f13.net

I know there's a lot of Tarantino hate on this board and I know this film has already stirred up controversy in another thread but fuck it.

Here's the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQk1Pmn-MJE).

I'll probably go see it. Looks a damned site more entertaining than Death Proof was.

Looks cool. Doesn't look very "Tarantino-esque", but that might be a plus for some people.


V8 engines and cute girls are always entertaining.

The script's been out for a while.  I read part of it; it's very "Tarantino-esque".  It didn't really inspire, but I'll probably go see it anyway.

I liked the script. It flowed better than some of his other stuff (Jackie Brown & Death Proof in particular - True Romance to a lesser extent). He's a very visual writer but I think that's mostly because he only ever really writes for himself to direct.  Personally I found that it had a real energy and vitality that even the Natural Born Killers screenplay lacked and I think a lot of that came from it being so over the top. I really liked the protagonist Col. Landa as a character too. Part Major Strasser and part Colonel Dietrich by way of Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes.

I thought the trailer was pretty slick.  But then, I've seen a lot of slick trailers for shitty movies.

It doesn't help that I have a retarded addiction to Brad Pitt films, so I will see this movie. I don't think I'll be disappointed.  Of course, I'm not going into it with any hoity-toity expectations.  I just wanna watch some Nazi's get shit-canned in a variety of gruesome ways.  :drill:

Death Proof sucked monkey ass swimming in moose piss from a chilled glass. This will likely do the same. I sure as fuck will wait for DVD if I see it at all.

No. Not really. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS6VRfJbI4c)

Look, we have the Internet if we want to see long useless shots of hot girls frooging about. When I rent a DVD that does not have the words "Boob" in the title, I want a story that isn't retarded, dialogue that wasn't churned out of the ass of an overrated pretentious twat with delusions of auteurship, and a movie that's little more than wish fulfillment pr0n for masochists.

Seriously, the whole movie was a dedication to Tarantino's desire to get the shit kicked out of him by hot women. Just hire a bevy of hookers and be done with it.

What the fuck are you talking about? It's not porn. It's a brutal crash scene. And it's a great intro to a realistically scary motherfucking villain. The guy even makes ducks terrifying. Turn that shit up too, for one. There's nothing better than hearing a muscle car revving up. Everything about the scene is well composed, the silhouette of the car coming up over the hill, the song.. If you can't see what a skilled director the guy is just from that scene, then you just don't want to. Your hate is at the point of willful irrationality, and you're just being a Tarantino hater for the sake of it. Might as well just write "Cunt" on your forehead while you're at it.  :-)

Death Proof was awesome. For real. No sarcasm.

You seem to have me confused with someone who doesn't know of what I speak. I never said Tarantino wasn't a competent director. I LOVED his early work. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, even Jackie Brown - loved them all. Somewhere around Kill Bill, the motherfucker lost something. One, his dialogue got over wrought and torturous - all the natural bouncy fun of exchanges like the foot massage talk between Jules and Vincent became stilted, unnatural sounding attempts. The dialogue SOUNDS like he's trying SO HARD to be hip that it comes off phony. See Juno for similar problems.

Two, his personal fetishes became focal points. That clip you showed is TORTURE PRON to me. It's the juxtaposition of sexually charged characters who are then violently acted upon. And it isn't just the violence, it's the portrayal of that violence. The long slow flipping of the severed leg, the focus on the character's head being rolled over. It's over the top and unnecessary and its mindless repetition just makes it worse. Hostel had the same problem, at some point too much is too much and the message behind the violence is lost. Great, the shot may be framed and shot well. But that alone doesn't make it a good movie. In fact, I think he takes entirely too much of his shots from the material he is influence by, to the point of almost ripping off the source. He also tries to merge very specific styles of shots in ways that are very awkward - 70's TV style quick zooms next to very '90's flare moving shots. Instead of being innovative, it just comes off awkward and cheap.

Third, movies like Kill Bill and Death Proof are fine as homages to their inspirations, only they don't really add anything worthwhile to those inspirations. Kill Bill is an overlong, drawn out homage to kung fu movies. It's 30 minutes of story stretched to 3 hours and the padding isn't interesting or innovative, it's just silly. Death Proof at least was short, but even then, it was padded to hell and back. The whole girls get revenge scene was RETARDED. It stretched about 2 or 3 minutes longer than it needed to, which is why I put it in the masochist fantasy category. Tarantino likes feet and being dominated by women - that's great if he's paying a hooker, but for him to expect audiences to pay to watch his fetishes writ large on film is the ultimate in artistic hubris.

In short, fuck him. He has talent somewhere in there, he just needs a producer to kick a mudhole in his ass.

First of all, it's not torture. That was fast and furious, unlike torture.. and the movie carries out violence in very, very, very few scenes. Torture is slow, relentless, and steady, scene after scene. He isn't doing that. That this one scene is over the top is merely his tribute to gore (hence, why it's called "Grindhouse") -- and important to understand who Stuntman Mike is for later in the film. It's not pointless. He makes a solid point: That this motherfucker is evil on wheels. He doesn't prolong the violence, or keep selling the same point though. He just does this ONCE in the entire movie - Mike never does anything like it ever again - and no one needs to guess just how bad of a guy Mike is afterwards. It's enough to show how worried you should be that he starts stalking the second group of girls later in the film.

The DIRECTOR tortures the viewer with the violence. Is there really a need to see chick's face run over with a tire as the car flies over? NO, especially not after we've seen the goddamn leg flopping part. His insistence on repeating the act of violence from multiple angles is gratuitous - we don't need it to see how evil the fucker is. The very fact he kills 4 innocent sluts after having spoken to them is more than enough to illustrate that. It's the same problem with the girls' revenge scene - it drags on and on for no good reason.

You called them sluts. Perhaps you are Stuntman Mike yourself.  :why_so_serious:


Anyways, yeah...again, fucking grindhouse tribute, dude. Stop taking it so seriously, like you're Freud or something. He's just paying some tribute to gore all in one scene, and it's enough to carry out a character synopsis without too much dallywagging. Kudos, I say. It's handled well. If you've made some arbitrary rule for yourself to have very few scenes of violence (as Tarantino tends to do to himself.. besides Kill Bill), but yet, are still trying to pay tribute to violent films.. Then do the same scene from different angles.

And really, that's always kind of been Tarantino's formula. Lots of meandering and smalltalk, and then boom, something shocking comes on screen. Whether it's brains exploding on the backseat of a car, or an ear getting cut off, or a cop fucking some dude in the ass. Here, he had to up the ante a bit since gore was expected -- but he does it in his own way.

Rodriguez takes a different route, and is a fuckton more violent, so I don't know why you're not complaining there. Rodriguez, in all of his films, never meanders. He throws everything and the kitchen sink at you, and lets you sort out what was good or not. His formula, applied to a gore tribute, ended up being fucking nuts. I mean, for heaven's sake, he even had a kid blow his brains out. Not to mention the many other grotesque headshots. Or puss squeezing shots. Or testicles in a jar.

Having researched, watched all of and freaking examined the lot of Takashi Miike's work, Tarantino is nothing but a pale imitation of him. His theft of asian culture - AND I MEAN THEFT - is borderline plagiarism. Yea, he can write some snappy shit, but his best work to date is still his tiny bit of Four Rooms.

Rodriguez is at least somewhat original.

Of course none of this really matters since Miike is virtually unknown in America despite a cameo in Hostel.

