Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Springtime for Inglorious Basterds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 09:37 AM
Original message
Springtime for Inglorious Basterds
Edited on Thu Aug-27-09 09:39 AM by Daveparts still
Springtime for Inglorious Basterds
By David Glenn Cox

If you loved the film "Pulp Fiction" then you are in for a surprise with Quentin Tarantino’s latest film "Inglorious Basterds," or what should more aptly be named Inglorious Pulp. It borrows the format from "Pulp Fiction," with chapters, but leaves the rest behind. For some reason, with allied armies already on the beaches in Normandy, they choose a group of Jewish American soldiers who are then dropped behind German lines to sow fear amongst the German soldiers. It's obvious that with half a million men already on the beaches that a half dozen commandos will just scare the crap out of the German Army.

The "Basterds" brutally murder prisoners, ala Dick Cheney, to gather intelligence. Their leader has a thick, overplayed Southern accent that while he looks a little like a young Marlon Brando he sounds like young Jim Varney. Know what I mean, Vern? While interrogating a prisoner he crushes his skull using what all allied commandos carried into battle in France, a baseball bat! That's just dumb; a tree branch, a rifle butt, a big rock, anything but a baseball bat. In France? To their credit they at least used a wooden bat, but as the film went on an aluminum bat wouldn’t have been out of the question.

A lone surviving German soldier is marked with a swastika carved into his forehead by the "Basterds." This escaping Nazi Private is then taken directly to see Adolf Hitler to explain about what had happened to him at the hands of these dangerous commandos. Hitler is visibly shaken. Allied invasions, round the clock bombings, a collapsing Russian front, and now, oh God, no, swastika-carving commandos with baseball bats!

That is just the beginning. The movie requires a total suspension of belief as the "Basterds" become involved in a plot to blow up a cinema filled with Nazi big whigs in Paris. Which ones, you might ask. All of them, every Nazi leader in the Third Reich will come to Paris in the middle of a war, a war that they are losing, for a movie premier! Sure, why not.

There are two plots. One, Operation Keno created by the OSS, and another by an allegedly teenage girl who owns the cinema where the film will premiere. It wasn’t until later that I learned this woman was supposed to be a teenager as the thought never once crossed my mind while I was watching the film, which is more than I can say for the producers. All of the women in the film wear their hair down and straight, which if you were to watch any period films or newsreels you would know that would have made them stand out like Grace Jones at a prayer meeting.

But ‘tis a small matter to carp about such minor details in a film with this much wrong with it. After the British agents are exposed and killed by the Gestapo, the "Basterds" step in to play the role of an Italian film crew with a double agent German film star. My flesh cringes as the Jim Varney character says, “Ciao” and “Areviderchi,” Vern.

Surprise, surprise, they are captured by the Gestapo; but you know what? The Gestapo officer is a traitor, too! He orders the "Basterds" to get their leader on the radio to make a deal. Then the Gestapo officer proceeds to run down a list of his demands that include a home, a pension, a Congressional Metal of Honor, asking for everything except a pair of Eleanor Roosevelt’s panties. Of course the allies, being prudent men, instantly agree.

The theater is decorated like the Nuremberg Rallies, blood-red standard Nazi flags are everywhere and the walls are adorned with huge, golden German eagles because this is a movie theater and we are going to turn down the lights. All of the Nazi hierarchy are in the theater and for security they brought along two sentries to guard the opera boxes. No soldiers outside, none back stage, none guarding the front or back doors.

The teenager has made her own film and spliced it on to the end of the German film because if the Germans are too stupid to guard their own Fuhrer then they are too stupid to guard the film. The film clip is the cue for the teen’s lover and theater projectionist to set fire to the theater along with her aunt and uncles' collection of three hundred flammable, nitrate films. Now somehow, without each having any knowledge of the other's plots, the "Basterds" begin setting off bombs and opening fire as if on queue on the unguarded Nazi hierarchy.

Not since Mel Brooks “Springtime for Hitler” has there been a worse-made Nazi production. With every plot twist I imagined the writer with a huge pile of cocaine in front of him going, "Snort! And you know what happens then? Hitler picks up his cell phone to call Eva Braun, no, wait."

