out 80th story window sans spoiler warning*
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 09, 2008, 12:22:11 AM
the point, poser, was to show my reasoning for giving a spoiler in regards to quentin changing history.


EDIT: i've removed my "movie ruining" spoiler.

all you people with no will power can now sleep safely tonight.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cowboykurtis on November 14, 2008, 05:39:05 PM
http://defamer.com/5087201/early-basterds-outtake-promises-graphic-tarantinoesque-drink+spitting?autoplay=true
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on November 14, 2008, 05:51:12 PM
all you people with no will power can now sleep safely tonight.

(http://images.hollywood.com/cms/300x375/5241015.jpg)

what do you mean, "you people"?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on November 14, 2008, 05:55:09 PM
I guess he's still on the coke. That's the only way to explain the fact that he's still dressing in country and western garb.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on November 14, 2008, 06:18:14 PM
I guess he's still on the coke. That's the only way to explain the fact that he's still dressing in country and western garb.

it's the exact same garb as

(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh275/bzden/QuentinTarantino.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 16, 2008, 01:39:55 AM
all you people with no will power can now sleep safely tonight.

(http://images.hollywood.com/cms/300x375/5241015.jpg)

what do you mean, "you people"?

haha, good one!

and to clarify, i meant blacks and jews.


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cron on November 17, 2008, 02:10:51 PM
my favorite blacks and jews joke: http://louisck.com/conan080504.mpg
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on November 18, 2008, 01:48:25 PM
Wrong clip?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 20, 2008, 12:21:01 AM
yeah, i think so.

i watched that whole clip and i didn't see anything about blacks or jews.

also, that comedian was seriously not funny.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on November 20, 2008, 01:03:25 PM
unhumorous basterd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: RegularKarate on November 20, 2008, 01:09:59 PM
also, that comedian was seriously not funny.

If you call Louis C.K. that comedian, you probably don't know much about comedy in the first place, but you're also wrong about the second part (him not being funny).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 21, 2008, 01:13:55 AM
well, i haven't had cable in about 2 years, and was never one for going out looking for the best stand-up comics of the day. if that means i don't know shit about comedy, than so be it. i guess i wasted the previous 28 years of my life watching stand-up. apparently it all led up to the great Louis C.K... you know best regular karate.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on November 21, 2008, 03:23:08 AM
RK right: CK hilarious.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on November 21, 2008, 03:33:55 AM
maybe he is.

all i have to go on is the clip cron posted... didn't make me laugh.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on November 22, 2008, 11:30:49 PM
RK right: CK hilarious.

that's the name of his latest tour.  it's about the overusage of the word "hilarious."  did anyone else catch him on the tour?
IT WAS AMAZING.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on December 11, 2008, 06:02:49 PM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2008/12/pitt-(2).jpg)

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2008/12/kruger-(2).jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on December 20, 2008, 04:22:38 PM
(http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/inglouriousbasterdstable-440x292.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on December 20, 2008, 06:06:23 PM
somehow these have renewed my faith in this.

the third one could've been a deleted scene from manderlay.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on December 31, 2008, 03:06:46 PM
Tarantino's Basterds Gets Its Date!
Source: ComingSoon

The Weinstein Company has announced that Quentin Tarantino's sixth movie Inglourious Basterds (the title is spelled as such by the studio and Tarantino), a WWII film starring Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger and Christoph Waltz, will be released on August 21, 2009.

Co-financed by The Weinstein Company with Univeral Pictures, the late summer release will put the movie up against New Line's Final Destination: Death Trip 3D and the comedy The Goods: The Don Ready Story.

Inglourious Basterds begins in German-occupied France, where Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Waltz). Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris, where she forges a new identity as the owner and operator of a cinema.

Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish soldiers to engage in targeted acts of retribution. Known to their enemy as "The Basterds," Raine's squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of The Third Reich. Fates converge under a cinema marquee, where Shosanna is poised to carry out a revenge plan of her own...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on December 31, 2008, 04:39:12 PM
that is not such a good date.   :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on January 02, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
that is not such a good date.   :yabbse-undecided:
It'll be moved back.

just a Feeling.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on January 02, 2009, 03:58:42 PM
Its a great summer date, but usually not for Tarantino. If it turns out very good and successful at Cannes I'm sure it will be pushed back to October for awards season.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on January 02, 2009, 04:23:53 PM
i think he's kinda moved beyond 'awards season' guy and into the realm of homage-fetish guy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on January 30, 2009, 12:57:54 AM
B.J. Novak On ‘Inglourious Basterds’: ‘One Of The Coolest Movies I’ve Ever Seen’
Published by MTV Movies Team

“It’s one of the coolest movies I’ve ever seen or been a part of,” said B.J. Novak of Quentin Tarantino’s spellcheck-challenged WWII epic, “Inglourious Basterds.” He plays Private First Class Utivich, who may just help him shed the instant identification of being Ryan from “The Office.”

“It’s a very cool, very stylish, intense, funny movie that takes place during World War II behind enemy lines in France,” told Novak to MTV News’ Josh Horowitz. “Brad Pitt leads a squadron of American soldiers. And that’s the most normal part of the movie. It gets crazier from there. But for some reason, you’re always completely invested. You’re always completely by it. As soon as you see this reality, you feel it. You believe it. You’re invested in it. It’s just one of the coolest scripts I’ve ever read.”

Of course, the script isn’t that hard to come by for us internet nerds and “crazy” is sort of putting it lightly. The trick is going to be in seeing how Tarantino manages to pull it all together.

“You know,” says Novak, “it all felt normal to me as I was doing it. But then when I described it to my friends when I got back home, their eyes just popped out of their heads. So I can’t wait to see how people react to this movie. I really have no sense of it. Once you get into it, you love it. So I think that’s how people will react to it. It is really excitingly different from what people are used to.”
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on January 30, 2009, 04:49:15 PM
I really, really hope this will mark Tarantino's return to good dialog.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2009, 04:50:36 PM
I wonder if Private Witt is the secret return of aclockworkjj.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on January 30, 2009, 05:55:53 PM
I wonder if Private Witt is the secret return of aclockworkjj.

jj is dead
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on January 30, 2009, 07:01:13 PM
I wonder if Private Witt is the secret return of aclockworkjj.

Do you always talk about people in the third person?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2009, 08:27:36 PM
I wonder if Private Witt is the secret return of aclockworkjj.

Do you always talk about people in the third person?

I think you got your definition of "in the third person" wrong.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on January 31, 2009, 04:24:49 PM
Hey, there you go!  Was that so hard?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 31, 2009, 05:13:31 PM
Hey, there you go!  Was that so hard?

Talking in the third person means I am referring to myself as an outside subject when I address someone. I have been bland enough to begin a lot of my posts with "I" so that doesn't happen. The third person has nothing to do with saying the name of the person you are talking about. The only reason I didn't say your name in the direct reply just now is because I quoted your message. The time before I didn't so I can't assume people will know "you" or "your" is even about you even though it follows your message.

But really, why the fuck is this even a concern? 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on January 31, 2009, 05:30:20 PM
It's not a concern.   :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on January 31, 2009, 05:54:09 PM
GT I can't believe you actually had to explain that.


Back on the subject, I look forward to this and that article made me realize I'm not sure if I can see a Tarantino film with Ryan from the Office. Seriously, I'm still having issues with seeing Billy Walsh on 24. That bastard is ruining the season for me!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on January 31, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
Promoting torture has ruined every season for me.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 01, 2009, 01:01:26 AM
Back on the subject, I look forward to this and that article made me realize I'm not sure if I can see a Tarantino film with Ryan from the Office. Seriously, I'm still having issues with seeing Billy Walsh on 24. That bastard is ruining the season for me!

The trick is to come to terms with the fact that they're actors.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on February 01, 2009, 01:37:38 AM
I love when the Rihanna I'm listening to totally gets beat by her boyfriend.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on February 10, 2009, 09:41:48 AM
(http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/02/10/images/20090210_basterds_560x214.jpg)

ET First Look Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASlTssjSjMA
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on February 10, 2009, 11:56:26 AM
If they're gonna misspell it, why not go all the way with 'Basturds'?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on February 11, 2009, 08:12:51 AM
youtube link is down, see here:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/quentin-tarantino-teases-us-with-inglourious-basterds-clip.php
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 11, 2009, 01:04:40 PM
I caught the trailer on ET late the other night. Looks like the movie could be fun, but Brad Pitt yelling, "And I want my scalps!" just sounds goofy. That's all I could surmise from the trailer.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on February 11, 2009, 02:30:30 PM
here's a new youtube link while it lasts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DNsDcAoTfo

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on February 11, 2009, 03:28:07 PM
thought for sure it was just gonna be more private twit nonsense in here. i did nazi this coming.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on February 11, 2009, 03:39:32 PM
trailer for real: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808404206/video/11988602

pitt's too cartoony.  and it looks a little too "violence is cool" centered, but....we'll see.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on February 11, 2009, 04:04:07 PM
everything about that is wrong. From the first image being of eli roth, the nu-metal music in the background, pitt's i don't know where the fuck i'm from-accent. What the fuck is going on here? i remember being like "Whaaa??" when I first saw the Kill Bill trailer before matrix reloaded but the movie turned out to be over-the-top fun and entertaining but god dammit does this look like shit.

Considered me disappointed already.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 11, 2009, 04:16:20 PM
and it looks a little too violence is cool centered, but....we'll see.

It's a play on Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns so it will be entirely that. I enjoy Leone, but he's a not a film artist to me. He's just a qualified stylist so I'm already accepting this tribute by Tarantino with enough salt to a fill a million salt shakers.

Besides, it's a true teaser in that one scene almost dominates the entire thing. A few shots of action elsewhere, but my impression is that Tarantino is still thick in the post production to make much heads of it yet.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on February 11, 2009, 04:19:34 PM
maybe it's those shots of Eli Roth that just make the violence seem mean spirited and torture porny.  and not like pump you up this is going to be so badass. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on February 11, 2009, 04:21:19 PM
I know it's only one clip of him, but Brad Pitt is lacking some much needed gravitas and bite. I feel like that last scalp line should have goosebumped me silly, but I felt nothing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pedro on February 11, 2009, 04:27:09 PM
This just looks plain bad.  From the pronunciation of Nazi as "nat-zee" to the godawful musical selections, I cannot help but think that this movie will have nothing but gratuitous violence and a lack of emotional resonance. 

Of course, it's just a teaser, and probably not indicative of what the film as a whole will be.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on February 11, 2009, 06:12:04 PM
thought for sure it was just gonna be more private twit nonsense in here. i did nazi this coming.

Ha!  Teaser here looks like it's going for badassery and comedy at the same time, though it seems pretty weak on both.  Maybe if they'd tried for one or the other on the trailer it would seem more ingenuous.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on February 11, 2009, 08:17:50 PM
it seems to me that all of the QT trailers have been very lackluster since the first two.  Still expect this to be amazing.  I cracked and started reading the screenplay and so far so good. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 11, 2009, 08:50:39 PM
I don't care what none of yall muthafuckas say, I'm looking forward to this....

Okay enough of my Samuel L. Jackson impersonation.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 11, 2009, 10:12:41 PM
That's just a teaser trailer. It gives a taste. I still think it looks like fun.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on February 11, 2009, 11:22:07 PM
It's starting to look like Eli Roth has been too big of an influence on Quentin Tarantino, rather than the other way around.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: md on February 12, 2009, 12:15:29 AM
oh god that last line of dialogue is bad...so bad even Pitt knows it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on February 12, 2009, 12:17:49 AM
I know it's only one clip of him, but Brad Pitt is lacking some much needed gravitas and bite. I feel like that last scalp line should have goosebumped me silly, but I felt nothing.

In the script, it came off as what you wanted.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on February 12, 2009, 12:34:20 AM
I also remember getting super excited with the Kill Bill teaser and for a reason. The music, the visuals, the action sequences, the colors, the characters, everything made it look very cool. I remember how awesome that was and its been years. This one I forgot it already, and it made me feel nothing.

Check out the KB trailer here so you remember what I'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBYGQZQKb7k
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBYGQZQKb7k)

Still, I hope that teaser is just bullshit but the final thing will be awesome. We'll see...

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 12, 2009, 12:49:20 AM
The Kill Bill teaser is more of a full length trailer. It shows numerous things that happen in the film. The only difference is that the scenes are shortened in length so it looks like a teaser, but no teaser gives away that much of the film. I saw most of the coolest moments in the film in that trailer.

With Basterds I saw just a few action sequences on top of the one scene it focused on. I think Tarantino finally made a teaser trailer here.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on February 12, 2009, 01:09:05 AM
It's starting to look like Eli Roth has been too big of an influence on Quentin Tarantino, rather than the other way around.
yes. i cannot stand the sight of him. and the absurdly generic rock music?? whuut? the final line is so odd. i don't know whether to blame tarantino or pitt... but i'm sure tarantino saw that as the big final trailer line (alright?!) when he wrote it, then he shot it and stubbornly clung to it despite it clearly being awkward.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 12, 2009, 01:17:36 AM
One thing I will say is that I'm not sure about the casting of Brad Pitt. If he's meant to play tough, intimidating and all around bad ass, it may not work for him. He reminds me of Colin Farrell in that he has a macho physicality, but it's seared with a little goofiness. Pitt epitomized Achilles in Troy, but mainly because he epitomized the look and didn't have too many lines outside of the bland. He also did well in Fight Club for the purpose of his role, but the look worked for him and he was mainly relegated to a supporting role. Tarantino will make him carry more intricate dialogue and make him make more bizarre things come off as cool and tough.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: private witt on February 12, 2009, 02:04:57 AM
One thing I will say is that I'm not sure about the casting of Brad Pitt.

That's one sentence you will never hear an executive producer utter.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on February 12, 2009, 04:11:57 AM
It's Tarantino. It is what it is. I'm interested in seeing him do a non-contemporary piece. Having read the script a while back I don't remember everything absolutely, but like all QT this is going to be an exercise in style over substance. It may not be great art, but it sure as hell will be entertaining.

The thing that bugs me is that they're sticking with the clumsy misspelling. Why?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on February 12, 2009, 06:21:31 AM
Oh god this looks like utter crap. Hopefully it will be extremely bad and Brad Pitt won't kill my new moustache look. Fucking asshole.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on February 12, 2009, 08:10:21 AM
IN THE YEAR 2009
BRAD PITT WILL
KILL HITLER
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on February 12, 2009, 12:17:07 PM
it looks fun enough.  the biggest problem is how exploitative it is, once I get over it I think I'll enjoy it.  it doesn't look much like a "war movie" though.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 12, 2009, 12:27:37 PM
I just want it to be good. Not just fun, but good. I mean, shitty movies can be fun. Tarantino seems to just be coasting along trying to be cool. It doesn't help that he seems to have his penis parked inside Eli Roth.

I want it to be good.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on February 12, 2009, 05:40:59 PM
It doesn't help that he seems to have his penis parked inside Eli Roth.

The moment I see a long, lingering close-up on Eli Roth's bare feet, I'm walking out.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on February 12, 2009, 06:32:18 PM
It doesn't help that he seems to have his penis parked inside Eli Roth.

The moment I see a long, lingering close-up on Eli Roth's bare feet, I'm walking out.

What's the story behind all the Eli Roth reference ?? Please link me the story about their story/these two making out  :(
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 12, 2009, 07:18:25 PM
No stories needed, man. It's completely obvious that they're banging. Why else would Quentin hang out with that turd unless he was fucking stellar in the sack?

I remember when PTA used to hang with Quentin. He used to test the ecstasy to make sure it was good. I bet PTA hasn't hung out with Quentin in years. He calls him up and is like, "You're not going to bring that douchebag Eli to the club are you? I ain't fucking going."

Eli Roth is the reason PTA settled down and started a family.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on February 12, 2009, 07:22:18 PM
No stories needed, man. It's completely obvious that they're banging. Why else would Quentin hang out with that turd unless he was fucking stellar in the sack?

I remember when PTA used to hang with Quentin. He used to test the ecstasy to make sure it was good. I bet PTA hasn't hung out with Quentin in years. He calls him up and is like, "You're not going to bring that douchebag Eli to the club are you? I ain't fucking going."

Eli Roth is the reason PTA settled down and started a family.


hahhaha got it ! haha
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on February 13, 2009, 09:48:25 AM
it looks fun enough.  the biggest problem is how exploitative it is.

That's Tarantino in a nut shell.

That title spelling fucks me off.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on February 13, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
I love the spelling, probably the thing I like most so far, after seeing the trailer.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on February 13, 2009, 11:54:56 AM
 :bravo:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on February 13, 2009, 12:02:58 PM
My guess is that the phrase "Inglourious Basterds" will show up scrawled on one of the characters helmets or something, like some unholy amalgamation of Full Metal Jacket and The Pursuit of Happyness.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on February 13, 2009, 03:08:34 PM
I'm pretty sure the various intentional misspelings in the script are some kind of attempt to set the movie in a slightly different version of reality than the one we live in.  And I like it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on February 13, 2009, 03:16:23 PM
Is there a close up on feet in the script?

I guess in the case of this movie it'd be a severed foot though...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on February 14, 2009, 05:26:16 AM
Is there a close up on feet in the script?

Barefeet count = 2
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on February 14, 2009, 01:41:27 PM
Shut it down.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on February 14, 2009, 10:50:17 PM
Is there a close up on feet in the script?

Barefeet count = 2

That brings up an interesting psychological question:

Did that post from over a half year ago stay lodged in my subconsicous only to resurface yesterday?

That's almost as worse as a little kid having a flash forward.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Find Your Magali on February 17, 2009, 12:32:11 AM
Just saw the trailer. Brad Pitt looks disastrously, annoyingly bad and miscast in this. ... But maybe that's the point? Ugh.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on February 17, 2009, 07:19:10 AM
Just saw the trailer. Brad Pitt looks disastrously, annoyingly bad and miscast in this.

Yes, I can't believe the movie will have the vibe the teaser has. QT has made quite a lot of daring casting choices in his career and so far it's a fucking success but this looks really horrible.

Also, kinda welcome back (?)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on February 17, 2009, 01:43:22 PM
apparently pitt isn't even really the lead. it's Mélanie Laurent.

(http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/inglouriousbasterdstable-440x292.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on February 17, 2009, 06:14:24 PM
Well, I, for one, am unapologetically looking forward to this.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on February 17, 2009, 09:58:29 PM
word.

Since TWBB I really haven't been too excited about many movies.

Despite any possible fears brought up via the trailer, I'm sure just about everyone here's butt will be in the seat opening weekend for this movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on February 18, 2009, 08:16:06 PM
But, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN WAR UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT THROUGH THE EYES OF...

God damn that's stupid.  Fuck.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on February 18, 2009, 09:15:55 PM
But, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN WAR UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT THROUGH THE EYES OF...

God damn that's stupid.  Fuck.

Yeah the ONLY way that would make any sense would be if ended with ''.....THROUGH THE EYES OF... WELL YOUR EYES ACTUALLY''
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 18, 2009, 10:43:07 PM
that made me laugh pas
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on February 19, 2009, 03:41:09 PM
But, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN WAR UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT THROUGH THE EYES OF...

God damn that's stupid.  Fuck.
Well, what do you expect? It's advertising.
They're playing up the badassery to all the jocks and supposed "hardasses." At least, that's my take on it.

I haven't read the script, so I don't even know what the tone of the film is, but given that it's Tarantino, and since I do enjoy his films, I'll be there anyway.

Sure, there were some things in the trailer that were a bit off-putting (like the choice of music for instance), but it's not going to prevent me from being excited about his next film.

I trust him and not the advertisers.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on February 20, 2009, 12:27:50 AM
Click here to read about Tarantino walking Empire Magazine through the trailer, and also explaining the title:

http://www.empireonline.com/features/tarantino-talks-inglourious-basterds-trailer/default.asp
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on February 20, 2009, 08:08:37 AM
(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2009/iibp-lil.jpg)

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/02/basterdshelmet.jpg)

(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/955/955662/inglourious-basterds-20090220000844483.jpg)

(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/955/955545/inglourious-basterds-20090219040429840.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 20, 2009, 09:26:40 AM
Alright - - those are pretty fucking cool.

Still, though, it seems Tarantino is aiming for something COOL rather than something GOOD which bothers me.

He gets more style over substance with each passing film. I hope this one bucks the trend but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Title: Q
Post by: New Feeling on February 20, 2009, 07:36:50 PM
Those posters are pretty ho-hum like the trailer but the Empire/QT trailer tour was fun and this movie will be one of the greatest. 

I really think Kill Bill and DeathProof have just as much substance as the earlier works and I wish people would take them a little more seriously.  I know it's one of the least popular opinions around but I think QT has the most interesting body of work of all the filmmakers of the (excuse me) post-Tarantino era. And I think the only close competition comes from PT and maybe Wes and Charlie Kaufman.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on February 21, 2009, 04:32:51 AM
possible mild spoilers to follow:

I just finished reading the screenplay, which is the first time I've read a pre-release movie since the Big Lebowski, and I can safely say I am 100% excited about seeing this.  It's seems smaller in scale than I would've imagined, considering that it will probably be 3 hours and has a bunch of characters.  There is definitely no lead, it is truly an ensemble piece. Some of the major players seem a tad underdeveloped, but characters have a special way of coming to life on the screen for QT.  There are a few extremely long scenes, and they are good.  The climax is a heart-pounder and very satisfying. It feels most like Kill Bill of all the previous Tarantino, but less pastiche and more straight ahead inspirational war-comedy-shoot 'em up-nailbiter with lots of nods to Sergio Leone and cinema.     

for those who are concerned, Eli Roth's part is memorable but has very limited amounts of dialogue - probably less than he had in DeathProof, and I thought he was good enough in that one (in fact I thought he was perfect for that asshole part).  None of the Basterds really gets much page time, Pitt included, though he definitely has the most. 

One of the funny things is that the movie will be probably 2/3 subtitled, or more.  Certainly a ballsy move for a 3 hour summer war movie.  There are at least a couple of nutty stylistic touches as indicated by the screenplay that I very much look forward to seeing QT try to pull off, as I find i hard to imagine them working, but I certainly believe they could.  The films ending will be controversial and you will love it or hate it.  I love it to death. 

it's almost nothing like the movie advertised in the trailers, about a bunch of nazi scalping American Soldiers, though they certainly play a a part. 

my hat's off   

but then, I love Quentin   
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on February 26, 2009, 04:26:56 PM
(for pubrick)

hype house.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 27, 2009, 10:30:26 PM
Can someone hook me up with the script?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on February 27, 2009, 10:57:36 PM
Can someone hook me up with the script?

Check your email.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on February 27, 2009, 11:23:19 PM
 8)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on March 02, 2009, 12:20:25 PM
Spoilers.

After reading the script, I'd say Eli Roth's part is pretty fucking big. Worst of all, it's one of the coolest characters in the movie.

For anyone who has read the script and also seen Inglorious Bastards (the original) how similar are they?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on March 02, 2009, 01:44:02 PM
For anyone who has read the script and also seen Inglorious Bastards (the original) how similar are they?

Not too similar at all. While they both owe a lot to Dirty Dozen, the original bastards were escapees from an Allied prison and were mainly fighting to cross the Swiss border for their freedom. They stumbled into a mission.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on March 03, 2009, 01:29:35 PM
Shouldn't it be "Nazi-occupied France"? Between this and the 40-Year-Old Virgin posters, why don't poster artists know how to use hyphens?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jtm on March 04, 2009, 05:26:41 AM
Shouldn't it be "Nazi-occupied France"? Between this and the 40-Year-Old Virgin posters, why don't poster artists know how to use hyphens?

the motherfucker can't spell the title right, and you're bitching about hyphens on the poster!?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cine on March 26, 2009, 01:24:39 AM
they announced people from the cast? crazy. dunno. probably just myers for now.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on March 26, 2009, 01:40:00 AM
they announced people from the cast? crazy. dunno. probably just myers for now.

was that sarcasm? we all knew myers is in this.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on March 26, 2009, 07:40:41 AM
Yeah he's going to be the English Scottish General.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on March 26, 2009, 08:02:48 AM
The universe would jump the shark if he played it as Fat Bastard.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on March 26, 2009, 09:12:44 AM
The universe would jump the shark if he played it as Fat Bastard.

 :bravo:

Inglourius Fat Basterd
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on March 26, 2009, 10:42:54 AM
The universe would jump the shark if he played it as Fat Bastard.

 :bravo:

Inglourius Fat Basterd

Brilliant, it was right there in front of me! Haha.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reelist on March 26, 2009, 03:29:04 PM
Gluttonous Bastard
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on March 26, 2009, 04:49:13 PM
Nope.  One try too hard.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on April 01, 2009, 10:22:26 PM
'Inglourious Basterds' invades Cannes
Quentin Tarantino war film to compete at fest
Source: Variety
 
Quentin Tarantino's WWII epic "Inglourious Basterds" is headed to the French Riviera.

The Brad Pitt starrer, set in Nazi-occupied France, has been invited to play in competition at the Cannes Film Festival. Insiders said Tarantino, a longtime favorite of the French, has accepted the offer and has told the film's backers -- the Weinstein Co. and Universal Pictures -- that the pic will be ready for its world premiere during the May fest.

The movie, which follows a band of Jewish-American soldiers whose mission is to take down a group of Nazis, will bow Aug. 21.

Both the Weinstein Co. and U declined comment. Cannes organizers, who will announce the fest's lineup April 23, could not immediately be reached.

Tarantino is no stranger to the Palais. The helmer became one of Hollywood's most in-demand directors after his "Pulp Fiction" won Cannes' Palme d'Or in 1994.

A decade later, Tarantino returned to serve as president of the festival jury. Tarantino's "Kill Bill" was not in competition that year, but it did unspool on the fest's final night in its original 3-hour-plus version. In addition, "Death Proof" played in competition in 2007, and Tarantino's debut film, "Reservoir Dogs," unspooled out of competition in 1992.

This year's fest runs May 13-24.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on April 02, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/inglourious-basterds-cast.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on April 02, 2009, 11:23:23 AM
Tarantino's 'Basterds' Heads to Cannes as More Photos Arrive Online
Source: Cinematical

Last year when Quentin Tarantino announced that he'd have his WWII epic Inglourious Basterds ready to screen at this year's Cannes Film Festival, the majority of us thought the guy was out of his mind. At the time, his script wasn't finished, the film wasn't cast and production hadn't even begun. Now, here we are less than a year later and Variety reports that the Cannes Film Festival has invited Tarantino's film to screen, and he has told them it will be ready to do just that. Nothing official is out yet, however, since the festival doesn't release its schedule until April 23, but you have to hand it to the man for sticking to his guns. Whether the final product is any good is a whole different matter.

This news comes as Vanity Fair revealed new portrait-style images from the set of Basterds, giving us our first good look at French actress Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus, who, in the film, plays a woman who flees to Paris and opens a theater after witnessing Nazis murder her family. Inglourious Basterds will arrive in theaters on August 21; check out a few more VF images below and the rest over on their site.


(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/04/inglourious-basterds-0905-pp03.jpg)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/04/inglourious-basterds-0905-pp01.jpg)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/04/inglourious-basterds-0905-pp04.jpg)
(http://www.vanityfair.com/images/culture/2009/05/inglourious-basterds-0905-pp02.jpg)
(http://www.vanityfair.com/images/culture/2009/05/inglourious-basterds-0905-pp06.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on April 02, 2009, 11:33:09 AM
I want this to be awesome. Please be awesome.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on April 02, 2009, 12:25:37 PM
Kudos to Brad Pitt for Most Consistent Face.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Sleepless on April 02, 2009, 12:54:56 PM
 :bravo:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cine on April 02, 2009, 01:28:43 PM
christ, are they EVER going to show what mike myers looks like in this?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 02, 2009, 02:07:11 PM
christ, are they EVER going to show what mike myers looks like in this?
Not until the premiere.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on April 02, 2009, 03:29:02 PM
christ, are they EVER going to show what mike myers looks like in this?

is this a joke I didn't get ? I cannot ever trust Cine now  :(
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on April 15, 2009, 11:56:38 AM
christ, are they EVER going to show what mike myers looks like in this?

(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/edfenech-mike-myers-inglorious.jpg)

wish you hadn't asked?

clip here: http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-look-mike-myers-in-extended.html
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on April 15, 2009, 06:22:42 PM
i can't begin...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on April 15, 2009, 07:04:47 PM
I'm trying to think of who he reminds me of like that... not quite Wilford Brimley, not quite Martin Mull... not quite Murray from Flight of the Conchords.... I don't know, it'll come to me sooner or later.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on April 15, 2009, 07:53:29 PM
Colonel Mustard?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on April 15, 2009, 08:03:44 PM
Got it!  Cronkite.

(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/06/Cronkite_060306092602329_wideweb__300x375.jpg)

(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/edfenech-mike-myers-inglorious.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on April 16, 2009, 05:01:13 PM
christ, are they EVER going to show what mike myers looks like in this?

(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/edfenech-mike-myers-inglorious.jpg)

wish you hadn't asked?

clip here: http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-look-mike-myers-in-extended.html

ignominious basterd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on April 19, 2009, 04:27:17 PM
looks kinda royal

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/Leven321/royalbasterd.png)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on April 28, 2009, 01:00:31 AM
According to the Cannes website this thing is going to clock at 2h40m making it the longest film in compitition. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on April 28, 2009, 09:10:05 AM
That's a long runtime. Reading the script, it doesn't feel that long.

Please don't be over-indulgent, Quentin.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on April 28, 2009, 11:09:06 AM
wasn't he talking about splitting it up Kill Bill style at one point?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 28, 2009, 11:12:26 AM
I am a QT believer and defendant but if he split it in two like he did with Kill Bill, I just might've cracked.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: diggler on April 28, 2009, 05:53:13 PM
the script didn't feel long, but looking back on it there was a lot of content in there. this movie would NOT work well split in two.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on April 30, 2009, 10:53:25 AM
Eli Roth Dishes on His ‘Basterds’ Nazi Mini-Movie: ‘What Have I Done?’
Source: MTV

Forget about real-life movies. Sometimes, the best flicks are the mini movies-within-movies that audiences only get a tantalizingly short peek at. From the Bruce Willis/Julia Roberts thriller “Habeus Corpus” glimpsed in Robert Altman’s “The Player” to the serious-minded dramatization at the end of “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” to the “Bowfinger” blockbuster “Chubby Rain,” I know I’d gladly fork over ten bucks if Hollywood ever got around to making them. And soon we’ll have a new one to enjoy, courtesy of Eli Roth and the “Inglourious Basterds.”

“There is this Nazi propaganda movie that is like a film-within-a-film,” explained the “Hostel” filmmaker when we spoke with him recently about the eagerly-anticipated Quentin Tarantino flick that will be premiering at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. “And it’s like a whole other movie.”

Tarantino’s “Basterds” is about a posse of Jewish soldiers wreaking havoc on the Nazi troops during WWII – and Roth not only stars in it, but was asked by Quentin to direct the mini-movie “Stolz der Nation (The Nation’s Pride)” that was written into the script. Naturally, the Jewish filmmaker relished the chance to spoof such real-life, Hitler-approved works as Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will.”

“Quentin had two shots that were very specific that he wanted to do - but he was like, “For the rest of it, I need footage of people shooting. It’s a guy in a bell-tower shooting 260 Americans. I need footage of people shooting!’ So I said okay,” Roth remembered. “We got a second camera, and in 2 days we did like 130 shots and Quentin was so happy he gave me a third day. We shot with the actor Daniel Bruhl, and put together this Nazi propaganda film…[as we shot] I was thinking ‘God, I didn’t think I could be more offensive after ‘Hostel 2,’ but how can I upset people more than that?’”

Remembering his direction techniques, Roth laughed. “I was going, ‘More swastikas! More swastikas!’
But as ironically over-the-top as the whole experience may have been, Roth has been wondering lately if he did too good a job on the mini-movie. “The first time we showed it to an audience [the actors] were in character, but the Germans were screaming ‘Heil Hitler!’ and ‘Kill the Jews!’ and it was terrifying,” he remembered. “We watched it over and over, and we were all friends and joking around by the end of it. But there was still something very powerful about that. I looked at Quentin and said, ‘What have I done?’”

When “Basterds” hits theaters August 21st, Roth hopes “The Nation’s Pride” goes down in history as a memorable mini-movie alongside “Habeus Corpus,” “Chubby Rain” and the rest. But he also hopes that the wrong people don’t come to enjoy it.

“I’m going to, like, resurrect the Nazi party,” Roth explained. “They are going to make me their Sarah Palin. They will be like, ‘We love his movie. But he’s a Jew! But it’s such a good movie. But a Jew made it!”

“It’s going to really throw off all the neo-Nazi’s,” he grinned. “I can’t wait.”
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on April 30, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
what an asshole.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on April 30, 2009, 11:11:06 AM
SPOILERS....

FUCK. One of my favorite parts of the script was when they were in the movie theater watching the movie and Quentin is explaining the movie they're watching. I remember thinking how awesome it was going to be when Quentin made it but now that it's Eli Roth making that movie inside the movie the awesomeness of it all goes right out the window.

Bullshit.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on April 30, 2009, 02:07:52 PM
Creepy... I wrote the "Still committed to making Eli Roth happen" thing just a couple days ago, and then this morning this news comes out. I'm psychic!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 01, 2009, 10:03:26 AM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/Inglourious-Basterds-brad-pitt.jpg)

(caption contest?)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 01, 2009, 06:55:41 PM
(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2009/BasterdPitt2Sm.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 01, 2009, 11:02:09 PM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/Inglourious-Basterds-brad-pitt.jpg)

(caption contest?)

Little Yuriy always loved Brad Pitt, but he didn't forsee the horror of inviting the actor to his Bar Mitzvah while he was filming Inglourious Basterds.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on May 02, 2009, 04:41:58 PM
"That's not a knife! THIS is a knife!"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 03, 2009, 12:23:31 AM
Quentin Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' on a mission
Brad Pitt stars as the leader of World War II soldiers spreading terror among the enemy in Nazi-occupied France.
By John Horn; Los Angeles Times

When Quentin Tarantino was just a video store clerk filled with filmmaking dreams, he and his pals shared a shorthand for the against-all-odds mission movie they would someday make: "This will be our 'Inglorious Bastards!' " Tarantino and his friends would say.

Other aspiring filmmakers might have cited "The Dirty Dozen" or "The Magnificent Seven" for reference, but Tarantino -- who always has been drawn to and has an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure B movies -- preferred director Enzo Castellari's 1978 Italian World War II film "Inglorious Bastards," a sometimes campy drama about renegade soldiers shooting and blowing up Nazis in World War II France.

Tarantino's new film -- starring Brad Pitt, a mix of American and European character actors and some fish-out-of-water casting picks such as comedian Mike Myers and torture-porn director Eli Roth -- borrows hardly anything from its Italian predecessor, and even the title of Tarantino's Cannes Film Festival competition movie is a bit different: "Inglourious Basterds."

But there is still a difficult mission in the film that opens Aug. 21; it is still World War II, and there are still guns and bombs.

Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine heads a group of eight Jewish soldiers (two of whom are German-born) spreading terror among the enemy in Nazi-occupied France. Their tactics, given the filmmaker's soft spot for sadism, aren't exactly subtle.

"Their mission is to psychologically beat the Germans by desecrating and butchering their bodies, taking their scalps, disemboweling them, and always leaving one soldier alive to tell the story," Tarantino says, sipping an iced tea on the second-floor balcony of his Hollywood Hills home overlooking Universal Studios. It's akin, he says, to what the Apaches did to the U.S. Cavalry: When you'd rather die than be captured, the enemy is winning the mind game.

Lest the Basterds be labeled one-trick ponies, the outfit is then given its impossible mission: to blast the Paris movie theater hosting the premiere of the latest propaganda film by Nazi spin doctor Joseph Goebbels.

Tarantino had tried to write the movie for years, and found himself mired in history books that only confused his plotting. "The problem with doing World War II research is that it can derail you, because there are too many great stories, too many good ideas to go around."

Tarantino hopes that his movie is not nearly as somber as the most recent round of World War II films -- including "Defiance," "Valkyrie" and "Flags of Our Fathers." Instead, he's hoping "Inglourious Basterds" has some of the wit and looseness of movies about the war made during the war, like 1943's "This Land Is Mine" and 1941's "Man Hunt."

"This isn't," Tarantino says, "antiwar misery."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 03, 2009, 04:34:23 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JVXqJ8QkmJA/Sfy9heAGKcI/AAAAAAAAFuk/dJtTMoGWod8/s1600/5.jpg)
THAT BAD-BOY AUTEUR QUENTIN TARANTINO AUDITIONS HIS NEWEST FIND, DIANE KRUGER.
Source: NYTimes

Quentin, when did you first become aware of the Cannes Film Festival?
As a film enthusiast growing up in Los Angeles, I’ll say by 13, 14, I already knew about Cannes. I think the first movie that I knew of that had won the Palme d’Or was ‘‘Apocalypse Now’’ in 1979. Life magazine did a whole big thing on it, with Brando on the cover in his bald head. I still have that issue. To me, that movie proved that when you make a great, terrific film, you take it to Cannes. That is your premier screening — your Ali-knocks-Foreman-out screening.

What was the screening like of ‘‘Pulp Fiction,’’ which won the Palme d’Or?
It certainly wasn’t, Oh, they’re going to win this, this is obviously the movie of its time. The violence was not 100 percent accepted, and there were some boos at the end. They were reacting against the idea that this could be considered art.

Who was the head of the jury?
Clint Eastwood. And the second head of the jury was Catherine Deneuve. I think of her as the queen of France. So having the queen judge your movie is scary until you remember that she did ‘‘Belle de Jour.’’ She turned out to be one of my bigger defenders. She’s spent an entire career supporting directors who pushed the envelope, from Buñuel to Jean-Pierre Melville to Godard.

You were head of the jury in 2004. Whom did you award the Palme d’Or?
‘‘Fahrenheit 9/11.’’ You know what? As time has gone on, I’ve put that decision under a microscope and I still think we were right. That was a movie of the moment — ‘‘Fahrenheit 9/11’’ may not play the same way now as it did then, but back then it deserved everything it got.

Did you like being on the jury?
I loved it. I enjoy arguing. There was one year when I visited Cannes, and I was so caught up in the spirit that I picked 12 movies that I had never seen from all different countries and I watched them and did my own little awards thing. Can I tell you the movie that won? ‘‘Perfume’’ by Tom Tykwer. ‘‘Perfume’’ won my own little Cannes Film Festival.

In your festival, who won best director?
Bryan Singer for ‘‘Superman Returns.’’ I am a big fan of ‘‘Returns.’’ I’m working on what is now a 20-page review of that movie, and I’m not done yet.

When you’re making a film, like this year’s ‘‘Inglourious Basterds,’’ which will premiere at Cannes, is it hard to watch movies?
Maybe it’s just this movie, but it’s become very hard to concentrate on anything but the film I’m making. This was the hardest movie I’ve ever made.

‘‘Inglourious Basterds’’ is a World War II epic that combines historical events with a vivid, pop sensibility. The movie stars, among others, Brad Pitt as an American lieutenant in search of Nazis and Diane Kruger as a German movie star/spy. It’s both authentic and highly theatrical. Did you shoot on soundstages in America or in Europe?
We shot the film in Berlin and a little bit in Paris. I only cast actors who could speak English with their native accents. The Germans have accents, the French are French, and the English are English. During the war, your understanding of German, whether you were a French citizen or you were in a concentration camp, meant the difference between life and death. In Hollywood movies, Germans often have English accents, and I can’t go for that contrivance. The proper accent could be the difference between success and failure.

On this movie, you worked very quickly. Was that partially to have the film ready in time for Cannes?
Yes. I wanted to have a masterpiece before the decade’s out.

What directors made you want to become a filmmaker?
Sergio Leone and Mario Bava. I saw ‘‘Baron Blood’’ and ‘‘Beyond the Door II’’ by Bava in the theater, and I was overwhelmed. And Leone is Leone. Those two influenced me the most as far as thinking in terms of shots. And then I was in acting school, and I discovered I knew drastically so much more about cinema than anyone else in my class. I realized I was with the wrong group.