Edit: Miike does torture, gore, and fantastically ridiculous violence unlike anyone in the US (and better than any of them).

I think he got pretty popular with Ichi...


Honestly, I can't even watch his more violent movies. And it's not even just the violence. Just that many of his characters have some trait or quality about them that make me uncomfortable to even look at for too long.

Have you seen Audition?

And yea, he really does create some true evil on screen.

Edit: (Cold, unfeeling evil at that)

No, I've heard about it though.

Brad Pitt is picking some real good roles to be in. I'll watch this.

Yea, I just watched that trailer.  I hate Tarantino.  But I think I'm going to ignore that for this movie and go back to hating him after.

This thread is pure gold. Keep it up guys. It's good stuff.

(No, that wouldn't even be in green even if we were still doing green.)

"Audition" is praised by people with PhD's in movie horror like Mark Kermode as one of the most scary and unique films every made.  It sounds terrifying, actually.

It's got nothing to do with arbitrary rules about the number of scenes of violence, it's the sheer unnecessary OVERUSE of it. Good directors/writers know when enough is enough. Tarantino does not.

As for Rodriguez's take on Grindhouse, I haven't seen his yet. But he's a better filmmaker than Tarantino can ever dream of being. His worst movie (Mexico) was better than Grindhouse or Kill Bill. It suffered from being too long for too little - which is something I've complained about with Kill Bill.

Man.. it's actually quite funny to me. He's really being pretty "less is more" here, and really tame as far as gory cinema goes. I'm not sure what standard you're trying to hold up to, but you have the wrong expectations if you think that's an overuse. It's like you were expecting to watch the Devil Wears Prada or something. You can say you like Rodriguez more if you want, I'm not going to hold that against you.. But if you come back here and start praising Planet Terror, I'm gonna call you a hypocrite.  :awesome_for_real: Because Tarantino was definitely being the Ying to his Yang for Grindhouse. It would have been major sensory overload, and Quentin played gore down.

Flying flopping limbs and road-graded chins are hardly playing down the violence. You can have a car crash that shows NO BLOOD WHATSOEVER and it still be effective, and cringeworthy. Fuck's sake, I'm not arguing against the use of gore and violence in movies, I'm just saying motherfucker at his best takes it up about 2 notches more than needed and at his worst (Kill Bill) just flat out goes full retard.

It's playing down the violence as far as a tribute to schlock slasher films goes. Like I asked before, what exactly do you expect? I mean, when you hear "grindhouse", you were supposed to expect a lot more gore.. something along those lines.. Yet, in the typical b slasher flick sense, it was pretty tame. But he still manages to satisfy even many gore fans and show his competence with just one scene -- in a movie where you're just basically hanging out with a bunch of girls. That's a hard thing to do!

And for non gore fans - The fact that he still manages to piss you off about it shows just what he can do with very little screen time. Mission accomplished, I guess?

You can call it extremely violent though all you want: It is extremely violent. But to say it doesn't have a point is you missing the point. You take it out or play it down, and the movie just becomes a thriller. Which is against the entire idea of his and Rodriguez' project here. They never intended to make thrillers, or even typical horror films.

Totally agree with Haemish here. Tarantino's most effective violent scene, for me, was the earcapitation of the cop in Reservoir Dogs, and what do you actually SEE in that scene? *Nothing*! The camera pans away during the act and that makes it 100 times more effective than anything in Kill Bill for instance.

In fact Reservoir Dogs is all like that - all you see is gallons of stage blood, almost no actual wounds or wounding. It's the most horrifically violent film without any actual violence in it.

I haven't seen Death Proof, mostly because I felt no desire to after Kill Bill. And I did enjoy Kill Bill, I thought they were good entertainment, but in a very shallow way - more like extended music videos than actual films really.

Dude made a tribute to horror films.  I didn't like it.  But criticizing that movie for being too violent is absurd.  You can't judge the movie as anything but a horror movie.  That's all it was trying to be.

When you're doing an homage to Grindhouse and exploitation films, that would kinda be missing the point.

I've been trying to avoid talking about Kill Bill, and wanted Death Proof to be talked about on it's own terms. Haemish has confused matters, as if they're the same thing - but I ignored those parts of his posts. Yet, now someone is buying into it, and saying they "agree" with him even though they haven't even seen Death Proof. I didn't think that was going to happen, but now that it has, here's my two cents..

Death Proof is a small genre movie. While Kill Bill might as well be a 4 hour documentary about "all of the things Quentin likes" or some shit. Far bigger, broad, far more disjointed, and far more self-indulgent. Yeah, he gets gory with the Crazy 88 shit - but it's stylistically done. The blood squirting is somewhat campy, and mimicking things like Lone Wolf and Cub. Besides that, why anyone is taking the violence of a 6 foot blonde in a Bruce Lee jumpsuit fighting a Gordon Liu led army of Japanese motorcycle school kids wearing Kato masks, with samurai swords and maces, set to RZA and a Flying Guillotine soundtrack is beyond me. "WAAH!! The violence is too much!" Bring on the blood, I say. I don't think anything can be subdued at that point. 

Anyhow, Death Proof gore is not in the same category. The violence there is realistic and minimal. Besides all this, he shifts in different modes within Kill Bill, so it's not like it's all like the Crazy 88 stuff. He also tries to invoke fright in very indirect/non-gory ways by doing the live burial thing, or bringing animals (snakes) into the picture. Among other shit. Kill Bill isn't easily categorized as any one thing, and secondly, Death Proof shouldn't be categorized along as something like it.

Or in short, and to point out the obvious: It's a different movie.

Death Proof and Kill Bill are not anywhere near each other stylistically.

For one thing, Death Proof was good.

Alright, fair enough. I shall endeavor to watch Death Proof. My agreement with Haemish was an agreement that Tarantino seemed to me, at the point of KB, to be over-using graphic violence without need and that he had already shown earlier that violent scenes could be more effective without the graphicness.

It isn't just that it's too much (though it is). It's too much AND IT LOOKS STUPID, in both movies. I'll give you that in a grindhouse tribute, perhaps he needs to go over the top. But that doesn't mean he needs to go full stupid. The Crazy 88's shit, stupid. It's Monty Python taking the piss on Sam Peckinpaw. In Death Proof, it's overkill as well. It goes on for what 30 seconds? Just like the girls' revenge scene at the end where they beat on Kurt Russell for minutes - it's like a Carrot Top skit. At some point, it passes the threshold of making sense and making the point and into the realm of overly self-referntial parody. It's the difference between Naked Gun and Epic Movie. One is intelligent and just right on the line, the other is throwing every thing and the kitchen sink at the screen in case something is funny, diminishing every part of the movie because it doesn't know when to quit.

Or, as I said before, full retard.

You're really losing me here now. I don't think I've ever even seen a Carrot Top skit. I thought he was a prop comedian?

I kind of felt that was the whole point of the violence in Kill Bill. Over the top to the point it was cartoon violence with blood. I thought it was a very fun movie. If you don't like it great but that doesn't mean it's too much. Kind of missing the point by saying it's too much. As for Death Proof, haven't seen it as I don't like the more realistic blood and gore but hearing it's only really the one scene I may check it out then.

He is, and sometimes he's funny. Sometimes it just goes way past the point from funny into retarded. And then there's his exercise regime.

Yell at me if I'm wrong, but what I think Haemish is trying to say is basically;

Tarantino would make better movies if he didn't try so hard to make them to fill the shoes of some arbitrary, retro cult film genre and instead just told the story as it needed to be told.

