I saw inglorious basterds last night.

[Swede]

What a fucking horrible horrible movie. It had a vague story,the violence was gratuitous (Tarantino movies the violence always played a part of the story). My buddy said the violence "didn't work" and I think yeah that's it. The violence didn't work - in a Tarantino movie.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. wow, They just gave it 2 thumbsup "At The Movies"

Interesting.

[Swede]

2. At the end,audience members stood and clapped they enjoyed it so much.

There was loud laughter during the movie,I just didn't find get into it. That inglorius basterd stole $25 from me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. $25.oo ??

Last time I went (a couple of weeks ago) it was $28.oo for two people with 2 drinks and a large popcorn.

[Swede]

6. $9 for admission,$16 for pop and popcorn.

:cry:

[Iggo]

10. 39 bucks.

2 tickets, 2 drinks (1 small, 1 med), 1 small popcorn (no butter), 1 box of candy (brand-name, don't remember which brand).

Sunday night. Regal 16 in La Habra, California.

[leftofthedial]

3. Great movie!

Tarentino turns the conventions of movies inside out and revels in them. Instead of trying to trick us that we were peering into a slice of reality, Tarentino instead takes joy in reminding us constantly that this is not real, just fun. I thought it was a rollicking, entertaining, good time. Four out of five stars.

[blueknight]

5. i have heard nothing

but GOOD things about it

[Kajsa]

7. I won't see it, period.

Tarentino movies always overkill with the violence,
it's his thing in lieu of developing a better storyline.


Personally, I can't stand the guy.
He strikes me as very adolescent, immature, attention
seeking and needing to shock/gross people out at every
turn.
His movies reflect this.

Grow the fuck up, Tarentino!!

No thanks- I saw one of his movies, that was enough for me.

[Iggo]

11. Well yeah. That's the point.

Either you like that kind of stuff or you don't.

Tarentino doesn't need to grow up.

[Forkboy]

12. You've seen one movie of his and judge them all, and you tell him to grow up?

[Kajsa]

45. Forkboy, I've seen enough from the trailers of

his other movies to know that it is more of the same.

Name one movie of his that does not use gratuitous
violence.

[Forkboy]

50. Can't judge a book by it's cover, and all that.

Look, if you don't want to see it then more power to you, but to knock something without even knowing how it really is is a Republican way to go. How often did they criticize a Michael Moore film without seeing it, and how often did we point out how lame that is? Same thing.

[Kajsa]

53. Forkboy, If I know

for a FACT that there is way over the top violence in
everything he directs,

then it's not judging a book by its cover.

I've seen his work, no thanks.

I'm neither a "pearl clutching Fundie" ( I don't even like pearls-LOL, and I piss Fundies off)
nor a Repub.
I just don't like his work, period.

Edit-

I do hear what you are saying, though
and you are right.

[Orrex]

15. What bothers me about Kurosawa films is that there's too many samurai

Grow the fuck up, Akira!
:evilgrin:


Have you ever heard Tarentino discuss film as an artform, though? He's actually quite insightful. It might be worth your time to listen to his recent interview on NPR's Fresh Air, even if you don't care for his work.

[Forkboy]

32. LOL

Fuckin' samurai everywhere!

[Kajsa]

46. LOL!

I might check that out!

And you KNOW Kurosawa and Tarentino are miles apart!
:-)

Fuji Apples and Blood Oranges!

[Liberal_in_LA]

21. me too. I don't see his movies cuz they are too violent

[Kajsa]

48. Yep.

When violence is an integral part of the plot,
fine.

'The Guns of Navarone'
'All Quiet on the Western Front'
'Saving Private Ryan'
and ' Bridge Over the River Kwai'

all pulled off their plots, laden with violence,
well.

Not one of those movies had gratuitous violence.