What was the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?
‘‘Airport.’’ At Grauman’s Chinese. And I loved it! When the bomb exploded, I couldn’t believe what I was watching and neither could anybody else in the theater. ‘‘Airport’’ changed things: now, when you buy a ticket to see a disaster movie, you expect to see the disaster. That was not the case in 1970. Audiences then expected the hero to save the day.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Convael on May 03, 2009, 06:55:12 PM
Well, there it is from Quentin's mouth: Mazal tov, it's a masterpiece!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on May 03, 2009, 07:21:21 PM
I appreciate that he's trying
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on May 03, 2009, 08:16:09 PM
Why is Quentin Tarantino writing a 20-page review of Superman Returns?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 03, 2009, 08:57:30 PM
Why is Quentin Tarantino writing a 20-page review of Superman Returns?

He has to do something between seasons of American Idol.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on May 04, 2009, 12:06:04 AM
Epic coke binge.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 08, 2009, 09:37:39 AM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/05/inglourious_basterds_ver5.jpg)

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/05/inglourious_basterds_ver6.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on May 08, 2009, 10:52:00 AM
oh god  :yabbse-sad:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on May 08, 2009, 10:58:21 AM
Eli Roth is a hairy basterd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on May 08, 2009, 07:16:34 PM
That's a disturbingly phallic pistol Eli is holding there.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on May 08, 2009, 08:54:19 PM
Between the shotgun and the baseball bat, it's like he has two dicks!  Or should that be three... no, wait.  I stand by that.  Two dicks.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on May 08, 2009, 10:31:31 PM
you're forgetting his face
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on May 09, 2009, 04:58:34 AM
All right... two dicks and one giant douche.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on May 09, 2009, 04:47:04 PM
give the guy a break.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on May 09, 2009, 08:45:02 PM
Alexandro, I knew you'd gone soft.  You used to not give a FUCK about discretion!

I see'd you rip a man's jawbone off.  I seen't it!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on May 09, 2009, 10:22:04 PM

it's just eli roth's not on my shitlist. he hasn't done anything to piss me off yet. i like cabin fever a lot and enjoyed the hostel movies even though I will never see those again anyway. He's not killing cinema like plenty of other passionless hacks out there that do nothing but forgettable crap. And so far it looks the one who's acting like shit in IB is brad pitt.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on May 09, 2009, 11:05:18 PM
Don't get me wrong, I think he's a talented guy, I defend the Hostel movies wherever necessary, and from the trailer it seems like he'll be pretty good in this movie.  That doesn't change the fact that his face equals one great big wet douche.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on May 10, 2009, 01:39:09 AM
haha word about Brad Pitt going to ruin IB. as I was saying to SoNow IRL, Brad is becoming a movie ruiner more and more because of his off screen persona and his looks. (hope this doesn't aply to Tree of Life)

Eli is ok with me with his work (I love Cabin Fever and enjoyed Hostel) but he looks like a fucking douche in that picture and he shouldn't be acting
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: martinthewarrior on May 11, 2009, 12:54:53 AM
The portions of the trailer that Brad Pitt appears in remind me a bit of what Clooney has done in recent cohen bros. movies. Perhaps playing to what they feel the director has done, historically. Playing to his idea of Joel and Ethan's sensibilities. I know that a lot of people feel that Clooney hams it up in Cohen movies, but I always find his performances funny. His hamming fits my sense sense of humor. I'm not sure on Pitt in this movie yet, but without seeing it, that's probably not a bad thing.

I can't get behind Eli Roth. Even if Brad Pitt is a disaster in this movie, he will never be Eli Roth. And that alone should help him sleep well at night.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reelist on May 11, 2009, 01:40:45 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think he's a talented guy, I defend the Hostel movies wherever necessary, and from the trailer it seems like he'll be pretty good in this movie. 
(http://pictures.deadlycomputer.com/d/9956-3/250px-Bruce_Campbell_Army_of_Darkness.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on May 11, 2009, 03:08:07 AM
The portions of the trailer that Brad Pitt appears in remind me a bit of what Clooney has done in recent cohen bros. movies. Perhaps playing to what they feel the director has done, historically. Playing to his idea of Joel and Ethan's sensibilities. I know that a lot of people feel that Clooney hams it up in Cohen movies, but I always find his performances funny. His hamming fits my sense sense of humor. I'm not sure on Pitt in this movie yet, but without seeing it, that's probably not a bad thing.

I can't get behind Eli Roth. Even if Brad Pitt is a disaster in this movie, he will never be Eli Roth. And that alone should help him sleep well at night.



clooney has done some of his best work with the coens. and pitt too actually cause he was very funny in burn after reading. I usually like his work, but there's something about the clips in that trailer featuring him that just doesn't feel right.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 11, 2009, 01:44:40 PM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/10/arts/10hohe_600.jpg)


‘Bunch of Guys on a Mission Movie’
By KRISTIN HOHENADEL; New York Times

“THIS ain’t your daddy’s World War II movie,” Quentin Tarantino said with a grin, standing on a street corner here that had been scrubbed of 21st-century signposts to become the set of “Inglourious Basterds,” his new film about a band of Jewish-American soldiers on a scalp-hunting revenge quest against the Nazis.

Although it was mostly shot at Studio Babelsberg in Potsdam, Germany, the movie’s subtitle is “Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France.” So on a three-day sojourn in Paris in December, Mr. Tarantino and his bi-continental moviemaking coalition commandeered a 1904 bistro with peeling paint, Art Deco stained glass and a wall of windows overlooking an intersection of identifiably Parisian streets in the 18th Arrondissement.

“We had to have a scene to sell the audience that we’re in France,” Mr. Tarantino said. “This is it.”

“Inglourious Basterds,” which is to have its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on May 20, is Mr. Tarantino’s first movie since “Death Proof,” half of “Grindhouse,” a double feature and box-office flop that he directed with Robert Rodriguez, and his first solo feature since “Kill Bill Vol. 2” in 2004.

Mr. Tarantino calls “Inglourious Basterds” his “bunch of guys on a mission movie.” Judging by the script, it should have the crackling dialogue, irreverent humor and stylized violence that are hallmarks of his work.

“You’ve got to make a movie about something, and I’m a film guy, so I think in terms of genres,” he said. “So you get a good idea, and it just moves forward and then usually by the time you’re finished, it doesn’t resemble anything of what might have been the inspiration. It’s simply the spark that starts the fire.”

The spark that led to “Inglourious Basterds,” starring Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Mike Myers, Eli Roth and a large international cast, can be traced to Mr. Tarantino’s storied days as a video-store clerk in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (The inspiration for “Reservoir Dogs,” “Jackie Brown” and other Tarantino movies can also be traced to that time.)

“The guys at Video Archives were like, ‘Quentin, maybe one of these days you’ll make your ‘Inglorious Bastards,’ ” Mr. Tarantino said, referring to the (conventionally spelled) 1978 Enzo G. Castellari film. “But they hadn’t even seen the movie, all right, it was just a great title. I love the movie, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not a remake,” he said, of his version.

“It will be in the original category at the Oscars,” he added optimistically.

Lawrence Bender, who has produced all but one Tarantino movie, said he was surprised when Mr. Tarantino called last summer to announce he had finalized the long-gestating “Basterds” script and wanted to finish the movie in time for Cannes. Mr. Tarantino won the top prize there, the Palme d’Or, in 1994 for “Pulp Fiction.”

“He’s read me all kinds of stuff over the years,” Mr. Bender said, “but I always assumed it was something he was going to have and never do.” (Mr. Tarantino is known for taking plenty of detours on the way from one movie to the next. He has directed episodes of television shows, including “CSI,” acted in and produced other people’s movies, and has been a guest judge and “mentor” on “American Idol.”)

A six-month research period for “Basterds” several years ago “paralyzed my writing for a while,” Mr. Tarantino said. He thought of making a World War II documentary or teaching a college course and even plotted out a 12-hour mini-series. Then in January 2008 he said he decided to “take one more crack at seeing if I could make this a movie,” he said. “I wasn’t out to teach a history lesson. You can turn on the History Channel — which might as well be called the Hitler Channel. I just wanted to tell my story and have the same freedom I would have telling any story. I want the act of writing to be so fulfilling that I have to question do I want to even make the movie.”

Mr. Tarantino’s unedited script was circulating online within days after he completed it. “This was so personal to me, misspellings and all,” he said, mentioning that he had typed it with one finger on the same 1987 Smith Corona word processor that he used to produce “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction.” “I mean I’ll proofread it when we publish it.”

Not that he’ll change the title. “Basterds should be spelled with an e,” he said. “It sounds like it has an e.” He shouted, “Basterds! Basterds!” in what sounded like a Boston accent: more “BAS-tids” than “BAS-terds.” (As for the spelling of “Inglourious,” Mr. Tarantino said: “I can’t tell you stuff like that. It’s a movie thing.”)

A man with a walkie-talkie tugged on Mr. Tarantino’s arm. “Sorry, I’m getting the vaudeville hook,” he said, and went inside the bistro to shoot a scene in which Shosanna (the French actress Mélanie Laurent), a young Jewish woman in hiding and running a Paris cinema, sits across a café table from an unsuspecting Nazi soldier and matinee idol (the German actor Daniel Brühl) trying to win her affections. Mr. Tarantino watched the actors like a patron spying on a couple across the room, barely glancing at the nearby monitor.

“I’m looking through the viewfinder when I set up a shot,” he said between takes, “but I watch the performance and listen to it. Otherwise the monitor is directing the movie.”

Like 70 percent of “Inglourious Basterds” this scene was being performed in French and German, which is just one of the reasons this isn’t your daddy’s World War II movie. “When you see the Germans speaking English with a German accent or sounding like British thespians, it just seems very quaint,” Mr. Tarantino said. “That’s one thing I don’t want this film to have. If Spielberg hadn’t made ‘Schindler’s List’ yet, I joke, I like to think that after our movie he’d be shamed into doing it in German.”

(Executives at the Weinstein Company said the heavy use of subtitles did not give them pause. “Tarantino is a universal language,” said Tom Ortenberg, president of theatrical films.)

Mr. Brühl said it was the director’s non-sacred approach to Germany’s painful history that attracted him to the role.

“I’m curious to see how it’s going to be received in Germany,” Mr. Brühl, 30, said, placing the movie in the tradition of Ernst Lubitsch’s “To Be or Not To Be” (1942) and Charlie Chaplin’s “Great Dictator” (1940). “If a comedy is intelligent and has depth, it’s a very legitimate way to talk about Fascism in Nazi Germany, which was also a big show — and if you think about it, very ridiculous.”

The screenplay is loaded with movie references and jokes, and intrigues involving actors and film premieres. Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, is portrayed as a typical studio chief. (“People write about the horrible anti-Semitic films,” Mr. Tarantino said, “but most of the 800 movies he made were comedies and musicals.”) And it is safe to say, without spoiling the history-bending penultimate scene, that cinema saves the world.

The production designer David Wasco, who has worked on all but one of Mr. Tarantino’s films, said that while they had labored to reproduce the period using original photographs and documents, “pretty much 90 percent is based on movie references.”

“It’s a Quentin period world,” he added. “That’s what we’re helping him do here.”

Mr. Tarantino said: “All that movie stuff just kind of organically happens. It’s just what I am interested in.”

Late in the day bottles of Champagne appeared on the sidewalk, and Mr. Tarantino called for a toast to honor the 800th roll of film. He circulated, clinking plastic glasses as evening fell over the city, with a word and a smile for everyone.

The Basterds — the film’s Jewish soldiers, given their nickname by the Nazis — hadn’t made the trip to Paris, but their presence could be felt in the grown-out “basterd haircut” (short on the sides and in back, long on top) that Mr. Tarantino was sporting. “The Basterds don’t have the luxury of being soldiers,” he said. “They have the duty to be warriors, because they’re fighting an enemy that’s trying to wipe them off the face of the earth.”

Mr. Tarantino, who was born in Tennessee, said his childhood revenge fantasies centered more on the Ku Klux Klan. “But it’s all the same,” he said. “Once the Basterds get through with Europe, they could go to the South and do it to the Kluxers in the ’50s. That’s another story you could tell.”

Not to mention a shelved subplot about African-American soldiers stuck behind enemy lines. “I have a half-written prequel ready to go if this movie’s a smash,” he said.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Fernando on May 15, 2009, 10:36:07 AM
According to AICN, this is Bastard's soundtrack:

for the purists, sweep to read.


The Green Leaves of Summer
(d’après le film ALAMO)
De Dimitri Tiomkin,

The Verdict
(Dopo la condanna)
D’Ennio Morricone
Interprété par
Ennio Morricone

L’incontro con la figlia
D’Ennio Morricone

White Lightning
(Chanson principale du film LES BOOTLEGGERS)
De Charles Bernstein
Interprété par Charles Bernstein

Il mercenario (ripresa)
D’Ennio Morricone
Interprété par Ennio Morricone

Slaughter
De Billy Preston
Interprété par Billy Preston

Algeri: 1 novembre 1954
(LA BATAILLE D’ALGER)
D’Ennio Morricone,Gillo Pontecorvo
Interprété par Ennio Morricone,Gillo Pontecorvo

The Surrender
( La resa )
D’Ennio Morricone
Interprété par Ennio Morricone

One Silver Dollar
(Un Dollaro Bucato)
De Gianni Ferrio

Bath Attack
(d’après le film L’EMPRISE) (The Entity?)
De Charles Bernstein
Interprété par Charles Bernstein

Davon Geht Die
Welt Nicht Unter
De Bruno Balz,Michael Jary
Interprété par Zarah Leander

The Man With The Big Sombrero
De Phil Boutelje,Foster Carling
Interprété par Sam Shelton and the Michael Andrew Orchestra

Ich Wollt Ich
Waer Ein Huhn
De Hans-Fritz Beckmann, Peter Kreuder
Interprété par Lilian Harvey, Willy Fritsch, Paul Kemp

Cat People
(Putting Out The Fire)
De David Bowie, Giorgio Moroder

Mystic and Severe
D’Ennio Morricone
Interprété par Ennio Morricone

The Devil’s Rumble
(d’après le film DEVIL’S ANGELS)
De Mike Curb
Interprété par The Arrows

What I’d Say
Zulus
D’Elmer Bernstein

Un Amico
D’Ennio Morricone
Interprété parEnnio Morricone

Tiger Tank
De Lalo Schifrin

Eastern Condors
Rabbia e Tarantella
D’Ennio Morricone
Interprété par Ennio Morricone


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 16, 2009, 09:12:55 AM
http://www.inglouriousbasterds-movie.com/
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 18, 2009, 01:10:39 AM
Tarantino reflects on 'Basterds'
Director aimed to finish film in time for Cannes
Source: Variety

Quentin Tarantino is so high on the Cannes experience that he worked at a breakneck pace to shoot and edit the 165-page epic-sized WWII drama "Inglourious Basterds" in eight months. And when the writer-director bows his film on Wednesday, he says, "I'm expecting this to be one of the high moments of my career."

Reflecting on the pic over a hamburger at the Carlton Hotel, Tarantino said it was worth the struggle to debut his third film in competition. (Tarantino won the 1994 Palme D'Or for "Pulp Fiction" and also brought "Death Proof").

"This is the cinematic Olympics," Tarantino said. "What an exciting year for auteurs this year, with four Palme d'Or winners. If you've done a movie you're proud of, that you might be defined by, then to me the dream is not necessarily to be there at Oscar time. That's wonderful. But my dream is to always go to present the film at Cannes.

"There is nothing like it in cinema," he said. "Nobody has seen your film. It's a wet print, fresh out of the lab. The entire world film press is here, and they all see it, at one time. The greatest film critics in the world, who are still critics, and they're all fighting and debating it. When you think back on your career, it comes down to these high moments. That level of excitement is unparalleled."

Getting to the Croisette took discipline. The film had the same 10-week production schedule as "Pulp Fiction," fast for a period war movie shot in Europe.

And the film came in at a running time of 2 hours, 27 minutes, shorter than some had expected.

"Directors in my situation don't normally go this direction, especially when they're doing something really big. If you have three days scheduled for a scene, it's easy to (add) the fourth day. It's nice to have all the time you need, but when you slow down, I think that marbled fat is felt in the pacing. I didn't want easy and comfortable and I do feel that energy is evident on the screen."

Tarantino flirted with his WWII project for years, once considering it as a miniseries, even a novel, before stripping down to the story of a brigade of brutal soldiers sent to hunt Nazis, and led by Brad Pitt, the biggest star Tarantino has directed.

Said Tarantino: "Once, I was talking to a big actor who said, 'You're afraid of stars. You want to be the guy.' I never feel like I need a star, but a lot of the great Hollywood directors I respect all worked with stars and so there was this aspect in the back of my mind where it was time to do that.

"Brad is an actor I treated just like the other actors, who happens to be this huge movie star. But he is such perfect casting for this character that if Brad Pitt wasn't famous, I'd have lobbied for him to have the role."

While he gave several plum roles to unexpected performers -- "Hostel" helmer Eli Roth has a large role, Mike Myers plays a British intelligence agent -- no actor has a bigger starmaking opportunity than Christoph Waltz, a German TV actor who plays Hans Landa, the cunning SS Colonel who is the primary antagonist of the Basterds.

"Landa is a linguistic genius, and the actor who played him needed the same facility with language or he would never be what he was on the page," Tarantino said.

Tarantino grew so frustrated at casting that role, he was five days away from calling off the movie when Waltz auditioned.

"I told my producers I might have written a part that was un-playable," Tarantino said. "I said, I don't want to make this movie if I can't find the perfect Landa, I'd rather just publish the script than make a movie where this character would be less than he was on the page. When Christoph came in and read the next day, he gave me my movie back."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 19, 2009, 06:40:28 PM
'Inglourious Basterds' Cutdown To 2 Hours, 27 Minutes For August Release?
Source: Playlist

SPOILERS
Have Maggie Cheung, Samuel L. Jackson and Cloris Leachmen been cut out of Quentin Tarantino's feverishly anticipated WWII saga, "Inglourious Basterds"?

It sure looks that way. The world will find out tomorrow morning when the film first premieres at Cannes. In the meantime, as an astute and loyal reader has pointed out, all three actors are nowhere to be mentioned in the detailed or bullet-point cast credits.

It's completely conceivable that their scenes were never shot (Jackson was just supposed to be simply a brief narrator, anyhow), and their characters were excised from the script before they started shooting (perhaps a new revision was written before filming began), but all three of them are listed in the special thanks section, which certainly suggests some sort of removal.

Further evidence that is more explicit?  END SPOILERS

In a very recent Variety interview, Tarantino said the film is now running 2 hours and 27 minutes. Wait, when the Cannes line-up was revealed, the film was listed as running 2 hours and 40 minutes and all the literature here at Cannes jives exactly with that running time. What gives? Were edits made just as the festival press notes were being made?

Here's what seems to be the answer: The Cannes version is going to be two hours and forty minutes, but the August 21 version that the world will see will be trimmed down to two hours and twenty-seven

SPOILERS which stands to reason possibly why roles like Maggie Cheung and Cloris Leachman have been cut. Though to be honest. Cheung's role as the doyenne of the cinematheque Madame Mimieux was far greater and we're betting the role was cut out of the script before shooting began. 13 minutes feels like her entire role. Leachman's role is a flashback sequence that we even once suggested would be the first thing omitted from the film if it ran long, as the scene she's in did have a superfluous target on its back. END SPOILERS

Will fans not in attendance at Cannes who want the "true" Tarantino experience ever get to see this footage? Presumably, the DVD will rectify any issues, but, THR suggests, the Weinstein Company do not want to try and sell an almost three-hour movie to audiences, having probably learned their lesson with "Grindhouse."

In related news, the official "Inglourious Basterds" website has launched and contains all kinds of imagery, wallpapers, soundtrack notes, etc. etc.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on May 20, 2009, 06:51:21 AM
"Get Your First Look at 3 Inglourious Basterds Clips!"
http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEzvRCABFwXjDG
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on May 20, 2009, 07:06:31 AM
"Whole Lotta Talkin'"
Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Here's the opening of this morning's Inglorious Basterds press conference, following this morning's 8:30 am screening. And here's an mp3 (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/52109/basterdstalk.mp3) of most of what was said. About 13 or 14 minutes in director-writer Quentin Tarantino delivered a great riff on what the Cannes Film Festival so special. I'll try and find and isolate and run it as a stand-alone. As for the film...

video displaying above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNBBHgMizGk

It's not great. It's a fairly engaging Quentin chit-chat personality film in World War II dress-up. It's arch and very confidently rendered from QT's end, but it's basically talk, talk, talk . Tension surfaces in a couple of scenes (especially the first -- an interrogation of a French farmer by a German officer looking for hidden Jews) but overall story tension is fairly low. A couple of shootouts occur but there's no real action in the Michael Mann sense of the term except for the finale. No characters are subjected to tests of characters by having to make hard choices and stand up for what they believe, and nobody pours their heart out. What they do is yap their asses off. Cleverly and enjoyably at times, yes, but brisk repartee does not a solid movie make.

The theme, I suppose is the penetrating and transformative power of film. The secondary theme is a Jewish revenge fantasy against the Nazis. (Costar Eli Roth called it "kosher porn" in this sense.) No emotional currents, no sense of realism and no characters you're allowed to really and truly enjoy and care about. That said, the two best performances are given by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa -- a great malicious Nazi -- and Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfus, a French farm girl who escapes Landa's grasp and winds up running a Parisian cinema.

Inglourious Basterds is probably too talky to lure the knuckle-draggers. The chat really does seem to weigh things down in the middle section. It's an arch exercise in World War II genre filmmaking, a kind of filmic valentine for people who love film and film culture, and a put-on about World War II movies.

I'll get into it a bit more after I post some photos.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on May 20, 2009, 07:57:05 AM
Falling Short of Tarantino’s Own High Bar, “Inglorious” Goes Bubblegum
Source: Indiewire

MINOR SPOILERS

Given what the world expects from Quentin Tarantino - the man, the myth, the pastiche-driven movie machine - his latest feature, “Inglorious Basterds,” stands out for its seemingly low ambition. Talked about for years by the filmmaker as his epic “guys-on-a-mission” movie, the final product, unveiled this morning in Cannes, certainly meets those standards. The story of Nazi-hunting Jewish soldiers delivers on the colorful brand of unserious entertainment implied by the plot, but no matter how much extreme contextualization and heavily stylized techniques Tarantino introduced to the production, “Inglorious Basterds” feels like a bubblegum sidedish to the heavy dinner plate of his career. While not intentionally a rudimentary project, it automatically becomes one by the limits of its design.

In the opening scene, Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) arrives at a house in the French countryside, where he interrogates a man about hiding Jews in his basement. The sequence culminates with the Nazis discovering the family hidden beneath the floorboards, killing all of them except for a young woman named Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent), who dashes into the forest. Except that’s not really the opening scene, because the first image of “Basterds” arrives on the heels of credits that beg to be considered as the true narrative introduction. Written in block letter aping the title cards associated with Sergio Leone Westerns, while the jangly soundtrack follows suit, they set the stage for the barrage of genre references to follow. Despite a World War II setting, “Inglorious Basterds” mainly feels like an homage to crime and thriller movies, using Nazis as cardboard villains in a facile manner akin to the “Indiana Jones” franchise.

As the story shoots forward, building into an espionage drama, Tarantino churns out the most conventional accomplishment of his career, “Jackie Brown” included. Sure, you can tear apart the layers of references to countless genres from multiple eras, but not with the same relish allowed by “Kill Bill” or “Pulp Fiction,” where reading into the text and digging its natural flow were not mutually exclusive.

That’s hardly the case here. To watch “Basterds” without considering Tarantino’s implementation of enyclopedic movie knowledge makes it into a breezy, insignificant experience. After introducing Shoshanna’s plight, Tarantino shifts to the antics of the “basterds,” a group of Jewish soldiers led by the fierce Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Merrily capturing Nazis, gleefully bashing their skulls and pocketing the scalps, the basterds provide the makings of a typical revenge fantasy. Tarantino wittily cast scrawny Jewish men (“Hostel” director Eli Roth and “The Office” star B.J. Novak among them) as the movie’s principle musclemen, but that subtly ironic joke never reaches its potential.
   
That’s because “Basterds” isn’t really a jokefest; it’s a talk-fest. Anyone familiar with the Tarantino touch will testify that the director likes to make his characters talk, and talk, and talk - and sometimes so that it ends up absorbing the spotlight. In “Basterds,” we see the worst side-effects of this tendency, as much of the movie relies on chatter to propel it along the basic trajectory of a spy movie. Shoshanna emerges in the disguise of a non-Jewish theater owner in Paris, where she manages to infiltrate the Nazis and scheme with the basterds to them out.

The ludicrous plot heads straight for a fiery climax that finds our heroes on a straightforward path to killing off Adolph Hitler, Joesph Goebbels and prettty much everyone else at the head of the Third Reich. In an nice bit of self-referential irony, they aim to pull it off at a movie theater while the Nazis view a screening of their own propaganda. So “Basterds” makes viewers watch a movie about killing Nazis in which Nazis watch a movie and get killed. Setting the stage for a slaughterfest, Tarantino wants to craft an old-school entertainment by way of his favorite examples, but the multiple layers prevent it from holding interest from scene to scene. “Basterds” has an arbitrary progression: As Shoshanna plans her glorious retribution, dialogue scenes go on and on, people gets shot, lavish music cues make way for interstitial moments of contemplation, and so on. Get around to it, already.

Despite the injection of content from a variety of directions, “Basterds” lacks the crackly excitement of Tarantino’s other efforts, mainly because he can’t seem to tie the whole package together. Why does Samuel L. Jackson suddenly pop up on the soundtrack to narrate a fleeting background of the basterd’s evolution?  If the movie pays tribute to Westerns, how come we never get a single man-on-man confronation, the sort of climax that magically concluded “Kill Bill”? The disconnected ingredients don’t mean that the movie lacks the ability to deliver a good time, but simply that it never rises above the sense of a juvenile cinephilic rush job, and everyone knows Tarantino can do better than that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on May 20, 2009, 08:54:39 AM
talk, talk, talk


i knew it. tarantino will never again be what he once was to me.

i'd rather see sherlock holmes. or antichrist for that matter.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on May 20, 2009, 09:07:04 AM
This was one of the things I was worried about while reading the screenplay. Not much happens in the movie. It feels really short. I was worried that the dialogue would stretch it out past it's breaking point and it looks like that's the case.

Sounds like another chapter in Quentin's recent style over substance crapfest. Oh, well -- hopefully it will at least be fun.

I wonder what Quentin's movies would look like if instead of hanging out with Robert Rodriguez and Eli Roth, he hung out with filmmakers who made more substantial fare and not just glossy flicks for the sake of being cool.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on May 20, 2009, 12:19:35 PM
Yikes...

The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw calls it an "armor-plated turkey":

"There are some nice-ish performances, particularly from Fassbender and Waltz, but everything is just so boring. I was hoping for Shosanna at least to get a satisfying revenge on the unspeakable Col Landa. But no. The two Hitler-assassination plots cancel each other out dramatically and the director's moderate reserves of narrative interest are exhausted way before the end. He should perhaps go back to making cheerfully inventive outrageous films like Kill Bill. Because Kill Adolf hasn't worked out."


Movieline's David Bourgeois just didn't give a crap:

Yet despite all of Tarantino’s typically intricate plot weavings, character development is nowhere to be found. We never know the Basterds, Dreyfus remains a mysterious figure, and Col. Landa, the real main character of the film, is only minimally developed. By the end of the film — almost two-and-a-half hours later — its hard to care much about what happens to anybody on screen.


The Hollywood Reporter says Tarantino blew his shot at a second Palme d'Or:

"The film is by no means terrible ... but those things we think of as being Tarantino-esque, the long stretches of wickedly funny dialogue, the humor in the violence and outsized characters strutting across the screen, are largely missing."[/size]
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on May 20, 2009, 12:25:48 PM
pwnt.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: diggler on May 20, 2009, 12:55:39 PM
Yikes...

"... He should perhaps go back to making cheerfully inventive outrageous films like Kill Bill. Because Kill Adolf hasn't worked out."...

 "...the humor in the violence and outsized characters strutting across the screen, are largely missing."


sounds like all the things that annoy me are missing. awesome!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 20, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
QT presents a clip:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inglourious-basterds.html?showVideo=1
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on May 20, 2009, 05:21:22 PM
There are four portuguese film critics in Cannes (that I know of) and out of those four, three of them gave the movie 5 stars, and the other 4. One of them says it's the best in competition so far.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on May 20, 2009, 09:13:52 PM
press conference: http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9974.html
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 21, 2009, 12:12:15 AM
Eli Roth Describes Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds’ As ‘Kosher Porn’
Source: MTV

Quentin Tarantino’s star-studded army of cast members were on-hand to introduce the director’s new film “Inglourious Basterds” at Cannes this week, and a few offered some unbeatable quotes about what the project means to them. Variety reports that Eli Roth, who has already been rather vocal about “Basterds,” served up “some opinions, along with co-stars Diane Kruger, Mike Myers, and Brad Pitt. Roth made his name as one of the directors blazing a trail for horror’s new school of gore-nography, with films like “Hostel,” “Cabin Fever” and the “Grindhouse“-hitched trailer “Thanksgiving.” As you might expect, he did not disappoint with any unnecessary self-censoring in his assessment of “Basterds.”

“I’m Jewish, and to me this was kosher porn, something that I fantasized about since I was a child,” Roth told the audience. In case you haven’t heard, “Basterds” follows a group of Jewish-American soldiers who are sent deep into Nazi territory with orders to instill terror in the enemy by retrieving scalps and other brutal acts. Lofty expectations followed the film to its Cannes premiere this week, with fans excited to see Tarantino’s signature decadent violence cast against a new historical context.

Pitt and Myers also weighed in, offering their own perspectives on “Basterds.” Both addressed their motivations for signing on to appear in the film. Pitt gave credit to a long, alcohol-infused visit with Tarantino during the summer of 2008.

“When I woke up, there were five empty bottles of wine and I guess I committed because six weeks later, I was in uniform,” Pitt recalled.

Myers credited a connection that this role made him feel towards his UK-born parents, who served in the Royal Engineers and Royal Air Force.

“I am honoured, with a ‘u’ in there,” the “Austin Powers” star said.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: diggler on May 21, 2009, 12:40:19 AM
funny that MTV edited out the "smoking apparatus" part of that Pitt quote.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Convael on May 21, 2009, 12:56:27 AM
As much as I really dislike basically everything Tarantino has done since Pulp Fiction, there's still something about him which is just completely endearing and lovable.  People call him a hack, but I think he's the exact opposite.  I still think he's just this big kid that really really really loves movies and has so much excitement and is so hyper about them that it gets in the way of him actually making a good film...  Look at his face when Pitt calls him an auteur and says how much QT loves movies.  I thought it was interesting that he says that he writes a character, and then from the character he picks an actor who can play the character, while the approach of someone like PTA is the complete opposite.  I wonder if this is why it's easier for me (and most people I know) to connect with PTA's characters and for him to get better performances out of his actors than QT usually does...  I still really want to see this movie because even if it's misguided, Tarantino obviously had great intentions for it and for me that counts for a lot.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on May 21, 2009, 07:22:36 AM
You gotta watch Quentin & Melanie Laurent dancing Pulp Fiction style at the premiere (38 min mark):

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/10005.html
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on May 21, 2009, 09:46:12 AM
As much as I really dislike basically everything Tarantino has done since Pulp Fiction, there's still something about him which is just completely endearing and lovable.  People call him a hack, but I think he's the exact opposite.  I still think he's just this big kid that really really really loves movies and has so much excitement and is so hyper about them that it gets in the way of him actually making a good film...  Look at his face when Pitt calls him an auteur and says how much QT loves movies.  I thought it was interesting that he says that he writes a character, and then from the character he picks an actor who can play the character, while the approach of someone like PTA is the complete opposite.  I wonder if this is why it's easier for me (and most people I know) to connect with PTA's characters and for him to get better performances out of his actors than QT usually does...  I still really want to see this movie because even if it's misguided, Tarantino obviously had great intentions for it and for me that counts for a lot.

Yeah I agree with you on the endearing part. He’s really one of the few directors who can get away with what he gets away with. I also think dude probably lives in a bubble, surrounded by yes men who perpetually give him head, and not his boy eli or even his editor would dare to grow a pair and say “hey Quentin man, this shit is boring.” But hey what do I know.


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on May 21, 2009, 09:49:28 AM
I think the problem with Quentin is that he likes shitty movies too much. Every movie he ever cites is just a shitty movie that's cool because it's so shitty. Movies like those women in prison flicks are so shitty that they're cool. These are his influences.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on May 21, 2009, 10:15:31 AM
You gotta watch Quentin & Melanie Laurent dancing Pulp Fiction style at the premiere (38 min mark):

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/10005.html

Fuck this shit. QT's cool and I'm not.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on May 21, 2009, 10:28:20 AM
I think the problem with Quentin is that he likes shitty movies too much. Every movie he ever cites is just a shitty movie that's cool because it's so shitty. Movies like those women in prison flicks are so shitty that they're cool. These are his influences.

Yep. A couple years ago (Kill Bill era) I started digging out these trashy movies he raves so much about and I remember being really excited : ''YES a whole bunch of classics I've never seen or heard of this is gonna be great !''. Let's say I was disappointed.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on May 21, 2009, 11:20:32 AM
You gotta watch Quentin & Melanie Laurent dancing Pulp Fiction style at the premiere (38 min mark):

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/10005.html

good night Pitt's security guard just grabbing the guy's hand.

what's this about a L'Avventura tribute?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 21, 2009, 11:34:06 AM
what's this about a L'Avventura tribute?

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=10059.msg275283#msg275283
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 25, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
Tarantino to Edit Inglourious Basterds Further?
Source: Variety

Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds premiere at the Cannes Film Festival this week and Variety's Thompson on Hollywood says that the filmmaker may make further changes to the movie:


Wednesday night some badly needed star power arrived on the Croisette for the opening night of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. Brad Pitt did the press rounds during the day, and showed up at the black tie premiere with Angelina Jolie on his arm. Later they had a great time at the Basterds late night beach party, hanging in the jammed VIP corner with Robin Wright Penn, Til Schweiger, Eli Roth, Emile Hirsch, Michael Fassbender (who was grooving to Guns 'n Roses), Daniel Bruhl, Harvey and Bob Weinstein, Thierry Fremaux, Bryan Lourd, and Hylda Queally.

Brad and Angelina seemed happy, as did an ebullient Quentin Tarantino, although TWC's 50/50 partner on the picture, Universal, UPDATE: is talking to the filmmaker about returning to the editing room post-Cannes to make some trims edits that might include adding a scene, says Tarantino, who reminds that the film, at two hours 27 minutes, is well under his contractual final cut length of two hours 48 minutes.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on May 26, 2009, 01:23:08 AM
Two minute scene:

http://www.mtv.com/videos/?id=1612080
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on May 26, 2009, 03:07:31 AM
great clip. i really want to love this. despite the contemporary kill bill backlash, which i wholeheartedly understood and condoned, i went back and rewatched them recently and it’s still some powerful cinematic shit. i still think the guy is brilliant when he’s digging in the right places. i wouldn’t say he’s fallen from grace because i don't think what he’s doing now is any less exciting than pulp or dogs ever were. his heart has never been in the right place, with the exception of one film. but when he's generating quality, i'm a fan.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on May 26, 2009, 05:32:48 PM
yeah, the kill bill backlash is absurd. i saw them both last week too. vol. 1 is a masterpiece, one great sequence after another, a virtuoso performance in direction from tarantino. vol. 2 just falls appart at the end with the talking, but overall they're truly GREAT entertainment.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 26, 2009, 05:56:23 PM
yeah, the kill bill backlash is absurd. i saw them both last week too. vol. 1 is a masterpiece, one great sequence after another, a virtuoso performance in direction from tarantino. vol. 2 just falls appart at the end with the talking, but overall they're truly GREAT entertainment.

How is the backlash absurd? Vol. 1 is a masterpiece? Are you saying it's Tarantino's best work?

I understand the Kill Bill backlash. Even though Tarantino established his credentials for genre reworking early on, Kill Bill takes the genre reworking tone to a new, cartoonish level. The Kill Bill movies have none of the gritty and semi realistic tone that were in his first three films. It smelled like content exploitation to me, to the point it felt like caricature of Tarantino himself.

I re-watched the Kill Bill movies just last year on a whim. Suckered in by friends, but they still remain ridiculous and half interesting to me. The older they get the more I see the films in a line of other over the top, anything goes, action-type flicks. They can be fun is unassuming and imaginative, but Tarantino wants Kill Bill to house its own temple. They're too self consciously cool and important about themselves. I also rewatched Pulp Fiction a few months back and it only got better to me.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on May 26, 2009, 06:23:53 PM
Pulp and Dogs (and I guess Jackie Brown) still work because they're not just about playing with genre.  They have such novel concepts as themes, and actual characters with actual flaws and actual motivations.  Kill Bill and Death Proof worked on the level at which they were intended, which is genre exercise, but they're empty movies.  They're very pretty eggs with no yolks.  And honestly, Death Proof is just a complete mess to me.  Kill Bill at least managed to elevate the genres it was aping, but Death Proof somehow managed to be less entertaining than most of the grindhouse flicks it was derived from.

I have no real preconceptions about Basterds as of yet.  The clips I've seen have been (mostly) promising, but I'm not all that impressed with a lot of what Tarantino has had to say about the movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on May 26, 2009, 07:15:05 PM
his best work would be pulp fiction. maybe. but I don't categorize films that way. i never saw the kill bill movies as ambitioning more than what they accomplished. maybe other people did, and saw them as who knows what back then, and now comes the backlash because they weren't...what? prfound enough? groundbreaking? you guys tell me cause they always were bubble gum entertainment to me. and you can make a masterpiece in that also. vol. 2 fails to me precisely because at the end is just like this overexplanation of things, and it's just not fun anymore.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 26, 2009, 08:56:51 PM
his best work would be pulp fiction. maybe. but I don't categorize films that way. i never saw the kill bill movies as ambitioning more than what they accomplished. maybe other people did, and saw them as who knows what back then, and now comes the backlash because they weren't...what? prfound enough? groundbreaking? you guys tell me cause they always were bubble gum entertainment to me. and you can make a masterpiece in that also. vol. 2 fails to me precisely because at the end is just like this overexplanation of things, and it's just not fun anymore.

Everything to Tarantino is cinema. Everything is equal and everything is worthwhile. That has been his philosophy for the last eight years and it has allowed him to talk about Kill Bill with no remorse about it's less than grand interests. Kill Bill is still exalted art to Tarantino. A lot of his followed have flocked to this ideology.

You like it as entertainment and I'm glad you do, but others aren't that simple about their appreciation. Because the film cross references different genres, they have found it's multi layered and ripe for critical inspection. That has led to some annoying statements about its artistry and I think they should be backed up. I don't mind statements about it being good entertainment because everyone's sense of entertainment, like comedy, is wholly different and hard to really debate. Like Austen Powers would say, it's not my bag, baby.

I'm more against those who are bellying it up to unnecessary things. You said masterpiece and I took exception, but you explained yourself well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on May 27, 2009, 11:33:07 AM
it's true, everything is exalted art, but his movies don't stop there.  he's still got compelling characters and an un-predictable script.  I still think Tarantino's playing into the media's label (and his own) as a movie geek does his films a disservice because he's certainly got more vision and originality than the sum of his favorite films.  inglorious basterds though, just LOOKS bad, and I'm talking about it strictly in terms of cinematography 'cause I haven't seen very much else.  I also thought it was going to be more war but it seems more like a revenge film at the outskirts of the war?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on May 27, 2009, 01:20:47 PM
it's true, everything is exalted art, but his movies don't stop there.  he's still got compelling characters and an un-predictable script.  I still think Tarantino's playing into the media's label (and his own) as a movie geek does his films a disservice because he's certainly got more vision and originality than the sum of his favorite films.  inglorious basterds though, just LOOKS bad, and I'm talking about it strictly in terms of cinematography 'cause I haven't seen very much else.  I also thought it was going to be more war but it seems more like a revenge film at the outskirts of the war?

true. that's one of the great aspects of his films, particularly pulp fiction and kill bill. you just don't see anything coming in those. pulp fiction is kind of paced in a laid back, relaxed manner. kb vol. 1 is just action, but they both share that capacity to surprise and twist and turn in unexpected ways.

in sum, the guy is better than he gets credit for these days, and everyone seems frustrated with him for not doing...something else. I don't know what would that be...in any case, Inglorious Basterds looks bad. But Death Proof looked terrible and I was pleasently surprised (no masterpiece for shure, but a lot of fun really, and I love the ending). Back when I saw the trailer for Jackie Brown it didn't looked too good either. Again and again this guy's been proving he knows what he's doing, so it might just be thet IB will be awesome.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: RegularKarate on May 27, 2009, 01:24:06 PM
(and I guess Jackie Brown)

no guessing about it.  Jackie Brown is the one that I go back to the most.  Definitely my favorite.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on May 27, 2009, 06:31:20 PM
O-blige him!

these type of lines are the biggest downfall of Tarantino movies. it's the talky end of Kill Bill 2 type of dialogue, all the chick dialogue in Death Proof, it's the dialogue that comes out of his mouth in interviews type of dialogue. really, it's most of the dialogue he's written post-Jackie Brown. it's just not cool like he thinks it's cool. it's cringe-worthy uncool in fact.

unless i got it all backwards and..