I doubt if Tarantino could have made a worse film if he had tried because this film has all the hallmarks of not trying. It is to World War Two movies what "Beach Blanket Bingo" was to teenage reality. I didn’t just want my money back, I wanted the two hours of my life back. So, if a believable plot scenario isn’t that important to you, and continuity to you means not wetting your pants, you might just like this film. “The Producers” was a funnier version of the Nazis, but not by much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R because the movie sucked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. It was fine
The pace was slow for a Tarantino film but I had no trouble suspending my disbelief. It is after all, a revenge fantasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It wasn't violent enough, too disjointed, and it was boring.
Edited on Thu Aug-27-09 09:56 AM by JVS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Okay
For me, I was glad to see Tarantino breaking out of his self-built mold. Do all his films have to include quick edits, over-the-top gore and snappy dialogue? Is he not allowed to create something a little more thoughtful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. How was this movie thoughtful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. I could write a 10 page answer..
Basically it is original in what it is saying. That takes thought.

It portrays WW2 in a filter influenced by later styles of directing. The spaghetti western for example.

It uses dialogue to very well, the characters are not supposed to be fully realized and explained.

It is filmed well. If you were to watch it again without sound you would see it is very well edited and the camera work is excellent.

I could go on. Basically it is a movie, you dont have to like it. There are complaints, however to dismiss it as trash is an error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. "original in what it is saying" Which was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. WW2 flicks dont have to be sepia, super serious
flicks and nazis can be made fun of. Among other things, that is one thing he puts forward. It is his view of a revenge flick. My interpretation of what he is saying may be different than what others see.

It is a graphic novel like approach to the topic.

Lots of audience perspectives of the audience in the movie, there are different ways to interpret that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-29-09 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
69. You'd have to be a thoughtful person to understand it
Watch it again in a few years and you might perceive it differently. Or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Agreed, with everything except the violence
I think it had more than enough violence, rather good acting, (the characters were caricatures certainly) but suffered from a poor story and abysmal editing. It was a complete bore to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. Knowing that violence is one of Tarantino's strengths, I expected more.
I was really expecting a rampage of epic proportions, and he let me down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-29-09 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
70. You hated the editing?!
I feel bad for you. It was genius.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. You may want to add SPOILER ALERT, btw the article is pretty lame review
the movie did not suck it is just not recycled hollywood trash. So people whose scope of understanding movies relies on traditional plot mechanisms and dont like to think all to much will not like the movie.

If a person looks at each scene and tries to understand the content and what the director is doing they will take more away from this film.

The movie is much more complex than Cox (cock) is presenting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. So plot mechanisms
that have been in place since Greek Theater no long apply? It is just interesting characters and no plot rules apply? So Robert E. Lee riding into battle on a Moped would be good theater? The movie is so complex that fails to make sense. Shouldn't the story make sense?

Why would Nazi's premiere a German movie in Paris?
Why would every German leader attend?
Why wouldn't they know that the cinema owner was Jewish woman if they knew the projectionist was black?
Why did he use a baseball bat?
Why would the allies agree to such silly terms over the radio?
Why didn't they guard the theater?
Why did they decorate the inside of the theater rather than the outside?

If these things don't matter then I return to my original argument "The Producers" was funnier but not by much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. Because it is a movie. Name your favorite Fictional Movie..
and we can have the same discussion. The Producers is funny and was original but is not the same film.

If you want sense watch a documentary, this is fictional film, it is an adaption of a persons vision and interpretation of an event. It is not meant to be a historically accurate piece.

Kubrick covered things really well but was not making documentaries, although he used (reproduced) the camera motions you see in them, in several films.

You could ask the same questions of "Full Metal Jacket" or "Platoon", these movies are not documentary work but interpretations of two mens thoughts on war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. Now you're Talking
Kubrick is a Genius, Full Metal Jacket displays the stupidity of military thinking, weeks learning to march but not knowing how to read a map.

Platoon on the suffering of the common soldier.

But even more if you look at 2001 even though many of the futuristic inventions never came to pass the film is so well made you still believe that they could.

Doctor StrangeLove, a one of a kind film sick, twisted and funny.

Kubrick considered taking on "Lord of the Rings" How would that have turned out? The world will never know.

Sometimes movies fail at the studio, sometimes it is the script or the actors we have all made things that don't turn out as well as we had hoped
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Kubrick was able to make FMJ
even though he was never a soldier and not in vietnam. Platoon was made by a combat veteran. I have see that part of FMJ but also see the unexplainable bond created in the military. The military can bounce from surreal to overwhelming stark reality in terms of experience. Thin Red line touches on that.