[LanternWaste]

8. A few pros, a few cons...

Pros: Tarantino is attempting to convey his plot to us through the use of more dialog, more montage, and more subtext. He is in effect, expanding. His characters, though always multi-dimensional, are now much more sympathetic to the audience. Even the lead character in Basterds, though bordering on the satirical, is written to convey enough nuance to allow me complete suspension of disbelief. His personal homages to classic cinema is handled deftly and well within the internal consistency and mythology of this film (contrasted to his earlier, almost self-serving, "see-how-clever-I-am" references). Landa was one of the best movie villains I've ever watched on the big screen-- gracious, graceful, and friendly, yet menacing even in his least offending moments. Landa's verbal dance to cow the Jean Valjean-styled peasant character was truly a hypnotic thing for me.

Cons: Moving shots rather than quick cuts looked amateurish in two instances. His penchant for classic-styled close-ups is overdone and overkill. I never once interpreted any character as a soldier, a resistance fighter or a Nazi. Regardless of whether this was done consciously or not, I personally expect (and want) an archetype or two to better balance the moral and ethical ambiguities. Menacing characters and this amount of violence does not contrast well with the goofy comedy peppered throughout the film. The lead's affectation of Italian would have been so much more humorous had its screen time been cut by half. If part and parcel of the film's intention was to provide us with that most viscerally satisfying of all WW2 "endings", then I needed to see the Nazi top brass a but more, and be given reason to hate them for something other than their buffoonery and clownish antics. The active climax was anything but active or climactic.

All in all, I find it a 6.5-7 out of 10. It will eventually find a home in my DVD collection for two reasons... I collect WW2 films-- good or bad, and because I want to see Landa again.

[Bucky]

9. Like you, I don't "get" Tarantino

I liked the Kill Bill movies, but it seems like most of his movies are just wanking on violence without letting it move a story forward. I've heard people praise his dialogue, but I really don't find his writing all that compelling. He's got natural sounding dialogue, but it never really seems to get to a point or make challenging observations, which is the meter stick I use for "great dialogue" rather than just how interesting it is. His dialogue doesn't seem to build character.

I haven't seen this movie, but then I don't want to. If you're going to muck with history, you need to have a point to doing so--rather than Tarantino's standard reason for his artistic choices: "Wouldn't it be awesome if...?" which in this case is "... if there was this all Jewish unit of commandos running around Nazi Europe murdering Nazis?"

Yes, Quinten, it'd be totally neat-o. Unfortunately, nothing like that ever happened. The US Army never formed an all Jewish unit. The US Army didn't form murder squads (and didn't even train them until Vietnam came along). Artistically, there's no point in this movie other than Tarantino's by-the-numbers nihilism. He might as well have made it "ninjas vs samurais" or "Giant Mecha Robots vs the Bolsheviks" or "Vulcans vs Tatooinees."

Personally I'm still waiting for a James Brothers vs the James Brothers movie.

 

[Forkboy]

13. Um, it wasn't intended to be historically accurate.

Unless you think Kelly's Heroes was a documentary.

I love all the people judging a movie they refuse to see. :crazy:

[Skittles]

24. I'm gonna go see it

I like Tarantino :thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

30. It's friggin' awesome.

The opening sequence alone is worth it. Christoph Waltz steals the movie as Hans Landa, big time.

[Forkboy]

14. At least you saw it before judging. Many here sound like pearl clutching fundies.

[armyowalgreens]

16. How was it a vague story? What was vague about it?

I had some issues with the movie, but the story line was not vague.

[Taitertots]

17. 4 out of 10

The previews made it appear as if they were going to be doing one thing and one thing only, killing nazis. In the movie they did one thing and one thing only, have banal conversations in french.

Violence, What violence? I was expecting the story to be about the inglorious bassturds, they were barely mentioned. I expected Kill Bill level violence and got the teletubies.

It sucked so bad half the theater left before the end.

[demosincebirth]

19. Maybe they were Morans and couldn't read the sub titles

[Taitertots]

20. Probably not

They stayed long enough to have read half the movie. Must just be the banal, irrelevant nature of every conversation. The total lack of anything resembling action. A tortoise runs faster than the plot advances.

[RoyGBiv]

27. Weird ...

It's odd ...

I've seen hundreds and hundreds of movies in my day, and I can count on one hand the number of those that had enough audience members get up and walk out before it was over to be noticeable. And I've seen some really rank crap. Hell, I don't even remember anyone getting up and leaving from _Howard the Duck_.

The idea that half the theater got up and walked out just doesn't seem to jibe with other reports of audiences standing up and applauding, which, again, I've only witnessed myself less than a dozen times. Interestingly, the end of _Return of the Jedi_ was the first time I experienced it, and in the years since that ending (why the HELL would the Emperor have an open, gaping chasm in his mobile throne room) has been panned far and wide by those whose hobby it is to criticize popular cultural events, icons, etc.

How is it I've missed so many of these extremes? How is it that one audience in one theater is so overwhelmed by a movie that they applaud the ending while another audience in another theater simply gets up and leaves?

Just pondering imponderables ...

[Taitertots]

28. Let me guess

When did you see it?
Where did you see it?
What time of day?

I saw it recently, at a drive in movie theater on the border of Detroit, late at night. Did you see it the first week, in a nice neighborhood, prime time?

I've heard people laugh at monty python, so anything is possible.

[RoyGBiv]

29. I haven't seen it ...

I was making a general observation, thus the lack of commentary on this specific film.

As for your questions as applicable to my movie-going habits, I rarely go to movies the first week of their release, usually the second. I tend to do a Saturday late-afternoon show or the late showing on Fridays. The theater I usually patronize now is in a ... I dunno ... decent neighborhood. It's near downtown Houston if that means anything.

The _Return of the Jedi_ viewing I mentioned took place in a 2-screen theater on Main Street in a town of about 12,000 people, which happened to be the same place I saw _Howard the Duck_. Maybe people in small towns are easily entertained.

But, I've seen movies all over the place. I've been to a little theater in not-so-nice area of D.C. many times at various times of day. That was in fact one of the places where I did see several people get up and leave. It was a really, really bad independent film, the name of which I don't even remember now.

And, yes, Monty Python is genius.

I'm still curious about this phenomenon.

[Taitertots]

36. I watched it at the drive in

I've been going there for my whole life and I've only seen that sort of exodus for inglorious bastards and Bruno. People flooded out of the theater during Bruno way worse.

I find Monty Python very unpleasant.

[Common Sense Party]

63. Monty Python is a hot or cold item. You wither love them or hate them.

I think they're hilarious, comedy geniuses we haven't seen the likes of in 30 years since.

My wife can't stand them.

I watch Holy Grail when she goes to bed.

[Iggo]

56. Oops.

[RoyGBiv]

58. I probably shouldn't ask, huh?

:)

[Iggo]

59. LOL.

Yep. Total misfire.

:hi:

[RoyGBiv]

61. It happens ...

Funny thing is I kinda expected it to happen given the subject line.

I once went OFF on someone here through about four messages (and well after the editable period) before I realized I had made a complete and utter mistake as to what the person was saying.

Oops, indeed. :)

:toast:

[Iggo]

62. Yeah. I got lucky.

I caught it in the first few minutes. Saved myself some embarassment.

[Forkboy]

33. Easy, the poster is lying through his teeth.

I'll say it if you won't. :)

[Taitertots]

35. No I'm not

The movie was long and nothing happened. It was the feature movie at the drive in. At least half the cars just drove away before the end. No one cares about watching people talk in french cafes. It was so banal, boring, and trite. By the end I didn't even care if the plan worked or not.

They called it Inglorious bastards, there couldn't have been more than a quarter of the movie about them. Like fifteen, twenty minutes.

[Forkboy]

37. Well, there's always Carrot Top.

[JVS]

52. I saw it in a similar venue.

And although we didn't drive away, we were pretty bored by the movie.

Woohoo! 50,000 posts!

[Forkboy]

31. "It sucked so bad half the theater left before the end."

Sounds like you're full of shit.

[Skittles]

65. yup

[armyowalgreens]

38. I saw maybe 4 people leave out of hundreds. And there was plenty of violence...

I'm not sure exactly where you were, but you clearly were not watching the movie.

But, none the less, I don't judge the quality of a film on how popular it is. Most people wouldn't know a good movie if it bitch slapped them in the face.

[stevekatz]

18. wow

I loved it, I applauded and wanted to cheer when it ended.

If only history had such justice.

[mentalsolstice]

22. I enjoyed it.

It wasn't Oscar caliber material, except for Christoph Waltz, could possibly get a supporting actor nod, but is was an entertaining 2.5 hours.

[chrisa]

23. Tarantino movies are a love/hate sort of thing.

I'm usually on the "hate" side of the spectrum. I just find his overuse of dialog and characters annoying.

[Robeson]

25. I heard that about it early on....

...was wondering what all the hype about it was lately.

[LostInAnomie]

26. I thought it was pretty damn good.

Good story, good performances, interesting dialogue, best movie I've seen this year.

[Schema Thing]

34. Just saw it. Loved every minute.

[DaveinMD]

39. great movie from start to finish

its really a fantasy for any Jewish person.

[1]

40. i love any movie that gets people posting in equal amounts of "it sucks!" and "its great!"...

[Swede]

41. It got 89% positive rating from rotten tomatoes.

My friend wanted to leave half way through it,I convinced him it was gonna get better. It didn't. :shrug:

[TZ]

42. My Uncle said it was the best movie he's seen this year

And he goes to 2-5 movies PER WEEK....

[pokerfan]

55. Then you must have loved Ben Stein's 'Expelled'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ratings

[bikebloke]

43. It was the worst movie I've never seen.

I'm going to see it so I can walk out.
:P


*Actually, it's in my Netflix queue, so I'll see it when I see it.

[LynneSin]

44. After Reservoir Dogs it all went downhill from there.

[deoxyribonuclease]

47. I'm usually not a fan of Tarantino's movies, but I enjoyed this one

[Taverner]

49. You either love Tarantino or hate him

Mood plays a big part too

Quentin Tarantino is like watching Looney Toons for adults

[emdistortion]

51. I haven't liked anything by Tarantino.

With the exception of "Resevior Dogs" I don't like most of his work. Kill Bill kicked a little ass though.

[pokerfan]

54. I found it incredibly slow

punctuated with brief bouts of graphic violence.

I found the ear cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs effective precisely because QT didn't show the ear being cut off and left it to our imagination to fill in the gruesome details. Probably one of the reasons so many compared him to Hitchcock all those years ago. Or perhaps Hitch would have become equally as self indulgent with the improvements in film making technology and special effects. In either case, it's obvious that QT simply lacked the technology back then to realistically show an ear being cut off. In much the same way Spielberg's mechanical shark was such a disappointment that he was forced to limit its screen time finding other more creative ways to allude to the presence of the shark and the movie was better for it! Likewise I thought the scalping scenes in Dances With Wolves were actually more effective than they were here for the same reason: Sometimes less is more!

But mainly it's a slow film. Extremely slow. Glacially slow. Long interminable scenes of characters sitting around talking in cabins, in taverns, in cafes, etc. Now, this wouldn't have been a problem had those scenes contained even a small fraction of the quirky and crackling dialog that I enjoyed in RD & Pulp Fiction. If anything, the biggest problem with this film is that it isn't Tarantino enough.

Positives:
The subtitles. I loved hearing the French, German, Italian, etc.
Performances: Exceptional all around.

[slay]

57. After one viewing, it is my least favorite of Tarantino's movies

I rank um Pulp Fiction -> Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 -> Reservoir Dogs -> Jackie Brown -> Death Proof -> Inglorious Bastards.

Sometimes his movies grow on me so I plan to see it again. I didn't hate it, it just seemed jumbled and messy - although I had no problem at all with the violence. Think I just need to watch it again before I can really judge it.

[RoyGBiv]

60. Personally ...

His "The Man from Hollywood" segment from _Four Rooms_ is my favorite. Pulp Fiction is a close second.

I did not enjoy Kill Bill. They bored me.

[titoresque]

64. Saw it last night, HATED IT!!!

What a waste of $ and time, and I felt ill afterward. I didnt go in to the movie with expectations and I've never been a fan nor hater of Tarantino, was just going to see the movie.
It sucked big time and I agree completely with the sentiments of the OP.

[3dfan]

66. Cool movie - Inglorious bestards

As for me this movie really rocks - thanks Quentin Tarantino for great movie!