QT's cool and I'm not.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on June 17, 2009, 09:36:24 AM
(http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img/inglouriousbasterds-italian-poster-full.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on June 17, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
Goddamnit. I hate Eli Roth's stupid shit-eating face. I hate that they can catch it in illustration form so perfectly. Makes me sick.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on June 17, 2009, 04:36:00 PM
I wish he'd had that painted. It's too bad they rarely (if ever) do that anymore.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on June 22, 2009, 10:25:05 AM
New Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUV-bTqm5ss)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on June 22, 2009, 10:28:53 AM
Well that got me a little more excited.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on June 22, 2009, 10:43:23 AM
The casting I was most looking forward to after reading the script was Christoph Waltz's. His character was easily the most fascinating to me. It looks like he nails it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on June 22, 2009, 10:55:06 AM
i'm still not sure which character christopher waltz's is.  this does look a bit better but i still can't watch it without thinking it will be too long and there will be way too much talking.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on June 22, 2009, 11:01:15 AM
Christoph Waltz 1:50-1:53.

His character is just completely ruthless. But he's smart and charismatic. The opening scene of the script really introduces him well.

I didn't think the script was very long. When I hear how long the movie is it worries me. I'm sure it's not going to change our lives, but I hope it's at least entertaining.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on June 22, 2009, 11:10:20 AM
Goddamnit. I hate Eli Roth's stupid shit-eating face. I hate that they can catch it in illustration form so perfectly. Makes me sick.

i caught part of the rerun of the MTV Movie Awards and it seemed to cut to Roth in the audience dozens of times.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on June 22, 2009, 03:22:16 PM
gives me a little more hope that at least it will be entertaining.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on June 23, 2009, 02:08:34 PM
Yeah, this looks much much better. Pitt seems to deliver a good performance and his lines better.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 01, 2009, 12:53:38 PM
International Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fdQfUQ3rsE)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on July 01, 2009, 01:01:14 PM
"Zatz a bingo!!"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on July 01, 2009, 01:28:00 PM
That font is pulp fiction-y.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on July 01, 2009, 06:03:41 PM
and Melanie Laurent looks kinda Thurman-y
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 06, 2009, 12:25:13 AM
'Basterds' sets promo at UFC 100
Tarantino film to be featured during pay-per-view event
Source: Hollywood Reporter
 
The Weinstein Co. is stepping into the ring.

The mini-major is making an unconventional marketing move for its upcoming period pic "Inglourious Basterds," partnering with the Ultimate Fighting Championship to promote the film.

The Quentin Tarantino movie will be featured at the mixed-martial-arts organization's UFC 100, a large-scale pay-per-view event set for Saturday in Las Vegas. "Basterds" will get an animated billboard and placement inside the fighting ring, aka the "octagon," and a trailer will be shown to about 11,000 fans in attendance at Mandalay Bay.

The move marks an interesting approach for TWC in seeking young males for "Basterds." The pic, set for an Aug. 21 domestic release, is set in Nazi-occupied France and features long stretches in non-English languages.

But TWC hopes to break the film out of the art house by highlighting its action sequences and star Brad Pitt. UFC, with its mainstream fan base, is seen as one of several keys to reaching a wider audience.

UFC 100, the centennial fight card for the increasingly popular sport, will feature a heavyweight battle between Brock Lesnar and Frank Mir, plus 10 undercard fights. The organization is touting the sponsorship as the first Weinstein promotion at one of its events.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 08, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Quentin Tarantino Q&A
By: Mike Fleming; Variety

Quentin Tarantino shot and edited his WWII drama “Inglourious Basterds” in just eight months, so he could make a May premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. Whether it's because his backers at The Weinstein Co. and Universal are hit-hungry, or because summer loves shorter movies, or because the film didn't win top prize on the Croisette, speculation had Tarantino under pressure to shorten his film.  Fresh from locking his final cut, Tarantino refutes that rumor and makes it clear to BFD that the only inglourious basterds he encountered in the cutting room are the characters he'll introduce to the world when the film opens August 21.
   
BFD: What is the final running time on Inglourious Basterds?

Tarantino: I’ve heard these rumors that the studios told me to cut out 40 minutes. These are complete lies. The movie is actually a minute longer, in running time, than it was in Cannes. It was 2:28, without end credits, and now it’s 2:29, or 2:32 with end credits.

BFD: You told me in Cannes that you had final cut at 2:48, if you'd chosen to make the film that long. Still, rumors inferred you were sent to the editing room with orders to cut. Reaction? 

Tarantino: I’m offended at the idea that these guys would be bossing me around. On the other hand, I’ve no right to complain. It’s a great situation. You don’t have to do anything under duress. It’s your movie, you’re the one who has to live with it, and you know you can’t make rash judgments you’ll regret later. But you’re more inclined to listen, because nothing’s being forced on you. Harvey Weinstein’s a nice guy, David Linde was wonderful to work with. They had worthwhile things to say. Some I agreed with, some I did not. I always tried their suggestions, because they have a lot of money invested. They’re not in the room when I try, and half the time they were wrong. But sometimes I’d find myself saying, “Goddammit, Harvey’s right. It’s better this way.”   

BFD: What extended the running time?

Tarantino: I added a sequence between where Mike Myers and Michael Fassbender discuss Operation Kino [the plot to blow up a theater as Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi brass watch a film], and the shootout scene in the basement tavern La Louisiane. In Cannes, we went from one to the other. I’d shot another scene, right before that, where Fassbender meets The Basterds, before they go to La Louisiane. That’s back.

BFD: What about that laugh-out-loud funny moment that introduces Goebbels’s French translator, and cuts to a scene where she and Hitler's minister of propaganda are having raucous sex?

Tarantino: Oh, yeah, I put that back, and it sure got a big laugh when I screened it.

BFD: There were other worthy scenes in the script missing from the Cannes cut, like one that  humanizes Sgt. Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth), the “Bear Jew” who beats Nazis to death with a baseball bat. A scripted scene that preceded the violence showed him buying a bat in his Jewish Boston neighborhood, and getting an elderly neighbor to sign it with the names of her Jewish relatives in Europe who were in peril.

Tarantino: We shot that, it was a cool sequence, but it got in the way of the big musical cue where we bring Donny out, with the bat. This and other scenes I shot, I’ll put in reserve. If I were to do a prequel, I can just use that stuff, it’s ready to go. 

BFD: Do you have enough enthusiasm left for a prequel?  

Tarantino: Oh, yeah, I definitely do. I’ve written the first half already. I’d have to finish it, get the Basterds back together, and insert a whole other group of characters, these black troops that come across the Basterds. 

BFD: Are the Basterds game?

Tarantino: All through the movie, Brad Pitt and Eli Roth just kept saying, “Prequel. Prequel.” Brad would say, “Let’s talk him into doing a prequel.” The guys love the idea. I’ve got the storyline. Then again, I was going to do all these animated prequels to Kill Bill. I didn’t end up doing any of those.
 
BFD: Both The Weinstein Co. and Universal need hits. How much pressure did you feel to maximize your film's commercial potential? 

Tarantino: Yeah, the guys are anxious about it, and I can see where that is coming from. But the movie is the movie. They read the script, they knew what they were getting into. From time to time, we’d be talking and I’d say, I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not going to make the movie any differently than I wrote it. It might sound weird that I added a minute, but you can add little things and actually quicken the pace, and we were very aware of keeping the pace up. To add the one scene, I reduced a couple scenes by a line here, a line there. I’d talk to the Weinsteins, and Universal, and they’d say, “This sequence is running a little long.” I’d say, I don’t think I can take more than maybe one line out of there, and they’d say, that’s fine. Then you have to find that one line. It’s cosmetic surgery. Harvey wanted me to add more music, he asked me to go through my music collection again and just find a couple more pieces. So, I found four cues, and one of them is the main theme from the Jack Cardiff movie "Dark of the Sun," which I'd always wanted to use. 
 
BFD: You’ve never relied on stars in your movies. Now you have one of the biggest, at a time when studios seem to be questioning star value, especially after Todd Phillips did what you usually do, creating stars in "The Hangover"...

Tarantino: Even to the degree where those guys were so perfectly cast.

BFD: Is the star system still reliable?   

Tarantino: There has been a kind of selective choice of evidence to decide whether stars are reliable or not. If you are pointing to that Russell Crowe newspaper movie, which I didn’t see, well maybe it just didn’t work out for that particular movie. Brad had a big hit with "Benjamin Button" and I think he was a big reason. Early in my career, I would get suggestions about using this or that actor, and I’d ask, why do you want these people? Do they really put asses in seats? I could look at a number of their movies and the answer would be no. I learned it wasn’t as much about asses in seats as it was marketing. This guy is famous, so we can get him on Leno, Conan, Letterman, get a magazine cover. I’m casting for what works best in the film. Rosario Dawson was the most famous girl I used in "Deathproof," and she was on all the talk shows. But she was also one of the best in the movie. There’s a reason why Leno wants to talk to her. She’s a terrific actress, she’s got tons of charisma. I’m not going to hire somebody just for the poster, and the integrity of my movies speaks for itself, as far as that is concerned.

BFD: How do your commercial hopes escalate, having Pitt?   

Tarantino: I’ve normally relied on my name for the most part. The hope is, I’ll bring my fans and he’ll bring his. Overseas, Brad’s following is intense, just crazy, but so is mine. The hope is, us working together, that’ll be a draw. I can honestly say though that if Brad Pitt wasn’t a star and I’d found him in the casting process, I would have lobbied for him to get this role.

BFD: The adult drama is on shaky ground. What must be done to keep the genre viable?  

Tarantino: I went to see "Public Enemies" on a Friday at The Vista, the 6:30 show, and the theater filled up and I thought, hmm, people turning out on a weekend to see a movie with a big star...I think I’m going to be okay. I was very encouraged. I would say "Public Enemies" is an example that showed the adult drama is alive and well. Universal marketed the hell out of it, and while it was risky to open summertime against "Ice Age 3," I think it did terrific for that kind of film. In a different month, "Public Enemies" would have opened number one. I remember several years ago, being in Austin while making "Deathproof," and seeing "American Gangster," this movie with two stars and a terrific director. It struck me, this audience that was equal parts black and white, and how you could tell they couldn’t wait to see the movie. If you’re going to make one of these, make sure your canvas matches the commercial potential, and be sure it is something people want to see. The tricky thing about commercial concerns is, it becomes easy to only think about the opening weekend, and forget that a movie is going to have a long life, like, until the end of time.

BFD: What's the fun part of opening in the summer under pressure?

Tarantino: As an artist, you can bemoan the whole roll of the dice that is opening weekend, but it is exciting, too. Your movie is seen by everybody in this one big `go,' and it becomes an event where everybody is heading out on opening weekend and filling up the multiplexes all over America. It is one of the things that makes movies vital.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on July 08, 2009, 09:59:17 PM
Quentin Tarantino Q&A
By: Mike Fleming; Variety

BFD: You told me in Cannes that you had final cut at 2:48, if you'd chosen to make the film that long. Still, rumors inferred you were sent to the editing room with orders to cut. Reaction? 

Tarantino: I’m offended at the idea that these guys would be bossing me around.

Here's an artist for ya...."I'm my own boss"

this fuckin' guy
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: 72teeth on July 09, 2009, 04:22:13 AM
looking \frward tomit yall, im  drunk lookingh forfawr to it yall....
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on July 09, 2009, 04:46:01 AM
its my first year really drinking... is it normal to question if you drink too much/drink too much/drink everyday/drunk

hahahaha
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on July 09, 2009, 05:44:29 PM
looking \frward tomit yall, im  drunk lookingh forfawr to it yall....

this was such a better read than that interview. there should be more intoxicated marks like this. wish somone kept track and compiled them all into one thread. if Gold Trumpet left one i would die happily. from XIXAX world that is.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 09, 2009, 06:08:18 PM
looking \frward tomit yall, im  drunk lookingh forfawr to it yall....

this was such a better read than that interview. there should be more intoxicated marks like this. wish somone kept track and compiled them all into one thread. if Gold Trumpet left one i would die happily. from XIXAX world that is.

haha, too bad I don't drink, but if you compiled them all into one thread, they would lose their hilarity. Drunken posts are funny when understood from the context of their original posting. If a thread was just everyone trying to be drunk funny, it would be lame. You need regular posting around a drunk post for the funniness to be maxed out. It's the perfect break of etiquette.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on July 09, 2009, 06:37:30 PM
looking \frward tomit yall, im  drunk lookingh forfawr to it yall....

this was such a better read than that interview. there should be more intoxicated marks like this. wish somone kept track and compiled them all into one thread. if Gold Trumpet left one i would die happily. from XIXAX world that is.

haha, too bad I don't drink, but if you compiled them all into one thread, they would lose their hilarity. Drunken posts are funny when understood from the context of their original posting. If a thread was just everyone trying to be drunk funny, it would be lame. You need regular posting around a drunk post for the funniness to be maxed out. It's the perfect break of etiquette.
Thanks, Dudley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhE3crfkJH4).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on July 09, 2009, 06:51:48 PM
Thanks, Dudley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhE3crfkJH4).

haha. if this movie sucks, maybe at least the thread could turn epic.

haha, too bad I don't drink, but if you compiled them all into one thread, they would lose their hilarity. Drunken posts are funny when understood from the context of their original posting. If a thread was just everyone trying to be drunk funny, it would be lame. You need regular posting around a drunk post for the funniness to be maxed out. It's the perfect break of etiquette.

i just meant for memories. top ten drunk posts sorta deal.., you never tie one on, ay?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 15, 2009, 12:15:07 AM
Quentin Tarantino: Talking trash about his critics
Source: Los Angeles Times

Apparently Quentin Tarantino was a little wounded after all about the barbed critical reception his new film, "Inglourious Basterds," got at Cannes this year. In case you forgot, although the movie got a standing ovation, the critics were for the most part unimpressed, with the Guardian calling it "an armor-plated turkey," Time's Richard Corliss dubbing it "a misfire" and Movieline's David Bourgeours saying "by the end of the film it's hard to care much about what happens to anybody on screen."

I'm heading off to see the film tonight, so I may volunteer a few thoughts myself shortly. But Tarantino, in a new interview with GQ magazine, has decided that -- ahem -- he is probably a far better critic any of the ink-stained wretches that haunt the screening rooms around town. I'm not sure that volunteering this information is going to do wonders for the reviews of "Basterds" when the film arrives next month, but tact has never been Tarantino's strong suit.

So after dismissing the bad reviews at Cannes as being the work of celebrity journalists, not the "bona fide literary film critics" that he respects, Tarantino went on to say: "I respect criticism. But I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I'm a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me too."

That's called biting the hand that feeds you. And the whoosh you just heard is the sound of "Inglourious Basterds' " Rotten Tomatoes score dropping faster than the stock market on Black Friday.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on July 15, 2009, 11:24:42 AM
He comes off like such a jerk in that article, especially when he attacks that poor waitress who didn't bring him the bill on time.

"I respect criticism. But I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I'm a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me too."

Oh good Christ. So his movie isn’t a derivative, self-indulgent bore. Film critics just don’t know how to critique film. Got it.

Seriously, to all you aspiring filmmakers out there, I want you to make me a promise right now – when you land a gig in la la land, PLEASE. BE. COOL. And nice. And for the love of god humble, because the last thing that godforsaken city needs is another arrogant Hollywood asshole that thinks the world owes him something. I don’t care if you are the Quentin Tarantino. A little humility and self-deprecation goes a long way.

So fuck you Quentin. As much as you might think so, it is not a privilege to see one of your films. We don’t owe you shit. In fact, you owe us. We’re the ones who shell out hundreds of dollars and several precious hours of life to watch your increasingly vapid, ultimately forgettable movies.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on July 15, 2009, 01:32:17 PM
Amen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on July 15, 2009, 03:43:03 PM
Put a fork in Quentin. He's been Eli Roth'd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on July 15, 2009, 04:45:47 PM
Give the man the benefit of the doubt; I'm sure he was coked out of his fucking gourd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on July 15, 2009, 07:01:46 PM
Next time I see him, I'll mention it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on July 15, 2009, 08:33:53 PM
man, I'm not his biggest fan but I do like him a lot and I do think he probably has a point in being more informed and articulate about films.  inglorious still might not be good, but he is probably a better critic than most.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on July 15, 2009, 08:52:59 PM
I'm sure he's a better critic than most everyday folks but I doubt he's a better critic than someone who's job is to critique films. Quentin may know more about movies about women in prison or shitty movies about butlers who come back from the dead to get revenge on the family they served that wronged them but come on, the guys just being a dumbass now.

I think he got so used to being the darling of cinema that now that most people view him as past his prime, he's having a difficult time with it. He should worry more about going back to the drawing board and making something good than exacting revenge on his critics by beating them at their own game. He's being corny.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on July 16, 2009, 01:54:17 AM
He comes off like such a jerk in that article, especially when he attacks that poor waitress who didn't bring him the bill on time.

"I respect criticism. But I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I'm a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me too."

Oh good Christ. So his movie isn’t a derivative, self-indulgent bore. Film critics just don’t know how to critique film. Got it.

Seriously, to all you aspiring filmmakers out there, I want you to make me a promise right now – when you land a gig in la la land, PLEASE. BE. COOL. And nice. And for the love of god humble, because the last thing that godforsaken city needs is another arrogant Hollywood asshole that thinks the world owes him something. I don’t care if you are the Quentin Tarantino. A little humility and self-deprecation goes a long way.

So fuck you Quentin. As much as you might think so, it is not a privilege to see one of your films. We don’t owe you shit. In fact, you owe us. We’re the ones who shell out hundreds of dollars and several precious hours of life to watch your increasingly vapid, ultimately forgettable movies.



I'm pretty sure Quentin has never published something this bad, even on a message board.  You are extremely riled up over what, exactly?  "fuck you Quentin"....really???  Dude made some of the most memorable movies of all time, sorry if the recent ones are less memorable than the couple that were bassicaly the most beloved movies of the last 20 years.  Did he say something about us owing him something? I missed that part. 

And as for what Stefan was saying, I think it's safe to say that Tarantino knows as much about the history of art-cinema as 99% of critics and filmmakers, not just B-movies.  The guy is obsessive and extremely passionate.  He's making a valid point in this quote even if he doesn't put it so eloquently. I'm pretty sure that most interesting filmmakers, when they bother to write critically on other films, do it from a much more valid place than most film critics, who by and large have a pretty limited knowledge of cinema and very little invested in the creative process in comparison. 

The notices for Basterds have certainly been mixed so far but I have read a lot of them and there is no shortage of positivity out there.  This is a situation where haters are gonna hate and lovers are gonna love. 

I feel like he is just being sincere with his opinions and you guys are making a big stink about it.  And I agree with him, and I think most xixaxer's will too, that most film critics writing opening weekend type reviews aren't worth shit.  Hell I can't name one working film critic I actually care if I read (other than the great Outlaw Vern, who has completely ruined all other critics or me), and that's in a pool of about a thousand or so out there working professionally or semi-professionally.  But I bet we would all read Quentin's weekly reviews, and probably enjoy em. 

I think Quentin's point is, most people writing about him are dudes on the internet or guys and gals like Richard Roeper, or other Entertainment beat journalists.  Not Cinema PHD's or filmmakers.  And most of those people view movies in pretty unsophisticated ways.  And still the vast majority of them have been positive about all of his films so far.  I don't think he has a very sharp ax to grind but he is probably a little hurt by the kneejerk reaction of a few critics being reported as the final say on his movie about 3 months before it is released.     

And IB is probably going to be the best time at the movies this summer, or certainly at least one of them.  You have to be pretty jaded to expect the next film from one of the world's greatest filmmakers, that won a major award at Cannes, shot by on of the great cinematographers, starring an international cast, and exploring the most intense era of the last century through a mythological lens, to be anything less than a fucking fascinating night out at the Mall. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on July 16, 2009, 02:47:24 AM
But Tarantino, in a new interview with GQ magazine...

(http://men.style.com/images/gq/features/080109/GQfeature2h.jpg)

TRIUMPH OF HIS WILL
Only Quentin Tarantino could create ‘Inglourious Basterds,’ wherein Brad Pitt plays a redneck leading a band of tough Jews bent on going, well, medieval on Nazis. And that’s just one part of his new movie. Alex Pappademas follows the most ambitious director of his generation from Berlin to Cannes to Los Angeles as he struggles to finish what he hopes will be his new masterpiece
By Alex Pappademas; Photograph by Mark Seliger

Quentin tarantino is at the hamburger hamlet on Sunset Boulevard. Back-corner booth, in the shadows of the Tap Room. His wallet's on the table. You know it's his wallet because it says bad motherfucker on it. (Seriously. It does.) He's wearing a half-zipped Nike warm-up jacket, no shirt. He's talking to Lay Lay.

A minute ago, Lay Lay came up to our booth and asked if she could buy Quentin a drink, "for all the years of wonderfulness." Lay Lay's got nice arms. Lay Lay's gushy/apologetic under a fringe of blond bangs. Quentin was chewing the second slider from a plate of four when she walked up, so he held his napkin over his face like a silent-movie bank robber. Quentin said, "Sure!"

Now she's back, proffering a fresh mint julep with a shot of hassle on the side: "Will you please get back to work for me?" she asks. "I'm missing you." Tarantino's expression doesn't change, but you can tell there's a mint leaf of annoyance garnishing his response: "August," he says. "My new movie comes out in August." (It's called Inglourious Basterds, and Brad Pitt's in it, kicking ass and collecting Nazi scalps, and it's only the movie Tarantino's been talking about making for, like, a hundred years, Lay Lay!)

He laughs so she knows it's okay. Lay Lay remembers now, about the new movie. She says listen—her band is playing down the street at the Roxy tonight. "It's three of us ladies," she says. "I play drums." Hence the arms. "So if you're looking for fun," she says, "come see us!" Quentin thanks her for the invite. He thanks her for the drink.

I've been warned that he's tired. He spent six hours at a photo shoot today. And he's still in shock over David Carradine, found dead in a Bangkok hotel yesterday morning. Last night, Quentin went on Larry King Live, looking like a traumatized superfan. He showed Larry his Kung Fu lunchbox, complete with thermos.

Then there's the movie. Basterds screened at Cannes in May. Variety said it was "never less than enjoyable." The Hollywood Reporter found it lacking in "those things we think of as being Tarantino-esque." The Guardian called it "an armor-plated turkey." This in turn has fed rumors that the Weinstein Company is nervous about the movie's two-and-a-half-hour running time, about the long stretches of dialogue in subtitled French and German. A few days after we meet in L.A., a few Hollywood gossip sites float the rumor that Quentin has been asked to cut forty minutes out of the movie.

Tarantino says he's not worried about the way Basterds was received at Cannes. The "bona fide literary film critics"—the ones he respects, as opposed to Internet mole people and "celebrity journalists"—mostly dug the movie. And when the studio screened it this week in L.A., it went over huge. If not for Carradine's death, he says, "I'd be happy as a fucking clam."

He seems less happy than a clam tonight, though. He seems tense. He's sweating despite the air-conditioning. Banging those tasty beverages. There's a defensive edge to his trademark know-it-all answers.

"I respect criticism," he says. (He's been working on a movie-review book, on and off, for a few years.) "But I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I'm a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me.

Back in January, Tarantino was at Studio Babelsberg, eighteen or so glum gray miles outside Berlin. He was in his element. Shooting on the soundstage where Fritz Lang made Metropolis, where Josef von Sternberg directed Marlene Dietrich in The Blue Angel, and where Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels played movie mogul after the Nazis took over—which is funny, because Goebbels's quest to be the David O. Selznick of the Third Reich is a major plot point in Basterds. Tarantino was grooving on the meta-movieness of it all. He was racing, too—come hell or high water, they were going to have this movie done in time for Cannes. But he was in a good mood. "Compared to Kill Bill, this is a spa," he said, grinning. "It's a facial. A salt rub. A Thai massage!"

He was on an elaborate movie-theater set, under opera boxes draped with Nazi flags. The theater was full of German extras, done up for the premiere of a fictional Goebbels movie called Nation's Pride—silk gowns, opera gloves, S.S. dress uniforms.

Quentin fed them their motivation. "You guys are filled with the pride of a victorious Reich at this moment," he said, and then an AD relayed this to them in German.

Eli Roth, horror-movie auteur and Tarantino confrere, shot the Nation's Pride footage we see in Basterds. Roth was in Germany anyway; he plays Donny Donowitz, a bat-wielding soldier known to terrified Germans as "the Bear Jew." He was on-set today, in a tux and white gloves, ready to mingle with the crème de la crème of Nazi society."Quentin got the Jewish director to do the Nazi propaganda film," he says, grinning. "I thought I'd never do anything more disgusting than Hostel II!"

Quentin took a break around ten thirty that night. We sat next to each other in the back of his fake movie house, talked about the script. He was supposedly working on it, or not working on it, during the six-year gap between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill. Myths accrued. It was a 600-page screenplay. It was his magnum opus. He wanted Stallone and Willis and Eddie Murphy for the leads. He wanted Tim Roth and Michael Madsen. He wanted Adam Sandler. He was staying up all night, smoking more dope than Widespread Panic's road crew and watching D-grade flicks Joe Bob Briggs wouldn't use to prop up a wobbly table. He'd become a pure pop-cultural swamp thing, freed by success to sleep and root in the primordial muck that birthed him. In Down and Dirty Pictures, Peter Biskind's 2004 book about the House of Weinstein and the rocky interfaith marriage between art-house and multiplex that Tarantino's success helped Bob and Harvey engineer, Tarantino is last glimpsed circa 2000, "lost in his labyrinthine World War II script."

Quentin told me that all that fog-of-war-movie stuff was exaggerated. He wasn't lost. He just couldn't stop writing. He'd produced more story than a movie could hold. He thought about turning it into a novel. He came close to writing it up as a twelve-episode mini-series—his own gonzo Band of Brothers. He says director Luc Besson (La Femme Nikita) talked him out of that. "You're one of the only guys whose movies make me want to go out to a theater," Besson told him one night over drinks. This stuck with Quentin. In January 2008, he took one more shot at chopping his monster down to movie size.

He cut one major plotline—a story about a group of AWOL black soldiers making their way across occupied France, which he might turn into a Basterds sequel if this one does well. He focused in on the Basterds, a unit of Jewish American commandos using terrorist tactics against the Third Reich, and Shosanna Dreyfus, a French farm girl who flees to Paris and becomes the proprietress of a movie house after the Nazis murder her family. He wrote a new third act, bringing these two stories together, to bloody and historically inaccurate effect, at the gala premiere of ein film von Joseph Goebbels. He'd write all day; at night he'd listen to records or float in his pool, ruminating. He feels that the movie was really written between January and July of last year. "I've never written such a big thing so fast before," he says. "It just came tumbling out of me."

He finished the script on July 2 and sent it to his longtime producing partner, Lawrence Bender, the next day, telling him he wanted to shoot it in time for Cannes. "I was like, ‘Wow—really? You finished it? Shit!' " Bender says. "That was a wild moment." Tarantino flew to France to persuade Brad Pitt to play Lieutenant Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds. ("We talked about movies into the wee hours of the night," Pitt told reporters in May. "When I got up the next morning, I saw five empty bottles of wine lying on the floor—five!—and something that resembled a smoking apparatus.… And apparently I'd agreed to do the movie." When I ask Tarantino who supplied this apparatus, he says, "That was Brad. He did the fabrication. He can take a Coke can and make it—functional.")

When I ask Harvey Weinstein why Tarantino decided to make the movie on this scramble-the-fighters timetable, he brings up Grindhouse, the double-feature slasher-film tribute Tarantino co-directed with Robert Rodriguez in 2007. Weinstein doesn't believe that Grindhouse's poor box-office performance had anything to do with Quentin's decision to get moving on Basterds but believes Tarantino "wanted to get back in the saddle. He did his B movie, and I think it was time for him to go back and make his Quentin Tarantino movie."

Tarantino has a simpler explanation.
"I just like Cannes," Tarantino told me. "It's like the whole planet is checking your movie out—boom!—at one time, and—bam!—it either works or it doesn't. And especially when I'm there—it's the closest thing to Muhammad Ali having a championship fight. It's just—bam! You're throwing it down."

*****

Tarantino became the Cassius Clay of the Croisette back in 1994, when Pulp Fiction won the Palme d'Or. Clint Eastwood read the good news. He'd gone to France as a Sundance wunderkind; he came back as the biggest auteur-celebrity since Orson Welles.

They still love him in France. When he hits Cannes—boom!—in May, with Basterds, autograph hounds waving Tarantino posters in protective plastic sheeting jockey for position at the barricades with tuxedoed paparazzi. On the red carpet, he boogies to Dick Dale's "Misirlou," the opening-credits song from Pulp Fiction. He grabs Mélanie Laurent, who plays Shosanna in Basterds. She's all in white, he's all in black. They cut that red rug. They do the swim. They do the sailor's hornpipe. They do the twist, just like John Travolta and Uma Thurman. Quentin air-guitars down the red carpet—ten feet, twenty feet—and back up. It goes over huge. Everybody screams louder a couple of minutes later when Brad rolls up with Angelina. But next to Quentin's display of irrational exuberance, Brad and Angelina look like a couple of s.

The movie plays. When it's over, Tarantino gets a standing ovation. It lasts eleven minutes. A cameraman finds Quentin in the crowd, puts his face up on that big Palais des Festivals screen. He's hugging Mélanie. He's holding Brad's fist in the air, like the ref in a prizefight. He's smiling a cryptic smile.

"I felt like that ovation was a review," Harvey Weinstein tells me later, when I ask him about the post-Cannes reviews. "I think they would have stayed and cheered longer."Weinstein also denies that Quentin's been asked to trim the movie.

"Those stories are all untrue. There's no fucking way. Here, read my lips: That is nuts. Please don't even write that, it's insanity. There's not even a question of that. Whatever you're reading, it's like some insane blogger. He's not gonna cut. What he's doing is just reorganizing some scenes. I mean, the guy had six weeks to cut his movie [for Cannes]; most guys take six months. Most guys take a year. When I worked with Martin [Scorsese], we'd do eighteen months in postproduction. Quentin Tarantino cuts a movie in six weeks? Come on! There's shit on that cutting-room floor that'll blow your brains out. I was telling Quentin the opposite—‘You should put that shit back in the movie'—'cause it's un-fucking-believably great."

After the Cannes screening, there's a party, down on the beach. Big party tent, French ingenues lighting cigarettes off tiki torches, a DJ—flown in, somebody tells me, from "one of the hottest clubs in St-Tropez"—spiking his set with QT soundtrack cuts like "Son of a Preacher Man." Brad and Angelina float by; I try to stand within range of Angelina's healing radiance, in case I have an undiagnosed case of leprosy that needs curing.
Tarantino sips Heinekens. He talks to ladies—first to ladies he knows, then to ladies who look like they want to know him because he's Quentin Tarantino. After about an hour, he opens the velvet rope around his banquette. A security guy clears a path for him through the crowd. He makes his way out of the tent. Shakes a few hands en route. Disappears ninja-like through the black curtain separating the party from the rest of the beach. The DJ plays Chuck Berry's "You Never Can Tell," the twist song from Pulp Fiction, but he's not there to hear it.

Later, I ask Tarantino what he was thinking that night as the applause went on and on. "I wanted to get the biggest standing ovation of the festival, and I got it," he says. "They counted it. But I wanted to be inscrutable. That was my cool moment, and I was gonna be cool. Sometimes it's your time to be Elvis, and that was my time."

*****

life gives you only so many Elvis moments, and Tarantino's had a few. Real triumphs—the kind that involve The Man with No Name presenting you with some hardware at a film festival just a few short years after you quit your dead-end job at the video store to make movies or die trying, yeah, but also the artistic kind. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, sure. But watch both the Kill Bill movies back-to-back and tell me they don't add up to another Pulp-grade masterpiece—Tarantino not just synthesizing but trumping his influences, in a movie that happens to be about getting revenge on your mentor

If it's harder now to see him as a game changer, it's partly because he's made maybe a little too much of his cool moments over the years, saying yes to judging American Idol, acting on Broadway, and playing himself in a Wizard of Oz adaptation starring the Muppets. But it's also because of how thoroughly he's changed the game. He's partially responsible for hollow, hyperstylized post-Pulp crime movies from Romeo Is Bleeding all the way up to Smokin' Aces. But some of the best movies of the past two decades feel deeply post-Quentin, too, from the deadpan brutality of Fight Club to the pop-referential ball-breaking of the Apatow gang. The nonlinear storytelling of Pulp Fiction filters down through Memento all the way to How I Met Your Mother. The mainstreaming of QT's trashatarian taste made your local art house—where classy Brit fluff like Enchanted April used to rule—safe for unabashed exploitation flicks from foreign lands, like Korea's Oldboy and Sweden's Let the Right One In.

He can't light a fire under modern cinema every time, though. Basterds lacks the Swiss-watch craftsmanship of Pulp Fiction. It feels like Tarantino skimmed his behemoth of a rough draft and hammered together whatever worked, sometimes at the expense of clarity. That said, much of what he kept ranks with the best stuff he's produced in all his years of wonderfulness. A tense twenty-five-minute bar scene that unfolds like a one-act play; a montage of Laurent getting dressed to kill, set to David Bowie's "Cat People (Putting Out the Fire)," that out-DePalmas Brian DePalma; the performances of Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who won best actor at Cannes for his turn as the affably despicable Nazi commandant Hans Landa.
The minute we see Laurent's character passing an afternoon in a café with a cigarette, a glass of vin rouge, and a paperback of Leslie Charteris's The Saint in New York, we get it—she's a QT dream girl, and the movie is his dream. It's a big, sprawling period piece in a time-honored, respectable genre, but he's completely uninterested in demonstrating that he can play by that genre's rules. All that classical war-movie stuff—the big-battle set piece, the ragtag crew storming the castle with knives between their teeth—takes a backseat to Quentin's own obsessions. Language. Restaurants. Women's feet. Other people's movies—pre-World War II German cinema, spaghetti Westerns, Heaven's Gate—and the moviegoing experience itself. Even the soundtrack is all borrowed score—a little Elmer Bernstein, a lot of Morricone, even a Billy Preston cut from the 1972 Jim Brown vehicle Slaughter.

Tarantino's critics dismiss him as a mixtape filmmaker, furnishing halls of mirrors with references and trivia. Basterds won't shut them up. Tarantino doesn't care.

"I've had people write that I've seen too many movies," he's saying at the Hamlet, sometime around mint julep number three. "In what other art form would being an expert be considered a negative? If I were a poet, would I be criticized for knowing too much about Sappho? Or Aristotle?"

Another common knock on Tarantino: He set out in a more mature, meditative direction with Jackie Brown, then wimped out, opting for flashy pastiche over human-scale drama. He begs—big surprise—to differ.

"I didn't go in that direction," he says. "I arrived at my destination with Jackie Brown. I did it! I don't have to prove that I can do it again. I can do it again if I wanna do it again, but even if I go off and do Friday the 13th part nine, that doesn't change Jackie Brown. That's still a mature piece of work. Made when I wasn't even that mature."

That's the weird part—you made your getting-older movie when you were only 34. (He's 46 now.)
"Yeah. And it's as much of an old-man movie as I ever wanna make."

He's said this sort of thing before. That he has no desire to be a "geriatric" filmmaker.

"You can lie about a lot of things," he says, "but your filmography doesn't lie. It's right there. And it doesn't give a shit about why you did it. It doesn't give a shit about what was happening that year in your life, or that gal you were married to. Ten years after the fact, your movies are all created fuckin' equal. And if you go through their filmographies, directors don't get better. Especially when they've had a serious twenty- or thirty-year career. It's not like they're waiting for their last five years to make that out-and-out masterpiece. They get worse."

(I ask him to expand. I say he doesn't have to mention names. He says he wasn't going to. You can probably fill them in yourself: Francis Ford Coppola, puttering about the vineyards of diminished expectation. Eastwood, endlessly rephrasing what Unforgiven had to say about Dirty Harry types in the winter of their badassedness. Scorsese, maybe, though it would probably hurt Tarantino to say that out loud.)

"I imagine this is partly just what happens to you when you're in your sixties," he says. "And for other filmmakers, well, maybe that's fine. But if you're a rock 'n' roll artist, and then at some point you start singing big-band tunes—you can do it, and you can be really happy, but there's a difference in your career.

"People change," he says, setting his mint julep down next to his water glass.

"There's the rock 'n' roll time"—he points at the drink—"and there's the big-band time," he says, pointing at the water. "I don't want that. Where I'm coming from, I'm thinking about when I'm dead and gone, and some kid—who's maybe not even born yet—sees one of my movies and digs it. And he says, ‘This guy's fucking got it going on. I want to see something else by this guy.' But he doesn't know who the fuck I am, so he doesn't know to go to Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. He's just gonna pick the easiest one he can get his hands on. And if that's one of the ones I make during my old-man years—well, I've lost him right then and there."

It's like when you're in high school, I say, and you decide you're going to check out Bob Dylan, but because you don't know any better, you end up buying one of the weird Christian records. Or Knocked Out Loaded. You're saying you don't ever want to make your Knocked Out Loaded.

"Yeah," Tarantino says. (Then he says "Yeah" about eighteen more times.) "Even though I do really love the Sam Shepard song on Knocked Out Loaded. That's an epic song—‘Brownsville Girl.' But that's what I mean. People are gonna be rummaging in the grab bag of Quentin Tarantino's work, and I want it all to be fucking kick-ass. I want the first film to be as strong as the last film. I want that kid to get his little dick hard about every single one of 'em."
A lot of the directors you're alluding to, I point out, would probably say they're doing the best work of their careers.

"They might very well think that." Tarantino says. "And that's why I don't want to be making movies at that point.

"There are directors," Tarantino says, "who don't know how to stop working. Maybe they thought of themselves as artists at one time, but now they're just directors, and they're going out and getting a job. And they live beyond their fuckin' means, anyway, so they can't stop working."

I imagine that kicks in for a lot of people, I say. Even if you don't live beyond your means—at some point, if you've got a wife and kids and a mortgage, that has to affect the choices you make.

"That's living beyond your means!" Tarantino says, laughing. "When you gotta go out and make a movie to pay for the kid's private school and for the three ex-wives, don't talk to me about your artistry. It's their job. It's not my job. It's my calling."

He says he's going to hang up his megaphone when he's 60. He'll write books, maybe judge a few film festivals. Grace the occasional Tarantino retrospective with his presence. "I'll be the grand old man," he says. "Like what Sam Fuller did the last twenty years of his life. That looked pretty groovy to me. And when I'm sitting there in my retrospective, I don't want to have to watch the movie I made to pay for my pool."

I ask if that's why he takes so much time off—if he's trying to conserve that young-director energy.

"Let me answer this in a few different ways," he says, then stops. "Actually, give me a second—I'm gonna run to the restroom."

When he comes back he's winded, as if the restroom he ran to was a few blocks away.

"Here's the thing," he says. "When I'm doing a movie, I'm not doing anything else. It's all about the movie. I don't have a wife. I don't have a kid. Nothing can get in my way. The whole fucking world can go to hell and burst into flames. I don't care. This is my life. It's Mount Everest. If you're climbing Mount Everest, you're not doing anything else. All your concerns, all the mundane things, family, any of that, it just—pfft—disappears. Goes away. It's mist. It's just nothing but the mountain, every single solitary day. I'm not saying that I'll never get married or have a kid before I'm 60. But I've made a choice, so far, to go on this road alone. Because this is my time. This is my time to make movies."