Again I try to look at what the director is saying when possible. QT did have something to say, and did communicate it. Some people may not like the message, but to dismiss it is IMHO a mistake.

I know people who dont get kubrick, AI was his before it was released and if you take a step back and peel away the spielberg (the parts that make it annoying and misunderstood) you have a profound message there. It one of the best kubric films, yet he gets no credit.

The man was brilliant, no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. Kubrick asked,
R. Lee Ermey if you see anything that doesn't look right you tell me. Ermey told him the trash cans in the barracks weren't clean enough and Kubrick had them scowered with SOS pads until Ermey said that they were shiny enough.

Even though it wasn't important to the story it was important to Kubrick to make it look right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost Jaguar Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
60. Kubrick was...
...a complete detail freak. He cared about every little thing in the frame, and he did dozens of takes sometimes to get it exactly as he wanted. FMJ is amazingly accurate, more amazing when you realize that it was filmed in England--including the exteriors!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
45. How about 1941
which was in my opinion a far, far superior film (it was edited and had a story line)

Or the Dirty Dozen or Twelve O'Clock High or They Were Expendable or Wake Island or Glory or The Enemy Below or Airplane or......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. All good, but not a zero sum thing
I can still like the dirty dozen and like QT's over the top film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Absolutely!
and I can like the Dirty Dozen and believe the Inglorious Boredom was a piece of Doo Doo. It's all individual taste.



:toast:





(I will say that my wife doesn't believe that 1941 was a true story, now I am having real trouble convincing her of that!): :
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. 1941!
LOL! Good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebubula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. Agree to disagree
I thought the movie was good, but I was not trying to analyze anything. Pure escapist fiction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. The reviewer apparently expected a Fellini film going in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
8. Agree with everything here
Inglorious is American stupidity flimified. A deeply stupid and worthless cultural artifact, with not even the sense of humor to snicker at its own manifest dumbness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. heard it was good actually. to each his own.
Energetic, inventive, swaggering fun, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is a consummate Hollywood entertainment—rich in fantasy and blithely amoral. It's also quintessential Tarantino—even more drenched in film references than gore.

Tweaked after Cannes, Inglourious Basterds may still be a tad long and a little too pleased with itself, but it’s tough to resist the enthusiastic performances and terrific dialogue—if you’re not put off by the juvenile premise (a Hollywood occupation romance, in which a Jewish special unit wreaks vengeance on the Nazis) or cartoonish savagery (though Inglourious Basterds is as much talk-talk as bang-bang).

Christoph Waltz plays an elegant and clever SS man and is the movie’s most crowd-pleasing creation—he's Eichmann as fun guy! He’s also a European sissy whose “barbaric” antagonists are a squad of Jewish-American commandos led by wily hillbilly Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). The Jews are out for blood. Operating like a cross between the Dirty Dozen and a Nazi death squad, Raine’s eponymous Basterds take no prisoners; designated “survivors” are shipped back to Germany, swastikas carved in their foreheads to spook the brass. The rest are sent to Valhalla, most spectacularly by Sgt. Donny Donowitz (exploitation director Eli Roth), who uses a Louisville slugger to bash German brains. “Watching Donny beat Nazis to death is as close as we get to the movies,” one of the Basterds exults, tipping Tarantino’s hand.

Everything here unfolds in and maps an alternate universe: The Movies. And if masterpiece is taken to mean the fullest expression of a particular artist’s worldview, Basterds could well be Tarantino’s. — J. Hoberman

http://www.seattleweekly.com/movies/inglourious-basterds-549895/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morning Dew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
10. Haven't seen it yet but I saw 12 billion drive in movies in the 60s and 70s..
The trailer is pure, lovely drive in schlock - love it!

I never trust a reviewer who can't spell the name of the movie - it's "Inglourious".

And what the hell is a "metal" of honor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. ChickMagic and I were among the first to see it last Friday
I think the critic missed the mark on a lot of issues, but came really close with one point. The Basterds were counter-terrorists who used brutal methods to intimidate the other side, but one of their victims was a German soldier who displayed a Stoic grace when he chose a brutal, bloody death rather than surrender the lives of his fellow Nazis to the enemy. This movie was filled with complicated personalities - many sinners, a few outright villains, but no actual heroes.