If Haemish isn't trying to say that, then I am.

He did that once (Jackie Brown, which he adapted from an Elmore Leonard novel). It wasn't bad, but it didn't necessarily improve anything.


Anyways, I don't argue that Kill Bill should be for everyone - In some ways, I kind of wish he didn't make it. For completely different reasons than some here. I just think he'd have been better off giving a nod to some of the genres and archetypes in Kill Bill through smaller movies. I would have rather seen him, for example, pay tribute to Asian cinema by making a smaller kung fu or samurai movie. Or I would have rather seen him show his expertise with horror rather than just having some burial scene in KB (which was really well done though, despite it all). Or rocksalt shooting shitkickers like Michael Madsen's character - that guy probably deserves his own film.

I don't even expect people to like Death Proof, but I do think it's in the right direction.. It's a smaller genre movie. Not all of it seems thought through though. It was meant to be viewed back to back in Grindhouse, and was cut much shorter -- while in the full DVD version, he includes scenes that sort of drag it on. And these scenes just look like afterthoughts to the original intent of the shorter, more furious Grindhouse version. The girls carry on too much, and just too many prolonged shots of the actresses. Basically, they just seem like things he was having fun with in the meantime, while filming the core of the story, which he probably had a lot more fleshed out in his head. He then included them in the DVD version to make a singular, feature length movie out of all of it.

All that said, it's killer directing. Some of the writing may have been on-location afterthoughts, but the guy does know how to shoot things. I still find much of it thrilling, so I'm not going to complain too much. I suppose one of these days he'll get back to form and have directing, narrative, and dialogue at equal levels (but then again, he doesn't have Roger Avary anymore either.. it's been said numerous times that this is what the big difference between his old movies and new ones is).

Perhaps, but that's what he's inspired by as a movie fan.  He seems to start off with an idea of, "I'll make a blax-ploitation film!" or "I'll make a spaghetti Western film!" and then go from there. 

Yeah, there's some interesting info on that about his early films. Roger Avary apparently wrote a small script called "The Open Road", which was kind of a road trip/lost weekend sort of romp between two friends.. Something happened though where Avary wanted Tarantino to play with it and rewrite it -- he said Quentin later came back with a gigantic 500 page handwritten story, loosely based on the main premise, but what Avary called the Citizen Kane of American pop culture. Something that touched on multiple things like Kill Bill. Mafia, hitmen, pimps, comic books, Elvis, serial killers, etc.. So basically, Tarantino has always been that way, left to his own devices.

Some shit happened though where they decided to split the thing into 2 parts, and they rewrote those parts to be their own unique stories - These were True Romance and Natural Born Killers. Then the leftovers were recycled for material put into Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Avary also had a seperate story that became the Gold Watch/Bud parts of Pulp Fiction. Among other shit.

So Quentin wrote most of this shit - but Avary was able to rein him in, and make all of his pop culture obsession charming instead of overwhelming. You rarely heard people complain too much about this, until Kill Bill. Now it's easy to focus on his obsessions, because he's left to writing on his own.

That too.

Also:


Which is why I've said he needs a producer to slap the shit out of him and tell him no, you stupid douche, enough is enough. He doesn't know when to stop.

One of the important lessons I learned in art school is that you have to learn when a painting is finished. Some never learn that on their own and require someone else to tell them when it's finished. Some authors need editors (like me), Tarantino needs a goddamn conscience with a billy club.

Oh.. you just want him to rein in a conscience? Still on the violence kick again? Then I disagree. You keep on thinking he's some torture film director or something - I don't know why. He's indulgent on displaying his pop culture schtick on screen, but he's everything from ingenious to loony-toons when it comes to violence. But never indulgent and cruel.

I'm not amoral or anything - I know when things really get too far, but Tarantino isn't it. Torture is prolonged as I said. Even true gore is all about focused closeups: Go watch the Thing or Verhoven or Cronenberg for some examples of that. Camp gore: Watch a Troma film. Tarantino? Even in slow motion, the extent of gore in Death Proof's car crash scene is obscured. And if you talk about other movies.. like that dude's brains exploding on the backseat in Pulp Fiction: That was yet another bit written by Avary. The same Avary who also adapted Silent Hill. He's far more violent than Tarantino is. He would focus Tarantino's ideas more into some more cohesive - but I highly doubt he'd be the guy for Tarantino to tone down violence.

You seem to be confused. You seem to think I have a problem with the depiction of violence as some form of moral offense. You are incorrect. I have no problem with violent movies. I just think that at some point, it crosses a line from necessary violence into ridiculous caricature. Death Proof and Kill Bill both crossed those lines. It's not as if I'm saying that's a line that should NEVER be crossed, I'm saying that crossing that imaginary line can only be done well by people with more talent than Tarantino has ever had.

Death Proof is a revenge fantasy created by a masochistic twat who likes to get beat up by women.

Where does he say he likes getting beat up by women? Give me a real criticism here, or explain yourself.

This is why I didn't like Death Proof. In the UK we only ever had access to the longer, single release version so I ended up watching both this and Planet Terror on DVD. The versions I have didn't even come with any of the mock trailers that were shown between the two films.  Anyway, as I've only ever seen the "extended" cut of Death Proof, I just found that it dragged interminably.  There was a very simplistic story about the Stuntman Mike that was interrupted by never fucking ending scenes of these girls sitting around talking about, well, nothing. Those scenes really held up the film, didn't progress the story and turned me off the whole thing.

Criticising the violence in Death Proof seems a bit redundant to me though. It's like criticising Friday the 13th part whatever for showing graphic violence agaiinst teens or Leprechaun 4 for having entirely ridiculous plot. If you put a Final Destination film in the DVD player, you would expect to see a group of people getting killed in highly implausible but imaginative ways - anything less would be a disappointment (if you're a fan, that is). Death Proof was Tarantino doing a slasher film: there's going to be a gore and explicit scenes of violence. But, having said that, I do understand what you mean. If it turns out you saw the same version as I did - the extended cut - then the violence was definitely out of place in the context of an otherwise dialogue heavy film.


Death Proof was the first film he's directed that didn't have Lawrence Bender as a producer. They've worked together from the start on Reservoir Dogs and Bender's back to production duties on Inglourious Basterds. As for Avary, I don't think he can take any of the credit for the success of Pulp Fiction or True Romance. Everything he's done since has been, well, pretty mediocre.

I disagree. The Rules of Attraction is great. And one of the only college films that isn't satirical or about some triumph over adversity shit.

I like Death Proof well enough.  The chase scene alone is reason to watch this movie, even if you skip right to it on the DVD.  There is a lot of chit-chat, even by Tarantino standards, though.  If that puts you off in his other movies, you'll absolutely hate this one.  I'm not sure what scenes they put back into the extended version aside from the lap dance scene, but it's hard to hate on that :0

As far as the car crash scene, it's exactly what it's supposed to be: completely over-the-top, schlocky b-movie violence.  It's an "oh shit.. OH SHIT" moment, and I found it amusing in its ridiculousness.  Personally, I can't stomach movies like Hostel, and I couldn't even make it all the way through Planet Terror.  This movie didn't bother me at all.

Speaking of Avary, I liked Killing Zoe well enough. And Silent Hill would have been good if not for the disjointed ending.

On a sidenote, by the way, Van Der Beek's character in Rules of Attraction, is Patrick Bateman's little brother. Heh. Not sure if there's a book on their parents. There should be, considering..

Silent Hill felt like the smartest of Avary's scripts in that it started out exploring specific themes of motherhood and loss but the third act was, as you say, disjointed. I think most of the strength of the film was in Christophe Gans' direction and the production design. There were some excellent moments like the corridor of nurses which really made it stand out. The script, not so much.

Rules of Attraction I couldn't make it through. It bored me - possibly because the main characters were so dislikeable and apathetic themselves. That maybe the point of the film and I get that but there's no need to make them so unsympathetic that I have no interest in what happens to them. Compare Trainspotting which had a whole bunch of generally unlikeable losers that you actually gave a shit about. I kept meaning to go back to see RoA but it felt too much like a chore. I will admit to a certain antipathy towards Brett Easton Ellis who I can't stand as an author but that didn't stop me enjoying the film version of American Psycho.

Killing Zoe was totally forgettable. I think it only became known because it rode on the back of Reservoir Dogs' popularity. What I mostly remember about it was how contrived it all seemed. Julie Delpy just happened to be both a call girl who came to see Eric Stoltz and work in the bank that he had come to rob? Quelle coincedence. It wasn't a bad film - I didn't think any of the stuff Avary has done is bad. I just don't think any of it was great either.

Either way, he seemed to be an invaluable, although not always tangible, element to Tarantino's process. I wish they'd just get in a room together again and churn something out.

There isn't a room large enough for Avary, Tarantino and Tarantino's ego.

Hmm, if Tarantino's ego was that big, then he wouldn't be able to partner with anyone (namely, Rodriguez), wouldn't pimp out and invest money in other filmmakers, and attract many people to be a part of his movies, both respected actors and respected crew... Nor would he have shared so many ideas with Avary in the first place if he was that egotistic. Who knows what the deal is between them... But it probably isn't some "Quentin Tarantino is the Bogeyman" scenario that you keep making everything about the guy to be.

Trailer 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nBtdPcSf1E) is out.  Looks fun.  :awesome_for_real:

I don't know, some early reviews make it seem reallllly bad (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7ee3d207fbb1fda3adadf0ef9f8a94c6)(Ton's of spoilers).

I'm poking the bear, stop killing my birthday buzz, man.

Yep, still not really giving much of a shit about this.

RT has it at 60% based on 15 reviews

Haha, Death Proof is one of my favorite Tarantino movies.  It's just pure fun!

Death Proof was amazing. The only way one might not like it is if one has down syndrome.

Or if one doesn't like listening to women gab about useless shit for an hour.

And then take 10 minutes to beat the shit out of Kurt Russell in the most drawn out piece of cinematic piss taking in history. Death Proof was boring shit.

omgawd dialog is so hard 2 understand! why isn't there moar exploshions?!

The other night I watched Bunny Lake is Missing.

Lots and lots of explosions in that one -the CGI was incredible. You've really got me pegged.

INTERWEB FILM CRITIC CREDENTIALS ESTABLISHED.

Hee hee.

I only bring it up to counter the retarded 'splosions argument.

One of my favorite movies is Linklater's Tape and that entire movie is nothing but talking. Of course it had a good script, something notably absent from Death Proof.

You are talking about a movie made as part of the Grindhouse package.

I love that movie too. I believe it was originally a play though. Kind of had a Mamet feel with the sparseness and all (also mostly plays).

So did everyone write this one off?

Just got back from a showing and both me and my friend were very pleasantly surprised. Brad Pitt was awesome every time he was on screen and Christoph Waltz absolutely stole the show.

I think by now everyone here knows whether they like Tarantino's work or not. Inglorious Bastards is very much a Quentin Tarantino film, and while it will probably not change anyones mind about Tarantino if you like his work Inglorious Bastards is definitely worth a watch.

I had to do a test run of it a couple days before release.  Just didn't bother mentioning it because, like you said, people know by now whether they like Tarantino's work or not.

Christoph Waltz was amazing; never heard of him before this. (Fake edit: Oh, he's a german actor, that explains it).

Very good Tarantino flick, much better than his other recent works.

How can anyone not like this movie? Fuckin' great.

Also I third the Christopher Waltz love, the man needs to win an Oscar.

I liked it a lot.  I'm sorry I knew even a little about it before seeing it -- though I did try to avoid spoilers, even the trailer was a bit too much.

Really you should go into it completely cold, avoiding all spoilers and internet information possible.  I think it has a lot to say about violence and differing reactions to it, and for that reason really benefits from being seen with no foreknowledge in a semi-full theater so you have plenty of people around you to gasp, laugh, and otherwise react at the proper times.

I loved it.  Pitt and Waltz were great.

This movie was masterful in its creation of suspense through dialogue.  Pitt was serviceable, but that Christoph guy put on a godamn tour de force.  Definitely the best acting in a Tarantino film to date.  Those European actors made the most of their opportunity and crushed it.

I enjoyed the movie, but I could have done with more Nazi-killing and less amiable conversation over glasses of milk.

just go rent the original and enjoy the real deal.

My understanding is that they don't have much in common apart from the title and being set in WWII.

Heh.  I just read on Wikipedia that the Bear Jew was originally written for Adam Sandler.  Goddamn that would have been something.  Not that Eli Roth wasn't awesome.

Tim Roth and Simon Pegg were both considered for the British film buff role.

Pegg was asked but had to turn it down due to a scheduling conflict. He was, by all accounts, gutted.  Hadn't heard that Tim Roth was asked to do it but on the basis of the script alone, I don't think I would have cast him in that role.

Tim Roth could play every part in the movie if he wanted, including the women.

We are talking about Tim Roth here.

Tarantino.

I know.   :sad:  I was hoping for more Kill Bill and less Pulp Fiction, though.  I mean, Nazis.

Saw it last night. A very good Tarantino film with some of the best scenes ever made. The camera did amazing things. The tension and unpredictability within scenes was awesome.

Despite that, it was not as satisfying as it could have been. While the story ended brilliantly, the final scene was predictable. Some devices were overused, such as the scrawly Tarantino writing with arrows pointing to key figures, which has worked better in his other films than this one.

Overall a big achievement. But I'd like to team Tarantino with a director known for just telling great stories. Put Tarantino in charge of making (love to) the scenes and how they hang together, and have the other guy focus on tweaking the overall depth and storytelling. If they could get along (unlikely), it could be epic.

Made me not enjoy the movie. The dialogue did nothing for me and pitts accent annoyed the shit out of me. They marketed as more and pushing the whole "100 nazi scalps" thing implied there would something, not just a bunch of schlock scenes of guys cutting off scalps.

God, I hate tarantino.

It felt like this movie skipped any scenes that didn't have any direct contribution to the plot that would have connected the whole thing together. I liked Pitt's character a lot, as well as the accent, because it was all building up to the scene in the theatre.

Very entertaining flick and worth the money. Each scene with Waltz was magic though after awhile I began to identify the techniques they were using to create suspense because they did it in every damn scene.

Bon-joor-no

Yep.  Totally read that in his voice.

I enjoyed it but I heard a funny comment on my way out of the movie. Somebody said that it felt like they had just read a quinton tarrentino novel.

I felt the movie was good and I am a fast reader but QT's whole thing is snappy dialog and when a large chunk of that dialog is via subtitles it loses some of its punch. I can understand why that may detract from the movie from some viewers.

Only for fucking stupid people who shouldn't have bought a ticket.