He grabs my napkin off the seat, uses it to mop his brow. He says there was a moment, a couple of years ago. A relationship, one that might have led to marriage. "But if that had happened," he says, "I wouldn't have made Inglourious Basterds. Or I might have eventually, but I wouldn't have made it with the same intensity. And it wouldn't be finished now. Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with—except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again. I'm doing exactly what I need to be doing." He taps out punctuation on the table. "I'm right where I need to be."*
*****

it's like he's giving us the speech Ving Rhames gives Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction, when he tells Bruce to throw the fight: "This business is filled to the brim with unrealistic motherfuckers. Motherfuckers who thought their ass would age like wine. If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does."

And he's not wrong. Maybe a little presumptuous, a little too positive that there'll be Tarantino retrospectives by the time he enters the Lifetime Achievement age bracket, but not wrong. Still, it's a little weird that—at 46!—he can't see any middle ground between forswearing all worldly attachments in the name of art and making movies to pay for your pool. That he doesn't perceive any upside, for an artist, of spending time outside worlds of your own making.

The thing about hanging out in those worlds, of course, is that you get to be God. Which means you get weird. Which is maybe why the night ends the way it does. Here's what happens. We talk a little longer, and then the waitress comes over. Not the one who took our orders before. A new girl. Asian. She asks if we want another drink. Quentin says he's up for one more, then asks what time it is. It's ten thirty-five. He takes this news badly.

"You were supposed to bring our check over at nine o'clock," he says.

"I did," the waitress says, confused.

"No, you didn't," Quentin says firmly.

"Yeah, I…," the waitress starts to say.

"Well," Quentin says, "you didn't tell us, ‘This is your check.' "

"Oh," the waitress says. "I'm sorry." She seems sorry. Quentin won't let it go.

"You were supposed to let me know that it was nine," he says. "That was why you were bringing the check over!"

The waitress doesn't know what to say. She's suddenly being directed by Quentin Tarantino, and he has some issues with her performance.

"I asked if you wanted anything else," the waitress says, "and—"
"That's just what a normal waitress does," Quentin says. "You were supposed to come over and say, ‘Here's your check,' because that was my cue, to know when it was time to go. You did it just like a normal person would do it." He laughs. It's like I'm sitting here with Mr. Pink all of a sudden. Or like all the stress of the night—talking about the movie, defending himself, maybe the whole sad David Carradine thing, too—is coming out. The waitress apologizes again.

There was an arrangement, it seems. We were supposed to talk for two hours and then the waitress was supposed to bring the check at nine, as a signal, so Tarantino knew when to excuse himself. The subterfuge makes no sense. It's the kind of plan only a guy who's seen too many movies would make. The waitress looks flustered. The waitress looks humiliated.

The waitress says, "My apologies. So you don't want another round?"

"No," Quentin says. "We're gonna take off. I have to—yeah," he says. "I gotta take off."

I ask if we can talk again. He says yeah—yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah—we can grab another hour on the phone. Absolutely. (A few days later, his publicist calls to walk back this promise. We never talk again.) He grabs bad motherfucker, gets up, and leaves. He practically leaves a Quentin-shaped hole in the wall, he's out of there so fast. Maybe he drops by the Roxy, checks out Lay Lay's band. Who knows. I sign the check, overtip guiltily. Waitressing is the number-one occupation for female non–college graduates in this country. I think I heard somebody say that in a movie once.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_9977
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 16, 2009, 03:44:29 AM
And as for what Stefan was saying, I think it's safe to say that Tarantino knows as much about the history of art-cinema as 99% of critics and filmmakers, not just B-movies.  The guy is obsessive and extremely passionate.  He's making a valid point in this quote even if he doesn't put it so eloquently. I'm pretty sure that most interesting filmmakers, when they bother to write critically on other films, do it from a much more valid place than most film critics, who by and large have a pretty limited knowledge of cinema and very little invested in the creative process in comparison. 

I've been following Quentin Tarantino for years and no, he is not as good of a critic as he thinks he is. I don't even consider him to be a legitimate critic. When he talks about movies, he talks about the history of movies the way a fan would. He mentions favorite actors, directors and cinematographers. His list of favorites runs the gauntlet of film history, but he keeps his impressions to personal recollections of how such and such affected him personally. He comes up with lots of general impressions. His idea of criticism has more to do with the reader responce idea of criticism. It completely invalidates him.

It's true most critics have little investment in the creative process of making a film, but that's why they exist. Umberto Eco once said critics exist because they speak to the other side of the thought process that the artists aren't aware of when making something. And because a piece of art is based on how it can be funneled through readers and viewers and made anew with their experiences, it's important that critics represent new viewpoints and not just try to be originalists with their criticisms. Continuing on with Eco references, he also said the first duty of an artist after they completed a work, is to die. Critics shouldn't just be estimators of what Tarantino was thinking when making his films.

Oscar Wilde once said critics have it tougher than artists because they have to deal with art and life in their work when artists just have to deal with life. You don't have to agree with it, but one thing that quote does is remind you there is more to real criticism than what a lot of people are willing to give. When Quentin Tarantino reviews films, does he represent any critical theories at all? Does he try to understand what they are and how they could evolve to new cinemas over the course of time? See, I can understanding trashing the everyday internet geek who found a blog and a bad writing style, but let's actually have some respect for critics. It's true most critics started out as just newspapermen, but they studied over the years to become professionals in their field. If you want a list of critics who actually made their field an artform, I'll be happy to supply you with a list.

I'm all for Tarantino being happy about films and loving them, but bad resentment makes him get cocky with critics. It isn't his field.

Hell I can't name one working film critic I actually care if I read (other than the great Outlaw Vern, who has completely ruined all other critics or me), and that's in a pool of about a thousand or so out there working professionally or semi-professionally. 


What does that mean? Are your feelings truth about a professional field? Not even my feelings matter in such an instance. It may actually just show how not interested in criticism you are. 

I think Quentin's point is, most people writing about him are dudes on the internet or guys and gals like Richard Roeper, or other Entertainment beat journalists.  Not Cinema PHD's or filmmakers.  And most of those people view movies in pretty unsophisticated ways.  And still the vast majority of them have been positive about all of his films so far.  I don't think he has a very sharp ax to grind but he is probably a little hurt by the kneejerk reaction of a few critics being reported as the final say on his movie about 3 months before it is released. 

He's doing what most filmmakers do when dealing with bad reviews: rationalizing. Tarantino was calling out the establishment. Not just bloggers. The established critics are the ones who saw his film at Cannes and gave it bad reviews. They are the ones he has his scopes on. He may include bloggers too, but he certainly means the establishment in this instance.    

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on July 16, 2009, 09:14:21 AM
I'm pretty sure Quentin has never published something this bad, even on a message board.  You are extremely riled up over what, exactly?  "fuck you Quentin"....really???
 
Yes, really. I have no stomach for arrogance, especially Hollywood arrogance. I don't need you to defend his filmography or the influence he's had on cinema at large. I never denied any of that. What I'm saying is an impressive oeuvre doesn't give you the right to act like a self-entitled, egomaniacal asshole.

And yeah, maybe he can write better film criticism than jackass B-list film critics, but who listens to them anyway? It's such a lame excuse; "oh well the reason some critics don't like it is because their not as cinematically sophisticated as I am." Give me a break. Just because you're a cinematic savant doesn't mean you can't make a deeply flawed film.

You have to be pretty jaded to expect the next film from one of the world's greatest filmmakers, that won a major award at Cannes, shot by on of the great cinematographers, starring an international cast, and exploring the most intense era of the last century through a mythological lens, to be anything less than a fucking fascinating night out at the Mall. 

No you don't.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on July 16, 2009, 07:35:54 PM
his movie writing ain't even that great. fuck you Quentin.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on July 17, 2009, 04:34:25 AM
i honestly wish that gq article was his next movie starring him

The mainstreaming of QT's trashatarian taste made your local art house—where classy Brit fluff like Enchanted April used to rule—safe for unabashed exploitation flicks from foreign lands, like Korea's Oldboy and Sweden's Let the Right One In.

What is trashatarian or exploitative about Oldboy or Let the Right one in?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on July 17, 2009, 05:14:30 AM
(shrug) They show blood?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on July 18, 2009, 02:57:30 PM
again, I feel like his perhaps grating public persona has spilled into how people perceive his work and knowledge as well.  Most critics and filmmakers have not seen the films he's seen and certainly are not as knowledgeable and nobody can put that knowledge into good use like him.  Plus, his dialogues are not derivative at all.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 05, 2009, 12:11:53 AM
Trailer for movie with the movie here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/nationspride/)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: theyarelegion on August 06, 2009, 06:05:24 AM
what's with the American Movie Man voiceover?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on August 06, 2009, 08:06:35 AM
and the anachronistic titles!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 06, 2009, 12:47:15 PM
yeah that sure sucked but this movie is gonna rule.  Whoever's running the marketing on this thing needs to get scalped.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 06, 2009, 04:08:04 PM
Quentin Tarantino on 'Inglourious Basterds': A 16-hour miniseries?
Source: Los Angeles Times

When Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" premiered at Cannes last spring, there was a surprising outburst of critical sniping, with Time's Richard Corliss calling the film "a misfire" and my own colleague, Kenny Turan, dismissing it as "a self-indulgent piece of violent alternative history."

Which just goes to show that moviegoers at Cannes must be really a tough crowd: If people can boo the Coen brothers -- as they did one year -- then anything can happen.

But having now seen the film. I'm here to say: Nuts to those guys! The film is a pure delight. In fact, it's Tarantino's best film in years, interweaving his obvious infatuation with World War II movies with his undying love for cinema. The film's multilayered narrative isn't especially easy to summarize. So let's just say that it offers a distinctly idiosyncratic re-imagining of Hitler's demise.

The film follows two parallel storylines: A headstrong young Jewess, who having seen the rest of her family executed by an oily Nazi SS colonel, heads for Paris, where she re-emerges as the owner of a movie house, while a battalion of Jewish-American Nazi hunters -- led by an Ozark Mountain-accented Brad Pitt -- join forces with a German actress-turned-undercover agent to bring down the Third Reich.

The film is an almost perfect expression of Tarantino's signature style of storytelling, punctuated with long, undulating conversations that always take us to surprising places, where nearly everyone has a hidden agenda and no one is who they first appear to be. Anyone fascinated by language will get a particular kick out of the film, which is crammed with events that revolve around linguistic twists and turns, from the German SS officer who is fascinated by American slang to the British undercover operative who has learned to speak German because he's a film critic who studied German cinema.

I got on the phone with Tarantino the other day to hear him talk -- and talk (Quentin is quite the talker)  -- about the film's origins, how he ended up casting Brad Pitt and how he finally found a German actor willing to play Hitler. Once Tarantino gets going, it's hard to get him to stop, so we'll have to give him a few days to explain everything. But here's today's chapter: How "Inglourious Basterds" nearly ended up as a 16-hour miniseries. Just keep reading:


On why the film took a decade to come to life:

"When I started writing this in 1998, I had a lot of the same characters who are in the movie now, but I had an entirely different storyline, and it just made the movie too big. I had this whole plot where the Basterds had hooked up with a team of black soldiers who'd been court-martialed and they were going after the Nazis together. My real problem was that I couldn't stop writing. The whole project turned into a behemoth. I finally said to myself -- is this a movie or a novel?

 "So I put it away for a while and then thought about doing it as a 16-hour miniseries. I mapped the whole thing out -- with this scene going here, this scene going there -- and I'd still like to do that someday. But what really kicked me in the shins was when I went out and had dinner with Luc Besson. I started talking about how it could be a miniseries and Luc finally said, 'Quentin, that's OK, but you're one of the few filmmakers who makes me want to go to the movies and now you're telling me I'm going to have wait five years for you to do the miniseries?'

"That made me rethink everything. So I took one more shot at making it a movie and I came up with a whole new story, the part that deals with cinema under the Third Reich and the big movie premiere, and I thought, 'That might work -- we've never seen that before in a movie.' "

On casting German actor Martin Wuttke to play Adolf Hitler:

"I knew I didn't want anyone famous, because the last thing you want is to be thinking 'Oh, there's this famous guy who's playing Hitler.' I met Martin in a casting session and it turned out that he'd done Hitler on stage, in a Brecht play, which many people consider the greatest Hitler performance they've seen. But still, it was only on stage. And I can't say he was enthusiastic. When we met, his first words to me were, 'I'd love to be in your movie, but I'd rather play a schnitzel than play Hitler.'

"So he turned me down. I didn't see him again until his friends convinced him to meet with me one more time. And I'm really thankful for that, because no one else could have done the part as well. Martin was always very conscious of not being too over-the-top, which he wasn't. But he had this great energy. He came at Hitler, right out of the box, on the first day of shooting, being just overwhelming. You know, when I direct actors, I don't call them by their real names, but by their character names. So when I was directing Brad Pitt, I'd call him Aldo, not Brad. So we'd be in the room with this totally terrifying character, and I'd always say, 'OK, mein Fuhrer, here's what I'm going for in this scene.' There was no way I was going to call him Martin."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 11, 2009, 01:37:36 AM
Just found out that the press screening that I am attending got bumped from thursday to tomorrow!!  I'll be watching this thing in 12 hours 

:shock: :shock: :shock: :yabbse-smiley:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 11, 2009, 12:10:43 PM
So jealous of you.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 12, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
Bash for 'Basterds'
Tarantino pic premieres in Hollywood

Monday's "Inglourious Basterds" blowout was a cinema celebration that — aside from nearly everyone being dressed in black — belied the rumors circling about the Weinstein Co.'s financial woes.

Sure, the event was sponsor-laden, but then most preems are these days.

Auteur of the night Quentin Tarantino took particular pleasure in the historic venue for his preem. "I love it when my movies play at the Grauman's Chinese," adding, "Now let's kick some messy ass and get this started, tout de suite."

Later, the "Basterds," including Brad Pitt and Eli Roth, took over the restaurant and pool at the Mondrian Hotel on Sunset Boulevard.

Tarantino, however, was AWOL.

It's a shame he wasn't around to hear the enthusiastic response to his pic.

Fellow helmer Baz Luhrmann was effusive. "It was like he was a great musician playing his instrument at its best," he said. "The film was so smart and clever, and so entertaining."

Producer Pilar Savone said she was happy to finally screen the movie Stateside, noting "Basterds" preems have already been held in France, Germany, Canada and Australia. She also confirmed some of the changes made to the film since its Cannes unveiling in May.

"We took little scoops out here and there and added one scene," Savone said.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 14, 2009, 09:04:14 PM
Behind The Scenes:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inglourious-basterds.html?showVideo=1
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on August 14, 2009, 11:41:06 PM
Just found out that the press screening that I am attending got bumped from thursday to tomorrow!!  I'll be watching this thing in 12 hours 

:shock: :shock: :shock: :yabbse-smiley:
review?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: children with angels on August 15, 2009, 05:09:30 AM
In the U.S. are they taking the word Basterds off the public posters on the subway, etc.? Because they are in the U.K., for some reason. To begin with I assumed it was a marketing ploy, but now I'm wondering whether it's just to do with the naughty word factor (which would be ridiculous, considering it's not correctly spelled: sort of like bleeping out a bleep).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 15, 2009, 05:31:31 AM
OK

First of all, I loved it.  Having read the script in advance, I knew going in that I was already very into what Tarantino was trying to do with this movie, and that if he didn't make any major mistakes this was going to be one of my favorites.  So take that for what it's worth.  And it turns out that Tarantino didn't make any major mistakes, and that this is indeed one of my favorite movies. 

Quentin's 6th movie (or so) is a crazy, messy, exhilarating 5 act play that climaxes with the emotional high point of his body of work, and should satisfy even the Kill Bill and Death Proof haters while continuing to evolve in the direction he's been going in with his post-millennial work.  It is definitely closest to Kill Bill in style and tone of all QT's previous works, in that hyperkenetic super-duper-cinema kind of way.  But the mix-master homaging seems to be come more naturally, and while he's still working in movie fantasyland, the real spectre of WW2 adds a certain weight to the proceedings that seemed to be missing from KB or most viewers.  I think this is the closest Quentin will ever come to making a "Fantasy" movie, and I think in a way this is his Lord of the Rings.  While the scenes of violence ring shockingly and hilariously true, the rest of the film exists on a purely poetic movie-movie level of theatricality that is for the most part incredibly executed, in particular by another incredible collection of performers.

Christopher Waltz's Hans Landa is simply one of the great movie villains and all the praise he's received is much deserved.  Brad Pitt is hilarious.  Melanie Laurent is very good, as is Diane Kruger.  A couple of the Basterds are barely seen and the others barely have any screen time  but when they get it they all leave a great impression.  The German basterd Stigitz is an instantly classic character, and against all odds Eli Roth's Donny Donowitz is even more classic.  I really think all the haters here will be surprised how much the warm up to this guy on screen, despite his relatively limited screentime.  There are half a dozen other great characters/performers who all have at least one great scene in this truly ensemble piece who I would love to give props to but I've got to go to bed so can't be bothered to look up their names or even type much more of this review. 

From first to last frame this is a flashy, funny, fantastical war story that's so satisfying it makes all other movies look pathetic by comparison.  I dig it.   


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on August 15, 2009, 10:26:41 AM
(http://lupusranting.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/i_want_to_believe.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on August 15, 2009, 10:38:46 AM
hahaha exact same feeling here mod
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 15, 2009, 11:23:14 AM
In the U.S. are they taking the word Basterds off the public posters on the subway, etc.? Because they are in the U.K., for some reason. To begin with I assumed it was a marketing ploy, but now I'm wondering whether it's just to do with the naughty word factor (which would be ridiculous, considering it's not correctly spelled: sort of like bleeping out a bleep).

Oh, those Brits and their proper English.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 15, 2009, 01:43:12 PM
going to see it on wed. with QT in the crowd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 16, 2009, 09:51:47 PM
Quentin Tarantino's 'Basterds' is a glorious mash-up
To appreciate the director's World War II flick starring Brad Pitt, a knowledge of Sergio Leone, Ernst Lubitsch, Leni Riefenstahl and G.W. Pabst doesn't hurt.
Source: Los Angeles Times

Quentin Tarantino has long considered the original "Inglorious Bastards" to be his "own private little movie." So when he bought the rights to Enzo Castellari's little-seen 1978 Italian World War II flick -- later retitled "G.I. Bro" to capitalize on football-star-turned-actor Fred Williamson's presence -- the assumption was that Tarantino aimed to create another cinematic collage, similar to what he did with his two "Kill Bill" movies, martial-arts mash-ups that wore their references on their kimono sleeves.

But Tarantino's curiously spelled World War II revenge fantasia, "Inglourious Basterds," which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival and arrives in theaters Friday, is full of surprises. Instead of following men on a mission, à la "The Dirty Dozen," "Basterds" offers a singular vision, one that testifies to Tarantino's evangelical belief in the power of film.

The film focuses equally on three main characters -- a Nazi officer known as the Jew Hunter (Christoph Waltz), a beautiful Parisian cinema owner (Mélanie Laurent) who receives an unexpected opportunity to avenge her family's death, and the good-ol'-boy leader (Brad Pitt) of a Nazi-scalping band of Jewish American soldiers known as "The Basterds."

The trio come together in an explosive climax that might be considered over-the-top -- at least to those who haven't voraciously watched the war-era genre movies that inspired Tarantino while writing "Basterds."

"The idea that cinema can bring down the Third Reich is a really juicy metaphor that you can do a lot with," Tarantino says. "On the other hand, it's not a metaphor at all. It's the reality of the movie."

"Basterds," then, isn't Tarantino remaking a genre. It's Tarantino remaking World War II in five original chapters. To understand the cinematic context and filmic references behind those episodes, we offer our own chapter-by-chapter guide to "Inglourious Basterds." (Warning: Specific scenes and plot points will be discussed, but no spoilers. We promise.)

CHAPTER 1 Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France ...

"Basterds" begins with a protracted confrontation between Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Waltz) and a French dairy farmer he suspects of hiding a missing Jewish family. The lengthy stand-off is pure Sergio Leone -- the quiet menace of the long shots of sparse landscapes, the tense, back-and-forth exchanges between predator and prey, not to mention the extensive use of Leone composer Ennio Morricone's music.

"I just had in my mind the way 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' used the Civil War, that it'd be really cool to do a spaghetti western using World War II iconography," Tarantino says. "The spaghetti western landscape in movies is a no-man's land. Life is cheap. Death can be right around the corner. No room for tears. And when death happens, there's some sort of sardonic quip about it."

"It's a brutal landscape," Tarantino adds, "and also a pretty good description of what life was like in Nazi-occupied France at that time."

Tarantino shoots down the rumor that he had contacted Morricone to provide an original score.

"If I'm going to have Morricone score a movie for me, I'm going to do it like Leone," he says, referring to how Leone had Morricone write the music before he began filming. "That would be great, but it would have been impossible in this case. We were already leaving the gate."

CHAPTER 2 The Basterds and the bastard

Tarantino's Hitler (Martin Wuttke), introduced in juxtaposition with meeting the Basterds crew, recalls the wartime movie practice of using Hitler's grotesque image as an object worthy of ridicule and scorn. It's not quite Charlie Chaplin in "The Great Dictator." It's more like the fool seen bumbling around in the 1945 Bugs Bunny cartoon "Herr Meets Hare" or the kidnapped Führer in the 1942 no-budget propaganda movie "Hitler: Dead or Alive."

"Three gangsters go to Germany after an industrialist puts out a million-dollar contract on Hitler," Tarantino says, explaining the "Dead or Alive" plot. "They get him, but the S.S. surrounds them. So they take off Hitler's uniform, shave off his mustache and cut off that big lock of greasy hair that hangs in his face. When the Nazis burst in, he doesn't look like Hitler any more." The Nazis proceed to beat him mercilessly. "It's unbelievable! They're giving him the old Nazi backhand and he's just ranting and raving."

Tarantino says he isn't always using Hitler for laughs, though he loves movies like Ernst Lubitsch's "To Be or Not to Be," which opens with what appears to be the alarming sight of Hitler standing in the middle of Warsaw in August 1939, days before the war began.

"The part of 'Basterds' that always struck me as very 'To Be or Not to Be' is the lunch scene with [Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph] Goebbels," Tarantino says. "Just the Old World sophistication of it. There's a Lubitsch touch there. At least, I went for it, anyway. It feels like a Nazi version of a scene from 'L.A. Story.' "

CHAPTER 3 Leni and Max meet-cute

Joining Goebbels at that lunch is Shosanna Dreyfus (Laurent). First seen in the film's opening chapter, Shosanna now owns a cinema in Paris. One night, as she's changing the titles on the marquee, she meets Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), a war hero turned movie star, beating Audie Murphy to the punch.

Safe to say, theirs is the first-ever movie meet-cute where the topic at hand is a debate over the filmmaking merits of Leni Riefenstahl and Max Linder.

The French-born Linder was a star of European silent film, nearly Chaplin's equal as a comedian. Riefenstahl began as the superwoman of German mountain climbing movies, but is best known for directing history's most famous propaganda film, "Triumph of the Will."

"Basterds" shows more than a passing interest in moviemaking in the Third Reich, with Goebbels, its leader, seen aspiring to be like Hollywood producing icon David O. Selznick.

"Riefenstahl and Goebbels despised each other," Tarantino says. "He was in charge of every single person in the German film industry with the sole exception of her."

"We shot on the same stages that Goebbels used during the war," Tarantino adds. "It felt weird, but cool, too, with the way we were rewriting history."

CHAPTER 4 Film commando receives blue ribbon in Pabst

Tarantino has often said that if he wasn't making movies, he'd be writing about them. In "Basterds," he goes so far as to write one into the mission. Described in the script as a "young George Sanders type," Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) is a British commando (not to mention a self-professed expert on the subtext of German director G.W. Pabst), very loosely modeled on writer Graham Greene.

"It's a little bit of a gimmick, but it makes sense," Tarantino says. "As an expert on German cinema, this guy could sell himself at a Nazi film event."

CHAPTER 5 Saboteurs and 'Sabotage'

The movie's three main protagonists come together at the premiere of "Nation's Pride," the propaganda movie starring Zoller. Shosanna sees the event, held at her theater, as a chance to exact revenge and comes up with a plan straight out of Alfred Hitchcock's 1936 thriller, "Sabotage."

"I learned from that movie that 35- millimeter nitrate film can be a powerful weapon," Tarantino says. "I've always wanted to use that idea."

One of the key lines of "Basterds," spoken by Pitt, is: "I think this just might be my masterpiece."

Is the actor voicing thoughts of his director?

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone asks about that," Tarantino says, laughing. "Well, what can I say? No one has ever accused me of lacking confidence."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eli Roth barely survives acting in Quentin Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds'
The 'Hostel' writer-director costars in his friend's WWII action picture.
By Chris Lee; Los Angeles Times

The scene takes place toward the end of Quentin Tarantino's rollicking World War II action-drama "Inglourious Basterds." As fire engulfs a Parisian movie theater packed with German military commanders, pandemonium ensues, diverting attention from the real action: a heart-pounding confrontation between a crack team of Nazi-terrorizing Jewish covert operatives (the so-called "Basterds") and the Third Reich's top brass.

It's vintage Tarantino, hyper-real ultra-violence that arrives as a kind of catharsis after more than two hours of intricate plot twists and baroque dialogue as the Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine ( Brad Pitt), do their best to destabilize German forces in Nazi-occupied France through their unique brand of terrorism: collecting the scalps of Hitler's troops.

But for cast member Eli Roth -- who portrays a merciless, baseball-bat-wielding Nazi killer dubbed "the Bear Jew" by fear-stricken German soldiers in the film, which opens Friday -- the scene is memorable for a different reason.

"We almost got incinerated," Roth exclaimed during a recent outing to Hollywood's Amoeba Music, where he was riffling through racks of DVDs. "The fire comes up. They thought it was going to burn at 400 degrees centigrade and it burned at 1,200. That's like 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit! You see the swastika fall. It was not supposed to. It was fastened with steel cables; the steel liquefied."

He paused midstory, however, discovering used copies of "Hostel" and "Hostel: Part II," the films that were produced by his friend and biggest booster Tarantino and cemented Roth's reputation as one of horror moviedom's most extreme, successful (and reviled) auteurs. Roth's primary function is to make films, you see, not act in them (his output as a writer-director-producer even spawned its own sub-category in the genre: "torture porn"). His role in "Inglourious Basterds," however, is more than simply a glorified cameo. It represents a kind of creative apotheosis in his relationship with his mentor, Tarantino -- a culminant experience that drew upon Roth's skill set as a filmmaker, his hometown and his religion.

Marveling at his movies' price tags -- "12 bucks, what a deal!" -- Roth continued his on-set story, explaining that the actor who shared the scene with him, Omar Doom, "had to go to the hospital. I was on the ground, my feet were up, I had ice packs all over me. . . . The fire department said another 10 or 15 seconds, the structure would have collapsed."

In other words, torture porn's poster boy -- the filmmaker who committed to celluloid such images as a cheerleader jumping into the air and doing a split onto a gigantic hunting knife -- and the guy who ruthlessly bludgeons, bombs and machine guns every Nazi in his path in "Inglourious Basterds" finally got to taste the pain himself.

"I got torched," Roth said solemnly.

A controversial career

Although Roth will tell you he relishes being a provocateur and enjoys pushing people's buttons ("I upset people so much they had to create a new genre for me!"), spend an afternoon with him and it becomes abundantly clear that he's done some thinking about the slagging he's taken from detractors who say his movies are misogynistic and desensitize viewers to violence, ultimately dismissing Roth as a moronic frat boy.

"When people direct insults at me, I can take it," the Boston-born New York University grad (and son of a Harvard professor) said later, sipping a protein shake (with extra glutamine). "I'm an easy target. But I know where my stuff comes from.

"I have a strong art-history background," he continued. "I could discuss all these painters I grew up looking at, authors I read. How there's far more violence in those works. Why aren't you upset about that? Instead they write about me, 'Eli Roth, that fraternity boy.' People can't get past the blood."

Most injurious to Roth -- an amiable, fast-talking workout buff who was voted Men's Fitness magazine's "most fit director" in 2006, but who, for the record, has attended precisely one frat party in his life -- is the perception in indie movie circles that he somehow glad-handed his way into Hollywood's big leagues. "I've been making movies since I was 8, working on movies since I was 18, didn't make my first movie until I was 30 and didn't even have money until I was 33," he said. "Then people are like, 'He got it easy.' It's so much easier to think I cheated than to think I worked my ass off."

Roth's career began to take off in 2002. After toiling in lowly movie production jobs for a decade, he cobbled together $1.5 million to shoot his debut feature, "Cabin Fever," a canny horror flick about a group of kids stricken with a flesh-eating virus while vacationing in the woods.

The film was a hit on the festival circuit. When Roth screened it at the Los Angeles Film Festival in 2003, he showed up to the premiere drenched in fake blood in costume as Ichi the Killer, hero of an obscure Japanese crime torture film of the same name. "Cabin Fever's" crudely compelling aesthetic, as well as the director's eagerness for self-promotion, were enough to impress Tarantino, who invited Roth to his house after seeing it. "I was like P.T. Barnum," Roth recalled. "And Quentin loved that about me. He saw a lot of me in him."

"Cabin Fever" went on to take in $30 million worldwide and an additional $70 million on DVD. Roth was inundated with scripts and considered directing a big-screen adaptation of "Baywatch" (to have been titled "Baywatch 3-Double-D"), among other projects, before he told Tarantino a movie idea he had kicking around about a youth hostel in a foreign country where American tourists are tortured and murdered as sport.

The idea galvanized Tarantino. He signed on as an executive producer on 2006's "Hostel," which was billed as "Quentin Tarantino Presents," helping to propel the $4-million, independently financed film's worldwide box office to more than $80 million.

That was the start of a beautiful friendship. As Tarantino was working on the script for "Inglourious Basterds," he would enact scenes for Roth. Admiring his small turn in front of the camera in "Cabin Fever" -- Roth had to fill in for another actor who dropped out -- Tarantino cast him in a cameo in "Death Proof," the segment he directed in the '70s exploitation homage "Grindhouse." (Roth also directed a now infamous trailer for a faux-horror movie that appears within the movie, "Thanksgiving.")

"That became my audition for 'Inglourious Basterds,' " Roth recalled.

Getting into character

To hear it from Tarantino, however, Roth was not his first choice for the part of Donny Donowitz, a rage- fueled, Boston-born Jewish-American who makes his displeasure toward Nazis known in the movie primarily by dint of a Louisville Slugger to the cranium. "I had actually somebody else in mind," Tarantino said. "So I was writing for a real Boston guy. And I got to know Eli right before I started writing the script again. Eli is from Boston, and he's kind of perfect casting. In 'Death Proof,' he did my dialogue as good as anybody else in the movie. And he loved the idea of trying his hand at acting and really being a character."

But before offering him the part, Tarantino urged Roth to start thinking about how to embody Donowitz as a "360-degree character." Roth agreed and decided to clear his schedule to remain in Germany with Tarantino for the duration of "Basterds' " six-month shoot, including Christmas and New Year's Eve when nearly everyone else went home for the holidays.

"I wanted to be there not just as an actor but as a crew member and as a friend," Roth said. "It was a great feeling to help him out and pay him back for all he's done for me."

As Roth tells it, he also became Tarantino's "Jewish fact-checker" on the project almost by default. Roth's input ultimately enabled the writer-director to more imbue "Basterds' " resolution with a higher degree of psychological realism. This began with Roth inviting his mentor to his family home for Passover Seder in 2007, Tarantino's first. "We got into these long, philosophical discussions about the Holocaust and slavery, oppression," Roth said. "He asked me, 'Would a Jew give absolution to a Nazi at the end of the war?' I said, 'Never.' It's purely a Christian construct. It's not that we don't forgive; we don't forget. Being Jewish is to remember. If I had the chance, I would kill every one of those [Nazis]."

He also persuaded Tarantino to let him direct yet another movie-within-a-movie, the Nazi propaganda film called "Nation's Pride" that follows the exploits of a German army sniper who is key to the plot of "Inglourious Basterds." Tarantino has historically avoided using a second-unit director and was initially reluctant. But he wanted to finish the movie in time to submit it for the Cannes Film Festival. So he loaned Roth the use of "Basterds" cast member Daniel Brühl, and Roth cajoled Tarantino into allotting him many more resources than the writer-director had planned to use himself: an eight-man crew, five stuntmen and 20 extras. Naturally, a seven-minute director's cut of "Nation's Pride" will be included on the DVD.

The results are typically over-the-top, Roth-style war gore: Brühl's character is heroically depicted mowing down hundreds of Allied troops from the safety of a bell tower and carving an ornate swastika onto the floorboards to buck up his courage. "I had so much fun making it," Roth exclaimed. "But my grandparents must be turning over in their graves."

He invited his parents to Berlin to take part in filming a scene in which 300 extras dressed in full Nazi regalia attend a screening of "Nation's Pride." Never mind that many of his relatives were killed in the Holocaust -- or that his mother and father had previously sworn never to set foot in Germany. Upon landing in Berlin, Roth's parents visited the Holocaust Museum and changed their stance on modern Germany. On set later in the day, they displayed a willingness to enter into the film's historical-revisionist fantasy, posing for photos with the actor who portrays Hitler in "Basterds."

With its shocker ending and high Nazi body count, "Inglourious Basterds" certainly helped Roth live out the stuff of so many Hebrew-school revenge fantasies. And with Tarantino's encouragement, Roth plans to earmark acting parts for himself in any future films he makes.

"Quentin really pushed me [as an actor]. He said, 'Now you can write parts for yourself because you went toe to toe with the best. You acted with Brad Pitt and for me and you held the screen. You could have another career if you want,' " Roth said with characteristic self-satisfaction, adding that "Inglourious Basterds" remains one of his personal and professional high points.

"I almost died shooting it. But it's one of the most satisfying, orgasmic things I've done in my life," he said. "It's kosher porn."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 17, 2009, 10:19:19 AM
Why we're writing about Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds
Source: SciFi Wire

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, the World War II action satire Inglourious Basterds, doesn't seem like something we should write about, but it is: As the film unwinds, it becomes apparent that it's all taking place in an alternate universe. Or, as star Eli Roth calls it, it's a "fairy tale." With Nazis.

We won't spoil which major events are different in Tarantino's world, but when you notice events diverging from reality, the director has a solid explanation.

"You can definitely say, 'Look, there is a point in the movie that history went one way, and we go another,'" Tarantino said in a group interview last week in Beverly Hills, Calif. "Now, where I'm coming from that is basically my characters changed the course of the war. Now, that didn't happen because my characters didn't exist, but if they had existed, everything that happens is fairly plausible." (Spoilers ahead!)

Tarantino's "Basterds" are a group of Jewish soldiers who hunt Nazis. He also invented Nazi war hero Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a sniper who killed 300 Allied troops with his rifle while holed up in a lighthouse. The Nazis made the propaganda film Nation's Pride in his honor, starring Zoller himself. Both Hitler and Goebbels themselves attend the film's premiere.

The writer/director came up with this plotline after scrapping his first draft. "I had a different story, and it was just too big," Tarantino said. "It was just too big. I had the opposite of writer's block. I couldn't stop writing. I couldn't shut my brain off, and I literally said, 'OK, I'm going to take out this story because that's the thing that derailed me way back when,' and I came up with a new story. The new story is the one about Frederick Zoller, about him being this German Audie Murphy character. He gets a movie about him, and the mission would be the blowing up of the actual premiere."

Were Hitler and Goebbels actually in attendance at the premiere of Nation's Pride, had the film or its subject actually existed, perhaps the Allies would have sent some "Inglourious Basterds" after the Nazi gala. Tarantino's filmmaker friend and the film's co-star, Eli Roth, shared his perspective on the alternate history.

"It's a work of fiction, and he's not constrained by the rules of history," Roth said in an exclusive interview later that day. "By making the movie not historically accurate but making the characters honest and accurate, by having them speak in their native tongue, the characters are much more human and much more relatable. In the story, it leaves you free to draw your own conclusions, to draw your own associations to it. Quentin's an artist. He says this is a fairy tale. 'Once upon a time,' and that's it. It's so much fun. It allows you to really just enjoy it and experience that and get that thrill of experiencing that. It's something that everybody's thought of."

Hindsight indeed gives victims of tragedy thoughts about how they could have thwarted such events. Filmmakers are no exception.

"It made me think about after September 11th, how I had fantasies of going back in time and being on those planes and killing those hijackers," Roth continued. "I think that Quentin has actually tapped into something very, very real, which is this human wish to go back in time and sacrifice yourself to stop evil and save thousands. That's a very, very real thing."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 17, 2009, 10:26:15 AM
"It made me think about after September 11th, how I had fantasies of going back in time and being on those planes and killing those hijackers," Roth continued. "I think that Quentin has actually tapped into something very, very real, which is this human wish to go back in time and sacrifice yourself to stop evil and save thousands. That's a very, very real thing."

Eli Roth wants to be a time traveling Rambo. They need to sop giving this guy press. He's proven himself to be one of the biggest idiots working in da biz. Everytime he opens his mouth and eyebrows major lulz follow.

STFU, Eli.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on August 17, 2009, 01:42:53 PM
"It made me think about after September 11th, how I had fantasies of going back in time and being on those planes and killing those hijackers," Roth continued. "I think that Quentin has actually tapped into something very, very real, which is this human wish to go back in time and sacrifice yourself to stop evil and save thousands. That's a very, very real thing."

Eli Roth wants to be a time traveling Rambo. They need to sop giving this guy press. He's proven himself to be one of the biggest idiots working in da biz. Everytime he opens his mouth and eyebrows major lulz follow.

STFU, Eli.

I feel that psycho-linguisticaly, by saying so often and repeatedly that this is ''a very very very real real real very real'' thing, it shows that he's not sure if it's real so he inconsciently feels he has to put emphasis on how real it is or else no one will believe it. I don't know if I'm clear but you get the idea. It happens to a lot of people, same pattern as: ''[whatever exagaration/uncertainty]. I swear to god it's true!'' before anyone doubts or anything.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on August 17, 2009, 10:00:46 PM
Seeing this tomorrow with eli roth in attendance
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on August 18, 2009, 03:23:42 PM
Seeing this tomorrow with eli roth in attendance


did you get the pistol that stefen Fed Ex'd to you?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on August 19, 2009, 02:01:10 AM
So i liked it.

It's very good, and there are enough moments here where i thought this could be something special, and something that could be resonate emotionally (the first chapter for example), but alas this is not the film Quentin wanted to make, and whether or not this is a good/bad thing can be discussed later. The point is this movie is a fucking blast. Once you finally get over whatever you thought this was going to be (or wanted it to be) and just go along into Tarantino's world it's so much fun. The cast is nothing short of phenomenal, especially Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent, and yes even Eli Roth doesn't stink up the joint here. Brad Pitt is absolutely hilarious and Mike Myers is...Mike Myers, but funny this time. When the acting and the storytelling is this good its damn hard not to have fun at least. My advice would be to take off your critic hats for the first time around, then analyze and deconstruct  on later viewings. This is just too good of a time at the movies not to enjoy at least once. The ending is absolutely ridiculous though.

And actually Eli Roth isn't as big of a douchebag as he makes himself out to be in interviews. He was actually a pretty nice, cool, sincere guy. He answered everyone's dumb question with a good funny story, and he seems to know his shit. But i guess this was because i was sitting far away and didn't have to look at his stupid fucking grin all night.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 20, 2009, 12:33:00 AM
Quentin Tarantino's 'Inglorious Basterds' is about what could have happened
He admits he is no historian, so story comes well before fact.
Source: Los Angeles Times

Ten years ago, when Quentin Tarantino first sat down to write his own WWII extravaganza, "Inglourious Basterds," a film he referred to as his "men on a mission" saga, he needed to come up with two story staples: a cool group of renegades and a mission. For his rough-edged warriors, he quickly settled on Jewish soldiers -- not the most obvious choice, given the legacy of Jerry Seinfeld and Woody Allen -- and for his mission, nothing less than revising history in his update of such war film staples as "The Dirty Dozen" and "The Guns of Navarone," "Where Eagles Dare" and "The Great Escape." ¶ With Jews as his tough guys, there would be a certain poetic justice. ¶ "Most of these young soldiers would have been second-generation Americans," Tarantino says. "And they probably still had family in Poland or Czechoslovakia. It was kind of a metaphor of their European grandmothers and grandfathers and aunts and uncles being unable to fight against the Huns. But these were their American sons. Where they had to endure pain, we can inflict it."