That said, I thought this movie was one of Tarantino's best to date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Bingo..Not cookie cutter trash..
some reviewers get kinda uncomfortable when they have to actually understand a film rather than just compare it to the last film like it in a genre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I understand a weak plot
I also understand one of a kind trash. I felt embarrassed that this film will be shown overseas as an example of American film making. It is all a matter of opinion you may call junk avant guard if you wish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Umm, which director was he paying tribute to in chapter 1?
not an american.. Did you actually see the movie. BTW the europeans love it. Lots of people hated movies that are now accepted as masterpieces. People panned Lawrence of Arabia.

S. Leone worked in a similar style as chapter 1..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. S. Leone
Father of the Spaghetti westerns, Did you enjoy "Land of the Lost?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Did not watch it.. East bound and down (tv)
is pure fucking genius however.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Try not to get a bloody nose in that rarified air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-29-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
71. I guess that's why it got an 8 minute standing ovation from critics at Cannes
Seems the majority of reviewers disagree with you...which is not surprising, given that most people aren't trapped by your tedious literalism. It seems all the metaphors in the film sailed right over your head. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-28-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
66. Oh, Now I Get It.

You don't have to be a Gun Nut to like QT's new flick. But it sure as hell helps......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
12. I think it's the best thing he's done since Pulp Fiction.
The parts where the reviewer is talking about crinching (when Pitt and Co. are pretending to be Italians, for instance) were supposed to be funny. It was played for laughs, and in the theater I was at it got them in spades during that scene. He wasn't supposed to be good at impersonating an Italian...that was the whole damn point. The Nazi leaders were played for laughs on purpose. What, did this reviewer think he was getting the movie version of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? What a maroon.

Lazy review by someone who couldn't have missed the point of the movie any harder if he had tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I thought it was better than PF. Enjoyed it immensly.
and let me add that I got dragged to this movie. I just wasn't up for another Grindhouse type flick - too damn old I guess for all the usual QT violence. I was glad to be pleasantly surprised. The opening scene in the dairy farmer's house was worth the price of admission all on it's own. The guy who played the "Hunter" is and should be oscar bound. He was incredible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. You just said two things I've been thinking all week.
The opening scene in the dairy farmer's house was worth the price of admission all on it's own.

and...

The guy who played the "Hunter" is and should be oscar bound.

The German actor is named Christoph Waltz, and I had to look him up as soon as I got home. He's done a million things, but the only one I recognized was Goldeneye, where he played a German spy (I have to go back and watch that again because I can't remember him in it). He was unreal in Basterds, and stole the movie for me.

"It is Bingo!" :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Waltz is amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-29-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
72. I thought it was better than PF too.
Seems to me like the best thing he's done since Reservoir Dogs, in fact (which I always thought was better than Pulp fiction, though I do like the latter).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. 90% of his peers disagree. he is the 5th dentist..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
24. Extraordinarily violent but numerous funny moments
especially if you like to see Nazis get their come-uppance.

As Elwood Blues said: I hate Illinois Nazis... and it took some suspension of disbelief to watch the Blues Brothers as well but watching the Illi-Nazis in that film buy it falling 5000 feet to their death in a Ford Pinto was an awesome film moment.

Anyone who has watched classic World War II films such as "The Eagle Has Landed", "Force 10 from Navaronne", "The Dirty Dozen", "The Great Escape" or "Bridge Over the River Kwai" finds something very familiar in "Inglorious Basterds" - this type of war movie is just a variation on Heist films like "Ocean's 11" or "The Sting".

That said, as the recent Tom Cruise film "Valkyrie" demonstrates such "capers" were not at all un-realistic during World War II when partisans, resistance fighters and secret agents on both sides did things behind the lines all over Europe. Indeed had it not been for World War II, the modern guerilla (freedom)fighter (terrorist?) probably would not exist - many of the techniques used today were pioneered during that war.

Of course, even in light of such historical examples, Quentin Tarentino's film was totally over the top - so what? It's a work of fiction - not on the History Channel - Big. Deal. Is it any more ridiculous than Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles or History of the World Part I?

My only complaint is that the violence was just a bit much in some cases - but so was Saving Private Ryan, a film which sought to have absolute historical accuracy.