America, dude.  People here complained about subtitles in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and that wasn't exactly the most talkative movie.

I thought the early scene where they switch to speaking English for no particularly good reason was a funny nod at American audiences not wanting to read subtitles if they can help it.

I thought that was what it was at first, but then it turned out there was an actual reason he wanted to switch to English, which made me like the scene even more.

The movie and how it's structured is intelligent, I'll give it that.

I figured it was some of both.   :awesome_for_real:  Making the guy switch to German would have made a little more sense in context but wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining.

I was expecting a schlocky Dirty Dozen tribute, but it wasn't that at all. Felt like a heady Euro flick in some ways (and not for the obvious reason that it took place in Europe..).

I was listening to an interview on NPR and Tarantino was saying he was going through a lot of talented German actors for the part... And that while many were good at English, many weren't good at his version of it. He said Waltz nailed it right away. Apparently though, the guy isn't even that famous in Germany. He was just a TV actor.

I have to agree with this.  Reservoir Dogs was famous for what you didn't see in the ear scene, and yet how coe-turlingly horrifying Tarantino made it for the audience.  In Inglourious Basterds, you're shown close-ups of scalpings and brandings that add nothing to the flim.  at first I sat there and thought "we're being shown this for a reason: this is exposition and Tarantino is going to have something go wrong, or make some jarring equivalence later on, or something like that."  But of course it was just scalping for the sake of it.

My major problem was that while it was like someone had said "go back to the dialogue, Quentin: that was what made your films great," nobody had then dared to say to him "there are two big set-pieces in there and one needs to be two minutes shorter (the potentially great opening scene) while the second (the pub scene) needs to be a good three or even four minutes shorter.  I also disliked the commedia dell'arte die-stamped characters, whether or not he was referencing earlier works in the genre.  It was dreary (after the first) that every SS member was a cultured and menacingly polite polyglot with the detective skills of Sherlock Holmes, that pretty much every German soldier was just a square-jawed, ordinary guy, that I couldn't shake off the feeling that I'd seen Mike Myers play that spoof brigadier-general type before, or that Brad Pitt just did what he did in Burn After Reading: choose two mannerisms and a funny accent then ham madly (although it's been almost exactly a decade since his last truly great performance, so I didn't hope for much).

Quibble: the dress of the cinema attendants in the premiere was dumb: Hitler would have had an apoplexy.  It was like Tarantino got mixed up between the post-33 Reich and the pre-33 weimar Republic.  It was more revealing of Tarantino than anything else.

Oh and
All that aside, it was an ok film.  It was too long, but I didn't really start watching the time: I was just aware that a better, tauter film was possible.  I did like the ridiculous nature of the ending, which I thought was a funny, brave decision and tied in well with the comic-book references.  I just know that Tarantino can do better.  Although I admit that he can apparently only write at his best when, as with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, Roger Avery is there and helping him do so.  Ooh, controversy.

Edit: I meant to say that the time saved by cutting the duller dialogue should have been used, instead, to add one or even two more action scenes.

I don't see the problem with showing scalpings or other overt violence. This movie only has one real direction: That it's fun to hate Nazis. Hence, why QT will even invent an alternate history just so he can have fun with hating Nazis even more. It's not supposed to be much deeper than that.

I'd agree though that Avary could have contributed something great. He was actually the Euro expert out of the two (and especially with France).

My opinion of Tarantino dropped when I realized that the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs, one of his most memorable, is ripped straight from another movie. (Forget which one, saw it rather recently)

There's enough going on in that scene that I would have never said it he totally owned it in the first place. Mostly.. Michael Madsen.

Was it Django?

You're both missing the point entirely. The Inglourious Basterds are behind enemy lines to commit war attrocities. Not to make their enemies (or an audience) curl up their toes and go 'oh heavens to betsy, what horrors are happening beyond the ken of man or eye of camera?!' - but to reveal explicitly the manner with which the troup are going to dispatch any and every Nazi they come across. It is sending a message. They do it in front of the captured men, they do it in front of us, the audience. There is no ambiguity. There is only sheer physical revulsion. Implied violence is a trick that works magnificently well on many a cinematic occasion, but it would be simply churlish in this instance.

No you're right.  If only Hitchcock had realised that suggestion of violence in the shower scene by showing the raised knife and the blood circling in the water was so much less effective than simply showing the cutting of the jugular in unflinching slow-motion and...  Wait, what?  I cannot find anything of critical merit in your explanation.  It is certainly made up of words and they seem to be arranged in sentences, but the most I can get is that you think that demonstrating that someone is doing something is only possible by showing it in unflinching detail.  God himself only knows how mainstream cinema directors ever approached this problem in the eighty-odd years when displaying such a scene wouldn't even have been allowed.  I cannot understand why Tarantino didn't make it quite clear that, while behind enemy lines, the (ahem) "troup" also sometimes had to go to the toilet, perhaps zooming in on the faecal matter as it emerges from Pitt's behind in a three-minute-long scene of grunting and heaving, just so that the matter is left in no doubt to "the captured men, to us, the audience".

Also, i suspect that "churlish" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think churlish means exactly what I think it means. Your well thought out diatribe at my expense has clearly shown me that I have zero understanding of cinematic history, style and technique, nor of Tarantino's wilful love of exploitation tropes and facetious regard of said established censorship. I gave you a perfectly reasonable, entirely valid explaination as to why the gore was shown, you seem to be preoccupied with Pitt's toilet ablutions. There's fecal matter alright, but it's all in the above quote. Pointing out my appaling typo of troupe was a spectacular plus. Or perhaps you think I don't know what that means, either?

 :why_so_serious:

I'm with Matemeo here.

Look, you're obviously not the smartest bullet in the MP-40, so I'll try and leave out the sarcasm that went soaring over your pretty little head.  You think I'm ignorant of cinematic history, and there is no way, on the internet, that I can prove otherwise.

But I can sit here, content in the knowledge that someone who doesn't know how to use "churlish" correctly is probably not going to be up to a discussion on whether Tarantino is deliberately referencing the notorious "Jud Suss" in the transitions between scenes in the mise-en-abîme within Inglourious Basterds.  I say this with confidence because I'm pretty sure nobody has discussed that yet except me here now, so wikipedia ain't going to come to your aid.  Just as you didn't "get" the reference to Charlie Brooker in the toiletary reference in my previous post (I don't believe that any long-term f13 poster would accuse me of faecalphilia, despite my other crimes).

Now why don't you stop hiding behind mock affront and go back and discuss the substantive point I made?  I take it you did understand it, yes?

(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5973/howtoannoypeopleatthemo.jpg) (http://www.freecodesource.com/image-hosting/view/img84/5973/howtoannoypeopleatthemo.jpg/)

lol, perfect pic.  some of you bastards are fucking idiot-savants with this shit.

You know, it's really not my fault you're unable to grasp the meaning of a word in context. Perhaps it might even have helped if you'd looked the word up, but no, you just have to go on using it as a method of attack. Since we're clearly not communicating properly, I'll spell it out for you. I use churlish in the sense that it would be discourteous and unfair of Tarantino to deny us the spectacle of Nazi soldiers getting their come-uppance. The Inglourious Basterd section(s) of the movie are about no quibbles, visceral fear mongering. We get to feel the terror of the germans, up close and personal - to cut away or use off-camera implied violence would deny us the catharsis that the Inglorious Basterds stand for - whether we asked for it or not.

Now - you may not appreciate such violence, and that's a good thing - it's abhorrent, after all. But your mistake is trying to intellectualise your dislike of Tarantino's use of it, and you have become so affronted (and by no means mock) that someone could present you a valid reason for its use that you have effectively shut your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears and used baseless personal attacks and sarcasm to drown out logic, and even better, attempted to use your vast knowledge of cinematic critique keywords to belittle or intimidate. That I missed a Charlie Brooker toiletary reference is indeed remiss of me, but perhaps I merely expected you to come up with an analogy of your own instead of "quoting" a critic who's opinion is a: witty and b: actually paid for in money and not dead braincells.

One of the best flames I've seen in awhile.  Reminds me a bit of WUA's early work.  

Fuck you, I'm still in my prime!  :why_so_serious:

Came to watch another Tarentino movie about people dying, saw another Tarentino movie about people dying.  Whatcha all bitching about?

Hmm...perhaps. I did just watch a documentary on Italian Westerns where it was featured. Can't say for sure though.

That's an awful lot of words to say "um, yeah, I used 'churlish' wrong and I'm a bity embarassed."  Tell you what, though: I'll help you out.  If you had, indeed, intended to use it thus, then the correct usage would have been to say "Implied violence is a trick that works magnificently well on many a cinematic occasion, but for Tarantino to have used it would be simply have been churlish in this instance."  This is because implied violence itself, as an immaterial concept, is incapable of churlishness.  It still ignores what I keep saying, which is that better directors don't have to resort to visceral close-ups.

Tell you what, I'll help you out here by telling you what you would say if you had more than a masturbatory interest in some yahudis who've drunk the old knifey moloko*.  If you had the intelligence to mount a reasoned piece of critique that was grounded in any knowledge whatsoever of cinematic history (and don't go attacking me for displaying such - "oooh he used big words to belittle me I'm a victim here" - when you were the one who made the ad hominem attack that I had none in the first place), then you would have said:

"Actually the clarity of exposition in the forehead-branding sequence can be justified by the scene with the playing cards in the bar scene.  Tarantino is making a clear statement about internal and presented identity in both cases, whether it be the soldiers in the bar, who lack knowledge of who they are meant to be while the rest of the world can see it written down, or the Basterds' victims, who may deny their nature to themselves yet nonetheless have it declared to the world, literally imprinted upon their foreheads."

The scalpings: sorry, can't help you there.  It's just Tarantino indulging himself it in his older years.  But that's what you should have said.  I'd have been forced to engage with you as an equal, instead of as someone who grounds his first post in personal judgements on those who disagree and makes assumptions about the critical faculties of both.


Since it was me who trolled him into it with little more than grammar nazism and a poop joke, I think I'm going to take the credit for its spittle-flecked glory.  I am da puppetmasta.

Being verbally thrashed was all according to plan, snore. :roll:

Weak attempt 2/10.  See you desperately clambering onto the next thread I post in to post your billets-doux soon, I am sure!

It seems like these directors you have in mind who could present this story in a way you'd like would actually just have to shoot a completely different script. Or in other words, you're just saying you want to watch another movie. Fair enough! But you're making it complicated by not saying that.

It's not like it's over the top simply because of Tarantino's directorial choices -- even on the writing choices, it's ridiculous. Right from the start, Pitt's character tells his troops that he wants 100 Nazi scalps from each of them. That alone would never be said by a character in some classier movie. Because people like him don't actually exist! He's a cartoon. There's no "tasteful" way to present him.

Now I think you must be some kind of escaped mental patient. To keep pushing this matter despite eveything, everything going against you, is beyond the act of the average troll. But well done for finally working out the sentence the same way everyone else has.
(Are there f13 awards for comprehension? I think there ought to be, Endie's a shoe-in!)


I made the ad hominen attack? I'd love you to point out where! Also, there may have been a point to your Clockwork Orange reference but you seem to have lost the footnote. I would suggest trying to locate it by following the Charlie Brooker analogy you're so fond of.


Indeed, I could well have come saying to something like that, only more eloquent and witty.


I'm deeply sorry that you took 'you've missed the point' so strongly to heart. Is this the 'ad hominen' attack you're so flustered about? Jesus, this is an emergency Preparation H case if ever I saw one! Also, I'm kind of guessing you missed the bit where I said "Tarantino's wilful love of exploitation tropes and facetious regard of said established censorship" in your fit of pique.


You're da delusionist, sunshine. But thanks for the troll admission, you've really backed up your argument!

This borders on the surreal.

Mattemeow if you're going to woodcock this thread then I'm not going to bother reading it.

I know, I know. If I have to break down idiocy into bite-sized chunks it was never worth swallowing in the first place. I'm done here!

I find this more entertaining then the movie  :grin:

Not me.

Intersperse some graphic on-screen Nazi deaths between each post and I think it could be.

WTF happened in here?

Oh yeah, Tarantino thread.

THIS IS WHY THE INTERNET NEVER GETS OLD!

Nah, it's pretty old.  :oh_i_see:

I think both Endie and Mattemeo are both cool. But I'm not sure wtf is going on/how it started.

Something about a bad coupon.

I don't think either of us is going to kick it off again by going over that.

Totally random, but I gotta say this is a cool pic (circa 94... he even walks around carrying a VHS!)


(http://imgur.com/Td6ZS.jpg)

Ah Quinton and his muse, how cute :awesome_for_real:

Her hand freaks me out.

Yea she has giant man hands.

He's more interested in her feet.

I think Tarantino is the inventor of the Doucheface.

He's not a pretty guy, I'll give you that.

I think everything about it makes it a good pic though. The tape, cigar, Uma, the tux, and even the douchface.

His collar should be popped.

So I saw this with some guys from work tonight, having only seen the trailer earlier today and knowing nothing else about it.

I enjoyed it. For some reason Mike Myers had all of us laughing with everything he did in that short scene.

Seeing Mike Myers be what I can only describe as cheeky was a trip. I can't remember the last time I saw him acting and didn't even recognize him at first.

Ya that was a really fun performance he gave in that. I had to restrain myself from doing a facepalm in that scene though when my gf leaned over to me and asked if the old man with the bowler was JFK.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/next_tarantino_movie_an_homage_to

That right there? The best commentary on Tarantino ever. I'm particularly fond of this passage:

They could not have nailed that jackass more perfectly.

I don't really see how. That guy talks non-stop about everyone but himself. His whole schtick is to talk about, promote, live through, and even help distribute the work of his influences. The only thing irritating about him is that he looks funny and talks like a fag.

I lolled.

That's all he does! I listened to an NPR interview just the other day, and that's all he did. Talk about film history, and this or that story when he saw this, or how he likes such and such, or why it's a tragedy people don't know this. And he's been known to promote other people with his own cash. So there's that.

And it's obvious that's all he does in his own work. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either he's an egomaniac who incessantly talks about himself as an "original", or he's a guy who cops various styles.

You can be an egomaniac and pass others peoples shit off as your own, guy. You can, in fact, have it both ways. He doesn't actually have to talk about himself, his movies are a shrine to The Man, Quentin Tarantino. I'm pretty sure you missed the point of the onion article now.

Quentin Tarantino makes fucking fun movies to watch.  Don't over-analyze it.

Fk Tarantino and fk anyone who gives him any sort of support. Defending or supporting assholes who are all style with no substance along with defending complete shit by saying "it was a fun popcorn movie, blah, blah, blah" is the reason why shit is all we get anymore. You are the reason Michael Bay and Joel Schumacher have a career. You people who are defending Tarantino, you're in the trenches with the guy who's stated several times that Tom Cruise is the finest actor of his generation. That should tell you something about your taste and judgement.

I haven't bothered to read the thread because they're always the same whenever he releases a movie, but here's the ultimate, final truth: all that needs to be known. If you think any movie made, or that will be made, by tarantino is anything other than a disjointed mish-mash of shit he's lifted from other sources and then strung together with shitty dialogue that would bore post-adolescents if it wasn't so  stupid and annoying... well. You just have horrible taste, poor judgement, and you should keep your mouth shut regarding any sort of creative or artistic anything.

Tom Cruise was a pretty good actor, IMO.

Indeed. I will admit that he was excellent at portraying a non-batshit crazy version of Tom Cruise on screen. Other than that he's never played another character.

A good actor would be someone like Gary Oldeman or Daniel Day Lewis. They're completely different characters in every movie they're in and are believable if not supurb. Tom Cruise is the opposite of that.

Acting isn't just about being believable.

Except Tom Cruise isn't anything except Tom Cruise.  The most emotion I've seen out of him is him yelling "SAKE!"

Tropic Thunder would say otherwise. But I'm not about to claim Tom Cruise is some paragon of acting.

I thought he did a pretty good job in Collateral.

Maybe the reason they're always playing someone different is because they haven't found their niche yet?

lol

Tom Cruise plays a superb douchebag.

That doctor scene in Vanilla sky..
Most scenes in Jerry McGuire
Tropic Thunder
Rain Main
etc

How could you forget Magnolia?  Ladies love Frank T.J. Mackey! :drill:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Yvash/Avatars/TomJudge.jpg)

Yeah, what the hell.. I knew I was forgetting something. Probably him at his best (rather, at his worst).

He was a superb boy of the woods in Legend.

I can't believe no-one remembers him as Lestat in Interview with a Vampire. Say what you will, that performance rocked.

Cruise is a fun matinee actor but has only one (1) truly brilliant performance, in Magnolia, and in the light of leaked Scientology promo material it turns out that the director just said "hey, be yourself..."

Bringing this back closer to topic: "Destiny Turns On the Radio."

What about it? It's not a Tarantino film (although it might have been better if it was). Tarantino isn't a good actor though.

Uggghhhh. I saw that in the theater shortly after Pulp Fiction thinking Tarantino was going to be funny. That was when I still liked him. Fuck did that movie suck monkey balls.

Must not have seen From Dusk Til Dawn.  Or any of the movies where he cast himself.  Or Sukiyaki Western Django.  Actually, go watch that last one.  Not for Tarentino, but for everything else.

I thought that one of the hopeful signs for Tarantino about Inglourious Basterds was the fact that he didn't cast himself.  Maybe someone around him is honest enough to say to him "Quentin, you're an apalling actor.  At least keep it to Hitchcock levels and just walk past in the background."  That bit in Reservoir Dogs in the diner was ok, because he wasn't really acting, just talking about movies enthusiastically.  Even by Pulp Fiction it was just cringe-inducing.  And a shame, because the lines were great.

I doubt that.

Scorsese on the other hand, should have acted more. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tiHTm6nBUw)

Necro-ish, but:

I watch this last night and I really quite enjoyed it. I found Pitt it be a bit boring but otherwise it was really quite funny. I think it had a better flow than the other Tarintion films I've seen.

I quit giving Tarantino credit after I saw Death Proof and sat through that 10 minute dialogue sequence where girls bitch about boys and their nails. If there was any type of subtextual message in that movie, it wasn't worth reading into to find out. I found Inglorious Basterds to be much of the same. Too much dialogue puts me to sleep.

Kill Bill 1/2 on the other hand were really fun to watch.

Oh, and I watched Pulp Fiction again the other week. Inglourious Basterds is a smarter, more entertaining, better, film.

Still too long, though.

I think all the ranting for extended periods was actually "un-Tarantino" like. I can't recall anything specific, but there seemed to be a lot of those grainy slasher pics back in the day where they just did that (until people got killed, of course). You know, like kids out having fun.. You might get 45 minutes of them bullshitting, drinking, beer, and swimming at some lake or something. Tarantino is dialogue heavy, but usually not to that extent. I think it was just "tribute". ???

Anyhow, I'd agree, it's not easy to get through. I didn't like it at first, but Stuntman Mike shocked me and I was hooked.

I feel a lot of us have our "how we would painfully torture Hitler" fantasies after seeing films like Schindler's List and The Pianist. And I guess that since Inglorious Basterds is really just Tarantino's own "murder Hitler" fantasy, I was a little let down. The guy just gets shot in the face. He doesn't even burn to death. Thinking back, I would have enjoyed seeing something way more terrible.

Correction, he gets machine gunned in the face by a Jewish American.  :grin:

Every single Tarantino film is just a polished, glitzty re-telling of male childhood fantasies though. He makes his films well but he's incredibly childish. His characters are all 1-dimensional and serve mostly to just define stereotypes. His dialogue is good, his pacing is good, his production is superb, but his plots and subtexts are just shallow and unchallenging.

He's kind of the Blizzard of films. Nothing new, just old stuff done really, really well.

Inglourious Basterds is definitely too long though. I had to watch it in two parts.

Sometimes, but I'd have to partly disagree. Jules was a complicated character, I think.

As for the parts that are fantasy -- well, they are kind of cool. I also fantasize being giving the option of choosing between a chainsaw and a samurai sword when met with a rent-a-cop rapist. And I want to still his chopper too. These are good fantasies.

Just watched this.

Five things:

1. Pure Tarantino Wank.
2. Even Tarantino can't make Brad Pitt suck.
3. Waste of Samuel L Jackson. If you're gonna have a narrator in the first part of the movie, have one in the second part.
4. Having an actress named Anne Franck as one of the people hiding Jews was just tacky.
5. Til Schweiger has been the man since SLC Punk and this just reaffirms it. If it weren't for him and Brad Pitt, I would not have made it through this thing.

Damn, it's a shame you spent a few hours watching a Tarantino movie when you could have been playing on your Wii, watching a Joss Whedon TV series, or doing any number of other things that you should already know by now you'll hate doing.

I'm gonna give him a pass, since in a way, Schild himself is the Bear Jew.  :grin: Maybe he was just testing whether Quentin got it right this time.

Watched it for Pitt actually. I don't care about Tarantino getting it right or not. He won't, he's an uncreative fuck. Pitt, however, always gets it right.


To you as well, I spent a few hours watching Brad Pitt and about 20 minutes of Til Schweiger.

Brad Pitt...WTF?

He's fucking awesome. Shut your dirty whore mouth.

Yes he's a good actor.. Are people actually arguing against that still?

That said, he still hasn't topped Johnny Suede.

Pitt was one of the weaker cast members in this movie. Good, but nowhere near the strongest link in the chain.

I don't mind Brad Pitt, but I think he has some roles that he does better than others. I found his hamming it up a bit bit disjointed with the rest of the film in this one though. Enjoyed Michael Fassbender more in the humour department.

I like Brad Pitt a lot, and he was one of the bright moments in this movie.  But he was no better in this than in Burn After Reading, which is to say he chose an accent and two idiosyncracies and hammed them for all he was worth.  And Tarantino gave the good lines to Landau.

He does the hammy sociopathic nutball pretty well a la twelve monkeys and yeh Jonny Suede was funny he's quite a good comedy actor. But actually I got the feeling the role was intended for George Clooney & he might have turned it down on moral grounds.

That said I enjoyed all the scenes without Brad Pitt, especially the basement cafe scene was vintage Tarantino.

You just don't like Pitt because he totally nailed "average Irishman" in Snatch.

My favorite Brad Pitt role is probably Kalifornia. Lately he feels like an actor who is sort of resting on his laurels a bit sort of like Al Pacino and/or Robert Deniro. It seems like some of the great actors just hit a point where they kind of say "fuck it" and I think he's hit that point.

None of those actors you mentioned really have a reputation for fucking up a part because of overacting.

I'd say that Al Pacino has definitely overacted in his later movies.

Finally got a chance to see this. I completely agree with these 3 schild points. It was complete wankery of the type only Tarantino can do. The Basterds were immaterial to the story, interchangeable both on an individual level and as a group. It's like Tarantino had 3 stories he couldn't bother to flesh out into individual stories, so he mashed them all 3 into one jumbled up mess of a story that was part weirdo escapist Jewish revenge fantasy, part torture porn, and part Dirty Dozen homage. The SS guy being the only really interesting character was an utter disappointment, because it wasted a good performance on a supporting character in a movie that made little sense.

Yea, but Waltz was magnificent.  That's one of the best characters I've seen in any movie for a long time.  And although it pains me, you pretty much have to give it up to Tarantino for writing that part.  Obviously, without Waltz giving a excellent performance, I don't think that the writing gets as much notice.  But that part is well written, and I don't think that can be denied. 

The rest of the movie is pretty boring.  If he would have spent more time on Pitt's character to act as the foil to Waltz's character, he might have had a movie.  As it is, the whole Dirty Dozenesque part of the movie survives on Pitt's raw charisma alone.  The other character's arc isn't even worth mentioning, and is probably the most terrible thing I've ever seen.

See, the Shoshanah character arc could have been interesting, had it been given any room to breathe. How did she come to own the cinema? Was she French Resistance the whole time or just keeping her head down to stay alive? That could have been a whole movie on its own, instead it was just a shitty plot device. The Sam Jackson narration was just lazy writing. 2 1/2 hours and you can't have character dialogue tell us about the nitrate in film? And the German sniper kid? He could have been a whole movie as well, with his obvious regret for all the deaths he caused, but again, one-dimensional character. Of course, Hans Landa could have been a compelling character all on his own with Waltz's acting but instead we barely get glimpses of the character and that only because of the great acting. It made his switch at the end lack any real punch - yet another plot device.

What I don't get is why you people do not hire actors who are native speakers of German to play German roles.

They can't be more expensive.  :awesome_for_real:

Helm, I think in this particular instance its about the nature of the movie. Tarantino was making a 'jewsploitation' flick, for lack of a better term. Depicting Germans in a cartoon villain type way. You're probably also going to find this in any movie that's entirely about the Evil of The Nazis (tm). Schindler's List, for instance, could and probably should have had Schindler played by, you know, an actual German, if for anything else to heal some wounds between Germany and the Jewish diaspora.

I have a pet theory!! Folks feel free to correct me if they think otherwise and I will not be offended, nor do I mean any offense in saying this: Its too soon for many Jews to have actual Germans playing the roles of Nazis. This is not a criticism. Some crimes are so wounding that not till the children of the victims of the Holocaust are themselves gone from this earth will we be able to stomach an international/american movie with actual Germans as Nazis.

I this case... maybe...

But I see this everytime "Germans" appear in English movies or tv series... And not all of them are Nazis

You DO know that not all Germans are Nazis, right ?  :ye_gods:

Yes, silly man. I'm German myself :P I'm talking only of Nazis depicted in American films.

As to why other American films not about Nazis but about Germans use English speaking actors, you can probably simply attribute that to the target audience. Americans really don't need 'authentic' Germans for the sake of the authenticity, any more than Braveheart needed an Authentic Scott.

Edit: Sorry, I missed your original point. My earlier reference to 'a boot' was a joke on the move Das Boot (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082096/), one of the first great films that showed the average German grunt in WW2 as a hero of the narrative.

Out of interest, what is the boot? Downfall is one of those movies I need to see sometime.

The last part was not aimed at you. :awesome_for_real:

But there must be hunders of native German speakers avaible. Why not use them.   :awesome_for_real:

I'm probably just having an old man moment, but I'm having difficulty remembering a film that had a German as a main or secondary actor that was -not- about WW2.

Americans cannot accept any accents other than English and occasionally French in their movies. Anyone that isn't American speaks with a British accent.

Isn't Waltz a native German speaker anyway? I thought he was Austrian.

Right on both accounts.

Franka Potente?

The Bourne Identity

Most german cinema?

I misspoke! I meant to ask if there's been any ROLES that were German, other than Nazis, in American movies. The original question by Der Helm was why we don't use German native speakers for German roles, and I was having trouble thinking of non-Nazi roles that were of German nationality.

Franka Potente?

(Marie in Bourne Identity is German)

There were minor roles in Flash Forward and Fringe. I watched episodes with "weird" performances of German from both series back to back, maybe that is why it stood out to me.

Also, the movie Beerfest.  :ye_gods: :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods:

Aaaanyway, if you think this movie is bad, console yourselves that it could have been this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggcYlmh5M8)

Starfish Hitler?  I enjoyed every second of that.

"Das Boot" is "The Boat", a movie about a crew on board a U-Boat in WWII. There is a two hour cut and a four hour cut iirc, but it's meant to be a fairly realistic representation of the life such a crew would lead.

Either version, make sure you're in the mood for it. I've always heard good things about it and caught it on TV, but was half awake so about 30 minutes in I got annoyed and shut it off.

(http://olivier.quenechdu.free.fr/spip/local/cache-vignettes/L304xH380/diehard1_hansgruber-30a7d.jpg)

EDIT: Oh hey a page 2. This was my contribution to the 'German roles' part of the discussion.

If you've seen Stalingrad, you roughly know what you're in for - a German war movie. Have the anti-depressants close at hand. :-P

Uhm....Alan Rickman is British.  :headscratch:

During that movie I had to laugh out loud a few times and tears of laughter were streaming down my face at the end.

Why's that? Its been a while since I saw it, but I don't remember it being -intentionally- funny.

From memory:

Heh heh, ok, that's pretty good.

I was the only one in the whole audience who laughed at those scenes... I felt a bit guilty afterwards.  :awesome_for_real:

Right.  But the discussion was real Germans in German roles.

To be exact it would be 'why not use real Germans for German roles?' And the answer is, because Alan Rickman is awesome.  :awesome_for_real:

Heh.  Yippee Ki Yay, motherfucker.

Just saw this. Except for the part about Pitt, who was somewhat cringeworthy, I agree very much with what Haemish has to say. The whole overlong "celebrity head" sequence felt like it had been written by Tarantino at some point as a "Tarantino dialogue sequence" and he'd just decided to get it translated into German and drop it into this movie. It didn't feel out of place so much as generic Tarantino that could have been in any of his other films. Waltz was the best part of the film, and pretty much the only really good thing about it. OK, Diane Kruger was overall pretty good as well.

Now seen this 3 times.

First time: Wha?
Second time: Hmm.
Third Time: Ah!

Really?  I'm only on my second time.  But I was to:  ugh. alredy.

I'm not sure how you could watch it more than once without vomiting.