On a recent summer day, Tarantino delivers his patter with relish and brio. The 46-year-old director looks disarmingly chipper despite having returned only hours before from barnstorming Europe and Australia promoting the film in which his band of Nazi killers -- the "Basterds" -- mete out justice with bloody Tarantino-style poetics. Dressed in a black and white bowling shirt, he sits on an outdoor swing at his Hollywood Hills home -- a stunning view of his hometown stretched before him. Yet, all that occupies his fertile imagination at the moment are his "Basterds," who maraud through Europe killing and scalping Nazis.

The squad is led by a dashing Southerner, Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who Tarantino figures cut his teeth on baiting the Klan and who takes pride in his partial Apache heritage, and also includes such idiosyncratic soldiers as Sgt. Donnie Donowitz, a.k.a. "The Bear Jew," who bashes in Nazi heads with his baseball bat and is played by Tarantino buddy and torture-porn director Eli Roth. Ever the equal-opportunity avenger, Tarantino's secondary story line follows Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a Jewish woman who witnessed her family's murder by the Nazis only to reemerge as a movie-theater proprietress with a plan to wreak revenge on the entire German high command.

As it happens, Tarantino isn't Jewish. But why should that make any difference? "I don't think there has to be a reason to have empathy or to live in somebody else's shoes. Don't we all wear the same shoes at one end of the spectrum or the other?"

This said, he infused the Basterds with some old-school Native American fighting tactics, pointing out he is a quarter Cherokee. "I'm actually equating the Jews in this situation, in World War II, with the Indians," he says. "It's not nothing that they're doing Apache resistance. It's not about dying. It's about killing. They ambush their guys. They trick the enemy. It's not a straight-up fight. And then they go and they just completely desecrate the bodies to win a psychological war."

"Inglourious Basterds," with its twisted spelling signaling that it is not an actual remake of director Enzo Castellari's 1978 Italian World War II film "Inglorious Bastards" -- a Tarantino favorite -- is gory yet funny, a cathartic romp through a history significantly rewritten by one of Hollywood's most famous autodidacts, with an almost total recall of cinematic images and story lines.

Tarantino didn't study the actual war much. He didn't bone up on History Channel documentaries or read up on the plight of the Jews. The only research he did was to learn a little bit about barbering because Donowitz was supposed to be a barber -- although, Roth did take it upon himself to invite Tarantino to his first Passover.

Research isn't Tarantino's métier. He basically picks a genre and then let's his imagination roam. "I could have decided to do a western, but this time I decided to do a World War II movie. The sitting down -- the thing that makes me start contemplating it -- usually is that simple," he says. "The fun part isn't obviously to do it like the way it's been done before. It's to imagine what I'll do with it."

But sometimes he gets overwhelmed with abundance, with too many characters and plots climbing out of his head. "Inglourious Basterds" was meant to be his first original screenplay after his Oscar-winning "Pulp Fiction." It didn't quite work out that way. "I was understandably precious," Tarantino explains. "It just got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. I had the opposite of writer's block. I couldn't shut my brain off." He considered turning his growing epic into a multi-part miniseries but was talked out of that by a chance luncheon with director Luc Besson. Finally, in frustration, he just swept all the various piles of pages and notes for "Inglourious Basterds" into a box to make room for "Kill Bill," a different sort of deadly arts epic that grew so big it was turned into two movies.

In the intervening 10 years, he'd occasionally sort the papers in the "Basterds" box, until in 2008, he hauled out the project again and wrote the current incarnation in a mere six months.

It is part of the Tarantino lore that he started his career as a maniacal video-store clerk but before that, he was an acting student who wrote scenes to provide himself with material for classes. He was in his late teens and every week he'd take a three-hour bus ride from his home in Manhattan Beach to an acting class in Toluca Lake, where he told everyone he was 21 so he could go out drinking with his classmates afterward.

"Back then, it wasn't so easy to get scripts," real movie scripts for class, he says. "One of the prerequisites of being a writer, or at least a good writer, is you have to have a really good memory. That's part of your job, to remember things that people say. So, I would go see a movie and I'd just remember the scene. I'd go home right after I saw it or on the bus maybe going home and I'd write the scene down from memory and anything I didn't remember, I filled in the blanks. Then just little by little by little, I started filling in more and more and more blanks without even realizing it. My scenes were legendary; they were literally just pieces of paper and chicken scratch and misspelled words and I'd hand it to some baffled student I'd have in my acting class."

The jig was up, however, when one day he scribbled down scenes from the teleplay of "Marty" (later an Oscar-winning movie) by Paddy Chayefsky and handed it to a close friend who actually had the published screenplay; they compared the two to discover several added Tarantino monologues. "I go, 'Oh, sorry' and he goes, 'phffff, don't be sorry, it's better than Paddy Chayefsky.' Not that I'm saying that it was better than Paddy Chayefsky, but the thing is . . . that was the very first time anybody had complimented me on something I didn't take seriously. I really thought it was worth something. From that day on, I kind of started writing a little bit more seriously."

With "Inglourious Basterds," Tarantino takes liberty again not with a famed writer but with actual history. As he points out, "my characters don't know they're part of history. There is nothing they can't do as far as they're concerned, right?" They just get done what they need to get done. And in so doing, the course of world events is completely changed. So what, Tarantino says with a laugh, "It only has to be plausible."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 20, 2009, 01:15:54 AM
it was okay.  lotsa good drama - good tension and good acting.  no hero to really like or properly get behind though, and it's the first time I can say that about a tarantino film.  I still liked it though.  I don't think he can make a bad movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 20, 2009, 04:24:13 PM
full marks from Ebert:

"After I saw “Inglourious Basterds” at Cannes, although I was writing a daily blog, I resisted giving an immediate opinion about it. I knew Tarantino had made a considerable film, but I wanted it to settle, and to see it again. I’m glad I did. Like a lot of real movies, you relish it more the next time. Immediately after “Pulp Fiction” played at Cannes, QT asked me what I thought. “It’s either the best film of the year or the worst film,” I said. I hardly knew what the hell had happened to me. The answer was: the best film. Tarantino films have a way of growing on you. It’s not enough to see them once."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/REVIEWS/908199995


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on August 21, 2009, 02:12:30 AM
i hated death proof, and i've since become impartial to kb2, so my expectations weren't very high. unexpectedly, i got goose bumps during the opening credits and from the very first shot i was reminded why i loved this guy so much. he’s so vividly theatrical. the music and the visuals are interplayed masterfully. the actors are all hyperbolically immersed in their characters. the action/violence, which is far too sparse, is invigorating. it's powerful, self-indulgent cinema.

the film drags a lot, unfortunately. there's far too much dialogue. but it's never boring and there's nearly always a pay-off. tarantino's ego is far from excusable and i wouldn't say his writing is especially intelligent anymore but i can't imagine any film buff not finding some degree of entertainment here. since jb, tarantino has transformed himself so much as a director that the decline in his writing hasn't really impacted the quality of his films for me. though this is no doubt his best screenplay since jb.

spoilers!
my biggest complaint was with the story. i didn't like how the two plots intertwine without any real pay-off. the outcome of the war isn't determined by the basterds and the hot jew, but rather it’s either/or changing the course of history. that's a bit underwhelming. also the film relies too much on tension. it’s great tension but the beat of these scenes becomes a bit repetitive. other than that, it's a winner. :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 21, 2009, 05:16:37 AM
This is his masterpiece and yet not my favorite (that goes to PULP FICTION) but man what a fucking ride.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on August 21, 2009, 11:27:33 AM
I don't think he can make a bad movie.

Yes. I watched Death Proof again a couple of nights ago. That one is supposed to be his lowest point and it's still a pretty entertaning, funny, idiosincratic slasher movie. There's plenty of love for cinema in each of his films. Even his guest directed scene in Sin City has that special touch.

Also, he's been getting it pretty bad from the press lately. It seems everyone is rooting for the guy to fail, be humiliated and say I'm sorry. Some of the articles I've read go as far as to mock the way he looks or the way he talks as "creepy". That's just uncalled for and stupid, way more stupid than any ego he may have. It made me root for him to score a home run again, which he has done pretty much each time.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 21, 2009, 11:35:43 AM
I listened to him on Elvis Mitchel's podcast and I can't help but love the guy even if I don't want to. Hearing him talk about movies live really is infectious. Reading him talking about movies in print makes him sound pompous, egomaniacal, and jerk-offy but when you hear him speak in his voice and mannerisms it really comes off different. Exuberant even.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on August 21, 2009, 12:43:18 PM
He has an enthusiasm that gets killed by attitudes found close by. Beware.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 21, 2009, 03:47:17 PM
After reading the script last year, I had some reservations about how the film would turn out. But the end result on screen turned out much better than I anticipated. Heavily Leone influenced. There are a couple of scenes where the tension just builds and is so thick. And that's where the strength of the film lies - the tension. And on the flip side, there are some great comedic moments too. But I felt I got to know the characters better in the script. However, storywise, it never flails. The great mix of dialogue and acting keeps your attention, especially when haivng to look back and forth between reading subtitles and watching reactions. I would put it the best of his post-Jackie Brown films.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 21, 2009, 07:44:32 PM
Tarantino digs into record collection for "Basterds"

LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - It's the critical night for the heroine of your comedic-noir-World War II film, the evening when she unspools her plan to set a lethal blaze. As the director, the question is, "What song do you play as she glams herself up for the night?" For Quentin Tarantino, the answer was obvious, and it elicited gasps and laughter from filmgoers at a recent screening: the era-inappropriate but lyrically astute "Cat People (Putting Out the Fire)" by David Bowie.

Tarantino's latest film, "Inglourious Basterds," opened Friday, three days after its accompanying soundtrack arrived on Warner Bros. Records. Following the pattern established with his previous movies, including "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill: Vol. 1," Tarantino uses an off-kilter mix of Ennio Morricone, Ray Charles and Elmer Bernstein, among others, as musical genres to underscore the mayhem onscreen.

Billboard: You have some wild music in "Inglourious Basterds." How did you put it all together?

Quentin Tarantino: Part of my process when I'm making a movie is to just dive into my record collection. What I'm looking for is the rhythm of the movie or the beat of the movie. In the case of, say, "Jackie Brown," that's '70s soul. I'm finding pieces, and that keeps inspiring me to make the movie, actually.

Billboard: Do you write scenes specifically for particular pieces of music?

Tarantino: I am always looking for some cool song that I could use as a big set piece. I'll finish work and I'll go into my record room and I'll put on some song, and literally, I can see it on the screen. I can project myself into a movie theater and I'm watching the scene onscreen and I'm hearing the music and I'm imagining an audience: either an audience of people I know who are digging it or an audience of people I don't know who are digging it -- they're always digging it. (laughs) And it keeps reminding me that I'm making a movie.

Billboard: Talk a little more about your record room.

Tarantino: My record room is set aside pretty much for vinyl. I have CDs, but they're lying around. Any CD I like, I have to buy it three times because I have no one place to put it. It's like a sock, it just gets eaten up by the laundry. In the house that I bought, connected to the bedroom was a little nursery room -- like if you had a newborn and you had them there close to you. I don't have that, so I literally turned it into what looks like a record store. I created bins that are in there, and there are a couple artists I have there by themselves -- but everybody else is broken down by decades, and then all the subgenres that would happen inside those decades.

Billboard: That's really anal-retentive.

Tarantino: It's like a record store! (laughs) In the '60s, there's like a psychedelic section, and then British Invasion, and stuff like that. The '70s would have soul as well, and this or that or the other. But the biggest section, since I've been collecting them since I was a kid, is my soundtrack section. And in the soundtrack section, I go from normal films from A to Z, but then I have certain subgenres that are particularly unique in their music: spaghetti Westerns, a blaxploitation section, a spy movie section and then a motorcycle movie section.

Billboard: Is it easy for you to get the rights for these songs?

Tarantino: It's actually quite easy to get the rights now, because I'll use music that some people haven't heard that much before. Then after my movie comes out, it seems like every commercial in the world buys it. They can double or triple and quadruple their income just by the exposure the movie gets it. That 5.6.7.8's song, "Woo Hoo" (from "Kill Bill: Vol. 1"), seemed like it was on every commercial for a long time.

Billboard: Talk about some of the specifics from "Inglourious Basterds." What was behind the Bowie song?

Tarantino: I've always loved that song and I was always disappointed at how (director) Paul Schrader used it in "Cat People," because he didn't use it -- he just threw it in the closing credits. And I remember back then, when "Cat People" came out, going, "Man, if I had that song, I'd build a 20-minute scene around it. I wouldn't throw it away in the closing credits." So I did. (laughs)

It would be easy enough for me to hire somebody to write "The Ballad of Shosanna" (the heroine of "Inglourious Basterds") if I wanted to, but I don't want my choices to hit the nail on the head. I want them to be glancing blows. The second-generation quality about it makes it more resonant. You're watching that scene and you're hearing the lyrics and you're actually surprised at how appropriate they are to her story. In its own way, I think that makes it play even more like interior monologue. I (played) it on set when we (filmed) it. That's always really cool to do -- you can't do it all the time, because you're probably recording sound at least half the time -- but what's really fun when you do it is, not only do the actors respond to it, the whole crew responds to it. It's like they're watching the movie as we're making it. When you actually play the soundtrack and you can sync something up, the crew gets a glimpse of what the movie is going to be like, and it just thrills them.

Billboard: And you used actual music from some German propaganda films of the era.

Tarantino: In particular, there's a song in there -- the English title of the German song is "I Wish I Were a Chicken" (Ich Wollt Ich Waer Ein Huhn). That's the third one on the soundtrack, with Lilian Harvey and Willy Fritsch, that's from a German propaganda film -- it's actually a screwball comedy, but it was made under (German propaganda minister Joseph) Goebbels -- that was called "Lucky Kids." And then the German song before that ("Davon Geht Die Welt Nicht Unter") was performed by Zarah Leander, who was a huge, huge star in Nazi Germany. The thing that's very interesting about her is the way Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger's character) is in the movie -- where she's this big German movie star, but she's actually working for England -- there's rumors that Zarah Leander was doing the same thing, except for the Soviet Union.

Billboard: What do Ennio Morricone and Lalo Schifrin, who are both on the soundtrack, mean to you?

Tarantino: When you talk about the maestro (Morricone), you're talking about the greatest film composer that ever lived. Lalo Schifrin -- the first time I knew who he was (when I heard) his soundtrack for "Enter the Dragon," which was so dynamic, and I always thought of him as the action guy. Now this is an adventure story, and I realized if I'm really going to do this genre justice, I have to blow up the guns of the Navarone. (laughs) And being able to use "Tiger Tank" from "Kelley's Heroes" -- that really turned it into an adventure movie. No art-film meditation, but literally an adventure film at that point.

Billboard: How did you decide which of all the songs in the film go on the soundtrack album?

Tarantino: Making the soundtrack album itself is like another version of the movie, and it's not about using everything that you used -- it's about using everything the way that you saw it in the movie. My ultimate thing is, "Can you play it without hitting skip?" If you put it on in your car, which is where most people listen to stuff nowadays, can you just let it play? And I still think of it in terms of albums. I still think of it in terms of side A and side B. (laughs) I'm happy to say that vinyl's making a comeback. I always made a big, big deal that the record companies that come out with my (soundtracks) have to print vinyl ... Warner Bros. has always accepted that commitment to me, that they will always make records for my movies.

Billboard: Are you going to return as a judge on "American Idol" anytime soon?

Tarantino: They have to ask me. (laughs) We'll see what happens. I really had a great time when I was the judge on it, because I was watching the show and I was judging them at home. (laughs) And I wasn't the nice-guy judge, all right? All the celebrity judges were always really kiss-assy, and I was like, "That ain't going to be me. I'm going to be like, 'You suck.'"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 22, 2009, 04:03:54 AM
Saw it again tonight and it held up even better.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on August 22, 2009, 04:52:18 AM
It may be my favorite Tarantino film. It's a stretch, but in a few months after I watch this again I will know. I loved every second of it and was excited and into every word each character was saying. The suspense is great. The acting was terrific, especially Landa, but also the french girl and Brad Pitt was hilariously great. I see that most of you give a pass to Eli Roth, but his stupid fucking face is the only thing that ruined it a little bit for me. Still, he does a good job, but fuck. The music and every sound effect was perfect. Classic Tarantino. I guess I was expecting to hate this so I am way too excited that I felt the exact opposite altogether.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on August 22, 2009, 09:19:42 AM

 Some of the articles I've read go as far as to mock the way he looks or the way he talks as "creepy". That's just uncalled for and stupid, way more stupid than any ego he may have.

(referring to QT)

And from Kal:
"I see that most of you give a pass to Eli Roth, but his stupid fucking face is the only thing that ruined it a little bit for me."


Hahah  Jeez
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I just think it's funny that the things that CAN'T BE CHANGED about a person are the things that people are complaining about

Isn't that part of the lesson of the movie?  Not to hate because of skin color, looks, voice, orientation, etc.?

Just sayin', that's pretty damn funny it still happens
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on August 22, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I went in thinking this would be like The Dirty Dozen or something, based on the trailer (cardinal sin), but it's actually pleasant that it wasn't. If it was that straight forward, following a bunch of guys scalping Nat-zees and such, it might've just been any other movie. But he's really come up with some great stories and characters here. The scene in the basement bar is probably one of the best scenes he's ever filmed.

I think it was almost comical at times how much dialogue there was. I really felt like he was trying to fuck with the audience and see how much they could bear. My only other complaints are that you don't really get to know anyone too well (adding to that, unlike the diverse Dirty Dozen, every one of the Basterds looks the same. Maybe that was the point), and Brad Pitt is still pretty tepid.

Visually it was very beautiful, more so than usual for Tarantino. The opening scene and in front of the movie theater, very aesthetically beautiful. I really liked this.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on August 22, 2009, 11:13:55 AM
Quentin Tarantino has been talking about 'Inglourious Basterds' for a long time.  At various points this “men-on-a-mission” movie was set to star Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Adam Sandler, John Travolta, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, Eddie Murphy, Leonardo Dicaprio, Simon Pegg and Nastassja Kinski in a script that over 600 pages long.  So it's interesting watching the film and thinking of all the different incarnations the movie went through for Tarantino before he actually made the movie.

The film received a mixed reaction at Cannes, it's trailer featured the sort of aggro-violence usually reserved for Eli Roth's 'Hostel' movies and advance word was that it was very, very talky.  All this coupled with the disappointment of 'Kill Bill Vol. II' and 'Death Proof', is why I approached 'Basterds' with more caution and less enthusiasm than any Tarantino movie before.  And perhaps because of these low expectations I was completely surprised by how much I really really liked the film.

Not without it's problems, the film repeats stylistic flourishes better suited to 'Kill Bill': the Sam Jackson narration, title cards, Ennio Morricone music seem out of place here.  The film features at least 4 major scenes of dialogue set around a table and while each is effective, the repetition becomes a bit tiresome considering the 2 1/2 hour running time.  But the final act of the film is such a riot and perfectly executed (double pun!) that you can't leave the theatre without a smile on your face.

It really works to the film's advantage to see a cast of mostly unknown international actors delivering Tarantino's signature dialogue.  Lines that might have come off more self consciously stlized are given new life by characters speaking them in different languages. Even Brad Pitt, who was worrisome in the trailer, is used sparingly in the film and is hilariously welcome every time he shows up onscreen.  Christoph Waltz is terrifying and iconic as Nazi Colonel Hanz Landa, Mélanie Laurent is the heartbreaking center of the film, all the actors are so good that you really want more of everybody.  (Most of The Basterds are shortchanged here unfortunately.)

While the film doesn't reach the perfection of 'Pulp Fiction' or balls-to-the-wall vision of 'Kill Bill: Vol. I', it does prove Tarantino still has what it takes to thrill and surprise.  Now I can't wait for the next one.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: bluejaytwist on August 22, 2009, 11:41:12 AM
my household has recently become friendly with everyone's (least?) favorite eli roth and he mentioned that no one on this earth has quentin's ear like pta. did anyone else notice twbb influence in the first chapter and a few spots throughout?

apparently the card scene in chapter three was the one thing after cannes that everyone hassled qt about for being way too long and when they did qt went bill macy/magnolia diary on them "you fucking cocksucker, that is ptas favorite scene, he told me to leave it exactly as is and he's right and its perfect etc etc"

anyways, love your show
ill hang up and listen, thanks
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 22, 2009, 11:47:09 AM
my review for the local university newspaper (my first):

What if you could kill Hitler? Would you put your life on the line to do it?  Would you enjoy it?  In Quentin Tarantino’s 6th film, the curiously titled war-fantasy Inglourious Basterds, he asks these questions and then answers them loudly in the affirmative.  After more than a decade of rumors and speculation about Tarantino’s perpetually “next” project, it finally rolled onto screens around the world this week to the bewilderment of audiences everywhere, and while they may be scratching their heads as to what Tarantino was thinking when he took it upon himself to change the course of history for the more satisfying, few are questioning it’s entertainment value.  For there is little doubt that this unique meditation on the power of Cinema closes out the summer movie-season at a high point, and is easily one of the best films of the year.   

Mega-star Brad Pitt turns in an appealing comedic performance as Lt. Aldo Raine, the southern-boy commander of the titular Basterds, who with his rag-tag band of Jewish troops wages psychological war on Nazi soldiers behind enemy lines in occupied France using Apache resistance as their inspiration.  Collecting scalps and desecrating the dead so as to strike fear into the hearts of Nazi’s everywhere, they seem to be doing a pretty good job when we catch up to them, by now even creating concern for the Fuhrer himself.  And while the individual Basterds are given much less screen time than one might expect, when they do have their moments they shine, in particular Til Schweiger as the vicious German Basterd Hugo Stiglitz, and director Eli Roth as Donny Donnowitz, “The Bear Jew”, who occasionally beats uncooperative German soldiers to death with a baseball bat.   

Perhaps the biggest surprise in a film full of them is that Aldo and the Basterds are the secondary concern of the story, which is actually more interested in the fate of Shoshanna Dreyfuss, (Melanie Laurent) a Jewish girl who escapes the execution of her family, and who after mysteriously becoming a movie-theatre owner a few years later, is cornered into the perfect opportunity for revenge by the hand of fate.  Laurent fulfills the now familiar role of QT revenge queen with great restraint and beauty. 

As “The Jew Hunter” Col. Hans Landa, the previously-unknown Christof Waltz gives a command performance, making the movie his own, and indeed if there is a primary character in this true ensemble piece, it is certainly he.  Equally sophisticated, silly, and psychotic, he takes his place among the great villains in screen history.  An incredible opening scene in which Landa questions a French farmer who may be harbouring Jews sets the stage for a half-dozen set-pieces that make up the majority of the movie, which in typical Taranitno fashion is broken into five distinct titled chapters, each of which brings it’s own style and group of new and unforgettable characters.  Indeed if the film has a major shortcoming it is that one wishes they could spend more time with virtually every character. 

It is little surprise that a man who re-wrote the Holy Bible to serve his purposes (see: Ezekiel 25:17), would go so far as to re-write the story of World War II, but it is some surprise to see how refreshingly original movies can still be in these times when it feels like we’ve already seen it all.  In a firey climax that references Potemkin, Rambo, Carrie, and The Wizard of Oz among who knows how many other cinema classics, Tarantino one-ups them all by going to the next level of his imagination, and in doing so reminds us that while history may be set in stone, for the artist anything is possible. 

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 22, 2009, 12:20:07 PM
I loved it. I can't wait to see it again. I caught the 10:30 showing last night with a couple friends and we all had a great time. I don't know why I keep doubting QT. I did it for this movie and I'm sure I'll do it for his next. It wasn't perfect but it was ten times better than that weak sauce that was Death Proof. Everyone was on fucking point in this. It felt like a movie that consisted of only 6 or 7 scenes; did anyone else get that impression? It never really dragged. Some parts got slow but the dialogue always kept my interest. The ending brought the house down. During the last 10 minutes people were screaming at the screen and clapping. Normally this type of shit gets on my nerves but it was awesome in this instance. Everyone really seemed to be enjoying themselves.

SPOILERS.

Eli Roth didn't get on my nerves as much as I expected. By the end, I actually liked his character. I think a lot of the problems I had with him was 50% Eli Roth and 50% how much screen time his character got in the draft of the screenplay I read. In the final film Quentin either cut out, or didn't film at all a whole back story for the bear Jew. Was this the role Adam Sandler was being considered for? I would have liked to see him as the bear Jew. In the draft I read the he gets killed in the bathroom during the premiere when a Nazi the Basterds had previously branded recognizes him and they shoot eachother. I liked his actual fate in the film a lot more. At least he didn't go out like a punk.

In the previews/trailers for this they never touched on the whole Shoshanna storyline which I always thought was because in the script, QT had specified that the storyline would be filmed in French new wave black and white and he didn't want the audience to think it was a black and white film because the audience he has attracted the last few years don't watch black and white flicks but that wasn't the case. It was all filmed in color. I wonder why they never showed any of the Shoshanna storyline in the previews/trailers.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 22, 2009, 12:26:38 PM
SPOILERS

one thing that really bugged me was how easily and readily they blew themselves up.  thoughtS?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 22, 2009, 01:44:05 PM
It's called a suicide mission.  Soldiers have been doing them as long as there's been war.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on August 22, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Yeah if you just finished burning down a theatre full of nazis and blew up Hitlers face with thousands of bullets I think you can die with no problem and the mission has been successful...

I don't know what the deal is with Eli Roth. There is something there. He does a good job in the movie but I still dislike him. Not sure why and that bothers me a little.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on August 22, 2009, 03:35:36 PM
Another thing that had me thinking a lot during the film was QT's play with foreign language. During the opening chapter, I noticed that Christoph's "Merci" wouldn't be translated as "Thank you" but simply subtitled as "Merci." However, the Frenchman would be translated to "Thank you" on several occasions. And this happened throughout the film, where certain instances had simple French translated and others where they were subtitled in the original French. I don't think it has any real meaning, but it definitely wasn't just a casual translation.

I really want to see this again. And again. I haven't thought about a movie this much since TWBB.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 22, 2009, 04:38:12 PM
same thing with "wunderbar" which I thought was particularly funny.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 22, 2009, 05:36:45 PM
It's called a suicide mission.  Soldiers have been doing them as long as there's been war.

it's logical, but the soldiers just seem kinda casual about it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 22, 2009, 05:40:27 PM
I don't think it's a suicide mission. I'm pretty sure their plan was to set the timers on the dynamite then GTFO but it all fell apart and they were just like, "fuck it!" and started blasting away at all the Nazi's down below.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 22, 2009, 06:22:12 PM
well, colonel landers called out their mission to raines and the little guy and described it as a suicide bomber type mission, comparing them to terrorists.  that was when I realized it was gonna be a suicide mission.  still the way it was carried out seemed kinda casual.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 22, 2009, 08:58:09 PM
It felt like a movie that consisted of only 6 or 7 scenes; did anyone else get that impression?

I felt like it was in five chapters.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on August 22, 2009, 09:30:12 PM
chapters are the perfect structure for his films the way he's writing nowadays.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on August 23, 2009, 02:03:20 AM
apparently roth's character's backstory included a scene where cloris leachman played his grandmother who christens (or rather, whatever the jewish equivalent is) his bat, but it was left on the cutting room floor. It was the crew's favourite scene but interrupted the flow of the film.

It wont be on the dvd because Quentin plans on using it if he does a prequel, ie. we'll never see it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on August 24, 2009, 06:37:27 PM
A cinema in Sweden is the wrong place to find out that half the movie's dialogue is not in English, as Swedish subtitles don't help me.

But, I figured out what was going on and enjoyed the movie a lot.  I'll have to see it again to actually enjoy the dialogue, but it's a credit to the simplicity of the story (which I think is a positive thing anyway) that I was never confused about what was going on.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 24, 2009, 08:39:26 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 24, 2009, 08:42:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 24, 2009, 10:59:31 PM
 I bet everything that Tree of Life will be 2010
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 24, 2009, 11:29:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on August 25, 2009, 12:02:20 AM
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.         

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on August 25, 2009, 03:38:01 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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi 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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on August 25, 2009, 08:40:42 AM
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."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 25, 2009, 09:01:27 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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on August 25, 2009, 10:35:22 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/ (http://www.runpee.com/) great iphone app too.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 25, 2009, 12:09:05 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
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on August 25, 2009, 02:07:15 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?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: B.C. Long on August 25, 2009, 02:14:23 PM
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.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: john on August 25, 2009, 02:26:49 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.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 25, 2009, 02:33:05 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?

Yes, when Landa passed a message to Goebbles in the opera box is when he slipped the TNT under the chairs.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 25, 2009, 02:33:17 PM
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.

This was a main beef I had with the Kill Bill flicks and Deathproof. For some reason it just doesn't bother me with Inglorious Basterd's. I felt that KB and Deathproof were trying to be cool more than they were trying to be good films. I think the opposite is true with Inglorious Basterd's. It's trying to be a good movie. It's just so fucking cool.

I didn't mind Pitt very much. I've always found him to be a shitty actor but the guy is alright with me because of the projects he picks. Pitt could have easily pulled a Travolta or Cruise where he picks the most bankable movies possible where he can play a version of himself but Pitt during his career has always picked interesting roles. Regardless of his talent, he should be applauded for his willingness to attach himself to shit that most other movie stars wouldn't.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: B.C. Long on August 25, 2009, 02:40:24 PM
Just to clarify. When I'm speaking about Tarantino loving "shitty" cinema, I'm talking about grindhouse, exploitation filicks. Not old classic cinema.

Stefan, I also too felt like I.B. was trying to be a good movie. But I just think it's jarring and out of place stylistic choices really detered my enjoyment of the movie. Maybe Tarantino was never my cup of tea. But I thought Pulp Fiction had the perfect balance of all his influences without being blaringly obvious in your face.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on August 25, 2009, 02:52:48 PM
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.



oh i was, the bowie-esque song was down right horrible. i agree with you 100%.  wtf tarantino does a flashdance sequence going into his climax chapter.  there is absolutely no defense for that part, it just simply wasn't remotely cool.

the caricature was on purpose i felt, it was suppose to be that over the top.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 25, 2009, 02:59:21 PM
It's funny that you mention Pulp Fiction because I feel these two movies are the same type of film in that they allow you to suspend your disbelief because of the universe they're set in.

Pulp Fiction is set in some sort of alternate reality the same way Basterd's is. It's the reason I don't have a problem with some of the unrealistic stuff that goes on in both films. Each flick makes it evident from the start that what you're watching isn't some based on a true story type of bullshit.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: squints on August 25, 2009, 03:58:29 PM
oh i was, the bowie-esque song was down right horrible.

so now i'm glad? that i got up and pissed?

who cares i'll still see it again.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: B.C. Long on August 25, 2009, 07:34:51 PM
It's funny that you mention Pulp Fiction because I feel these two movies are the same type of film in that they allow you to suspend your disbelief because of the universe they're set in.

I get what you are saying and again I sorta agree. But the difference with Pulp Fiction and I.B. is all the stylistic choices for Pulp FIT the tone. While in this it does not. When you freeze-frame on a soldier and in bright yellow letters POUND his name onto the screen and that's the ONLY time you ever do something like that in a film, it just feels like shit. There's no consistency and I hate that. It's like he's pissing on his own art.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 25, 2009, 08:09:16 PM
I get what you're saying. If he's going to do it for one, he should do it for everyone. Stiglitz was the only one he did this for but in the script, he did did it for pretty much everyone. The Bear Jew's origin took a good 3 or 4 pages.

What was Aldo sniffing? Was that just snuff/tobacco?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on August 25, 2009, 08:18:45 PM
the first chapter was great, but there after the movie is spotted with "cool" moments. the worst of which was stiglitz's flashback in the bar to being whipped by nazis with electric guitar music playing on the soundtrack. i have a problem with all the modern music choices actually, particularly the bowie song. it doesn't blend in any way other than to make the movie cooler.

What was Aldo sniffing? Was that just snuff/tobacco?

i assumed it was snuff.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 25, 2009, 08:22:10 PM
Yeah, that was a pretty awkward cut.

Diane Kruger really fucking kills it during that scene.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on August 25, 2009, 11:14:14 PM
when you guys complain about "jarring" moments in the movie, you read like a bunch of babies.

My friends & I found those moments to be some of the most memorable.  They gave a contemporary link to a passion or subtext that may well have been felt even back in the 40's.

I'll agree, most of that stuff annoyed me with Kill Bill, but that's because Kill Bill had no emotional craft to it's first half, leaving you REALLY not caring about anybody in it.  The second half is SO emotional, that you get upset with lack of action.

Well, emotionally, I think QT hit the nail on the head with this one.

I think the point of those "jarring" moments was to loosen the audience up.  Most WWII movies are so concerned with honoring the reality in terms of factual details that nowadays we lost the emotional truths.  The First Chapter was fan-damn-tastic, but hey...the 2nd chapter was about AMERICANS.  In reality, most don't give a crap about keeping it stuffy & realistic.  Perfect foil to the Antagonists of this movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: brockly on August 26, 2009, 01:05:29 AM
They gave a contemporary link to a passion or subtext that may well have been felt even back in the 40's.

fair call. but i don't see a cheesy freeze-frame on a soldier with cool yellow font displaying his name as a contemporary link to the character’s subtext. i see it as tarantino's jizz sprayed all over the screen. and as B.C. pointed out, it wasn’t consistent.

as for the music, there were many awkward choices that didn't blend with the period. i'm not saying the film should honour reality in terms of factual details but tarantino should recognise the boundaries a period setting bestows on a film. to me, they were out of place stylistic choices and they were “jarring”. spaghetti western music worked great because it doesn't correlate to any era of pop culture.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on August 26, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
emotional truths

you've gone too far please stop
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 26, 2009, 09:48:48 AM
'Inglourious Basterds' defies summer wisdom
Major stars and adult dramas had been a toxic mix. Then along came Quentin Tarantino's film.
 
By Ben Fritz; Los Angeles Times

During a season when studios have become all but convinced that audiences are losing interest in big-name movie stars and R-rated adult fare, perhaps it was appropriate that the end of summer would offer a surprise hit that embodied both those qualities.

"Inglourious Basterds," featuring Brad Pitt among an ensemble cast, earned $38 million at the box office this weekend in the U.S. and Canada, according to domestic distributor Weinstein Co., far exceeding expectations by drawing a fairly diverse audience without alienating director Quentin Tarantino's core fan base of men in their 20s and early 30s.

The same occurred overseas, where Universal Pictures opened the film in 22 territories, including Germany, France, Britain and Australia, to a strong $27.5 million.

It's not the only movie this summer to open significantly stronger than pre-release polling had indicated. That list includes Warner Bros.' June release "The Hangover" and last weekend's "District 9" from Sony Pictures. But "Inglourious Basterds" certainly had the most at stake -- around $70 million in production spending split between Weinstein Co., which hasn't had a major release since December's "The Reader," and Universal, which has had a string of box-office underperformers this summer, including "Land of the Lost" and "Funny People."

The opening weekend numbers provided an unexpected ending to a months-long marketing campaign. Since the movie premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May to a mixed response, speculation has run rampant in Hollywood as to whether the movie would resemble Tarantino's 1994 breakout hit "Pulp Fiction," which earned $108 million domestically, or his 1997 follow-up "Jackie Brown," which grossed under $40 million.

Its premiere at the French festival initially exposed the fault line between loyal fans and vocal detractors. "Outside the cinema, reaction was moderate verging on the chilly," noted Xan Brooks, film critic for the Guardian UK.

Nonetheless, Tarantino and Pitt were in Cannes for a media blitz, serving to kick off Universal's worldwide marketing campaign that resulted in the highest grosses for a Tarantino film in nearly every major market where it played with the notable exception of Britain. "Once we had done the Cannes launch, the awareness level around the world dramatically spiked," said David Kosse, president of international distribution for Universal.

Domestically, meanwhile, Weinstein Co. has been crafting a carefully calibrated marketing campaign that attempted to let audiences know about Tarantino and Pitt's presence without relying too much on their names at a time when the ability of A-list stars to bring audiences into theaters seems to be diminishing, overshadowed by high-concept events like "Transformers."

Trailers, posters and TV spots focused more on the movie's most marketable concept -- an elite team of soldiers on a mission to kill Nazis -- and its over-the-top action.

"The concept was 'revenge fantasy,' just like 'Transformers' was a big battles with robots fantasy and 'G.I. Joe' was a ninja fantasy," said Chris Thalk, who runs the blog Movie Marketing Madness. "It came across as an action movie that just happened to star Brad Pitt and be directed by Quentin Tarantino."

That approach succeeded in activating the core audience for an R-rated action movie, which crosses over very nicely with Tarantino fans: 58% of moviegoers were male, according to exit polling, and 65% were between 18 and 34.

Weinstein Co. Co-Chairman Harvey Weinstein said he was most proud, however, of the 42% of the audience that was female, a surprisingly large minority that he attributed to a last-minute push on TV shows, magazines and websites that appeal to women.

Universal did exit polling only in Britain, where the movie's male/female split was similar. Kosse attributed the attraction of women in part to a marketing campaign that focused a bit less on the movie's violence and more on its humor.

European audiences also got a much bigger publicity presence from costars Christoph Waltz, who's Austrian, and German native Diane Kruger. The two even did their own voice-overs for versions dubbed into German and French.

In a particularly surprising twist, however, there was much higher than usual demand to see the movie in English. Twenty-eight theaters in Germany, four times the typical number, showed the so-called "original version" that's the same shown in the United States, indicating that audiences perhaps wanted to hear Tarantino's celebrated dialogue in its original language or experience the movie, which features characters speaking German and French, from the perspective of its American protagonists.

"Those original versions were massive," Kosse said. "We were at the limit of breaking records with them."

Stateside, it's no surprise, of course, that Tarantino's traditional demographic group liked the movie best. Men in the U.S. gave the movie an A-minus, according to market research firm CinemaScore, while those under 25 gave it an A and between 25 and 34 an A-minus. But women graded it B-plus and the small minority over 50, under 16% according to exit polls, rated it a B.

Critics, meanwhile, were polarized, either bowled over or totally underwhelmed, by "Basterds' " ultra-violence, revisionist history and long scenes with baroque dialogue.

In the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert praised "Basterds" as "a big, bold, audacious war movie that will annoy some, startle others and demonstrate once again that he's the real thing, a director of quixotic delights."

The Village Voice's J. Hoberman called the film "a consummate Hollywood entertainment -- rich in fantasy and blithely amoral."

But other critics found the movie's historical fantasia hard to accept. " 'Inglourious Basterds' is not boring," cautioned the New Yorker's David Denby, "but it's ridiculous and appallingly insensitive." The Times' Kenneth Turan called the 2-hour, 32-minute action-drama "unforgivably leisurely, almost glacial."

But in the age of Twitter and Facebook, it seems that audience buzz is what matters most and Weinstein Co. is intent on using it, along with the positive reviews it can highlight, to turn "Inglourious Basterds" into a long-running hit by transforming public perception of it from a bloody-revenge tale to a highbrow drama on the way to the list of 10 Academy Award best picture nominees.

"We've got to do that changeover," Weinstein said. "An adult audience is the one that will really sustain us."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on August 26, 2009, 10:34:16 AM
what about that quick cut to the man and woman having sex - was this Shoshanna just imagining what they would be like?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 26, 2009, 10:35:43 AM
what about that quick cut to the man and woman having sex - was this Shoshanna just imagining what they would be like?

Naw, It was just to show that she was Goebell's mistress.

Julie Dreyfus is really fucking pretty. She's like a ghetto Monica Bellucci sans the body.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on August 26, 2009, 10:48:14 AM
QT addresses whether the Basterds thought it was a suicide mission on Charlie Rose (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=3701.msg280229#msg280229) about 24 min in.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 26, 2009, 10:52:49 AM
Did they? Can't watch at work.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 26, 2009, 11:23:10 AM

Julie Dreyfus is really fucking pretty. She's like a ghetto Monica Bellucci sans the body.

I was hoping it was Julia Louis Dreyfus and they just spelled it wrong in the opening credits. I wanted elaine from 'seinfeld' to be in this QT movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: RegularKarate on August 26, 2009, 12:06:59 PM
I finally saw this last night.  I wish I had been able to avoid all opinion, but thanks to Twitter (some of you guys included), the world had me convinced this was "AMAZING!!!!".

All in all, I really liked it.  I was making my list of QT favorites this morning, figuring where this fit in and was surprised that it's my 4th favorite.  4th favorite QT film is pretty damned good.

I really wanted someone to lock onto in the story though... if QT were a little less in love with his work and characters (who wouldn't be in love with these characters?), he could have cut some out and made it more focused so that I could really feel for them (I loved to watch them, but had no investment).

I felt disappointed after the movie, but reading the last few pages of this thread, I felt myself way more defensive of the movie's worth than anything else, so I guess it worked.

It's no Jackie Brown, but it certainly was good.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on August 26, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
what about that quick cut to the man and woman having sex - was this Shoshanna just imagining what they would be like?

Naw, It was just to show that she was Goebell's mistress.

Julie Dreyfus is really fucking pretty. She's like a ghetto Monica Bellucci sans the body.

I was wondering how it read in the script - I avoided readed it before.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on August 26, 2009, 07:00:11 PM
emotional truths

you've gone too far please stop

HAH yeah, but it like the Handjob in Rushmore...it was worth it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 26, 2009, 08:25:30 PM
haha
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on August 26, 2009, 11:16:10 PM
I went ahead and saw the movie twice and the Bowie song worked a lot better the second time through.

i liked it a lot the first go around. i had several cocktails beforehand, maybe that did it. he had such an original approach to the genre which is why this kinda stuff worked for me.

the problem with the stylistic choices is that there were TOO MANY.

When you freeze-frame on a soldier and in bright yellow letters POUND his name onto the screen and that's the ONLY time you ever do something like that in a film, it just feels like shit. There's no consistency and I hate that. It's like he's pissing on his own art.

if he kept consistent with that, it would have just kept feeling like Snatch or something. he shoulda just scratched it. he shoulda scratched Sammy Jackson narration. personally, i think the only one kept shoulda been the names with arrows pointing to so and so Nazis. a moment like when Mia Wallace motions a square that outlines in the air works not because the tone of that movie deserves it more than Inglourious Basterds' tone, but because the gimmicky moment is not overused. same goes for the cut to Bonnie comin home to gangsters doin gangsta stuff. if we saw Tony Rocky chucked out the window, that woulda been too much..too much.

It's like he's pissing on his own art.

i think jizzing on it is more appropriate.     
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 26, 2009, 11:46:54 PM
The Stiglitz intro was one of the best gags in the movie and gets a great reaction from audiences.   I don't think this particular movie needed more of those, but I look forward to seeing a few of them if Quentin goes ahead with his Basterds prequel.  I also look forward to Sam Jackson narrating any future Basterds movie.  What I'd like to see less of is poorly acted cameos like Harvey Keitel's and maybe Mike Meyers, but I think since the bad acting in those cameos is kinda the point, it's good acting.  Not sure.  Really hope that this big box-office inspires Quentin to polish some of his old pages into another one like he's threatened. 

 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on August 26, 2009, 11:53:30 PM
What I'd like to see less of is poorly acted cameos like Harvey Keitel's

haha, what? didn't he just lend his voice to the other side of a telephone for 3 seconds?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on August 27, 2009, 12:21:14 AM
yeah, worst line readings ever
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on August 27, 2009, 12:25:25 AM
it's true. he couldn't have phoned it in more.

ps. i LOVED this and it has redeemed qt quite a bit in my eyes.. for some reason didn't want to write a big review of it. maybe later.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on August 27, 2009, 02:49:08 AM
well, for the first time in many years (i think the last one was return of the king) i went to see the movie again to a theatre and less than a week after seeing it the first time. a friend wanted to see it so i went, but i thought it was too soon and i would regret it.

well, it was as amazing as the first time, only that i was more open minded when it came to eli roth and i was paying more attention to some of the face expressions during the dialogues in french and german. when you are reading subtitles sometimes you miss other things, so it was great to see their faces 100%.

this is really an unbelievable film. 2 and a half hours fly. it may be my favorite of the year. i didn't think i would like this so much but after a second viewing i am even more impressed and delighted with it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on August 27, 2009, 04:58:09 AM
It was two and a half hours long??
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on August 27, 2009, 01:02:39 PM
It was two and a half hours long??

153 minutes
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on August 27, 2009, 01:14:22 PM
Wow.  I had to pee for most of it and still it only felt like 2 hours tops.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on August 27, 2009, 08:08:06 PM
Soundtrack:

http://hotfile.com/dl/10942227/d91b643/Quentin_Tarantino_-_Inglourious_Basterds.rar.html
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: NEON MERCURY on August 28, 2009, 01:51:50 AM
this was excellent
jackie brown is still his masterpiece but
this is either second or third - depending
the basement scene is one of QT's finest works
im sure even he jerked 0ff to it
........the only negative was that it was short
i hope the blu ray is 3hrs and twenty minutes long
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on August 28, 2009, 04:19:45 AM
Wrote a review on my blog, if anyone cares...

http://bit.ly/otBIO (http://bit.ly/otBIO)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: RegularKarate on August 28, 2009, 11:38:42 AM
the basement scene is one of QT's finest works

Really?  Why do you think so?

This was probably my least favorite scene just because it felt like canned Tarantino... the end was pretty-much reservoir dogs.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: NEON MERCURY on August 28, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
RK, my man! :yabbse-grin:


i can see why u call it canned QT


<>SPOILS<>


but i fell for it.  the dialogue was smart, funny, witty, and all of his usual junk.
i enjoyed the card game device. i loved how these characters interacted w/each other
i could watch them for hours...i liked how they were trying to help the scottish dude not blow his cover,
i liked how he did blow his cover /german 3 / 
in fact i was upset that they all got capped - i didnt think the film would work w/o them
that why i want QT to fatten the blu ray up - gimme more basterds - the film was amazing
BUT if it had more backstory - more basterds - it would have been epic and knocked Jackie Brown
off her pedestal
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: RegularKarate on August 28, 2009, 03:17:48 PM
BUT if it had more backstory - more basterds - it would have been epic

I can get behind this.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 29, 2009, 04:54:15 PM
Well, I considered this film to be a piece of shit. If you want to discredit my opinion, know I am not a Quentin Tarantino fan because you can't be a fan and hang your hat on only liking Pulp Fiction. I went into this film expecting to really like it because I thought the Sergio Leone aspect of the movie would translate to me. Everyone has a sense of genre the same way they have a sense of humor and action is my cup of tea, but Tarantino made an action subject very boring and dry to me.

I think the main problem is that Tarantino tries to inject all of his conversational temperament into this film. Instead of adapting his style into the genre of the story and toning down all the dialogue, he writes the film as if he was still writing Pulp Fiction where he has a plot that is so open ended it really isn't a plot. The conversations do not work here because there are structures and mechanisms at work that are building up to a conclusion. The point is to challenge the patience of someone with a slow story by keeping the story on a continual upward movement to a dramatic conclusion, but Tarantino allows his everyday conversational tone dominant the scenes so much that I felt there were different stories at work here. They all came together by the end, but the scenes would go on for so long I would forget about all the other subplots.

Then the subject matter isn't appropriate for all this dialogue. It was cute to see the quiet niceties of the one SS officer at the beginning because it was unnerving with what happens at the end of the scene, but Tarantino repeats the stale Nazi niceties all through out the film.  They dominate the story because many scenes are the resistance characters dealing with Nazis in their immediate presence so they are reacting to the dominating Nazi tone. I enjoyed the back and forth dialogue when the Basterds were by themselves or controlling the pitch of a scene, but that happens so very little. Most of the time it is the Nazis asking the same questions, doing the same salutes and greetings and finally, raising the same suspicions. The Nazi soldier or officer is a dead character devoid of any interesting individuality, but the way Tarantino allows their characters to talk for the majority of the film, you'd think he thought their banalities were the most interesting.

I know Tarantino isn't trying to copy Leone, but he should take a few more lessons from Leone. Inglourious Basterds reminds me of a Western in that it deals with image driven figures like a Western does. The Western is based on the image and actions of a gunslinger. These figures do not talk at length because there is little to really say about them. Their presence speaks for the majority of their personas. I think the Nazi soldier has the same limitations, especially when you structure the story to make them the primary villians. The image of who they are and what they represent is brought out well enough in their uniforms and look. Tarantino tries to make interesting conversation out of them, but they are monotonous creatures.

If Tarantino was going to do a heavy dialogue film, then he needed to center the story around more independent characters with independent motives and independent histories. He didn't need his characters best characters mainly react to circumstances around them because (as evidenced by the film) that just stunted their output. I know most people here like the movie, but I find it intriguing that the common wish is for more of the Basterds. I also don't think he needed to be so heavy to the detail of every scene. There is no new suspense with showing how a stupid card game is played twice. There is no reason with showing how an SS officer is overly nice before he gets cruel and repeating it at the original long length every time. These things (and others) just kill the motivation to see the film as a gradual build up to a huge conclusion. Leone tested patience with Once Upon A Time in The West, but his slowness wasn't a continuing repetition of actions and things. I think it's easier to stomach a slower story when new things are being shown at all times, but repition is the easiest way to kill interest.

Like I said, I really thought I would like this, but I don't think Tarantino does well with either plot or stories that focus on action before dialogue. With that said, I hope he never does the Western film he dreams of making.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: B.C. Long on August 29, 2009, 09:22:29 PM
LOL.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 30, 2009, 05:13:43 AM
Who really thought GT would like this?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pozer on August 30, 2009, 04:02:03 PM
Well, I considered this film to be a piece of shit.

LOL.

couldnt get past that line. didnt want to be let down. was the rest of it this good?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: martinthewarrior on August 31, 2009, 02:28:35 AM
Saw this tonight. Will write more tomorrow, but I liked it a great deal. A propaganda film about the screening of a propaganda film! All I could think about while watching it was those old "captain America battles Hitler!" comics of the 40's. I found it to be a very creative concept. I had problems with some of it (the Jew hunter's continually extended questioning of his victims, etc.) but for the most part, I thought it was just dandy. It was the last temptation of world war two films. No one but Tarantino could've gotten away with it. I don't really understand how anyone could claim that his dialog weighed it down. It was a WW2 fantasy, certainly not a WW2 movie. I was unimpressed with Kill Bill and Death Proof but I thought that this movie did just what it should do. Tell a "non-fiction" story through a singular, distorted voice.

Not a movie I'll go back to very often, but a movie that makes me happy to go to the theater. One director's fucked up, entertaining vision.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on August 31, 2009, 09:19:24 AM
Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is perhaps his most deft handling of reference and homage yet. The video store nerds at Scarecrow Video would like to present to you an unofficial and in progress footnotes companion to Basterds. Some of these films are directly referenced in the film, others are only evoked, while others still are films we simply felt should go on the list. All titles will be available for rent in a special section except where noted. 

http://www.scarecrow.com/2009/08/27/before-they-were-basterds/
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on August 31, 2009, 11:28:21 AM
nice link mod!  :yabbse-smiley:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: 03 on September 02, 2009, 03:02:56 PM
i agree with gt
in this movie whenever there were statements they were usually followed by responses.
there were so many interrogative statements i was like wtf
i also was quite unnerved by the fact that there were characters, a progression of time, a soundtrack, and the pretentious quirk of credits.
a waste of time, hopefully he can make a movie one day that will fulfill everyones expectation of a film that has no elements of anything that can be regarded with any opinion.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: children with angels on September 02, 2009, 10:11:57 PM
I actually GENUINELY agree with GT about the over-reliance on excessively slow dialogue-heavy scenes.

This seems to be becoming a trademark with Tarantino, and the problem with this for me stems from the fact that he has stopped treating his films as if they were in any way grounded in 'realism'. Pulp and Reservoir were dialogue heavy, but also executed in a way that allowed for spontaneity, messiness, etc. The way they were written, acted and filmed made them seem far less composed, precious, poised and self-consciously artificial than his films feel now. This helps us laugh along with the Like a Virgin scene or the Royale with Cheese scene because of the way they brought a naturalistic streak (in terms of how people actually talk to one another) into contexts where we didn't expect to find it. That kind of relationship to reality has slowly drained away from his work.

From Kill Bill onwards, every piece of dialogue, every character quirk, every tiny movement has felt orchestrated and predetermined along emphatically 'cinematic' lines - whether that be because they are direct references or because Tarantino is trying to construct his own specifically 'Tarantinoesque' aesthetic. To rely on slow, dialogue-heavy scenes in this context makes me lose interest because i can't see the characters as anything other than exquisitely crafted pawns in a game of Tarantino's own devising, and thus care far less about whatever they happen to be talking about. If he stuck simply to plot, genre-fucking or pastiching, the disconnect with the 'real' wouldn't be an issue, but it doesn't create a good environment for being interested in excessively-extended dialogue sequences. This reached crisis point in Death Proof, but it's still certainly evident in Basterds.

Having said all that, I really enjoyed a great deal of this film. Some of it is just such exciting, thrilling cinema, infused with all the enthusiasm for the medium that Tarantino brings with him as standard, and as far as I'm concerned that's impossible to deny. It's also the most morally whacked-out movie he's ever made, and left me reeling, wondering what I made of it ethically. I still haven't decided, but I do know that I'm happy to have had the experience of seeing it (and particularly on the big [face] screen).

Nevertheless, I think there's cause for concern in the direction he's heading, and in what he's now self-consciously constructing as being 'Tarantionesque'.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on September 03, 2009, 12:09:46 AM
Well, I considered this film to be a piece of shit. If you want to discredit my opinion, know I am not a Quentin Tarantino fan because you can't be a fan and hang your hat on only liking Pulp Fiction. I went into this film expecting to really like it because I thought the Sergio Leone aspect of the movie would translate to me. Everyone has a sense of genre the same way they have a sense of humor and action is my cup of tea, but Tarantino made an action subject very boring and dry to me.

I think the main problem is that Tarantino tries to inject all of his conversational temperament into this film. Instead of adapting his style into the genre of the story and toning down all the dialogue, he writes the film as if he was still writing Pulp Fiction where he has a plot that is so open ended it really isn't a plot. The conversations do not work here because there are structures and mechanisms at work that are building up to a conclusion. The point is to challenge the patience of someone with a slow story by keeping the story on a continual upward movement to a dramatic conclusion, but Tarantino allows his everyday conversational tone dominant the scenes so much that I felt there were different stories at work here. They all came together by the end, but the scenes would go on for so long I would forget about all the other subplots.

Then the subject matter isn't appropriate for all this dialogue. It was cute to see the quiet niceties of the one SS officer at the beginning because it was unnerving with what happens at the end of the scene, but Tarantino repeats the stale Nazi niceties all through out the film.  They dominate the story because many scenes are the resistance characters dealing with Nazis in their immediate presence so they are reacting to the dominating Nazi tone. I enjoyed the back and forth dialogue when the Basterds were by themselves or controlling the pitch of a scene, but that happens so very little. Most of the time it is the Nazis asking the same questions, doing the same salutes and greetings and finally, raising the same suspicions. The Nazi soldier or officer is a dead character devoid of any interesting individuality, but the way Tarantino allows their characters to talk for the majority of the film, you'd think he thought their banalities were the most interesting.

I know Tarantino isn't trying to copy Leone, but he should take a few more lessons from Leone. Inglourious Basterds reminds me of a Western in that it deals with image driven figures like a Western does. The Western is based on the image and actions of a gunslinger. These figures do not talk at length because there is little to really say about them. Their presence speaks for the majority of their personas. I think the Nazi soldier has the same limitations, especially when you structure the story to make them the primary villians. The image of who they are and what they represent is brought out well enough in their uniforms and look. Tarantino tries to make interesting conversation out of them, but they are monotonous creatures.

If Tarantino was going to do a heavy dialogue film, then he needed to center the story around more independent characters with independent motives and independent histories. He didn't need his characters best characters mainly react to circumstances around them because (as evidenced by the film) that just stunted their output. I know most people here like the movie, but I find it intriguing that the common wish is for more of the Basterds. I also don't think he needed to be so heavy to the detail of every scene. There is no new suspense with showing how a stupid card game is played twice. There is no reason with showing how an SS officer is overly nice before he gets cruel and repeating it at the original long length every time. These things (and others) just kill the motivation to see the film as a gradual build up to a huge conclusion. Leone tested patience with Once Upon A Time in The West, but his slowness wasn't a continuing repetition of actions and things. I think it's easier to stomach a slower story when new things are being shown at all times, but repition is the easiest way to kill interest.

Like I said, I really thought I would like this, but I don't think Tarantino does well with either plot or stories that focus on action before dialogue. With that said, I hope he never does the Western film he dreams of making.

this reads like a conspiracy theorist's film criticism.

but all of your criticisms still don't sound strong enough to warrant the "piece of shit" comment.  they all sound, even by your standards, just minor observations.  I don't understand how they add up to "piece of shit."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 03, 2009, 01:00:58 AM
this reads like a conspiracy theorist's film criticism.

That really makes no sense to me. You're going to have to explain.

but all of your criticisms still don't sound strong enough to warrant the "piece of shit" comment.  they all sound, even by your standards, just minor observations.  I don't understand how they add up to "piece of shit."

They aren't minor observations. First, I disagree with Tarantino trying to jam all of his dialogue into the film. It's a plot based story so Tarantino needs to respect the mechanisms of the plot. It's not open ended like Pulp Fiction. Second, I think the film is boring and monotonous because the most elaborated upon characters are the Nazi soldiers/officers who are themselves boring creatures of habit that repeat the same lines of dialogue through out the film. The independent/interesting characters like the Basterds seem to be minor players in the story. Third, I think Tarantino discredits the aesthetics of Leone by not understanding how to gradually build up a story to a dramatic conclusion. The scenes play out too long for no real purpose at all. I also think he discredits Leone by not understanding the power of image over dialogue. The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue. He is epitomized by look and action. Leone understood he couldn't give gunslingers lengthy conversations so he relied on their images and actions. Tarantino makes those hallmarks to be small parts of his film so it's an homage on only the most basic levels.


The parts about the film I enjoyed were the standard violent scenes, but they were always too short themselves. Leone based his action scenes on quick moments of shooting, but sustained a violent intensity for long moments. Tarantino tries that in the restaurant scene that ends in a violent shoot out of the crotches. During the scene, from the entrance of the Nazi soldier, we know something bad is going to happen, but it takes so long for the story to get to the point of violent intention that I forgot the men were at odds with each other. I started to lose myself in the banality of the Nazi soldier playing cool with the Basterds who were pretending to be soldiers.

So, in essense, I don't think you understood my review much at all.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on September 03, 2009, 07:49:01 AM
Question: If he had less talking would you flack him for being too Leone?

I have a feeling it would be said, "This is Tarantino, not Leone. Where's the quotable dialog?"

On the flip side, some of the conversation, though they usually had GREAT payoffs, did feel long.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on September 03, 2009, 09:44:56 AM
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 03, 2009, 09:53:24 AM
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.

are you grading it?  because sometimes the sound bite doesn't get the point across.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on September 03, 2009, 10:18:23 AM
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.



haha yeah from a frenchman pov this sounds like nazi-luvin  :salute: haha  :yabbse-cheesy:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 03, 2009, 10:30:58 AM
interesting perspective GT (regarding the last page or two on this thread), and i think i agree with the majority of your insights, however you weight those things drastically different then myself, and you let small issues have such a strong negative reaction. i think that's what pete is getting at as well, correct me if i'm wrong pete.

i agree (and made a post recently on some thread somewhere) that Tarantino seems to have too much intent with his choices these days; post jackie brown.  for example the worst dialog was the superman speech in kill bill V2, so forced and poorly timed. though, there were moments in Inglorious Basterds that i wasn't aware of watching that Tarantino.  i even felt the bad Tarantino in death proof, it was him writing sassy chicks. I still like those movies, and forgive them of this because they're minor issues i have.  with that said, IB works because i don't need to forgive it, i really got caught up in the drama of the dialog from a few scenes, mainly the jew hunter and the underground bar come to mind.  in those scenes the reward was watching the dialog, the same way i used to feel with the Tarantino of yesteryear. It wasn't forced or poorly timed.

I don't think Tarantino needs to make a leone film.  You also state he's not trying to make a Leone film yet you preface a lot of your criticisms with how he's not living up to the leone bar.  well for anyone that doesn't think that is a fair standard to set, it just comes across like a useless litmus test.  i started to get caught up in the Leone points you were making on how he handled rhetoric, then realized there is more than one way to skin a cat.

i think what's fresh about the film far outweighs what you say. your points come across overly intellectual, like you approached the film from a scholar standpoint, bypassing the entertainment entirely. that's not to say you shouldn't look at it that way, but why not go in to it with a little more glee.  i went in gleeful, and despite the absolutely fucking retarded david bowie sequence, i was very entertained.  This isn't a deep movie, it's a clever movie with some interesting post script insights, that's all.

sadly people are calling it a masterpiece, not even close.  so it's got a WW2 setting and it's got a big scope.  it's a fucking action movie with cheesy shit in it, that's it.  but it's not a piece of shit, you're out on a limb with that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 03, 2009, 12:16:07 PM
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.

It means we know who the Nazi soldier is. He's explainable in just his look and actions. He's also held to limited dialogue in films because his chatter just represents typical Nazi barbarities. There is no individuality that goes beyond the uniform.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 03, 2009, 12:40:19 PM
interesting perspective GT (regarding the last page or two on this thread), and i think i agree with the majority of your insights, however you weight those things drastically different then myself, and you let small issues have such a strong negative reaction. i think that's what pete is getting at as well, correct me if i'm wrong pete.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I dismantled the film. Tarantino's identity in film is based around his dialogue abilities and I disliked it it on multiple levels. I also disliked other things so you're going to have to explain to me how my complaints are just small things. Even other people in other places who are fans of Tarantino called my criticisms very large.

with that said, IB works because i don't need to forgive it, i really got caught up in the drama of the dialog from a few scenes, mainly the jew hunter and the underground bar come to mind.  in those scenes the reward was watching the dialog, the same way i used to feel with the Tarantino of yesteryear. It wasn't forced or poorly timed.

You didn't think it was poorly timed? They played a card game twice, spent most of the conversation engaging in pleasantries to keep up apperances and finally very late in a long scene, announce they were all there to kill each other so finally got out of the banality business, but even that wasn't that great. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by good timing.

I don't think Tarantino needs to make a leone film.  You also state he's not trying to make a Leone film yet you preface a lot of your criticisms with how he's not living up to the leone bar.  well for anyone that doesn't think that is a fair standard to set, it just comes across like a useless litmus test.  i started to get caught up in the Leone points you were making on how he handled rhetoric, then realized there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I know Tarantino isn't making a direct Leone homage, but I make the point because he needed more interesting characters like the Basterds at the forefront of his story. That would make the story more interesting and allow Tarantino to operate on a better level of dialogue and interaction. But I say he needs to take better from Leone because he doesn't have the Basterds starring. He has the Nazi soldier instead. It seems his point is to make the Nazi the point of suspense for the story, but he devotes so much time to them that he actually develops them into character types. Leone would have kept the Nazi soldier/office to a strict suspense mechanism.

i think what's fresh about the film far outweighs what you say. your points come across overly intellectual, like you approached the film from a scholar standpoint, bypassing the entertainment entirely. that's not to say you shouldn't look at it that way, but why not go in to it with a little more glee.  i went in gleeful, and despite the absolutely fucking retarded david bowie sequence, i was very entertained.  This isn't a deep movie, it's a clever movie with some interesting post script insights, that's all.

I told my friends I was convinced I would love this film. My exact point is that I thought I would be entertained and nothing more. I thoiught this would be the film where the Tarantino hang ups wouldn't get to me. I had no idea to criticize the film until the movie started to bore me and then depress me while I was watching it. Then I turned on my criticial hat because I wanted to make sense of my boredom, but that didn't happen until after the movie. I finished my viewing experience by hoping things would get fun.

I don't think I over critiicized the film by making points beyond the story. I believe I gaged it well but if you don't think I did, then please explain why.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on September 03, 2009, 01:13:34 PM
you could have just quit after this;

Quote
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I dismantled the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 03, 2009, 04:24:33 PM
you could have just quit after this;

Quote
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I dismantled the film.

no because that's not my gripe Neil, it's funny because that simple and short a statement would be the sound bite we just made fun of a few posts ago. I'm not bothered by the analysis or dismantling, I'm bothered by the emphasis. such a strong emphasis that he opened his review with calling it a piece of shit.


thanks for addressing my points GT.  like i said i found your insight interesting, and often agreed with the various points.  i just found it as the foundation for a different film whereas you somehow felt the film was ruined.  i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

I told my friends I was convinced I would love this film. My exact point is that I thought I would be entertained and nothing more. I thoiught this would be the film where the Tarantino hang ups wouldn't get to me. I had no idea to criticize the film until the movie started to bore me and then depress me while I was watching it. Then I turned on my criticial hat because I wanted to make sense of my boredom, but that didn't happen until after the movie. I finished my viewing experience by hoping things would get fun.

I don't think I over critiicized the film by making points beyond the story. I believe I gaged it well but if you don't think I did, then please explain why.

ok i can't argue with that, and i first hand have been through similar situations at the cinema.  a long time ago i gave my impression of when i saw guy richies revolver at TIFF, and i went through a very similar viewing transformaion; to the point of anger.  I guess i'm just amazed that this happened to you with IB. to each his/her own. you gaged it fine for your tastes, for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on September 03, 2009, 06:18:11 PM

sadly people are calling it a masterpiece, not even close.  so it's got a WW2 setting and it's got a big scope.  it's a fucking action movie with cheesy shit in it, that's it. 

I don't think the setting or scope (which is relatively small) have much to do with why this is being hailed as a masterpiece.  It's actually the subversion of expectations when thinking of "war movies" that makes this such an interesting experience.  And to say that this is simply a "action movie with cheesy shit in it" and that's it is to miss huge portions of this movie that are nothing like that.  This is an action movie for about 10 minutes total.  And there is cheesy shit for about 15 minutes.  And this is indeed a masterpiece. 

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Jefferson on September 03, 2009, 08:37:45 PM
i hate myself for busting my cherry with a shitty bootleg. big mistake. im on the fence with what i saw so far but when i say shitty bootleg i mean it in the most literal sense of the word. if there's anyone out there that hasn't seen it yet (which im starting to think is not the case) don't go bitch like i did. i was mostly thinking i wouldn't have time to get to the cinema and my impatience got the better of me. if i don't make it i'll be waiting for video rather then watching a bad copy again. sonofabitch.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 03, 2009, 08:46:38 PM
i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.

Glad a healthy respect for disagreement was maintained, but I still don't understand how my points are trivial and don't factor into the bigger picture of the film. I keep feeling the need to explain myself further, but what I really need is a perspective from you guys on what made up the greater whole of this film. Some people understand my points as important (even if they don't agree with them), but you guys don't. And all I get is casual disagreement without any real explanation.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 04, 2009, 12:04:22 AM
***SPOILER***


You've been warned...


sadly people are calling it a masterpiece, not even close.  so it's got a WW2 setting and it's got a big scope.  it's a fucking action movie with cheesy shit in it, that's it. 

I don't think the setting or scope (which is relatively small) have much to do with why this is being hailed as a masterpiece.  It's actually the subversion of expectations when thinking of "war movies" that makes this such an interesting experience.  And to say that this is simply a "action movie with cheesy shit in it" and that's it is to miss huge portions of this movie that are nothing like that.  This is an action movie for about 10 minutes total.  And there is cheesy shit for about 15 minutes.  And this is indeed a masterpiece. 

these are two different points that don't relate to each other, one about whether or not it's a masterpiece, and the other about said action movie with cheesy shit in it. please don't throw what i said back in my face by referencing the wrong point. i can think it's big in scope, being an epic and still call it cheese. i just don't think masterpiece is exclusive to any genre or style.  so if i come across that way, it's not my intent.

1. it's a big scope in that there are like 4 languages in it, it's almost 3 hours long, it's set during WW2, it involves many speaking parts (none of which take a protagonist role), Hitler is killed in it by the heroes, Paris is set on fire by film itself and etc. I could go on. There isn't a single tarantino film that you could argue is bigger in scope, even kill bill.  it feels like a moot point arguing this, it's his war epic, I'm not unearthing anything by saying that.  it's pretty universally known as such.

yes the subversion of expectations is what makes me love the movie as well and indeed makes it an interesting experience, but doesn't make it a masterpiece. i think you're using the term broadly here if you call it a masterpiece.  it's clever, great and many other things but it's not like you're watching 2001 and Kubrick just fucked your mind, or you're sitting in Vienna listening to Mozart, or watching shakespear, or just read watchmen for the first time.  all four of these examples resonate on many levels and are rewarding experiences because they are entertaining, philosophical and work on many levels.  i'm not saying all masterpieces have those characteristics, but by my standards they do 99% of the time. i think most people would agree.

IB works on one, sometimes 2 levels. the closest that tarantino has ever come to a masterpiece stature is his writing the scene between christopher walken and denis hopper in true romance.  that whole bit was so rich, had 3-4 things going on, and was utterly tight in it's delivery.  the first scene in IB works well in a similar fashion.  you think the way the jew hunter offers to speak english is for the audience's sake, and it's the film being funny about how the explanation is dragged out... like you've seen it done in other movies, so IB is taking the piss outta that. then later you find out it was for something in the plot.  that's another scene that tarantino attempted to play with a similar structure as the True Romance one, it's rewarding but pales in comparison by my tastes.

2. it's a clever film, that works.  and you can't ignore the fact it's cheesy, it doesn't hide that fact.  this isn't the thin red line, or full metal jacket... it's a fun movie with witty shit in it and stuff explodes, and scalping, and carving foreheads. it's an action movie, and there is cheesy shit in it.  like come on eli roth and brad pitt arn't over the top?  they weren't cheesy?  that big fucking pipe wasn't cheesy? what movie were you watching?

I'm just kinda blown away you argued what i said, because i thought those claims weren't even remotely controversial.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 04, 2009, 12:15:10 AM
i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.

Glad a healthy respect for disagreement was maintained, but I still don't understand how my points are trivial and don't factor into the bigger picture of the film. I keep feeling the need to explain myself further, but what I really need is a perspective from you guys on what made up the greater whole of this film. Some people understand my points as important (even if they don't agree with them), but you guys don't. And all I get is casual disagreement without any real explanation.

the big picture for me is in large part the flow. it's like someone said a few pages ago, time flew by and i didn't get bored or notice it flying by. i loved the colours too, and the sets, and the costumes.  i liked the caricatures as well.  over the top was fun. now you did get bored, as we established, so i guess we just can't relate on that level and it's defeatist for me to try and make you feel something you just don't. i did buy the dialog for the most part, only about 5% of it bothered me. when i observe your perspective on the dialog and the Leone factor it's something i agree as an afterthought, and only that. i didn't concern myself with such things while watching because all the factors were coming together and i got lost in the experience.  shit man i don't know any other way to say it, i wish i could.  it just worked.  what didn't work was the Sam jackson stuff and that bowie song (as i mentioned before) but that was part of the 5%. every scene had me on the edge of my seat, thinking "what the fuck is going to happen".  it was so much fun.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2009, 12:28:19 AM
i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.

Glad a healthy respect for disagreement was maintained, but I still don't understand how my points are trivial and don't factor into the bigger picture of the film. I keep feeling the need to explain myself further, but what I really need is a perspective from you guys on what made up the greater whole of this film. Some people understand my points as important (even if they don't agree with them), but you guys don't. And all I get is casual disagreement without any real explanation.

the big picture for me is in large part the flow. it's like someone said a few pages ago, time flew by and i didn't get bored or notice it flying by. i loved the colours too, and the sets, and the costumes.  i liked the caricatures as well.  over the top was fun. now you did get bored, as we established, so i guess we just can't relate on that level and it's defeatist for me to try and make you feel something you just don't. i did buy the dialog for the most part, only about 5% of it bothered me. when i observe your perspective on the dialog and the Leone factor it's something i agree as an afterthought, and only that. i didn't concern myself with such things while watching because all the factors were coming together and i got lost in the experience.  shit man i don't know any other way to say it, i wish i could.  it just worked.  what didn't work was the Sam jackson stuff and that bowie song (as i mentioned before) but that was part of the 5%. every scene had me on the edge of my seat, thinking "what the fuck is going to happen".  it was so much fun.

Love it, beautiful. I have eagerly recommended Tarantino to people who I think would love him because he still beats the usual trash every weekend at multiplexes. I have no ordeal with anyone liking him. To each, their own.

It still seems like we just read the film differently, but it seems like you can understand my complaints weren't small because I didn't like the tone of the film, the dialogue, and the whole perspective of the characterization.I hope you can at least understand those to be significant enough complaints that would keep anyone from enjoying the film (if they felt the same way as me).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2009, 12:29:16 AM
And this is indeed a masterpiece. 

You believe this is his best film?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 04, 2009, 12:37:14 AM

Love it, beautiful. I have eagerly recommended Tarantino to people who I think would love him because he still beats the usual trash every weekend at multiplexes. I have no ordeal with anyone liking him. To each, their own.

It still seems like we just read the film differently, but it seems like you can understand my complaints weren't small because I didn't like the tone of the film, the dialogue, and the whole perspective of the characterization.I hope you can at least understand those to be significant enough complaints that would keep anyone from enjoying the film (if they felt the same way as me).

yep i've come to understand that knowing now how you went into the theatre.  now i can see how that would make me hate the film too, i guess because those qualities weren't under my pet peeve microscope i didn't see it as broad strokes, it is kinda the backbone in regard to tone. though there were moments that i felt the film got real and the facade faded into the background.  fleeting moments, but during some of the intense parts, it felt that way at least... but i've come around full circle, it just wasn't on my radar to notice.

side question: do you only like stuff that is done realistic?  because leone used characterizations as well... well he invented some too.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2009, 12:41:33 AM
side question: do you only like stuff that is done realistic?  because leone used characterizations as well... well he invented some too.

No, the implication of my criticism does not extend to me liking realism or not. All my criticisms relate to the film's lack of quality entertainment.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on September 04, 2009, 02:08:16 AM
it's clever, great and many other things but it's not like you're watching 2001 and Kubrick just fucked your mind


no it's more like watching Dr. Strangelove and Kubrick just fucked my mind.  That one's also a masterpiece. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: hedwig on September 04, 2009, 02:11:59 AM
Kubrick fucks my mind with every movie he made. fucks it nice and good. :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on September 04, 2009, 02:29:39 AM
And this is indeed a masterpiece. 

You believe this is his best film?

I don't think "best film" is really assessable with tarantino, or kubrick (since he's been mentioned), or any master artist, because usually they will make a series of works of the highest quality, all of which are immaculately concieved and pure at their core, and to chose between them becomes a matter of mood and familiarity, and recent interpretations.  I consider a masterpiece to be any individual work that can stand on it's own as a great work among the all-time great works, and if it were the only work by said artist would enter them into the realm of the greats.  And in that regard I think Quentin has made nothing but masterpieces.  And if I had to rank them right now I'd do it like this:
    
Pulp Fiction
Inglourious Basterds
Grindhouse
Kill Bill
Reservoir Dogs
Jackie Brown

and now for my most controversial statement, my present top 10 of the decade list has Basterds/Grindhouse/and Kill Bill interchangeably in the 1-3 spots.

for the record Magnolia and Boogie nights are interchangeably my top two of the 90's and have been since 99. Even above my beloved Pulp Fiction.     
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on September 04, 2009, 02:45:10 AM
More to the point, some reasons it is a masterpiece include: one of the most breathtaking climaxes in movie history, a style of it's own, self-referential cinema-referential mastery, hilarious comedy, biting satire, exciting action, nail-biting suspense, masterful dialogue, crazy asides, great acting across the board, the aldo/landa dichotomy, and the complex considerations on the nature of war and cinema.  It is clear that there are many ardent fans of this movie and they are interpreting it in many different ways and wether or not you want to call this a "masterpiece" or not there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is an "instant classic".  Close enough.  
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on September 04, 2009, 11:23:05 AM
i think time has to pass before you know something's classic...unless you're TWBB.
 :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on September 04, 2009, 12:41:45 PM
I guess it depends on you're definition of "Masterpiece" (re: New Feeling)

there are too many things in Inglourious Basterds that don't work for me to call it a great film. Maybe over time ill grow to appreciate or understand them, but until then...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 04, 2009, 05:07:11 PM
it's clever, great and many other things but it's not like you're watching 2001 and Kubrick just fucked your mind


no it's more like watching Dr. Strangelove and Kubrick just fucked my mind.  That one's also a masterpiece. 


Kubrick fucks my mind with every movie he made. fucks it nice and good. :yabbse-thumbup:

touche, kubrick was one of those rare artists that shit mona lisa smiles.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on September 16, 2009, 10:38:59 AM
Tarantino sees "Basterds" saving Weinstein brothers

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - The storming success of World War Two shoot-'em-up "Inglorious Basterds" is the ticket out of financial difficulty for its backers, the Weinstein Co., director Quentin Tarantino said on Tuesday.

Brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein have released all of Tarantino's work, beginning in 1992 with "Reservoir Dogs" when they ran Miramax Films. But since launching their new firm in 2005, they have been short on critical or box-office hits.

The New York Times reported last month that the independent Weinstein Co., cash-strapped after seeing a quarter of its releases earning $1 million or less, had sought restructuring advice as well as a bridge loan.

"They were backed up against the wall, and this gives them breathing room. This gets their back off the wall," Tarantino told Reuters during a visit to Israel to promote "Inglorious Basterds", which he said had grossed $200 million worldwide.

"It will give them some cash by the time the whole thing is over with, but it also even helps them inside of the industry and it actually shows Hollywood that they can open a movie."

"I'm actually proud that I was able to do that for them, that I could pay back their faith in me, that I could pay back their support," Tarantino said.

The film, which reportedly cost $70 million to make and which will complete its global screen distribution by November, stars Brad Pitt as chief of a squad of Jewish-American troops who butcher Nazis in occupied France. Their plot collides with that of a Holocaust survivor bent on assassinating Hitler.

The Anglophone, German, Austrian and French cast interact in their own tongues, with some Italian thrown in -- a departure for the 47-year-old Tarantino, whose past films tended to focus feverishly on the style and lingo of American urban toughs.

"One of the things that I think that is very interesting is it is actually putting a lie to the aspect that subtitles aren't commercial," he said.

RISKS OF IMMEDIACY

Though the story is steeped in fantasy -- by Tarantino's own account, it's a spaghetti Western transposed to war-torn Europe -- he said original languages were key for building a sense of immediacy, especially scenes such as a tavern showdown where a faulty accent gives away a British spy disguised as a German.

"This was something I had to offer as far as a World War Two movie was concerned. So it wasn't just to prove to my critics that I wasn't a rube."

Any challenges he had understanding the actors on-set were overcome with the help of dialogue coaches: "It's my dialogue. I know it -- it's just a sixth sense."

"Inglorious Basterds" stirred concern among those who argued it trivialized the Holocaust by showing the fantastical triumph of Jewish brutes and an SS colonel who is both seductive and sinister. Its tone lurches between horror and black comedy.

Tarantino's Israel visit included a trip to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and he said he was keen to gauge his film's reception in the Jewish state, which was founded in the wake of World War Two and has fought regularly with its Arab neighbors.

"That's the curiosity factor involved. American Jews are going to respond to it differently than European Jews, and I have to assume that Israeli Jews are going to respond to it in their own particular way," he said.

The most satisfactory premiere of "Inglorious Basterds," Tarantino said, was in Germany, where he watched the audience.

"Germans are used to cringing in movies, especially about World War Two, and that even happened at the beginning of my movie," he said.

"And then there was this moment in the theater when the Germans realized that they were allowed to laugh with the movie -- not at it, but with it. They were allowed to get into the adventure. So there was this cathartic experience."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on September 16, 2009, 02:32:24 PM
lol. Oh, Quentin. Tone if down, buddy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on September 16, 2009, 09:12:35 PM
lol he healed a country.  wow i think he can walk on water too.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: New Feeling on September 21, 2009, 12:13:46 AM
this weekend IB became QT's highest grossing film, domestically. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: ©brad on September 24, 2009, 02:16:13 PM
this weekend IB became QT's highest grossing film, domestically. 

This amazes me, because I think it's by far his least accessible/crowd-pleasy film. Maybe I underestimate middle America.

I can't say I loved it. A few undeniably incredible scenes (most notably the opening and theater climax) interspersed with unforgivably long, masturbatory sections that didn't add up to anything I would laud as masterpiece. Like some of you I never really got invested in any of the characters. The pacing was totally schizo. And am I the only one here who found it pretty, uh, insensitive? I have to admit I was a little perturbed by the way the audience was cheering during the stabby parts, particularly that last scene. To quote a buddy, it's a potent reminder of what the Obama=Hitler crazies are tapping into.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on September 24, 2009, 03:14:22 PM
Is that figure economy adjusted?

Prices are quite different just from when PF came out.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on September 24, 2009, 08:57:47 PM
Is that figure economy adjusted?

Prices are quite different just from when PF came out.

you mean adjusted for inflation.

i don't think any box office reading given today is adjusted for inflation. no studio wants to admit that their shitty films (like this one) are still making peanuts compared to gone with the wind. the only thing that matters is the number in current american dollars, and the increase in ticket price is the only reason every movie these days seems to break all kinds of records.

the french, and i presume lots of countries outside the US, have a better way of ranking the popularity of films, and that is by attendance. by this method Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis is their second biggest domestic release going on number of tickets sold, and it is compared to titanic only on those figures, but also La Grande Vadrouille which is from 1966. the reason for this, i think, is that americans take their box office figure as the standard worldwide.. that is everyone assumes the world knows what US$153million means. but no one would be interested in hearing the number in EUROS.

also the reality of pulp fiction's original release is distorted by its subsequent cultural impact. you feel that millions of ppl watched the film over and over again for 6 years straight cos of the number of imitators.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: RegularKarate on September 25, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
the french, and i presume lots of countries outside the US, have a better way of ranking the popularity of films, and that is by attendance.

But do they adjust for inflation of people?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on September 25, 2009, 01:39:28 PM
lets not neglect the fact that the universe is constantly expanding.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Kal on September 25, 2009, 04:26:11 PM
Box Office is adjusted for inflation, not the regular numbers you see but the actual statistics. That is why Dark Knight is the second highest grossing film in US history, but if you adjust it for inflation its actually #20 or so.

In terms of attendance, as lame as films are these days, attendance has been up the past few years and there are more theaters open than ever. The overall box office is bigger than it was before even though individual films are less successful, but the reason why that happens is because when Gone with the wind was released there were a few dozen films released per year in theaters, now there are 500.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on September 25, 2009, 05:11:59 PM

you mean adjusted for inflation.

That's what They say.

Why?

Because they were told to by Them.

Don't be a Them or They.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on October 10, 2009, 11:06:32 PM
What I loved the most about the experience of watching this film was to be shown that Tarantino is back in the business of defying audience expectations. When Jackie Brown came out it was perceived mainly as a let down because he made a character / social comedy piece instead of pulp fiction. and then when the kill bill movies came out, in both instances, detractors for the most part complained about the lack of dialogue first and the lack of action in the latter. death proof is a minor work, but I find it at least amusing each time. Just good old fun. Now he comes with this, and we all were expecting one thing and get another. It is true, not many filmmakers could get away with a film like this, not only because of the politically incorrect point of view, but also because it is, in the end, a completely dialogue driven war film.

It is also true, at least of first viewing, that some of these scenes go on for a little too long, particularly near the end, when you just want to get down to business, but that's the way the film is telling itself. I'm baffled by the box office success, in fact it puts everything else into perspective. How come a nearly three hours movie mainly consisting of long conversations in restaurants and dinners achieve this hit status? It pretty much goes against any assumption made by the studios and analysts about what the PUBLIC wants.

Almost no one here has mentioned or made too much emphasis on the Soshana storyline (except to talk about the Bowie sequence) but that's the best part of the film for me. Her story is the embodiment of Tarantino's love...we could say eternal hard on for cinema. He sees cinema as a literal force of destruction and liberation, and he uses for that purpose both within the movie and outside of it, dismantling the usual notions about what we all should think regarding WWII, the holocaust and Hitler.

There is a lot to say about this film, and to discuss. A lot of ideas. Perhaps this could not be his masterpiece (as he himself claims) or even A masterpiece, but this one is definitely the one with more content and material to analyze and study. To say it is only a cool movie, or a good fun movie is to lovingly dismiss it.

Hope to catch it again real soon.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on October 12, 2009, 07:30:52 AM
Also, for all it's cinematic nods and obscure references, to me the most obvious influence is literary. The whole movie feels like reading an Elmore Leonard novel.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on October 12, 2009, 08:56:06 AM
Almost no one here has mentioned or made too much emphasis on the Soshana storyline (except to talk about the Bowie sequence) but that's the best part of the film for me. Her story is the embodiment of Tarantino's love...we could say eternal hard on for cinema. He sees cinema as a literal force of destruction and liberation, and he uses for that purpose both within the movie and outside of it, dismantling the usual notions about what we all should think regarding WWII, the holocaust and Hitler.

Basically, how he would have changed WWII with what 'weapons' he has/d at his disposal if he could go back in time.
or
How he could kill one of the most vile people of all time with what he loves*.

Has he spoken about what started off his writing the screenplay - which story came first - as I have not read all his long interviews on IB?

*like Bret Favre being able to throw a football so hard he would puncture Hitler's heart or Bono sing so loud Hitler's head would explode...........now i am reminded of that movie with the robot girl who kills the woman with the basketball. =) (i want to say Deadly Friend).......i guess the analogy doesn't work exactly as there is actual physical violence and fire.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on October 20, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
Inglorious Basterds Coming Home December 15
Source: ComingSoon

Universal Studios Home Entertainment has announced that it will release Quentin Tarantino's summer blockbuster Inglorious Basterds on Blu-ray and DVD December 15th. Here are the full specs:

Cinematic icon and filmmaker Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill Vols. 1 & 2, Pulp Fiction) helms one of the most audaciously inventive, eagerly-anticipated films of the year, Inglourious Basterds, coming to Blu-ray(TM) Hi-Def and DVD on December 15, 2009 from Universal Studios Home Entertainment. Starring Academy Award® nominee Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Burn After Reading) in an audacious, adrenaline-packed, high-octane World War II revenge fantasy, Inglourious Basterds has been hailed as one of Tarantino's most stylish and entertaining films to date. From its deceptively bucolic opening scenes to its incendiary final moments, Inglourious Basterds delivers a heady combination of fact and fantasy that never fails to surprise. Written and directed by acclaimed filmmaker Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds is available on Two-Disc Blu-ray(TM) Hi-Def, Two-Disc DVD Special Edition, Single-Disc DVD and download to own. Both the Blu-ray(TM) and Two-Disc Special Edition DVD come with a Digital Copy of the film for a limited time only just in time for the holiday season and over 90 minutes of startling and engrossing behind-the-scenes bonus features.

Brad Pitt shines as the bodacious American commander of a lethal team of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" - whose exploits in occupied France strike terror in the hearts of the German rank and file and enrage the German High Command. The acclaimed cast also includes Christoph Waltz, who was named Best Actor at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival for his unforgettable performance as a charming but cunning Nazi officer, B.J. Novak ("The Office"), Diane Kruger (National Treasure), Eli Roth (director of Hostel), Melanie Laurent (Paris), and Michael Fassbender (The Bourne Ultimatum).

In addition, notable veteran guest stars including Mike Myers (Austin Powers), Rod Taylor (The Birds), Julie Dreyfus (Kill Bill Vol. 1) and others contribute to this larger-than-life story that mixes pulp and propaganda in Tarantino's inimitable way.

Inglourious Basterds is priced at $39.98 SRP for Two-Disc Special Edition Blu-ray(TM), $34.98 SRP for Two-Disc Special Edition DVD and $29.98 SRP for Single Disc DVD. Preorder close is November 3, 2009.

BONUS FEATURES

All three editions of Inglourious Basterds include:

* Extended & Alternate Scenes
* Nation's Pride - The film within the film Inglourious Basterds can be seen it its entirety
* Domestic and International Trailers

Both the Two-Disc Special Edition and Blu-ray(TM) also come with:

* Roundtable Discussion with Quentin Tarantino, Brad Pitt and film historian/critic Elvis Mitchell
* The Making of Nation's Pride
* The Original Inglorious Bastards - a salute to the original 1978 film
* A Conversation with veteran actor Rod Taylor
* Rod Taylor on Victoria Bitters, the Australian beer
* Quentin Tarantino's Camera Angel
* Hi Sallys - Gag Reel
* Film Poster Gallery Tour with Elvis Mitchell
* Inglourious Basterds Poster Gallery
* Digital Copy of Inglourious Basterds

In addition to the above features, the Inglourious Basterds Blu-ray(TM) Hi-Def release includes:

* BD-Live(TM)-- Access the BD-Live(TM) Center with your Internet-connected player to download the latest trailers, host a chat with your buddies, upload your own webcam commentary, and more!

SYNOPSIS

In the first year of the German occupation of France, Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) witnesses the execution of her family at the hand of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Shosanna narrowly escapes and flees to Paris where she forges a new identity as the owner and operator of a cinema.

Elsewhere in Europe, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) organizes a group of Jewish American soldiers to perform swift, shocking acts of retribution. Later known to their enemy as "the Basterds," Raine's squad joins German actress and undercover agent Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) on a mission to take down the leaders of the Third Reich. Fates converge under a cinema marquis, where Shosanna is poised to carry out a revenge plan of her own. ...

Employing pulp and propaganda in equal measure, Quentin Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS weaves together the infamous, oppressed, real and larger-than-life stories of WWII.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on October 20, 2009, 03:05:49 PM
* A Conversation with veteran actor Rod Taylor
* Rod Taylor on Victoria Bitters, the Australian beer
(http://boxoffice.com/blogs/steve/rod%20taylor%20II.jpg)
(Rod Taylor)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on November 04, 2009, 08:17:00 PM
Inglourious Basterds?  More like Inglourious Ratnerds.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/InglouriousRatners.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gamblour. on November 05, 2009, 01:16:05 PM
The un-Bear-able Jew?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on November 05, 2009, 02:32:34 PM
The un-Bear-able Jew?

HAHA.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on December 16, 2009, 07:29:29 AM
My oh my, why would anyone past 16 years old like this?

Is there a single moment in this film not intended to be ''fucking awesome''? Definitely one of the higher rank in the ''movies assholes dig'' canon.

A couple really funny moments though, especially when they talk about this super-killing-machine Bear Jew and we hear him knocking stuff with his bat you're like : ''oh oh! This one's gonna be one motherfucker!'' and you're pretty excited and then... big moment, close up on the nazi face, back and forth to the door, face, door, face.... and appears before you the magnificient ELI ROTH with his lady-eyes and funny hair! Even my girlfriend who has no sense of sarcasm/irony whatsoever burst out laughing and looked at me and said : ''he's the bear jew? he has lady-eyes!" (I stole that from her after)

Almost every dialogue past the opening is pure masturbation. I fail to see how anyone can endure Brad Pitt in this one.

One of my friends sums it up : ''Have you seen Inglorious Basterds? Fuccckkkkkkkk what are you doing??? It's the best ever ever there's everything you could want in a movie!''

Good praise. His favorite movie ever before that was Superbad tho...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on December 16, 2009, 02:06:27 PM
Credit SoNowThen for the find:

(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6121/inglouriousbasterds.png)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on December 16, 2009, 02:27:46 PM
MEH.

So if you like it you're either a sheep or a liar.

i think by 1966 the mainstream already had discovered the tools  of the new wave, so i'm guessing whoever made that was 14 in 1994, and liked mainstream movies.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: children with angels on December 16, 2009, 05:04:16 PM
^^^ True dat.

That's just a mildly clever way of presenting a review that would be garbled, unnuanced, and unconvincing in any other format.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on December 16, 2009, 07:41:51 PM
I fear Inglourious Basterds is going to go the way of Fight Club, where people decide to dismiss it because they take its perceived message at face value.  They are both movies that assholes love, which leads to there being a contingent of people who look at the reasons the assholes love them and assume that the assholes got it right, that there's no deeper interpretation of the films than that.  So Fight Club gets reduced to "male chauvinistic screed" and Basterds gets reduced to "Jewish revenge fantasy".  Meanwhile, I watch those movies and see "indictment of chauvinism" and "Jewish revenge parody".  I feel like the assholes and I are watching entirely different films.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: I Love a Magician on December 17, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
what's wrong with remixing
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on December 17, 2009, 02:11:08 AM
this is a minor but annoying backlash of Tarantino films - haters who think they can silence him just because they can quote the movies he's referencing - whether or not they're even true.

I don't think this is a "parody" of "jew revenge fantasy" though.  just because a movie has a sense of humor about something (which is war films as opposed to WW2) doesn't mean it's against its subject.  same thing- just because Fight Club might not affirm what the meatheads believe doesn't mean it's an indictment of meatheads.  that would make it too obvious. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on December 17, 2009, 04:39:27 AM
I don't mean a parody necessarily in the comedic sense, but more in the way it exaggerates and subverts the Jewish revenge fantasy trope.  This is not your Munich-esque tale of noble, morally-conflicted Jews assassinating shadowy evildoers.  Like the flow-chart mentions, the Basterds really were portrayed as one-dimensional buffoons in contrast to the wickedly intelligent Nazis.  This doesn't seem to me like the sort of character choice a director would make unless he was intentionally playing with the ridiculousness of his film's basic premise.  In some ways, I would compare it to Funny Games, in the way that it treats manipulation of the audience's response to the film as a formal element of the film.  But while Funny Games showed us acts of staggering inhumanity and then cross-examined why we were being entertained by them, Basterds pats us on the back and encourages us to revel in it, which to me is what makes the film so much more disquieting, but also what makes it so much easier for people to misinterpret it.  When Pitt carves the swastika into the Nazi's head and 75% of the audience cheers, Tarantino has proven how powerfully propaganda can operate.  It scares the crap out of me, and that's what I think is so great about the movie.

And I contend that Fight Club absolutely is an indictment of meatheadism.  I certainly wouldn't be so reductive as to say that's all it is, but I would argue that it's the primary level upon which the film succeeds.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on December 17, 2009, 04:51:10 AM
i want to hear more of your interpretation. i really think tarantino wants the audience to cheer in that moment.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on December 17, 2009, 04:57:49 AM
Oh, it's transformed into a total meathead movie. They love this shit. But in a way can't the same be said of most of Tarantino's movies?  Pulp and JB are the only two who really can't be called meatheaded, but in the case of the former, you could argue it is and I'd listen.

Tarantino has always been a guy full of meathead ideas. Anytime he hooks up with Rodriguez, it's nothing but head cheese. From Dusk Till Dawn was almost too cool for even meatheads, but unlike Robert, QT actually has interests in other movies that aren't so badass. His movies are always a constant struggle between varsity football and av club. That's what's so fun about them, I suppose.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on December 17, 2009, 07:56:33 AM
a contingent of people who look at the reasons the assholes love them and assume that the assholes got it right, that there's no deeper interpretation of the films than that.

i want to hear more of your interpretation. i really think tarantino wants the audience to cheer in that moment.

That's what I also think Picolas. I don't reckon Taranatino is trying to use the cheering of the meathead crowd to make ''intellectuals'' realize some point about propaganda or whatever. I think he justs made stuff ''so fucking cool'' so audiences would cheer . Every dialogue line or action of the movie seems to just exist to be ''so fucking cool''.

Unlike Funny Games, I am quite certain there is no criticism/piece of study of the entertainment-by-violence area of psychology (or something like that) here.

But hell, even if you don't want to argue about the meaning of this and that, the acting is terrible, the dialogue is mostly terrible (couple scenes excepted) and the pacing is horrible. It's mostly boring and masturbatory. It seems in love with itself.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: children with angels on December 17, 2009, 08:24:07 AM
It's pretty obvious that the film is on some level calling into question the violent propaganda of hatred that the narrative enacts, given that the movie's big set-piece is the wish-fulfilling killing of countless Nazis while they watch a movie depicting the wish-fulfilling killing of countless allies. There's potentially a question surrounding whether Tarantino is just trying to cover his back, or have his cake and eat it, but the film is certainly far from naive about the troubling implications of its revenge narrative.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on December 17, 2009, 09:35:48 AM
I think the last thing Tarantino worries about is covering his back or apologizing. Probably his first priority is to tell an entertaining story and then to piss off everyone waiting for him to be un-PC.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on December 17, 2009, 11:14:55 AM
I think the last thing Tarantino worries about is covering his back or apologizing. Probably his first priority is to tell an entertaining story

Exactly. That's usually the case with every worthy filmmaker out there, from PTA to the coens to woody allen to anyone.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on December 17, 2009, 03:26:27 PM
I don't think it's too much to say that a filmmaker can aspire to make an entertaining movie while simultaneously having higher goals for it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 17, 2009, 05:27:49 PM
It reminds me of Sam Peckinpah's situation in The Wild Bunch. On one hand, he was telling the story that was about the hubris of aging gunfighters who do not know when to stop, but on the other hand, he was relaying the entertainment value of their escapades because he, like the audience, really does admire the men who go to painstaking lengths to live a life of freedom and excess. It's a common subject to make into a theme in movies because the psychological symptom of movies is to generally make characters appear more attractive than they should be, but some filmmakers heighten the entertainment value while specifically counterbalancing it with notions of disdain, tragedy and fraudulence. I think there are aspects of this in Inglorious Basterds, but I don't think Tarantino is that interested in it.

But you don't need Tarantino's permission to make a case for it. Criticism should have no interest in just reinforcing artistic intentions.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on December 17, 2009, 06:48:03 PM
I don't think it's too much to say that a filmmaker can aspire to make an entertaining movie while simultaneously having higher goals for it.

of course not, but it's usually the main concern. i want to point out that by "entertaining" i don't mean "light" or "simple" or "empty".
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on December 17, 2009, 06:55:44 PM
But you don't need Tarantino's permission to make a case for it. Criticism should have no interest in just reinforcing artistic intentions.

this is why i love GT, preach on brother.  i been saying this for years!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on December 18, 2009, 02:45:25 AM
artistic intentions is all everyone is talking about here. i think it has some legitimacy in that it provides at least a place to start. does tarantino succeed in his obvious intention? i don't think so. but i agree that the film is obviously well conceived, the structure of the characters plights and the mirror of the propaganda film, the disgust felt by the dude who the movie's about, the fire started from BEHIND the screen, the bloodthirsty nazi hunters...

it's very easy to connect the things i've mentioned and make a sort of enlightening review. i like that the fire started behind the screen for example. something like that can be extended beyond doubt into a sort of vindication of the film quite easily, let's look at things that hide behind surfaces:
1. the jews beneath the floor in the opening of the film, out of which the chick's character is born - bathed in red, which she reprises at the climax of the film.
2. the subtitles. a lot of the speech in the film takes place behind this pre-written tarantino dialogue,. by that i am assuming QT is not proficient in German, French and Italian, instead that he wrote his trademark piece of shit dialogue and had some dude translate it literally or in a way that it would make sense in translation but not in the actual langauge, cos QT's dialogue is barely bearable in english let alone in any other language.
3. the final carving of the film, when pitt looks in the camera and looks through us/at us and says this is his masterpiece.

look the guy obviously put some thought into the film, but so did Haneke - which polkablues brought up - and it's a great comparison because my response is the same, if that's the "point" he's making: SO FUCKING WHAT? SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP BORING ME. IF YOU HAVE A STUPID BORING-AS-FUCK POINT TO MAKE THEN WRITE AN ESSAY SO YOU AND HANEKE CAN ROLL IT UP AND STICK IN EACH OTHERS ASSES AT THE SAME TIME.

i just don't give a shit if that's the point he's making,. it's only special because it comes from the revered (what happened to the backlash after he kept making shitty movies?) mind of this guy who is just too full of himself. i am done with Tarantino. his style is unbearable to me now. even if some bullshit about violence was his point --- and i DON'T think it was -- then like pas rap said, he fails on a personal level that cannot be argued. although i don't think any fan of this film can make the case that the dialogue was in any way satisfying or NOT grating, or that the film was well-paced and not a cure for insomnia, or that it can be enjoyed at all if you're not already willing to guzzle whatever comes out of tarantino's penis.

he might be smart, have incredible knowledge of cinema, complete control over his films, but he just can't get over himself and that's a huge turn off to me. the fact this film is so popular doesn't prove anything except that he successfully appealed to the lowest common denominator, it is a meathead film to be sure, and the few ppl who are even capable or hav the time to dissect the film's intricacies of theme must be willing to forgive the absolutely nauseating stench it's encased in.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polkablues on December 18, 2009, 02:52:11 AM
So that would be like what... one, one-and-a-half stars?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on December 19, 2009, 08:08:02 PM
1. the jews beneath the floor in the opening of the film, out of which the chick's character is born - bathed in red, which she reprises at the climax of the film.




i just don't give a shit if that's the point he's making,. it's only special because it comes from the revered (what happened to the backlash after he kept making shitty movies?) mind of this guy who is just too full of himself. i am done with Tarantino. his style is unbearable to me now. even if some bullshit about violence was his point --- and i DON'T think it was -- then like pas rap said, he fails on a personal level that cannot be argued. although i don't think any fan of this film can make the case that the dialogue was in any way satisfying or NOT grating, or that the film was well-paced and not a cure for insomnia, or that it can be enjoyed at all if you're not already willing to guzzle whatever comes out of tarantino's penis.

point #1 only exists long after a film is made, in the critic/fan/hater's mind. i would be hard pressed to believe anyone ever thinks about this theme you mention as the origin and/or motivation to create a story. sure, if you said it to tarantino he'd probably love the fact you're reading into it and either lie and admit that was his intent, or he'd celebrate his subconscious mind for unknowingly infusing such themes. I'll side with Werner herzog and stephen king on this issue. not to say it's bullshit, but it's overrated and marginal observation because the concept of birth in blood and reprisal is abstract at best.  it's like basing a theme in a film on something that is a philosophical theory, there were tons of people at my film school that spent all their time pointing out these kind of things (or tying to infuse it in their own work) and never made anything worthwhile. i think you can, and should, but it's only an afterthought. this is all an intellectual game with no pay off. i love analytical thinking, but only if what is being dissected has validity. and while the concept is interesting, doesn't really say anything that can remotely resonate beyond a loose analogy to our life cycles. this might read harsh, but i point it out to set up the second part of my response.

This is a fun movie, it's not meant to be in any way approached the way you guys are doing it. i think there is some subtext as well, about violence, mania, subversion etc... but your reaction is unwarranted imo; aside from the last paragraph which i agree Tarantino would suck his own cock if he could. i never once looked at my watch, and it was a long film.  i think that's a great thing he's done.  sounds simple, but fuck man that's the hardest thing to do with an audience.  it's the right rollercoaster ride, which he pulled off with aces.  also, I've quoted in sheer glee moments from the film with friends and they have laughed/cheered along with me.  the dialog is very written, but so what, it works if you let it.  

when i think back to childhood movies, the ones that were seminal in the development of my tastes and love of cinema, before my mind and social circles told me what to like, they in no way concerned themselves with adhering to any of your criticisms/guidelines.  IE. big trouble in little china, the great escape, the goonies, they live, the thing, and so many others had similar bigger than life dialog, with bigger than life characters. i would agree that cinema has too much of this kind of storytelling these days, too much escapism, but i kinda feel like it's shitting on the one guy that still does it well and with the right sensibility. i feel he does go too far, sam jackson was too far, david bowie was way too fucking far.  tarantino is a bit of a douche but this movie is quite amazing when the scales settle.

I honestly wonder if Tarantino hadn't been the name on the poster if you might like it more. i think you should get past your feelings of the man.  hey look i'm with you, he loves every single inch of his own cock. but shit he knows how to tell a good story.

you have to walk in with your heart not your head. or at least that's what i did, and loved it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on December 23, 2009, 02:05:31 AM
Exclusive: Quentin Tarantino on the Basterds Prequel, Another Forthcoming Film, and Israeli Versus German Audiences
Source: NY Mag

This weekend, we met with Quentin Tarantino, who was still in town after a MoMA Q&A with Elvis Mitchell this past Thursday. As if the weekend's snowstorm wasn’t inconvenience enough, his Hugo Boss coat — which contained his I.D., credit cards, and about $2,000 in cash — was stolen from the West Village bar Galway Hooker on Saturday. Taking pity on him, we paid for some French-vanilla lattes and mimosas the next day, and took the opportunity to ask him about his next film project and how Germans and Israelis perceived Inglourious Basterds.

So, are we in for an Inglourious Basterds prequel? Apparently not yet — even though Tarantino says he has 40 pages of it written. He’s not giving up on the idea or the script, especially if the original film does well at the awards shows. But he’s got another project, which he’s keeping under wraps, coming first. It’s going to be “smaller, less epic” in scale than Basterds, and in a “different genre entirely.” He says he thinks he can finish it in a five- to six-month period of intensive writing.

Still, he only recently returned from the foreign press tour for Basterds, and the reactions in Germany and Israel were foremost on his mind, for obvious reasons. In the former country, he saw a transformation in the audience. We’ll let him explain:

“When Germans are watching World War II movies, they’re used to cringing. Why they make themselves endure it, I don’t know. That is just the way it is for them, and they expect that that’s the way it’s going to be. And they’re always forced to look at it from the guilt perspective. [It’s a] World War II movie, and nothing’s going to fucking change that. But, as [Basterds] goes on, all of a sudden, that starts dropping away, and they actually got caught up in the story. And they’re really caught up in the story — it starts getting really funny. And it gets laughs. And all of a sudden, you have a German audience watching a movie about World War II — and they’re allowed to laugh! They’re allowed to enjoy it! And the fantasy [of assasinating Hitler] is just as much their fantasy as anybody else’s.”

So, the Germans love it. How about those Israelis?

“So now, in Israel, I’m watching the film, and we get into the theater sequence. And literally, not when Hitler gets killed, but when you hear Shoshanna’s voice say, ‘This is the face of Jewish vengeance,’ the whole theater just erupted in applause. I think there were two guys that started it, but everyone jumped in. And you know something? It was violent. It was scary. There was violence in that cheer. It wasn’t like cheering Indiana Jones. There was something bloodcurdling about it. I don’t want to overstate it, but there was an edge to it. There was violence in it … there was blood in the air, which was wild. It was a wild thing to experience. It was a great experience, and it was real.”

It certainly sounds like a Tarantinoesque moment.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on January 05, 2010, 10:00:09 PM
I just saw this for the first time a couple of days ago.

Why would anyone feel this is appropriate for applause?

I'm seriously curious.

i want to hear more of your interpretation. i really think tarantino wants the audience to cheer in that moment.

And i don't just mean this section, i mean the whole thing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on January 06, 2010, 07:17:45 AM
well you can read the whole thread to know reasons why, because most people here seem to have loved it.

I was too, and did read the whole thread, and it didn't change my opinion.

I was looking for something to compare it to and I think I've got it:

Boondock Saints.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: children with angels on January 06, 2010, 08:24:10 AM
I was looking for something to compare it to and I think I've got it:

Boondock Saints.

Come on - that really is a ridiculous comparison.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:48:46 AM
I guess what I'm asking is, am I just being insensitive to the holocaust?

I just don't see the logic in down playing a serious genocide by making hitler less on meth, and humorous.  Only to pump him full of bullets later (yay payoff!).  The characters are too focused on being caricatures, even though this is an actual time and place in history. For that, i don't feel like it works

To me, if you applaud, you're complying with this propaganda made by an american.  The same thing the crazy Nazi's cheered about.  I don't think the film set out to do some study on violence etc, like some have mentioned.  However,  knowing people applauded raises new issues to discuss about the film. 

So, we cheer because the 3rd Reich finally gets what's coming to them?  Ahhh, I can breathe in relief, finally, all that bad stuff never happened.  If the film was supposed to do this it failed. 

This film really baffles me.  With the david bowie, Sam Jackson, and the casual scalping. 

The whole idea of making the soldier leave the theater was done terribly, especially if he was trying to show remorse or regret with that performance.

Aside from having his head in hands, it seemed like he wanted to get laid. Because, after getting the premier moved to Shoshanna's, this allowed the soldier to spout the most original line "after all I've done for you!"

If this movie wanted to be somewhat accurate to what humans in that situation would do, they would have had the soldier stay in his seat to impress all of his fucking peers and superiors, and ride the gravy train.

Nazi's are hard up on their neglectful tradition, and every Nazi in this film proves it, aside from maybe Hanz, who is just a little smarter it seems .  So, why doesn't Fredrick embrace the biggest moment in his Nazi life?  Jewish Puss? Good thing he brought protection, ZING.

But seriously, I've already typed way too much that doesn't say anything.  The film kept me entertained.  not in a "light" way either. 

All of this is subject to get tossed out the window though, i have only watched it once, I would prefer it time to grow on me...I just don't know when I'll ever watch it again.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on January 06, 2010, 10:05:14 AM
I guess what I'm asking is, am I just being insensitive to the holocaust?

:doh: what are you talking about?

I just don't see the logic in down playing a serious genocide by making hitler less on meth, and humorous.  Only to pump him full of bullets later (yay payoff!).

well it's pretty simple actually... you take a hated historical figure, make him ridiculous and shoot tons of bullets at him, cheering ensues... I mean, what's not to understand about that? (((also, did you mean that QT made Hitler LESS humourous than IRL? Guess not but unclear I thought from the way your wrote it..... double also: I don't understand what you mean by: "making hitler less on meth"... I know he used amphetamines but I don't see the movie portraying Hitler as a Hitler-but-less-on-meth version?)))

I don't know I don't understand your post at all. At first you seemed to hate it, then you talk nonsense a bit about it, and  then you close with "don't mind anything I just said, it will grow on me when I watch it again"



As for the boondock saints haha yes it's ridiculous. But they do have in common meathead-intellectualism and violence. I was mostly messing though

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: B.C. Long on January 11, 2010, 02:57:40 AM
Every copy of this movie should be burned. No one should be allowed to see it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 11, 2010, 03:50:33 AM
To me, if you applaud, you're complying with this propaganda made by an american.  The same thing the crazy Nazi's cheered about.  I don't think the film set out to do some study on violence etc, like some have mentioned.  However,  knowing people applauded raises new issues to discuss about the film.

The propaganda that Hitler was evil and a lot of people wanted him dead so some set about doing it? It's hardly 1930s German propaganda because the film purposely tries to distort history to make the audience understand the fantastic elements of the story. There is little doubt that this film will be separated from serious consideration of any kind. It's anti-historical tone actually makes it more moral because it destroys any confusions about intent.

I've seen a few German and Soviet propaganda films from the time. When they dealt with historical subjects about real people, they wanted to blur the line about what a fair and not fair portrait of someone could be. The films were about beliefs that someone stood for instead of who they were. You could argue that Inglorious Basterds is equally black and white with its portrait and only positions itself as a smear on history, but it's deliberate lack of taking sides for anything serious on any side on the debate about Hitler and history just makes it aloof to any real political discussion of propaganda.

Your best bet is to hammer the film for exploitation by trying to make a horrible subject entertaining. You make mention of that, but I must stop you in saying that this film is like old propaganda films. It couldn't be further from those movies. The question of whether it exploits is fair, especially considering the Holocaust, but since the physical death of Hitler in the film and real life has little to do with his crimes with the Holocaust, I don't think there's much. Tarantino adequately avoids making the Holocaust a real subject in the film. If Tarantino took a cue from Robert Zemeckis and rewrote a major fabric of history in the Holocaust like Zemeckis did in Forrest Gump when that film explained that Elvis really got his dance moves from Forrest and not black musicians and dancers. If Tarantino decided he could conveniently rewrite a piece of Holocaust history because it was entertaining and didn't care about the image it would portray, then yes, he would be exploitative and I would have problems with it like I do with Forrest Gump (more severe, of course) but Tarantino avoids that pitfalls and others that step on any real toes of history. None of the things in the film mesh up to real history outside of general circumstances. There is little to argue on that front.

This is just an ecapistist film. Criticize it for its own merits.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Neil on January 11, 2010, 09:02:25 AM
^ You're absolutely right.

I guess we've come all this way, 50 years later, and the pinnacle of revenge is killing a dead guy.
Personally I wasn't vindicated by QT's efforts. However, I actually like your breakdown of the film in that way.

Still sort of confused about the cheering though.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Alexandro on January 11, 2010, 11:49:03 AM
SPOILERS

To me, the real enjoyment of the movie comes from the way it looks as "film" itself. This is as much as world war 2 film as it is a film about movies, both in the constant referencing to other works and the constant self awareness, but also because movies are an important, pivotal part of the plot.

There are two separate plans to hurt the Germans and they both include the act itself of going to a theatre and watching a film. At the same time, although the film never shows any battle scenes or any military intelligence display by the germans in their occupation, we are shown repeatedly that "films" are a weapon they use to enforce their ideological dominance. So, they use films as a weapon and the americans and british use that as a counterweapon. The "german cinema under the third reich" is the only historical fact that is talked about with any realism and that's the one thing the movie uses as a starting point for it's different plots of revenge.

Shoshana's act of vengeance consists of two things: fuck up their propaganda movie by inserting herself in it, and burning down the theatre with nitrate film stock. The basterd's plan is to lock everyone up in the theatre and kill them with machine guns. that is, within the context of the movie, "film" is the thing that liberates. it frees shosanna from her emotional debt with revenge, and it frees the world of the third reich because all the big guys are murdered there. outside of it, the movie itself, with this actions, frees the audience from hitler and from history. So to me, yes, the movie inglorious basterds is doing what the characters in the movie are doing, which is use "film" as a counterweapon against the propaganda of the third reich cinema. That's what I meant on my first comment saying that cinema is portrayed as a "liberating agent". Some people may think that this is "meathead intellectualism", or that it's a matter of "yeah we killed hitler, the holocaust never happened" or something along those lines, but I don't feel that at all.

Anyway that's about the "meaning" or whatever. if we talk purely about the film, i watched again and felt a big problem which bothered me the first time and I guess will never stop bothering me, and that's the long, unfunny dragging scene with Landa selling himself on the phone to the americans. Just doesn't work for me. Out of that, the film is pretty great.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on January 14, 2010, 12:52:57 AM
Quentin Tarantino on his 'Basterds'
By Chris Lee; Los Angeles Times

With its aura of faux humility, dense saturation of "for your consideration" ads and humble-yet-effusive nominee posturing, awards season can be a long (if gala-packed and celebrity-studded) slog for Hollywood watchers.

So it comes as a blast of fresh air when a front-runner allows himself to get into the competitive spirit. Cut to writer-director Quentin Tarantino mulling the Oscar possibilities for his spaghetti western-cum- World War II thriller " Inglourious Basterds." So far, the film has taken in more than $300 million worldwide, landed 10 Critics Choice Movie Awards nominations (as well as a Directors Guild of America nod for Tarantino) and was being handicapped by certain gurus of gold as a shoo-in among the best picture Oscar contenders even before the category doubled to 10 nominees.

"Do I want to win? I totally want to win," Tarantino exclaimed over a vodka and cranberry at a Beverly Hills hotel the day before "Basterds" snagged four Golden Globe nominations. "I've already won an Oscar. But if I did win, that would be one for every decade I've been in the business. And that would be awesome! Especially because everyone wrote me off in the first five years of my career as this rock star-y flash in the pan."

A genre-bending mash-up of the "men on a mission" war movie genre splintered into five "chapters," "Basterds" follows a Jewish terror squad that sets out to destabilize the Third Reich by killing and scalping German soldiers in occupied France. Some sections of the film spool out fueled by talk-y, monologue-driven drama, others with gritty shoot 'em up fantasy.

And while Brad Pitt may be the film's focal point as Aldo "the Apache" Raines, the scene-stealing Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, who portrays the polyglot Nazi colonel known as "the Jew hunter," is its heart and soul. Waltz is an odds-on favorite for the supporting actor Oscar (and so far has secured a Golden Globe nod).

But to hear it from Tarantino, casting the smooth-talking sadist Col. Hans Landa proved so difficult that until Waltz arrived, the writer-director considered scuttling the project.

"When I finished the script, I'm aware enough to know, this is one of the best roles I've ever written -- one of the best roles I'll ever write," Tarantino said. "It was so there on the page, if I couldn't get what was on the page onto the screen, I didn't want to make the movie."

Auditions began inauspiciously in Berlin. After seeing a number of German actors fluent in English, no one was nailing the essence of the character: a man who is, by turns, silky and bloodthirsty, debonair and extremely goofy -- in four different languages.

"Other German actors would come in, they'd do the German part fantastic, stumble through the French to one degree or another," Tarantino recalled. "But when it came to English, they couldn't make my dialogue sing."

He continued: "I pulled the producers together and said, 'Look, guys, I don't know if we are going to find Landa. I might have just written a role that's unplayable. And I don't want to make the movie without Landa. I'd rather just publish the script."

Waltz, 53, a journeyman stage and TV actor, became the 12th person to read for the part and iced it.

"Christoph came in, he sure looks like Landa. He carries himself in a certain way and that wasn't him trying -- Christoph is just very erudite," said Tarantino. "And halfway through the opening scene, I was like, 'This is the guy!' "

With his seemingly bottomless well of enthusiasm, eminent quip-worthiness and a born hustler's easy smile, Tarantino admitted that he has taken to the kind of Hollywood politicking that will result in Oscar votes like a duck to water. Having previously won an Oscar for best screenplay for 1994's "Pulp Fiction" (an award he shares with co-writer Roger Avary) and landed a Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival for "Pulp," he's no stranger to the drill.

So, what kind of statuette-grabbing plays is master Oscar campaigner Harvey Weinstein calling from the sideline? "It's just, 'Go to the parties. Everyone loves your movie so just keep reminding them. When they see you, they'll be reminded of how much.' "

And again, the Southern California-reared former video store clerk pondered what academy validation for "Basterds" would symbolize at this point in his career. "The movie flew in the face of conventional wisdom in almost every aspect. It's a movie made out of five chapters, some are like one-act plays -- and with all these different languages in there," Tarantino said. "And there's nothing better for an artist like myself than to prove conventional wisdom wrong.

"So, it actually means a lot to be in contention at the end of my second decade in business," he said in a voice barely below a shout. "My wine is aging very well!"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on January 14, 2010, 07:36:46 PM
best supporting actor and nothing more for this piece of shit.

i'd rather The Huh? Locker sweep than any further ego boost for this idiot.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on January 14, 2010, 07:53:54 PM
Between this and Avatar, I've noticed people spend a lot of time railing against these movies and others.

They complain and say that's 2 1/2 hours they'll never get back and then rush to their computers to post about it.



Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2010, 07:55:36 PM
Between this and Avatar, I've noticed people spend a lot of time railing against these movies and others.

They complain and say that's 2 1/2 hours they'll never get back and then rush to their computers to post about it.

Your point being?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on January 14, 2010, 07:58:24 PM
Do I have to say it any more clearly?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
What you say is clear, but I didn't see a point to saying it so I was thinking there was more to it, like it was going to lead to an idea on your part instead of a basic throwaway observation.

Edit: NM. Your point isn't even clear. You say people are bashing Basterds and Avatar and others. Alright...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on January 14, 2010, 08:45:54 PM
The point is clear. Should I list other movies for you GOLD TRUMPET? Would that make it better? I've been on this board and the last one since the nearly the beginning. I've made many posts and seen others post only to have some sort of sarcastic or negative comment posted immediately. I think there there are others who would agree with me.

And what would make it a throwaway observation? Your opinion?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2010, 08:52:32 PM
Yes, there are people who do make sarcastic posts, but when I made the original reply, I was sincerely interested in if you had something more to say because I find it fascinating that Inglorious Basterds went from being revered on the board to attacked by a lot of people. I want some of the original applauders (besides Alexandro) to come to the film's defense and make comment, but it looks like a lot of people are just shutting up. I find that interesting.

The second reply was more sarcastic, but it's because I remembered it was you and I just don't like you. Remember who attacked who personally first, douche. Play the victim card to someone else. And yes, your comment turned out to just be dumb.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on January 14, 2010, 09:09:05 PM
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2010, 09:18:43 PM
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

Haha, did I say that or even imply it? All that I implied is that I have no misgivings in my post.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on January 15, 2010, 05:42:33 PM
Ah well, I'm flattered you remembered me, even if I can't recall what for.

Douche is a little strong though.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pas on January 15, 2010, 07:11:57 PM
meh, hardly  :yabbse-smiley:
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 17, 2010, 12:51:41 PM
Yeah i think the film is so out of proportion in everything that it cannot be any bit historical and propaganda like. I did jump on the "fucking awesome" bandwagon. Probably, because some time into it, i saw no relation between the characters and the nationalities they supposedly represented. The colors are unlike any WW2 film i've ever seen and immediately put you at ease. If i saw Schindler's list in these colors, i would probably laugh. Along with some diverting dialogue and total nutcase pacing i think this is an animated feature, a comic book. I think there were plenty of obvious signs for not taking this seriously. As far as the intrinsic value of the idea, well, i just don't think it's nearly as important as the amount of sensationalism it induces. Ultimately, you're not laughing at violence in this film but more importantly, the absurdity of it. I don't think there has been one Tarantino film that didn't make me laugh. :) I am quite happy about this one even if it comes at a price of being meathead asshole. :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on January 21, 2010, 12:18:33 AM
Yes, there are people who do make sarcastic posts, but when I made the original reply, I was sincerely interested in if you had something more to say because I find it fascinating that Inglorious Basterds went from being revered on the board to attacked by a lot of people. I want some of the original applauders (besides Alexandro) to come to the film's defense and make comment, but it looks like a lot of people are just shutting up. I find that interesting.  

first off, polanski's basterd child summed it up nicely IMHO. he captures the perfect tone in a rebuttal. the perfect response to this film is a short one. because  to engage in further debate puts more attention on things that arn't important... and then... they inadvertently become important. I can only speak for myself, but i was one of "original applauders" you mention. to me, the very issue is that people are putting too much fuel into they're analysis, ultimately ending in scholar debates... so it's kinda a paradox disproving theory with more theory. now i know others will say I'm trying to silence this debate but making these comments, and what more can i say then I'm not. i'm shutting up not because i feel i've been bested or persuaded to think otherwise, i just don't think anyone's tried to tell me i'm wrong. so if i've got nothing more to say (or other defenders) then it will naturally look like the haters have stayed their course.

it's a playful film that made me laugh cringe and cheer, and most importantly i never once looked at my watch. there was a day when that's all that was needed to make me love a film. and while I'm not like that all the time anymore, and i enjoy scholarly debates myself, while i was watching inglorious i didn't go there.  god I'm glad i didn't. that's my review. I'm not shutting up, I've just made that point.  was there something else that I (or other defenders) haven't addressed? what if we don't want to passionately defend this but still really enjoyed the film?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on January 25, 2010, 11:16:26 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/inglourious3.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on January 26, 2010, 10:19:26 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/melanie.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on January 28, 2010, 03:05:16 AM
French Chick. She's pretty hot.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jerome on January 28, 2010, 04:44:32 PM
i don't know, she's really good in all the french films i have seen of hers, but some of her scenes in IB seem off. the one where she and her lover marcel plot the burning down of the theater is particularly bad. which i guess comes from the fact that tarantino doesn't speak french and therefore couldn't direct the actors properly. and also the fact that the rhythm and style of his dialogue was mostly lost in translation. i suppose non-french speakers can't really tell, but trust a frenchy, it's pretty cringeworthy. i wonder if it's the same with the bits in german. but yeah, she is pretty hot.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on January 28, 2010, 05:03:53 PM
(http://unpaintedmasterpiece.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/melanie-laurent_354.jpg)

Oui
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 28, 2010, 05:21:43 PM
Christoph Waltz obscures everyone in this movie... I wouldn't put anyone else in his category. You can count this as an official vote.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 28, 2010, 06:33:08 PM
Christoph Waltz's performance is fine, but it certainly isn't worth all this acclaim. The meat of his performance is just the creepiness to his interrogation scenes whenever he encounters somebody new. It's unnerving and scary, but it's repeated almost to a T everytime he does it. I remember feeling creeped out by it the first two lengthy scenes, but afterwards it felt systematic and predictable. A boredom kicked in everytime he came on camera like I had to wait for him to get done with his routine. That boredom made me realize that the performance didn't go beyond its one note.

It reminds me of Andy Garcia in Ocean's Eleven. Andy is excellent in being sinister, but Ocean's Eleven actually does right to his character because he's rarely used in the film. It allows him to compliment the scenes he is in because he actually does elevate the tone and change the dynamic of the scene when he's suppose to. Since Garcia's is also one note, the minimal use is appropriate. Inglorious Basterds plays into Waltz's character so much that it just hankers all the characters and scenes.
 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on January 28, 2010, 06:40:49 PM
it's pretty cringeworthy. i wonder if it's the same with the bits in german.

trust me, it's the same in english.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on January 28, 2010, 07:17:04 PM
I guess i just really like his character. I just love rational depraved motherfuckers. :)))
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 14, 2010, 05:47:39 AM
Inglourious Basterds has been playing on TV all month where I am. Actually, it has been on every other day here so I've been allowed to catch the film at various parts and enjoy the better moments. I admit it was hard to enjoy those moments in theater because watching the whole film disrupted everything, but it has been nice to watch the finale massacre like 10 times now. That's still just fun.

In the meantime, here is my favorite Tarantino interview on Inglourious Basterds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAHx5O8NFpM

Done on the Rachel Maddow show and goes into the political correlations the film has to terrorism today. Tarantino admits his unintentional aspirations in regard to those issues, but goes into length how it does exist and there is a little bit of role reversal with Americans in the film. Tarantino also finds the best film possible when he compares IB to Bonnie and Clyde. I thought that was a spot on choice.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on February 14, 2010, 11:48:18 AM
Christoph Waltz's performance is fine, but it certainly isn't worth all this acclaim. The meat of his performance is just the creepiness to his interrogation scenes whenever he encounters somebody new. It's unnerving and scary, but it's repeated almost to a T everytime he does it. I remember feeling creeped out by it the first two lengthy scenes, but afterwards it felt systematic and predictable. A boredom kicked in everytime he came on camera like I had to wait for him to get done with his routine. That boredom made me realize that the performance didn't go beyond its one note.

It reminds me of Andy Garcia in Ocean's Eleven. Andy is excellent in being sinister, but Ocean's Eleven actually does right to his character because he's rarely used in the film. It allows him to compliment the scenes he is in because he actually does elevate the tone and change the dynamic of the scene when he's suppose to. Since Garcia's is also one note, the minimal use is appropriate. Inglorious Basterds plays into Waltz's character so much that it just hankers all the characters and scenes.
 

They're not the repeated tone at all. At the farm he flatters the guy before he turns the tables. At the retaurant he belittles and cuts down the girl with racist insinuations about her friend at the theater. With Brad Pitt it's a mutual admiration society.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 14, 2010, 02:13:18 PM
I think you're misreading the scenes. The intention is for him to keep the same face. When he's belittling the French girl, he's trying to do it in the most courteous way. When he's talking to the French farmer, it's all about courtesy. He's still driving a stake into both of their hearts emotionally, but in both scenes the point is he's carrying on evil Nazi policies and keeping a happy refrain. The front does drop a little after he starts helping Pitt, but they look at him with disgust when he's double crossed his country and still is overly happy. In some ways, you would think when a person no longer has to keep up an act, they would lose the act, but Waltz's is still at it. The implication is that the nature of his evil is always going to be part of him. I think that's what makes it disturbing in some ways.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on February 14, 2010, 06:20:28 PM
Im sure if you pissed and shat on Hans Landa he would still ask you for American citizenship. That is exactly what's interesting about his psychology. He has no real sense of self-admiration, dignity or morality. His sense of ethics is non existant; he is a fucking mutant of a human. You cannot consider him under-developed or savage due to the fact that he is obviously a learned and well read individual. He questions all the nihilistic conclusions by portraying a kind of post-man. He makes everyone ask, "how the fuck did he arrive at this conclusion? Are we missing something?" Because he isn't bound to any ideology but the urge to survive; and, by making a rational choice of surviving through annihilation of others rather than cooperation and diplomacy, he finds himself outside of the humane bubble as we see it. You can call his deviant mindset psychotic and sociopathic but the fact that he arrived at it through rational deliberation is something so unique it makes us cringe at the idea. That is exactly what's so offensive and brilliant --his depraved psyche obscured by well-mannered and polished demeanor. Tarantino totally got it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on February 14, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
I wouldn't say he has no sense of self-admiration, it's probably one of the driving aspects of his character. He relishes the role that he has been given by the Nazi's because he believes himself superior to most other German officers. Smarter than them for undermining their position in the war. And he is visibly upset for a moment when Aldo fails to reciprocate the acknowledgement or respect Landa has given him.

As for the above, I wouldn't say I misread the scenes either. I'd say he definitely shows an arc in the movie that changes from scene to scene. At the beginning of the film, he is in total control of the situation, manipulating it not only for control but for vanity...and at the end he is reduced to a buffon who has to carry his 'mark' for the rest of his life, stripped of his vanity. I don't think double-crossing his country was any problem for him to begin with.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on February 14, 2010, 07:34:22 PM
Regarding the absence of self-admiration....I am building on the idea that a person of his wickedness and intellect could not consider himself "better" by any argument. He acts to his advantage not because he thinks he is better but because he recognizes that everyone, himself included, is a worthless piece of shit. His scheme is not of arrogance but of simple self-preservation. The Nazi ideology is just a platform for his atrocities, not a driving force as we find out by the end of the film. This character is different from SS fanatics who ended up shooting themselves by the end of the war. He is more of a Mengele type.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on February 14, 2010, 07:53:21 PM
That's an interesting perspective, though I don't wholly agree with it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 14, 2010, 08:06:27 PM
I'd say he definitely shows an arc in the movie that changes from scene to scene. At the beginning of the film, he is in total control of the situation, manipulating it not only for control but for vanity...and at the end he is reduced to a buffon who has to carry his 'mark' for the rest of his life, stripped of his vanity. I don't think double-crossing his country was any problem for him to begin with.

The only reduction of his character comes in the last few minutes of the film. Up until that point, he's a character in command. Through out the film, he's known to lash out a little bit, but he's still in control and acting with the same manner of tone. There isn't a scene by scene change or progression. Final circumstances change his position, but that's it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on February 14, 2010, 08:17:51 PM
That's an interesting perspective, though I don't wholly agree with it.

That's cool, im just trying to explain his moral "deficiencies" as something he recognizes and accepts in himself and others, not something he evades by way of haughty Nazi ideology. That is, he doesn't think it's morally right to kill jews cuz he's a nazi but recognizes there is not such thing as "right."  It seems like he completely bypasses ethics and disregards morality as irrelevant and illusory, a kind of human make-believe. It really takes a most cynical nihilist to reason like this and nihilism applies universally so he could not conceive of himself as the "better" of the worthless.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: picolas on February 14, 2010, 08:58:24 PM
post-man. nice. that description actually makes me appreciate his character even more than i already did.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on February 14, 2010, 09:50:29 PM
some good ole speculation on the deep motivations and rationale of a fictional nazi colonel lol thats what we do here

btw im pretty sure Mr.Waltz just agreed with me at 4:10... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0-9HBn5xM&feature=related
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on February 16, 2010, 05:10:02 PM
I'd say he definitely shows an arc in the movie that changes from scene to scene. At the beginning of the film, he is in total control of the situation, manipulating it not only for control but for vanity...and at the end he is reduced to a buffon who has to carry his 'mark' for the rest of his life, stripped of his vanity. I don't think double-crossing his country was any problem for him to begin with.

The only reduction of his character comes in the last few minutes of the film. Up until that point, he's a character in command. Through out the film, he's known to lash out a little bit, but he's still in control and acting with the same manner of tone. There isn't a scene by scene change or progression. Final circumstances change his position, but that's it.

i think that's what makes it rewarding. it's a reveal, and while i didn't see a slow deconstruction of his character to lead me to the point of understanding his opportunism, it doesn't remotely surprise me at the same time.  it's actually a well drawn character in that regard. if i look back to all of his previous scenes he never once uses hatred of Jews as his motivator, rather he talks about his process and personal quality. he is always selling his professional ability, which is an effective commander. from the first scene to the cinema venue interrogation he never talks pathos.  sometimes people do things that you first think WTF but then go, ya wow i should have seen that coming. while i enjoy the scene by scene breakdown on character, i see the benefit of this as well. not everything has to be guided.

i see him as an apathetic sociopathic opportunist.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: MacGuffin on February 16, 2010, 09:19:19 PM
Quentin Tarantino on his movie influences: From 'Operation Amsterdam' to 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'
Source: Los Angeles Times

Most writers, musicians and filmmakers are delighted to talk about the biggest influences on their work. After all, for artists, the influences from their youth are usually the subconscious fuel that drives their imagination. And when it comes to cinematic influence peddling, no American filmmaker has spent more time yakking about the movies that made him fall in love with movies than Quentin Tarantino, whose Oscar- nominated "Inglourious Basterds" is crammed with hundreds of references to obscure old films of every shape, stripe and size.

So when I decided to start an informal series of interviews with Oscar-nominated talent about the varied influences on their work, it seemed like a no-brainer that Tarantino should get the first turn in the spotlight, since no filmmaker since Jean-Luc Godard has worn their influences more on their sleeve. Since he made his debut with "Reservoir Dogs," Tarantino has populated his work with borrowings and homages to everything from film noir and martial arts films to Japanese animation and spaghetti westerns, not to mention a long-forgotten 1939 B movie that actually kills off Hitler that Tarantino discovered in an old videotape rack at Safeway.

But as it turns out, after all these years of happily giving it up for his favorite filmmakers, Tarantino has become deeply conflicted about discussing the sources of his influences, in large part because Tarantino's honesty has often been used against him by critics and bloggers when they want to belittle his films or blame the filmmaker's endless parade of movie references for the swarm of mindless Harry Knowles-style fanboys who now dominate the online movie scene. In the course of a long conversation the other day, Tarantino managed to go--in a matter of minutes--from saying he "loved having influences" to saying that he was "unbelievably annoyed" with critics who used his reliance on influences as a way of trashing his movies. 

After checking out some of the critical feedback to Tarantino's films, I began to feel his pain. In the course of an otherwise admiring review of "Basterds," Roger Ebert argued that judging from the way Tarantino photographed Melanie Laurent near the end of the film, focusing on her shoes, lips, dress and facial veil, "you can't tell me [that] he hasn't seen the work of the Scottish artist Jack Vettriano." (Cackling with laughter, Tarantino's response was a resounding: "No.")

But the critic that really got under his skin was Salon's Stephanie Zacharek, who in the course of reviewing "Kill Bill" said the movie felt as if Tarantino "were holding us captive on a moldy postgraduate couch somewhere, subjecting us to 90 minutes worth of his favorite movie clips strung together, accompanied by an exhausting running commentary along the lines of 'Isn't this great?' "

To say that Tarantino finds this aggravating would be an understatement. "Here's my problem with this whole influence thing," he told me. "Instead of critics reviewing my movies, now what they're really doing is trying to match wits with me. Every time they review my movies, it's like they want to play chess with the mastermind and show off every reference they can find, even when half of it is all of their own making. It feels like the critics are IMDB-ing everything I do. It just rubs me the wrong way because they end up using it as a stick to beat me down with."

Once he got that off his chest, however, Tarantino was happy to share, in great detail, some of the many key influences on "Inglourious Basterds." "I love having influences because I want people to get excited when they see something in the film or hear me talking about it and then actually go see the movie that inspired me in the first place," he says. "For example, the whole opening scene in 'Basterds' is completely and utterly taken from the first appearance of Angel Eyes [Lee Van Cleef] in 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.' That's why it has that whole spaghetti western vibe.

"So I was really using the whole feeling and mood from a scene in another movie, but what happens is that it becomes my scene with my actors and my way of telling the story and I feel like I somehow make it my own."

What are some of the other homages and references in "Inglourious Basterds"? Keep reading:

To hear Tarantino tell it, it was the time he spent watching old World War II movies that gave him the confidence to embark on "Inglourious Basterds." "It wasn't that I needed permission," he explains. "But what really struck me was that these were films made by directors who'd had to flee their country because of Hitler, and yet the movies they made weren't all terror or horror. In fact, while they definitely showed the Nazis and their cruelty, they were adventure films, whether you're talking about 'Hangmen Also Die' or 'Reunion in France' or 'To Be or Not to Be' or 'O.S.S.,' an Alan Ladd film that's like a prequel to 'The Good Shepherd.'

"They were fun and thrilling and exciting and, most amazingly, they had a lot of comedy in them, which really made an impact on me. I mean, for every movie with a sadistic Nazi, there's one with a Nazi who's more of a buffoon or a figure of ridicule."

Tarantino says he loved listening to the dialogue--what he calls the "great '40s turns of phrases"--that permeated the films. "The slang is really cool," he says. "People were always calling each other 'killer dillers,' which I kept trying to work into 'Basterds,' though I never found a place for it. But that's why you watch the movie from a period--you want to hear how people really talked."

Tarantino essentially set up a screening series of relevant films for most of his actors. For Melanie Laurent, who plays Shosanna Dreyfus, Tarantino says: "I wanted her to pretty much watch every movie about people fighting behind enemy lines. The first movie I always had in mind was 'Operation Amsterdam' with Peter Finch and Eva Bartok, even though Shosannah became a very different sort of character in our film."

Tarantino had Mike Myers, who plays Ed Fenech, watch a lot of old '40s films with Alan Napier, who often played opposite George Sanders (and ended up being immortalized as Alfred in the "Batman" TV series). "Mike would watch the movies and then ask me, 'You want me to do that?'--meaning Alan Napier--and I'd say, 'Yeah, do that.' " 

Tarantino envisioned Michael Fassbender, who plays Archie Hicox, as a George Sanders type of smoothie. "So I had him watch all the old 'The Saint' movies with Sanders, just to soak up his highly articulated speech and his woody manner."

For Diane Kruger, who plays Bridget Von Hammersmark, a sultry double agent, Tarantino steeped her in the career of Ilona Massey, a now-forgotten Hungarian singer who was brought to Hollywood when the studios were raiding Hungary and Poland for Marlena Dietrich knockoffs. Tarantino had Kruger watch Massey's "International Lady," a '40s-era spy film, where it turned out that Massey wore pretty much the same outfit Tarantino's costume designer had made up for Kruger.

"That's an example of where I didn't want Diane to just be Dietrich. But with my characters, I really need to know their history, so I had to figure out Bridget's whole filmography. So in my mind, I decided that Universal had come to Bridget--the way the studios had done to Massey--and offered her a contract, but she was savvy enough to know that if she went to Universal and she didn't hit right away, she'd be stuck doing Frankenstein movies, which is exactly like Ilona Massey's real career!"

It begins to feel a little bit like a hall of mirrors but this is how Tarantino's imagination really works, feeding off his fantasies inspired by his favorite old movies. One day, on the "Basterds" set, he was stymied by how to shoot part of the film's pivotal basement tavern scene. "I thought what we'd done was kinda boring, so at the end of the day, I said, 'Let's do the scene like Josef von Sternberg would've done it.' "

It turns out Tarantino had only recently fallen in love with Von Sternberg, in part because Tarantino had never been a Dietrich fan. But after he saw one Von Sternberg film, he couldn't stop. The director's seductive, opulent style began to permeate Tarantino's imagination.

"So there I was on the set, doing this tracking shot, sweeping past all the bottles on the bar, as my characters came in to sit down and everything started popping again," Tarantino says, his voice crackling with enthusiasm. "It was great. It was the kind of luxurious camera move that I imagined Von Sternberg would've done, except now I was behind the camera. I figured, if I'm gonna shoot actresses in an exquisite '40s style, who better to look to for inspiration?"   
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 16, 2010, 09:44:52 PM
I'd say he definitely shows an arc in the movie that changes from scene to scene. At the beginning of the film, he is in total control of the situation, manipulating it not only for control but for vanity...and at the end he is reduced to a buffon who has to carry his 'mark' for the rest of his life, stripped of his vanity. I don't think double-crossing his country was any problem for him to begin with.

The only reduction of his character comes in the last few minutes of the film. Up until that point, he's a character in command. Through out the film, he's known to lash out a little bit, but he's still in control and acting with the same manner of tone. There isn't a scene by scene change or progression. Final circumstances change his position, but that's it.

i think that's what makes it rewarding. it's a reveal, and while i didn't see a slow deconstruction of his character to lead me to the point of understanding his opportunism, it doesn't remotely surprise me at the same time.  it's actually a well drawn character in that regard. if i look back to all of his previous scenes he never once uses hatred of Jews as his motivator, rather he talks about his process and personal quality. he is always selling his professional ability, which is an effective commander. from the first scene to the cinema venue interrogation he never talks pathos.  sometimes people do things that you first think WTF but then go, ya wow i should have seen that coming. while i enjoy the scene by scene breakdown on character, i see the benefit of this as well. not everything has to be guided.

i see him as an apathetic sociopathic opportunist.

I actually don't see him as that apathetic. When he finds out Kruger's character, he has the chance to change allegiance and side with her because he has uncovered the plot, but he decides to kill her even though her death means nothing because when he does meet up with Pitt's character a little later, he is willing changes sides even though the status quo is the same. Him killing her is a point of national pride for him. It mirrors the Nazi soldier who belittles Kruger's in the bar character because he finds out she was a double agent. He's offended by it, but he himself has made a small pact with the Jewish soldiers to not shoot even though that goes against his protocol as a soldier.

If anything, I think Tarantino wants to show the national pride that exists within these characters even after they have changed sides. It's like when a soldier is in a foxhole, they find God. When a German soldier is in the same place, they can find common sense, but their prejudices will still carry over.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pubrick on February 17, 2010, 12:22:46 AM
yes i agree wholeheartedly, this is the worst film of the year.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Derek on February 17, 2010, 12:42:50 AM
You must be kidding. If this was something along the lines of Jack or Hook, you'd have a point. You didn't like like it. Still, it's no where close to the worst movie of the year, Tarantino still hasn't made a bad one.

You didn't see Transformers?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: pete on February 17, 2010, 03:33:28 AM
the thing about P's one-liners is that you can like, hear the timing just by reading it.  that was a good one.  derek don't argue transformers 2, that point is not worth arguing.  just enjoy the one-liner because it was a good one.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: socketlevel on February 17, 2010, 03:43:30 AM
actually GT you bring up a really good point, and that scene is one that i forgot entirely while writing my previous post. i will need to rethink this. off the top of my head maybe he saw what she was doing as an attack on how well he does his job... and by letting her get away she outsmarted him or outplayed him (even if only in his head).  like all the lies she told him in the previous scene about the mountain climbing enraged him, feeling insulted she would try to put that past him. and truthfully, he gains nothing by letting her live considering he's been concocting his own agenda, she's just a liability that would be a loose random factor. but that's a weak assumption I'll give you that, just popped in my head.

on a side note, the mountain climbing lie is fucking awesome. this is another moment tarantino got the tone perfectly, it's a horrible lie a-la cheesy WW2/James bond style films. it's like if you picture a German wearing leeterhozen (spelling) from an Alfred hitchcock movie they'd be mountain climbing. i miss movies that the stars did these kind of outlandishly adventurous activities. tarantino plays with it the same way he plays with the english speaking in the first scene. the viewer first thinks ha ha mountain climbing, but quickly believes that this kind of a lie is passable in this fictional world. but then later when landa laughs hysterically at it, the film (and that character) address how idiotic it is.  i really like that play on genre and expectation.

and that wasn't a one liner. i appreciate P is trying to passionately draw his line in the sand on the film, but there was no wit in it. he meant it in as far as you can take it with a grain of salt that worst shouldn't be taken so literal.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 17, 2010, 04:12:00 AM
actually GT you bring up a really good point, and that scene is one that i forgot entirely while writing my previous post. i will need to rethink this. off the top of my head maybe he saw what she was doing as an attack on how well he does his job... and by letting her get away she outsmarted him or outplayed him (even if only in his head).  like all the lies she told him in the previous scene about the mountain climbing enraged him, feeling insulted she would try to put that past him. and truthfully, he gains nothing by letting her live considering he's been concocting his own agenda, she's just a liability that would be a loose random factor. but that's a weak assumption I'll give you that, just popped in my head.

I'll add more detail to try to convince you about my point. By killing her, all he stands to do is cast doubt on himself in the allies' eyes. He wants them to believe he intended to help them as soon as he got wind of Operation Kino, but he kills their double agent for no good reason. If Allied forces did a basic investigation of her death they would know that and put blame on him which could compromise the benefits he wants as a new American citizen. No, he compromises his new allegiances by killing her so the reason has to lie on a personality deficiency within him that goes against his full professional character. It has to rest on his prejudices in some manner.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: polanski's illegitimate baby on February 17, 2010, 10:03:42 PM
the thing about P's one-liners is that you can like, hear the timing just by reading it.  that was a good one.  derek don't argue transformers 2, that point is not worth arguing.  just enjoy the one-liner because it was a good one.


xixax -the only place where one-liners find their home (next banner ad)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: modage on February 18, 2010, 09:28:12 AM
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/basterds-poster1.jpg)

(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/basterds-poster6.jpg)

more: http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2010/02/17/behold-the-lost-art-of-inglourious-basterds/
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: tpfkabi on March 02, 2010, 04:05:59 PM
not to mention a long-forgotten 1939 B movie that actually kills off Hitler that Tarantino discovered in an old videotape rack at Safeway.
 


Did I miss it or did they not give the title of this film in the article?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 08, 2011, 06:32:19 PM
I recently tagged up with a friend of mine and we both posted companion pieces on Inglourious Basterds. He's a Tarantino fan so he wrote a favorable review while I dissented. The moment was fitting because years back we did this same sort of thing for a small magazine. There was a feeling of wanting to return to the old format. Anyways, I mention this because his piece on Iglorious Basterds is the best argument I have ever heard on why it's not only a great film, but really his "masterpiece". His critical interpretation of how Basterds runs congruent with Tarantino's filmmaking identity makes me appreciate the film a lot more. I still dissent because too much of the film is uninspiring and problematic and I'm not sure Tarantino was even intending for some of these critical ideas, but I'm not sure an artist has to be to make them warranted.

Still, a recommended read: http://catecinem.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/inglourious-basterds/
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cronopio 2 on June 08, 2011, 09:36:24 AM
i agree with gt
in this movie whenever there were statements they were usually followed by responses.
there were so many interrogative statements i was like wtf
i also was quite unnerved by the fact that there were characters, a progression of time, a soundtrack, and the pretentious quirk of credits.
a waste of time, hopefully he can make a movie one day that will fulfill everyones expectation of a film that has no elements of anything that can be regarded with any opinion.


haha this was a really good post.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: cronopio 2 on June 08, 2011, 09:38:04 AM
So, in essense, I don't think you understood my review much at all.

probably GT's best line
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reelist on June 08, 2011, 11:37:24 AM
2 years hence- shutup GT
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 08, 2011, 12:02:32 PM
What?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 08, 2011, 04:13:22 PM
2 years hence- shutup GT

Haha, glad I can annoy posters when they were in utero with the board. It was a decent conversation back in the day and if you want to help IB's history (it doesn't seem too kind here now), you should definitely restart it.

Still, I suggest people look up a little in this thread and read my friend's piece on Inglourious Basterds. Not only the best defense I know of for the film, but an excellent work of critical imagination.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on June 08, 2011, 04:33:56 PM
JB does the best "What?"s.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reelist on June 08, 2011, 04:38:06 PM
is that one of his things? I thought he only did it to me, because I'm horrible at explaining myself. The complete opposite of GT.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: matt35mm on June 08, 2011, 05:06:27 PM
No he only did it twice in the past two days, and I guess both were in response to what you said. But I find it funny for some reason.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Stefen on June 08, 2011, 05:54:39 PM
I'm horrible at explaining myself. The complete opposite of GT.

lol.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Pastor Parsley on June 15, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
You must be kidding. If this was something along the lines of Jack or Hook, you'd have a point. You didn't like like it. Still, it's no where close to the worst movie of the year, Tarantino still hasn't made a bad one.

You didn't see Transformers?

The pipe scene was the only bit that put it above of Transformers. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: KJ on June 15, 2011, 08:26:58 PM
You must be kidding. If this was something along the lines of Jack or Hook, you'd have a point. You didn't like like it. Still, it's no where close to the worst movie of the year, Tarantino still hasn't made a bad one.

You didn't see Transformers?

The pipe scene was the only bit that put it above of Transformers. 

What?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 15, 2011, 08:39:20 PM
The dude you just asked a question takes ~15 months to respond to posts.  I speculate you're going to forget why you asked "what?" by then and the whole thing's going to repeat itself.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on October 25, 2014, 10:51:55 AM
Here's a shoutbox conversation about this movie. Some Django (with spoilers), but mostly Basterds.

I'll try to break this up for readability, but I'll leave everything in.



Garam [24|Oct 07:46 PM]:   basterds is my favourite QT film since Jackie Brown
Garam [24|Oct 07:46 PM]:   I enjoyed the irreverence
Garam [24|Oct 07:46 PM]:   thought it was quite pynchony actually
Drenk [24|Oct 07:47 PM]:   It has two good scenes and a lot of filler.
Drenk [24|Oct 07:47 PM]:   And Google traduction for Mélanie Laurent. But it doesn't matter.
Garam [24|Oct 07:47 PM]:   i'm not planning on watching it again in a hurry, but it's not as bad as that
Drenk [24|Oct 07:48 PM]:   No, it was fine when I watched it a second time.
Drenk [24|Oct 07:48 PM]:   It was a huge disappointment the first time, though.
Garam [24|Oct 07:48 PM]:   i'm a world war 2 geek which helps, but i appreciated the strange jarring clashes in tone, though the kill bill style 'nazi killer' subtitles made me cringe, with the samuel l voiceover
Garam [24|Oct 07:49 PM]:   ok. i gave up on tarantino with kill bill so it was a pleasant surprise for me. i didn't watch it till 2011
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:49 PM]:   it scares me that aging artists gravitate toward period pieces
Drenk [24|Oct 07:49 PM]:   I enjoy Kill Bill, but I watched it a long time ago...
Garam [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   the more ww2 period pieces the better
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   makes me fear that when i age i won't understand the world anymore
Garam [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   too many angles too view that war from
Garam [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   and they're our grandpops
Garam [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   to
Garam [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   i'm drunk by the by
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   lol garam you got no probs finding ww2 movies!


jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:51 PM]:   what's your favorite? tough question innit
Drenk [24|Oct 07:51 PM]:   But Basterds and Django are really inferior to Pulp and Jackie. It feels like Tarantino just wants to giggle. Like: aha, blood, it's so cool, haha.
Lottery [24|Oct 07:51 PM]:   Tarantino always just wants to giggle.
Garam [24|Oct 07:51 PM]:   i hate django so fucking much, weirdly. cos it seems people couple those two together a lot
Garam [24|Oct 07:52 PM]:   i'm as interested in that era as much, so no problem there
Drenk [24|Oct 07:52 PM]:   He always wants to giggle, but, I don't know, I feel a soul in Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.
Lottery [24|Oct 07:52 PM]:   Django seems not as well made in some regards. Feels sloppy. But I enjoyed it.
Drenk [24|Oct 07:52 PM]:   Yes, I always enjoy his movies.
Drenk [24|Oct 07:53 PM]:   I just don't wait too much from him anymore.
Lottery [24|Oct 07:53 PM]:   Same.
Garam [24|Oct 07:54 PM]:   me and my flatmate paused django halfway through cause we had work early the next morning and forgot about resuming it until almost a week after
Drenk [24|Oct 07:55 PM]:   Django is better than Basterds. I like the superhero transformation.
Garam [24|Oct 07:55 PM]:   i have bad memories of strange b-movie sergio leone homage zoom-ins to leo dicaprios unconvincing prepubescent face
Drenk [24|Oct 07:56 PM]:   The only movie where I find DiCaprio truly great is the wolf of wall street, I just don't like this movie at all.
Garam [24|Oct 07:56 PM]:   same. that film is his raging bull. still love it
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:57 PM]:   phones are lot up regarding ww2 movies
Garam [24|Oct 07:57 PM]:   sorry, missed your Q
Garam [24|Oct 07:57 PM]:   allow me to drink and think on it
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:57 PM]:   been wanting to watch this, and don't it sound a bit basterds and a bit django: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041481/
Garam [24|Oct 07:57 PM]:   off the top of my head i'd say come and see


Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 07:57 PM]:   After my Django rewatch, I'd put Basterds above it
Garam [24|Oct 07:58 PM]:   which i've only seen once and have no intention of ever seeing ever again
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 07:58 PM]:   Most of Django's impact is about the first viewing
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 07:58 PM]:   C'mon Basterds is great
Garam [24|Oct 07:59 PM]:   a good part of basterds is the closest there's ever been to a gravity's rainbow adaptation
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 08:00 PM]:   i lean away from period pieces, too easy imo, but i watch them and like them because i'm a goddamn movie citizen
Garam [24|Oct 08:00 PM]:   come on...'scusi' is straight out of pynchon
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 08:00 PM]:   come and see, nice
Drenk [24|Oct 08:00 PM]:   I disagree completely about the gravity's rainbow comparaison.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:01 PM]:   In GR, you know, a lot of stuff happen, people travel. In Basterds, they stay mostly at the same place then they shoot themselves.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:01 PM]:   In GR, you're petrified about mass and instant destruction; in Basterds you're just waiting for nazis to be killed.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:02 PM]:   I'm hating and all, but I like Basterds.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:02 PM]:   Still disappointed that it feels empty to me, expectations are heavy sometimes.
Garam [24|Oct 08:03 PM]:   they travel in parts of GR. All of part 1 is in London, all of part 2 is in France. Basterds definitely has the tone of the more zany, Slothrop driven episodes
Garam [24|Oct 08:03 PM]:   i don't think basterds is even a classic, just good fun for 00s tarantino. still don't think it's close to his 90s stuff
Garam [24|Oct 08:04 PM]:   wayyyy better than django though imo


Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:04 PM]:   I admire the moral confrontationalness of Basterds, certainly don't think it's empty
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:04 PM]:   Tarantino raised a lot of questions about his own depictions of violence
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:05 PM]:   Whether intentionally or not
Drenk [24|Oct 08:05 PM]:   What's the moral confrontation? I don't see it
Garam [24|Oct 08:05 PM]:   i just remembered europa as a runner up great ww2 film that i need to revisit
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:06 PM]:   It's like you're supposed to enjoy this revenge fantasy, but suddenly the Holocaust is in the middle of everything
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   You have to actually see Nazi faces being melted.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   You don't see the ending as an orgy? In the theater? It's like an orgasm.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   Nope
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   In that theater scene you're confronted with what the revenge actually has to be. It's thrilling but sickening at the same time.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:08 PM]:   I hope I'm not alone in that interpretation
Drenk [24|Oct 08:08 PM]:   I'll probably watch it for a third time at some point, but every time it felt like we're supposed to enjoy it.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:08 PM]:   How you see it is way more interesting
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:09 PM]:   The whole movie kind of felt like that for me
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:10 PM]:   The opening setpiece creates this unease that you can't shake
Drenk [24|Oct 08:11 PM]:   I love the first scene, it's horrifying.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:11 PM]:   The very final scene ("I think this is my masterpiece") is supposed to be the actual victorious revenge moment
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:12 PM]:   There's so much moral complexity in that theater though
Drenk [24|Oct 08:12 PM]:   But the ending never feels like violence to me.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:12 PM]:   Doesn't the war hero get sickened by the movie?
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:13 PM]:   The scalping and the skull-bashing... certainly we're supposed to be horrified by that, at least a little
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:14 PM]:   Tarantino is not quite that demented; he understands the difference between fun violence and sick violence
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:14 PM]:   (See his Fresh Air interview)
Drenk [24|Oct 08:15 PM]:   Oh, yes, the scalping, definitely. The theater scene is so much bigger before than, just after, the horror of the scalp isn't effective to me.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:15 PM]:   Maybe I'm too much used to violence in movies. I watch people enjoying themselves, I know I'm not amused, I should not be amused, but I'm not horrified either.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:16 PM]:   It's not a straight-forward revenge fantasy like Kill Bill that you're just supposed to jump on board for...
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:16 PM]:   There's sickness all the way through it


Drenk [24|Oct 08:16 PM]:   I'll listen to the Fresh Air interview
Drenk [24|Oct 08:16 PM]:   What about Django, though?
Drenk [24|Oct 08:17 PM]:   I can understand the ambiguity in Basterds even if it's not effective to me, but Django...
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:17 PM]:   The Fresh Air interview is mostly about Django, and he's pushed on his use of violence in that interview
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:17 PM]:   He talks about how he tried to have 2 distinct types of violence in Django
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:18 PM]:   Violence against the masters, which was supposed to be fun and cartoonish (when that woman flies into the next room for example)
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:18 PM]:   And violence against the slaves, which is always meant to be deeply disturbing
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:18 PM]:   (and is less cartoonish, more realistic)
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:19 PM]:   That division was designed into Django from the beginning
Drenk [24|Oct 08:20 PM]:   Yes, but I wonder if the movie wouldn't be better without the cartoonish violence
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:25 PM]:   Possibly. I have to say that stuff was less fun/exciting on the second watch. Everything felt sadder. Definitely a weakness.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:26 PM]:   But that first watch was one of the most magical theater experiences I've had in recent memory
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:27 PM]:   Horse dance reaction on the first watch: OMG this is so crazy, this movie just blew my mind, of course the horse is dancing.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:28 PM]:   Horse dance reaction on the second watch: Ughh... this is all so sad. Why is the horse dancing?


Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:28 PM]:   *** WARNING - SPOILERS FOR DJANGO & BASTERDS ABOVE ***
N [24|Oct 09:18 PM]:   I like the part with ancora qui
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 10:06 PM]:   good job laying down your perspective jb. and drenk was listening and responding. you guys <3
Jeremy Blackman [25|Oct 01:41 AM]:   :love:
polkablues [25|Oct 01:52 AM]:   You should probably paste that exchange in the actual thread so it doesn't get washed away in the next rain.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Cloudy on October 26, 2014, 12:58:01 PM
Quote
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:49 PM]:   it scares me that aging artists gravitate toward period pieces
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 07:50 PM]:   makes me fear that when i age i won't understand the world anymore
jenkins<3 [24|Oct 08:00 PM]:   i lean away from period pieces, too easy imo, but i watch them and like them because i'm a goddamn movie citizen

This subject really strikes a chord with me as well, there are a lot of different reasons why. Here's Kubrick somewhat addressing it, leaving me still unsatisfied and curious:

INTERVIEWER: Your last film was about the twenty-first century. Your next film is about the nineteenth century. Do you think it's significant that you aren't very interested or satisfied with contemporary stories or themes of twentieth-century life?

KUBRICK: It's not a question of my own satisfaction or lack of it, but of the basic purpose of a film, which I believe is one of illumination, of showing the viewer something he can't see any other way. And I think at times this can be best accomplished by staying away from his own immediate environment. This is particularly true when you're dealing in a primarily visual experience, and telling a story through the eyes. You don't find reality only in your own backyard, you know -- in fact, sometimes that's the last place you find it. Another asset about dealing with themes that are either futuristic or historic is that it enables you to make a statement with which you're not personally blinded; it removes the environmental blinkers, in a sense, and gives you a deeper and more objective perspective.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: jenkins on October 26, 2014, 03:03:05 PM
it's a bit like you've brought dad into the room, he's looking at me with his harsh/tender eyes, and he knows i won't say the right thing, but i gotta give dad my eyes back, for my own sake

kubrick firmly stood in the position that emotions are the foundational flaw of being human. personally i'm hardcore pro emotions. and i think that when you extract from emotions its essential qualities, you find views that humans can fucking miraculously feel the same about, and i think humans sharing emotions is the most interesting and immediate and gut-wrenching and eyes-watering -- look, big context, from a personal sense -- part of us all being human together

i think the difference between illumination and fabrication is tricky. i overthink the hell out of it. because emotions tend to smell it. i think we can spot the difference between an idea and a human. and i'm all for ideas, let's not be crazy. i'm imaginarily responding to an artist who brought benefits into the world of cinema and the world in general, let's be a little crazy

i think he was right. i think he did what cinema can best do, through focusing on removing emotions and observing what was happening from the outside. objectivity ffs. so, acknowledging that subjectivity limits the total perspective, i want to say: it is a foundational flaw kubrick, and i'm sorry it scares you, but there's another way to look at it

a method of stripping fabrication away is telling me exactly what you're fucking seeing, and when you tell me there'll be your feelings, and i'll listen. i'm simply not afraid of any of the challenges kubrick mentions, and i think the challenges are indeed most present when a movie is framed within its own time period

i watch eyes wide shut and it feels contemporary or something but it's a little made up and i wish the world was like that, actually, i really like that movie. when i watch people on sunday it's people being people in berlin in 1930 and some things have changed and some things are the same but anyway i can feel the people in the movie, i can feel the people behind the movie, and i can feel myself sharing feelings with people in a form that kubrick never created
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: Reelist on October 26, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
This conversation is taking more detours than Inglourious Basterds!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
Post by: KJ on May 11, 2015, 07:01:54 AM
We ALL want Johnny Depp, don't we? :roll:

Yes indeed. I'd even go see that Once Upon a Time in Mexico because he's  in it.

Let's hope he makes some better movies soon though.

2003 was such a long time ago.


(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/299/i-want-to-believe.jpg)