Doug D.

P.S. In the future, as a matter of simple courtesy you should include SPOILER WARNING: in your title before discussing important plot elements in a film review for the benefit of those who want to be surprised by the experience of the film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. I know I was Surprised
I don't normally write film reviews but wrote this more as a public service announcement.
"The Eagle Has Landed" was good film taken from an actual plot.
"The Great Escape" Was based on a true story as was "Bridge Over the River Kwai"
"The Dirty Dozen" was a good film based on plausible characters, where of course the black guy always dies first.

"The Sting" was all about the plot, the cleverness of the sting. Building a story from the beginning that engages the viewer much like "Pulp Fiction" you were drawn in try to figure out how all these characters intertwined and then at the end you went, oh wow!

I want to see "Valkyrie" because of the amazing story and because the German press despite reservations about Tom Cruise said that it was good. If only Von Staufenberg had had a Louisville slugger!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Well a lot of these stories took tremendous liberties with historical reality
particularly BOTRK and the Great Escape - and in case you missed it some elements of Tarantino's Basterds were intended as parody on these classic war films - your insistence on playing it straight instead of seeing the parody is why you found the film so "unfunny".

FYI: I lived in Germany 7 years during the 1970's and grew up in a military family so I've been saturated with military history and particularly the history of WWII and European history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. "your insistence on playing it straight instead of seeing the parody...."
And there it is. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
57. Bet he hates the Spielberg film 1941 as well...
same kind of deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
58. Let me ask: Did you hate Spielberg's "1941"?
Tarantino owes Spielberg money for copyright infringement in my book - he basically ripped off Spielberg's classic WWII farce 1941 in a lot of crucial ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
27. Oh Piffle, I thought it was great.
And apparently a lot of people agree. The movis is making a ton of money.

It was a great black comedy. I loved Mike Myer's cameo and no one writes dialogue like Quentin Tarantino.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
34. Sounds like the perfect double billing with "Top Secret" (with Val Kilmer) as the second show
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
35. Tarantino
makes "you either love it or hate it" films...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost Jaguar Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
37. Why So Serious?
Tarentino loves cinema. He especially loves visceral cinema. He puts few rules on the movies he enjoys, and consequently, the movies he himself makes are free of conventions. Unrealistic you say? What about Uma's defiance of gravity in the climax of Kill Bill I? Or that she defeats approximately 88 determined antagonists single-handedly?

Just consider Tarentino's movies like the comic books of yore, before they were called "graphic novels." If you transcend your personal worries for a couple hours watching a movie, it's a good movie. If you don't, it's not.

If you thought for a second that Brad Pitt's outrageous Italian accent was unintentional, you're missing the point of the movie. It's a fantasy. Relax and enjoy it. Most folks know how the war played out in reality, but "Q" doesn't deal in reality.

My biggest problem with the movie was the blunt tip on Brad Pitt's Bowie knife. How can one cut a nice swastika into flesh with a knife like that?

Some prefer more serious fare--documentaries even. Some think any foreign film is bound to be better than any Hollywood studio production. Some hate Westerns. Some only go to sophomoric comedies. Louis Armstrong once said, "There's only two kinds of music; good music and bad music." "Inglorious Basterds" is a good movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Blonde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
40. I think you missed the point
Most of your complaints are answered, if thinly, in the movie.

I think you were expecting something far more serious than Basterds was intended to be. Not sure why as the previews seemed to make clear what it was. The only thing they left out was how much of the story was dedicated to Shoshanna.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
41. So you didn't understand that it was basically a comedy and homage to Spaghetti Westerns


The entire leadership of the third Reich being killed by using 'film stock' at the hands of a jew and an African while Jewish tough guys machine gun their burning corpses just for insurance.


Waltz's sophisticated, witty and totally repulsive Landa will win a deserved Academey Award for best Actor. You want to know how the Nazis were able to con large numbers of people? Waltz gives a credible formula.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. That's Funny?
You think that's funny stuff? The movie was so bad that I thought it was funny but I never thought they were trying to be funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. You are somewhat illiterate if you think comedy and funny are the same thing

You certainly don't know much about movie history and you missed the main point of the movie you were watching.

It is not a war movie.

It is a comedic (rather than a tragic) homage to war movies:



comedy as in the opposite of tragedy -- the basic duality of performance art


You might have been clued in by reading a real review:

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

Ebert

A Tarantino film resists categorization. “Inglourious Basterds” is no more about war than “Pulp Fiction” is about — what the hell is it about? Of course nothing in the movie is possible, except that it’s so bloody entertaining. His actors don’t chew the scenery, but they lick it. He’s a master at bringing performances as far as they can go toward iconographic exaggeration.

. . . 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.


So when somebody is 'licking' the scenery we can understand that to a comedic - but not funny 'iconogic exaggeration'.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheap_Trick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
43. God, I hate film snobs.
This wasn't "Jane Austen's Inglourious Basterds".

It was a MOVIE not a DOCUMENTARY.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts still Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Then as a Royals Fan
you probably hate baseball snobs too. If you think I'm a snob because I expect a story to be credible then so be it. If I remade Gone With the Wind and had Rhett Butler drive Scarlett out of burning Atlanta in a Volvo you would see the as historical license or maybe Ashley Wilkes could return home from the civil war on a Segway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheap_Trick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. You probably hated Star Wars, then.
Since you expect a credible story and all.

This was meant to be an over-the-top WWII fantasy. It made no pretense of being historically accurate.

"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. But the fine German engineers at Volvo DO give a damn. About comfort. About safety. About luxury."

Yeah, I'd pay to see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-28-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #50
63. Well except that Volvo's are made in Sweden not Germany...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheap_Trick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-28-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. eh, whatever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebubula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. Credible???
My friend...this is a work of complete fiction. It was billed as that and most see it as that.

It is an over the top revisionist revenge fantasy. Nothing more.

Try not to take everything so seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
52. Quentin Tarantino is one of the most over-rated "creative minds" in a town...
Edited on Thu Aug-27-09 02:44 PM by truebrit71
...packed to the gunnels with "creative minds"...

Just another talent-less bullshit artist that grinds out gore-laden uber-violence for the enjoyment of his intellectually sedentary audience...

I'd rather lick the sweat from Rush Limbaughs' scrotum than sit through one of his "films"...

Absolute dreck...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. LOL
I actually agree. Everybody told me how great Pulp Fiction was, I thought it was disgusting. I knew I wasn't crazy , then I read Jerry Garcia (one of my favorite people) hated it too, after people got him to watch it, insisting it was great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
55. I think this could be one of the most facile and childish reviews I've ever seen on a movie.
It's obviously done by someone that either wasn't paying attention, or took numerous smoke breaks and missed huge sections of the movie. 90% of these "critiques" are answered throughout the film. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
56. I'll watch it in a year or so
On DVD. It took a long time to appreciate Tarantino--I still don't completely, but I do know his "reality" is always a kind of looking glass effect. I don't expect anything else. Certainly not a realistic film.

I figured it would be a tongue in cheek B movie plot to slaughter Nazis, blow shit up with a bizarre plot with quasi to very interesting characters.

I'm surprised he didn't actually make "Werewolf Women of the SS" ala the movie Grindhouse's pretend "coming attractions"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
59. I never go to the movies anymore. It's all crap. But I'll go to MM's film.

If my crummy little RW theatre shows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
62. Have not seen the film, but this is one hell of a poorly written review
I just read Ebert's review of the film. He liked it, and was able to write about it without repeating the plot points. Ebert also seems to know a farce when he sees one, and was not looking for this to be something it was not intended to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-29-09 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #62
73. Yes, there are numerous things wrong with it
It actually reads like someone who went to see the film after a few drinks and din't remember it very well, quite aside of the general failure to understand...well, all of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humbertink Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-28-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
64. Quentin Tarantino:
The most overrated "director" in Hollywood!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-28-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
65. I haven't seen the movie, but from the commercials I gathered it was a Mel Brooks' type of comedy.

Did people just see "Tarantino" and "Brad Pitts" then ignore the trailers? Isn't it SUPPOSED to be a stupid comedy along the lines of Police Story and Airplane!?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-28-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Mel Brook's flicks were much more enjoyable than the demented bile Taratino feeds us.
Edited on Fri Aug-28-09 02:00 PM by ShortnFiery
And yes, I did enjoy some of his flicks (Kill Bill I and II & Natural Born Killers).

However, I'd never admit the above to either my mother or my moral conscious. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC