# Inglourious Basterds (Q. Tarantino)



## The Octagon (Feb 18, 2009)

One not to be taken too seriously methinks


----------



## Griff (Feb 18, 2009)

Looking forward to this.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 18, 2009)

how long has he been talking about this? Must be 10 years or more


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 20, 2009)

I assume it's a remake of Inglorious Bastards. If so that trailer doesn't mention the only interesting thing about the film - The story basically. 

The original would have sat nicely with grind-house.


----------



## elevendayempire (Feb 20, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I assume it's a remake of Inglorious Bastards.


It's not. It's pretty much an entirely different film, he's just appropriated the title.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 20, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> It's not. It's pretty much an entirely different film, he's just appropriated the title.



I see. Well I did wonder why he would want to remake a film that looks like he wish he made in the first place. It's still got nazis and yanks in it. The original has quite a good story, this one just seems to be about bloodshed. 

It is a good title.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

it's, on balance, absolute wank.

I came out so stunned into submission by it I didn't know what to think, but after some reflection: it's an indulgent fucking mess that doesn't know if it wants to be a farce, a serious movie, an homage or what.

Just a shambles. Overlong, smug, full of gaping plotholes and just a big kid showing off.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 16, 2009)

Of his films I've only ever really liked Reservoir Dogs, and Im not sure Id think so highly of that of I watched it again after a decade.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Aug 16, 2009)

saw it tonight and totally  loved it,  I think it's his best film in ages


----------



## The Groke (Aug 16, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Of his films I've only ever really liked Reservoir Dogs, and Im not sure Id think so highly of that of I watched it again after a decade.



I went back to it recently.

IMO it is still really, really good and the kind of thing he needs to go back to.



I agree with Kermode that he needs a tough, tough editor to kick him into shape and mercilessly cut out the reams of shit that surround his genuine nuggets of gold.

It seems he can always muster 90 minutes of excellence and should be forbidden for excreting the other hour of tripe all over it each time.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> it's, on balance, absolute wank.
> 
> I came out so stunned into submission by it I didn't know what to think, but after some reflection: it's an indulgent fucking mess that doesn't know if it wants to be a farce, a serious movie, an homage or what.
> 
> Just a shambles. Overlong, smug, full of gaping plotholes and just a big kid showing off.



I was wondering if this would be the case - from what I've seen it seems as if he can not contain a single idea and has to put everything in.

I disagree with his use of other film music - If he wants a classic score then he should work with someone to make one - Lots of those who's music he uses are still alive - he could have got each to contribute a piece of music for each scene and created something collaborative and interesting instead of just familiar....or does it work as it is?

The original was shit anyway - Enzo Castellari's contribution to The Spaghetti Western was average (aside from Any Gun Can Play & Keoma), and by the time he was making war and crime films they were of pretty poor quality. Later he made terrible post Mad Max films like the New Barbarians and Bronx Warriors - Video shop classics (pure shite)! - IMDB has him in post-production of Caribbean Basterds!? - Captain Jack Sparrow kills Nazis??????


----------



## gsv (Aug 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> it's, on balance, absolute wank.
> 
> I came out so stunned into submission by it I didn't know what to think, but after some reflection: it's an indulgent fucking mess that doesn't know if it wants to be a farce, a serious movie, an homage or what.
> 
> Just a shambles. Overlong, smug, full of gaping plotholes and just a big kid showing off.


A bit like Plop Friction then.

GS(v)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 16, 2009)

gsv said:


> A bit like Plop Friction then.
> 
> GS(v)



.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

Pulp Fiction is a great film - the disparate elements pull together well, the editing works, and somehow he pulls off some kind of consistency. IG is about 5 movies stuck together and they never gel. Even within the episodic structure, individual elements don't even work in their own right, and the plot is just bollocks


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 16, 2009)

I found even PF to be insufferably pretentious.

The only Tarantino I enjoyed much was Jackie Brown


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I found even PF to be insufferably pretentious.



pretentious how? indulgent maybe


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 16, 2009)

pretentious? qt is a lot of things but he sure isn't pretentious


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 16, 2009)

Maybe indulgent was more the word I was looking for....


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2009)

I like most of Tarantinos stuff but indulgent is the correct word. 
Two favourite films he has been involved with are True Romance and Natural Born Killer when he was not directing.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 16, 2009)

I love True Romance... The combination of his script and a less indulgent director means it's a great watching experience IMO


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> The original was shit anyway -



I quite like the original. I'm not sure you can call it original though when it's only really the same by name.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2009)

What's the difference then?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

everything apart from the title


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> What's the difference then?



It's a different story apparently (I haven't seen the QT one).
In the original I seem to remember it being about some american soldiers teaming up with some nazis to steal some booty.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 16, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I quite like the original. I'm not sure you can call it original though when it's only really the same by name.



ok, not shit - fun rubbish


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> ok, not shit - fun rubbish



Yes, I think that would be a good description of it. It's ropey good. Did they dub everyones voices over the top later or something? The colours and graphics are just great, I think the film has real character.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2009)

I'm fairly sure there was some sort of mission put together to go back into gemany/italy in the original (sort of anyway - i seem to remember a group of prisoners escaping whilst being transported or something - long time since i seen it though) - the trailers gave me the impression that at least was still the core plot. I thought the original was awful myself so not bothered at all if they junked the whole thing. Wonder how much they had to pay out just so they could use the fantastic title though.

Just to go back to Castellari, whilst undoubtdly being a hack, he did do some cracking early eurocrime film sin the 70s - The Big Racket, Heroin Busters, HIgh Crime and Street Law


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes, I think that would be a good description of it. It's ropey good. Did they dub everyones voices over the top later or something? The colours and graphics are just great, I think the film has real character.



You''ll often find those 70s euro-films floating around with english dubs, english subs, german dubs, all sorts. They often hired one slightly name-ish english speaking star - Oliver Reed was in a cracking one called Revolver for example - which complicated matters.


----------



## Voley (Aug 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> it's, on balance, absolute wank.
> 
> I came out so stunned into submission by it I didn't know what to think, but after some reflection: it's an indulgent fucking mess that doesn't know if it wants to be a farce, a serious movie, an homage or what.
> 
> Just a shambles. Overlong, smug, full of gaping plotholes and just a big kid showing off.



Oh dear. I was quite looking forward to this.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2009)

NVP said:


> Oh dear. I was quite looking forward to this.



I was keen to see it too but expected it to be normal QT fayre. 
Also I would say that I do not always agree 100% with El Jefe on matters of the arts.


----------



## Voley (Aug 16, 2009)

What Jefe's said does tally with my idea of how bad QT can be when he indulges himself, though.

It's a weird one - Kill Bill's probably pretty indulgent with all it's film references and stuff yet is still ace and you could almost certainly say the same about Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. 

When it works it's great, when it doesn't it can be really terrible. It's all or nothing with him, really.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Also I would say that I do not always agree 100% with El Jefe on matters of the arts.



i'd say 20% was pushing it 

but we agree about the important things


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2009)

Simon Cowell is better dead than alive yeah?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 16, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Also I would say that I do not always agree 100% with El Jefe on matters of the arts.



True, but I believe him about this one


----------



## Voley (Aug 16, 2009)

Jefe does like Tom Waits though. This film's probably brilliant.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 16, 2009)

i think criticising qt for being over indulgent is like criticising the sky for being blue


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 16, 2009)

Its QT, so its going to be shite of varying degrees

hes not a filmmaker, he is a Movie Necrophiliac.


----------



## rekil (Aug 16, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Of his films I've only ever really liked Reservoir Dogs, and Im not sure Id think so highly of that of I watched it again after a decade.


Watch  instead?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i think criticising qt for being over indulgent is like criticising the sky for being blue



sure - indulgence is fine, but with this one he just seems to have entirely lost whatever focus he ever had. I think the fact it took him 10 years to get it written shows that it's probably been about 5 different films in his head and he's tried to squeeze them all in.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 16, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes, I think that would be a good description of it. It's ropey good. Did they dub everyones voices over the top later or something? The colours and graphics are just great, I think the film has real character.



A lot of 60s/70s Italian films had all the sound added later as they didn't use any sound recording equipment on set.

It's why even Clint Eastwood looks dubbed in the dollars trilogy.

Everything from doors creaking to footsteps to tree rustling was all added in post-productions.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 16, 2009)

I really Like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and True Romance

I like Resevoir Dogs

I have mixed feelings about the rest.

The problem is that much of what he does is pure folly. He's clearly talented, but he's never gonna make a truly classic genre film until he has a truly great idea, with a genuinely good story that's not being carried by in jokes, clever-ass plotting and hip dialogue.

Of course these things are fine in themselves, but he uses them to fool the viewer in thinking they're getting something they've never seen before.


----------



## mattie (Aug 16, 2009)

Did I dream it, or did he make a film with Kurt Russell murdering people by crashing his car into them?

I just could not make head nor tail of it.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 16, 2009)

mattie said:


> Did I dream it, or did he make a film with Kurt Russell murdering people by crashing his car into them?
> 
> I just could not make head nor tail of it.



He did - Deathproof


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 16, 2009)

Deathproof works great as part of Grindhouse - the whole double bill plus trailers package - but sucked in its extended, stand alone form.


----------



## Bomber (Aug 17, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Deathproof works great as part of Grindhouse - the whole double bill plus trailers package - but sucked in its extended, stand alone form.



Spot On !   Saw Basterds tonight ... as ever with QT a fun ride, which is why I go to see a movie mostly. Can't do with the Barry Normans of this world !!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 17, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> A lot of 60s/70s Italian films had all the sound added later as they didn't use any sound recording equipment on set.
> 
> It's why even Clint Eastwood looks dubbed in the dollars trilogy.
> 
> Everything from doors creaking to footsteps to tree rustling was all added in post-productions.




This is what I expected had happened as the lips are almost in sync for the english speaking actors. I have only seen this before on the dollars (which I love) films.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 17, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Deathproof works great as part of Grindhouse - the whole double bill plus trailers package - but sucked in its extended, stand alone form.



I have the theatrical version of death proof but have not even managed to watch all of that. B b b b b b oring.


----------



## Utopia (Aug 17, 2009)

I loved it, brilliantly acted, slightly tongue in cheek, the violence was pretty graphic in parts. Especially loved the 1st 'chapter', the tension that builds and the 2 actors.......amazing.

My likey


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> This is what I expected had happened as the lips are almost in sync for the english speaking actors. I have only seen this before on the dollars (which I love) films.



Eastwood tells a good story about the one of the intense scene in the a Fistful of dollars - a moody showdown - and out of shot was a bunch of extras having a rowdy game of cards.

What it did mean was that they could get the shot faster without having to set up mics and get the sound right.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 17, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I really Like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and True Romance
> 
> I like Resevoir Dogs
> 
> ...



This is spot on.  He needs a good script, imho.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 17, 2009)

Saw Basterds last night and liked it!  Much better than Kill Bill (which I didn't rate at all) but nowhere near as good as Pulp Fiction.

Some great long conversational scenes with the tension and paranoia building.

Really funny in parts, too.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2009)

Ms T said:


> This is spot on.  He needs a good script, imho.


He writes them don't he?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Aug 17, 2009)

Fez909 said:


> Saw Basterds last night and liked it!  Much better than Kill Bill (which I didn't rate at all) but nowhere near as good as Pulp Fiction.
> 
> Some great long conversational scenes with the tension and paranoia building.
> 
> Really funny in parts, too.



good soundtrack too


----------



## mrsfran (Aug 17, 2009)

I liked it. There were a few moments when I shifted in my seat as one too many tense conversations played out, but overall I enjoyed it. The actor playing the lead evil nazi stole the show, he was excellent. And the first scene was excellent. Worth the ticket price.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2009)

dynamicbaddog said:


> good soundtrack too


i listened to a bit of it when you posted the link to the free streaming of it on facebook
it sounds great - just the kind of thing you'd expect from qt, if rather anachronistic. but i sometimes wish he wasn't such a control freak and have the balls to hand the reins over to a composer to do a proper score. sometimes the tunes he uses are so kick ass catchy, that they pull you out of the film at a point you should be totally immersed.


----------



## mrsfran (Aug 17, 2009)

There were 2 moments when the music really pulled me away from the film, it was very jarring. But that's what you get when you see a QT film.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 17, 2009)

missfran said:


> I liked it. There were a few moments when I shifted in my seat as one too many tense conversations played out, but overall I enjoyed it. The actor playing the lead evil nazi stole the show, he was excellent. And the first scene was excellent. Worth the ticket price.



this is the trouble though - there were some fantastic performances, some excellent writing, some brilliant scenes (as you say, the first scene is excellent). But it just doesn't hang together, even by his own standards...


----------



## Santino (Aug 19, 2009)

The scene in the basement bar would have been good as the first scene of a whole other film.

I have a question about the scene in the Paris restaurant when the bad guy was interviewing Shoshannah and insisted that she wait for cream before trying her strudel. Is there any reason why a Jew keeping kosher wouldn't eat cream and strudel together?


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 19, 2009)

Having just viewed a the various trailers for this new QT celluloid spasm I am really not getting any hopes up.

Pitt seems wrong for the lead part and lacking the remotest element of depth. Perhaps the trailers are to blame for this. Of those who have actually viewed the cinematic release is Pitt as 2D as he appears to be?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 19, 2009)

not even as many D as 2.

Just hamming it up. Waste of screentime


----------



## T & P (Aug 19, 2009)

Glad to see some positive or semi-positive comments. The review in the Guardian absolutely demolishes the film and describes it as a 'catastrophic bellyflop'.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 20, 2009)

i'm still vacillating on it, but on balance I think it probably is wank. But as I keep saying, bits of it are pure genius, enough to make me _want _to forgive the rest. But that's no way to make a film


----------



## Biglittlefish (Aug 20, 2009)

I enjoyed it.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 20, 2009)

Hammered by Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian: Useless Basterds:



> Quentin Tarantino is having what Martin Amis readers might call a "Yellow Dog" moment - something which happens when, following a worrying, mid-to-late period of creative uncertainty, a once dazzlingly exciting artist suddenly and catastrophically belly-flops, to the dismay of his admirers.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2009)

Opens on the 21st. I can't wait.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I found even PF to be insufferably pretentious.
> 
> The only Tarantino I enjoyed much was Jackie Brown



You didn't like Kill Bill?


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 20, 2009)

Out of Kill Bill, Planet Terror and Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds seems to be towards the Death Proof end for sure. 

I'll be waiting till DVD/dl tbh


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2009)

dirtyfruit said:


> Out of Kill Bill, Planet Terror and Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds seems to be towards the Death Proof end for sure.
> 
> I'll be waiting till DVD/dl tbh



Cool: I liked Death Proof!


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 20, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Cool: I liked Death Proof!



Some amazing scenes but not a patch on Planet Terror, which I've just realised is mainly Rodriguez at the helm so scrap my previous list.

Tarantino's first three are great, each in their own complete ways. And even though a tad OTT, Kill Bill is on well along the road towards being a masterpiece.

But when a 'creative' is allowed TOO much freedom the wank can overtake the spank and all you have then is a guy jacking off to his own reflection: which can be interesting sometimes I'll admit but rarely results in a classic.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 20, 2009)

Went to see it last night. Cinema was sold out.

Loved it. There is less 'Basterds' than you might expect, what with them being the title and them taking up most of the trailer, but I liked that. 

When Shosanna was running over the hill into the distance in the first chapter it felt pure Kill Bill to me. All she needed to do was pull out a sword  

I felt the 2 main characters were Shossana and Landa. Aldo Raine (Pitt) I guess was one too, but the fact he got far less screen time than the trailers and title might suggest was a good move. I really liked his over-the-top hammy character. Sensed a touch of Buford T Justice at one point too 

The burning of the reels was spectacular, and the point behind it spot on. It really was the only way QT could kill the Nazis. That scene and where Shosanna was standing by the round window in her red dress were cinematically breathtaking.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 20, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> When Shosanna was running over the hill into the distance in the first chapter it felt pure Kill Bill to me. All she needed to do was pull out a sword
> .



her original characer was going to be just that, years ago, but QT got his "female vengeance" stuff out of the way with Kill Bill and rewrote her. Which is exactly the problem - the script has been worked on and fucked with for so long, it's been through so many mutations, that it's not one film, it's at least two (the basterds, Shosanna) stuck together


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 20, 2009)

Don't think I'll bother with this one until its on TV.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 20, 2009)

Yeah, perhaps, but I liked that. I liked that there were lots of different agendas at play. It wasn't just one person's story, one person's vengeance, one person's grudge.


----------



## mrsfran (Aug 20, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> The burning of the reels was spectacular, and the point behind it spot on. It really was the only way QT could kill the Nazis. That scene and where Shosanna was standing by the round window in her red dress were cinematically breathtaking.


 
That's interesting, because I really disliked the scene with the round window. The music was jarring, and the cinematography was screaming "Look at me!". It made me think of a Flake advert.


----------



## mrsfran (Aug 20, 2009)

Also, there were less women's feet than there usually are in QT films. There was a bit of feet action, but not as much as I might expect.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2009)

missfran said:


> Also, there were less women's feet than there usually are in QT films. There was a bit of feet action, but not as much as I might expect.



i like how even qt's fetishes are ripped off another director's - james cameron digs feet too.


----------



## T & P (Aug 20, 2009)




----------



## Balbi (Aug 21, 2009)

Watched it yesterday, I can see why Christoph Waltz gets the plaudits for his character - the introduction scene is probably the best part of the film - the rest is just stock Tarantino quotefest and youtube clip stuff. When SLJ started doing the voiceover, the whole cinema laughed - especially with the big ident on the screen. The continuity was a bit rubbish, seemed like there were large parts of it missing - or rather, that Shoshanna's escape, and the cinema and Marcel was one film (which I really liked the look of, and would have wanted to see more of) and the Basterds was another film entirely, one that didn't have a bit of coherency about it.

Tarantino needs a man with a big stick with a nail in to stand next to him and belt him round the head when he gets overexcited when scripting.


----------



## silver (Aug 21, 2009)

Saw it the other day, I liked it but it was a bit too long I thought


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2009)

i didn't realise it was sam jackson doing the voiceover and it took me ages to recognise mike myers (he was spot on, surprisingly, cos he's normally shit doing that sort of thing). there were some great scenes, but there were some very very dull ones too. there were a lot of characters i would like to have seen more of who were despatched too quickly. as many people have already said, it was a massive cakey mess. brad pitt was awful, really phoning it in. i'm in love with melanie laurent of course and christoph waltz played the only character with enough lines to flesh out a proper character - he did an excellent job and no doubt will be typecast as charasmaric european villain in many hollywood thrillers in the future. the soundtrack was simultaneously great and awful, for reasons stated earlier. qt really needs to sort this out in the future.


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Aug 22, 2009)

saw it on Wednesday and liked it very much...


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 23, 2009)

If it had been made by an adult it might have been good.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 23, 2009)

Didnt like it.  Overly long & drawn out scenes, rambling dialogue that tarantino is obviously very pleased with - his audience less so, a strange and at times completely incoherent (not in a cool/clever way such as reservoir dogs...) plot, and Brad Pitt in perhaps his most annoying role to date.  A good 1 hour too long, as well.


----------



## rennie (Aug 24, 2009)

I thought it was utter shite. I just couldn't take any of the characters seriously, which is saying something given the gravity of the situation it was portraying.

Whatever you do, don't go and see it.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 28, 2009)

I saw it last night and I can't figure out if that was the biggest pile of shit I've ever seen or a work a absolute genius.  

It really felt like he couldn't decide what movie he wanted to make, but I enjoyed the Film Noir thing he was going for.  I wish he'd decided to make that movie and left some of the other.   You really can't go wrong by killing Nazis.   

But, can you end a movie in such an historically inaccurate way and get away with it?!!!  I know it was a deliberate choice on QT's part, but still.....  It was so Plan 9 from Outer Space.


----------



## Griff (Aug 28, 2009)

My local flicks has it on next month, but the thought of sitting in a cinema seat for that much time puts me right off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 28, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> But, can you end a movie in such an historically inaccurate way and get away with it?!!!  I know it was a deliberate choice on QT's part, but still.....  It was so Plan 9 from Outer Space.


there's no obligation to be truthful! it's a movie!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 28, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> there's no obligation to be truthful! it's a movie!



No, there isn't, but most directors are happy just rewriting history a little.  QT rewrote the last 80 years of world history.  It's positively alternate universe.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Aug 28, 2009)

i fucking loved it....tarantino used his 'creative allowance to be as inaccurate as he wants' to the full extent for sure. 

its a fucking good colossal mindfuck , its absolutely wonderful when people cant figure out if they love or hate something, leaving people confused is one of his forte's and i love that about him


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2009)

Making a bit of virtue out of maybe not a virtue there.

He might like people to overwhelmingly like his films.


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 28, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> No, there isn't, but most directors are happy just rewriting history a little. QT rewrote the last 80 years of world history. It's positively alternate universe.


Nowt new for Hollywood


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 28, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> No, there isn't, but most directors are happy just rewriting history a little.  QT rewrote the last 80 years of world history.  It's positively alternate universe.


so?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Aug 28, 2009)

stop watching films for entertainment then ....people that dont like the way movies are made, simple!!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2009)

eh?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 28, 2009)

MightyAphrodite said:


> stop watching films for entertainment then ....people that dont like the way movies are made, simple!!



eh?  I'm not allowed to have reservations about the quality of _one_ movie?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Aug 28, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> eh?  I'm not allowed to have reservations about the quality of _one_ movie?



NO!!!!! 


yeah of course.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 28, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> so?



It's a bit too close to this article (http://io9.com/5094494/why-you-cant-travel-back-in-time-and-kill-hitler) for my tastes.  It seems like such a cheap gimme to fan boys.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 28, 2009)

i thought it was just qt having fun and doing away with convention


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Aug 28, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i thought it was just qt having fun and doing away with convention



ummm you thought right i think....



for everything there is a season.


----------



## treefrog (Aug 29, 2009)

Just back from seeing this, agree with the "it's a giant mess" school of thought. Occasionally excellent, lots of absolute crap. 

QT will make a good film again, it's just not this one.


----------



## turing test (Aug 29, 2009)

The idea of  an American Indian training Jewish soldiers to torture and scalp Germans sort of annoyed me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 29, 2009)

turing test said:


> The idea of  an American Indian training Jewish soldiers to torture and scalp Germans sort of annoyed me.



i don't remember that!


----------



## turing test (Aug 29, 2009)

The American comander mad a big deal out of being Apache several times-esp at the begining.  Thats why there where all these scenes of germans being scalped.


----------



## cliche guevara (Aug 30, 2009)

Aldo Raine was just the descendant of an apache, not an apache himself.


----------



## Silva (Aug 30, 2009)

I've seen it today, and loved it. Maybe a bit too long, and some characters are there just by the numbers, but it's still his best flick since _Kill Bill vol. 1_, and in no small part thanks to Christoph Waltz. 

Also, _hayribadesh_


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 30, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Aldo Raine was just the descendant of an apache, not an apache himself.


yeah, but you know what the seppos are capable of: octoroons and house of pain


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 30, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i thought it was just qt having fun and doing away with convention



or getting carried so far away with other peoples proclamations of his genius that he thinks he can serve up pretty much any old shite, shine it, and then start calling it suger...

Film was so far up its own arse, it was prolapsing its own asophegus.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 30, 2009)

fair comment - i'm all for auteurs, but even qt need to be reined in sometimes


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2009)

_The Producers_ meet _The Dirty Dozen_ and _Manon des Sources_.

Terrible but enjoyable enough.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Sep 7, 2009)

I just can't believe he got away with having a character say "this is the face of jewish vengence" from a gigantic flaming cinema screen without offending alot of people. I should probs say what it was like.

Good - Christopher Waltz, Melaine Laurent, Tarantino's camera direction, the good parts of the dialogue.
Bad - Brad Pitt + his apache jews, loss of plot momentum because of overly indulgent bad parts of the dialogue, the way Tarantino churns out more of the same rather than something innovative (then again he might be abit wary after deathproof's fail )


----------



## ska invita (Sep 7, 2009)

Absolutely bang on review from Johann Hari:


> The Terrible Moral Emptiness of Quentin Tarantino is Wrecking His Films
> The talented Tarantino could be so much more than a schlock and awe merchant
> http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1565


...the review sums up exactly the problem with Quentin IMO


----------



## sim667 (Sep 7, 2009)

OOooh i want to see this....... is it still at the cinema?


----------



## perplexis (Sep 12, 2009)

Just seen it. First film I've seen in a cinema for over a year and I really regret paying for it. Boring piece of crap. The usual bollocks that I'd expect from Tarantino, only even more overlong. And OMFG when are people going to stop casting Brad Pitt in roles that have accents? Or acting, for that matter?
The subject matter could have been used a fuck of a lot better, ultimately it merely uses the folklore of the 2nd world war as a vehicle for perpetrating a half-arsed, half-baked, unsatisfying, pseudo-carnage.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2009)

Went last night. I woudn't describe it as excellent, but I would say it's very good. Maybe a solid B+ instead of an A.

I think Tarantino is maturing, or at least, his taste in directors to be influenced by, is changing. Where as before it might be John Ford via Sergio Leone, now it's Ingmar Bergman via Brian de Palma.

It not chockablock with juvenilistic, over the top violence, although there is a nod in that direction. He employs the same plot device wrt the interlaced stories as in Pulp Fiction - not as well and as subtly as in that movie, but still well enough to be enjoyable, and for the plot to come together nicely by the third act.

And he's good enough with dialogue that the long talking head sequences are quite entertaining, with a couple of them really standing out: the initial farm sequence and the dinner with Goebbels coming to mind. As for the Bergman, there are a couple of scenes: Shoshanna pulling down the veil over her face is one. The basement tavern scene does is somewhat reminiscent of Casablanca, but with de Palma camerawork.

It passed the acid test. I took a teenager to it, and when he came out, he called it 'good'. I said it was three hours long. He said he didn't notice. 

All in all, a very enjoyable movie. I'll go to it again, to pick up on some of the things that likely escaped attention the first time through.


p.s. He really has a thing for women who look like that, doesn't he? I'll bet that if he'd had his druthers, he'd have put Uma Thurman in the Shoshanna role, but let's face it: enough is enough.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 17, 2009)

Something else worth mentioning: the acting of Christoph Waltz, the German jew hunter. Excellent. He makes the movie.


----------



## dtb (Sep 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Something else worth mentioning: the acting of Christoph Waltz, the German jew hunter. Excellent. He makes the movie.



agreed, a very memorable character. worth watching just for him


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 17, 2009)

turing test said:


> The idea of  an American Indian training Jewish soldiers to torture and scalp Germans sort of annoyed me.



Why?


----------



## bhamgeezer (Sep 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Something else worth mentioning: the acting of Christoph Waltz, the German jew hunter. Excellent. He makes the movie.



He saved the film in my opinion.


----------



## selamlar (Sep 19, 2009)

Well thats two and a halfish hours of my life I won't be getting back.  Utter, irredeemable shite.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 19, 2009)

Inglourious 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






is showing at The Ritzy in Brixton


----------



## subversplat (Sep 19, 2009)

Proper bore-fest, imo.

I was expecting _much more_ nazi scalpings. Live preferably 

e2a: Not that I'm some wanky gore-porn adorator or anything, but this just didn't live up to _anything_. I think maybe the director's cut will be worth getting, then I'll form a full opinion.


----------



## RaverDrew (Dec 4, 2009)

Great film, lovely bit of light relief. 

Some terrific performances too, barring Brad Pitt, who was pretty shit it has to be said.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Dec 4, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Something else worth mentioning: *the acting of Christoph Waltz, the German jew hunter. Excellent. He makes the movie.*



I watched it for the first time the other evening.

His performance from the very beginning and throughout made/saved this film.

I enjoyed it,firm 7/10.


----------



## Sadken (Dec 4, 2009)

Saw this the other night for the first time and I loved it.  Really enjoyable, one of his best.  Brad Pitt was crap though, yeah.


----------



## Kesher (Dec 6, 2009)

Christoph Waltz as the SS colonel,  nicknamed the Jew Hunter,  is the ebodiment of charm and menace in equal measure. Brilliant.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 6, 2009)

This wasn't too bad.  A bit too long but not bad.  Aren't some people taking it a little too seriously though? I got the impression the whole film was just a silly piss take.  I think Brad Pitt was supposed to be shit with his accents? Certainly came across that way, I loved it when he said "Bonjourno"


----------



## gsv (Feb 14, 2010)

*SPOILERS ABOUND*

Just seen it with Cloo. I enjoyed it right up to the end when they killed Hitler.
Then I got offended, that he should treat hitorical events with real fucking significance as a malleable fantasy. I know that's the point. It's a cunt's point. The involvement of the Weinsteins and Eli Roth doesn't change that.

GS(v)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> *SPOILERS ABOUND*
> 
> Just seen it with Cloo. I enjoyed it right up to the end when they killed Hitler.
> Then I got offended, that he should treat hitorical events with real fucking significance as a malleable fantasy. I know that's the point. It's a cunt's point. The involvement of the Weinsteins and Eli Roth doesn't change that.
> ...



Tarantino is a well-known cunt. Not sure if I'd want to watch this film.


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> *SPOILERS ABOUND*
> 
> Just seen it with Cloo. I enjoyed it right up to the end ............Then I got offended, that he should treat hitorical events with real fucking significance as a malleable fantasy. I know that's the point. It's a cunt's point. The involvement of the Weinsteins and Eli Roth doesn't change that.
> 
> GS(v)



Is there any reason why you aren't using the spoiler code, considering this forum has one ? If you have the spoiler immediately under the spoiler warning it's too late, because fast readers look ahead.

By the way I thought the ending was excellent. The entire film was heading that way all the time. It was a black comedy which was subverting WWII movie conventions rather than being a film that was about the Third Reich itself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> *SPOILERS ABOUND*
> 
> Just seen it with Cloo. I enjoyed it right up to the end when they killed Hitler.
> Then I got offended, that he should treat hitorical events with real fucking significance as a malleable fantasy. I know that's the point. It's a cunt's point. The involvement of the Weinsteins and Eli Roth doesn't change that.
> ...



are you serious? wtf?


----------



## gsv (Feb 14, 2010)

@Reno

Because this thread is already chock full of them.
And no, I actually presumed that the 2 plots would tragically fuck each other up, cause no-one could be that crass.

GS(v)


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Tarantino is a well-known cunt. Not sure if I'd want to watch this film.



Sometimes I despair at some of the people on this forum.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> @Reno
> 
> Because this thread is already chock full of them.
> And no, I actually presumed that the 2 plots would tragically fuck each other up, cause no-one could be that crass.
> ...



why is it crass to have such a great ending?


----------



## gsv (Feb 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> why is it crass to have such a great ending?


If you don't know... 

GS(v)


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> If you don't know...
> 
> GS(v)



People know, they just don't agree with you.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> If you don't know...


 Not saying you're right or wrong on the ending, but that's a cop-out argument and makes you lose instantly.


----------



## gsv (Feb 14, 2010)

If Orang understands, let him engage with the issue. If you do, feel free to. Asking about "such a great ending" in a manner that presupposes that _cool_ is more important than _perspective_ does not fill me with faith.

Good night.

GS(v)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 14, 2010)

Dad?


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Feb 14, 2010)

someone who is foolish thought they bought this film for about £1.99 but it was the old one and they were gutted, but i thought it was funny.


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> If Orang understands, let him engage with the issue. If you do, feel free to. Asking about "such a great ending" in a manner that presupposes that _cool_ is more important than _perspective_ does not fill me with faith.
> 
> Good night.
> 
> GS(v)



What do you mean with_ perspective_. And slanting the letters doesn't make it any more meaningful.


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

It's a satire on WWII movie conventions, not a documentary, so there is nothing immoral about Tarantino coming up with a parallel history storyline. There is a long tradition of them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 14, 2010)

gsv said:


> If you don't know...
> 
> GS(v)



no, seriously, why? the ending is great! i don't think it's necessarily cool, but it's dramatically perfect.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 14, 2010)

I suppose I should watch the film first, but the premise seems like something only a moron could enjoy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> I suppose I should watch the film first, but the premise seems like something only a moron could enjoy.



why? you (and gsv) are just making statements, without saying anything


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> I suppose I should watch the film first, but the premise seems like something only a moron could enjoy.



That's some lame trolling.

What's the premise then and why are those who enjoyed the film morons because of it ?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> why? you (and gsv) are just making statements, without saying anything



It just sounds like a stupid idea for a film. Like Life is Sweet, another shit film about the Holocaust.


----------



## Reno (Feb 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> It just sounds like a stupid idea for a film. Like Life is Sweet, another shit film about the Holocaust.



That's a Mike Leigh film about a middle class family in North London, you tool. 

You have no clue what you are talnking about, so why not leave it for now and shut up or watch the fiilm and then come back with something of interest to say instead of trolling this thread.

Inglorious Basterds isn't really about the Holocaust by the way and it doesn't have one single premise.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2010)

Reno said:


> That's a Mike Leigh film about a middle class family in North London, you tool.
> 
> You have no clue what you are talnking about, so why not leave it for now and shut up or watch the fiilm and then come back with something of interest to say instead of trolling this thread.
> 
> Inglorious Basterds isn't really about the Holocaust by the way and it doesn't have one single premise.



Meant Life is Beautiful, obviously. Of course it's about the Holocaust you imbecile. That's the whole point.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 15, 2010)

I thought it was about Vin Diesel's performance in Saving Private Ryan 

No?


----------



## RubyToogood (Feb 15, 2010)

I'm with gsv on this. Plus it's a terrible mishmash as a film.


----------



## Reno (Feb 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Meant Life is Beautiful, obviously. Of course it's about the Holocaust you imbecile. That's the whole point.



You haven't seen Inglorious Basterds, but I have seen it twice now. Despite not having seen the film, you are telling me what the point of Inglorious Basterds is and that makes me the imbecile. 

Go figure.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2010)

Reno said:


> You haven't seen Inglorious Basterds, *but I have seen it twice now*. Despite not having seen the film, you are telling me what the point of Inglorious Basterds is *and that makes me the imbecile.*
> 
> Go figure.



Indeed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 15, 2010)

i think it's probably best to return to the thread in the sober light of day. i can't see myself saying anything useful or sensible right now. and neither has anyone else tbf. night!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i think it's probably best to return to the thread in the sober light of day. i can't see myself saying anything useful or sensible right now. and neither has anyone else tbf. night!



Of course you are right. Now I feel myself under some obligation to watch this just so I can pass fair comment despite my obvious prejudices. Gute Nacht.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2010)

It is a bit rubbish though.


----------



## derf (Feb 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It is a bit rubbish though.



It is but, if you only watch it once, it's OK.
I finally got hold of a copy last week. Worth a watch but far from classic stuff.


----------



## gsv (Feb 15, 2010)

OK I think I've presented a case why the ending's deeply problematic (reviewing my post there's obviously a lot of annoyance there as well). A number of people have come back and said "no it's great" without addressing my point. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, other than you just enjoyed it. I enjoyed it too - I was still offended.

Reno suggests "It's a satire on WWII movie conventions...with a parallel history storyline." I think he's mistaken on both counts.

IB basically plays within the conventional WW2 adventure setting established by films like The Dirty Dozen. Remember the Dozen slaughtered a chateau containing as many civilians as officers.

And the storyline is entirely real-history in setting. It doesn't take Hitler's death as the starting point for exploring counterfactuals. It's just the ending that Tarantino wants for his drama, which he sees comletely out of context with reality.

GS(v)


----------



## belboid (Feb 15, 2010)

how can he be 'wrong on both counts' when it blatantly is just that?  The storyline is very definitely _not_ 'real-history' either, other than the fact that there was a guy called Hitler and a big war type thing.

Your point seems to be 'the reality was too importnat to fuck with' Is that it?  Cos I completely disagree if so


----------



## fen_boy (Feb 15, 2010)

This film is absolute shit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> OK I think I've presented a case why the ending's deeply problematic (reviewing my post there's obviously a lot of annoyance there as well). A number of people have come back and said "no it's great" without addressing my point. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, other than you just enjoyed it. I enjoyed it too - I was still offended.
> 
> Reno suggests "It's a satire on WWII movie conventions...with a parallel history storyline." I think he's mistaken on both counts.
> 
> ...


it's just a film. a fictional film in which they kill hitler. why is that such a problem?


----------



## gsv (Feb 15, 2010)

Cause Hitler and what he did are too real and too important to mess with for shits and giggles.  I'm rather nonplussed that that seems a radical concept in this conversation.

GS(v)


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 15, 2010)

i don't get it! really!


----------



## Santino (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> Cause Hitler and what he did are too real and too important to mess with for shits and giggles.  I'm rather nonplussed that that seems a radical concept in this conversation.
> 
> GS(v)



Humour is one of our best weapons against tyranny. Together with grenade launchers and coffee mornings.


----------



## belboid (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> Cause Hitler and what he did are too real and too important to mess with for shits and giggles.  I'm rather nonplussed that that seems a radical concept in this conversation.
> 
> GS(v)



it's not radical, it's exactly the opposite I'm afraid. Not to mention the fact that it wasn't simply played for giggles.  As with all QT it's about the nature of story-telling and myth-making.  Perfectly valid material.

(whether it really succeeded or not being a totally seprate question)


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> Cause Hitler and what he did are too real and too important to mess with for shits and giggles.  I'm rather nonplussed that that seems a radical concept in this conversation.
> 
> GS(v)



You don't think a film that borders on farce at times (in a good way, IMO) and portrays both Hitler and the German High Command as figures of fun has any place in popular culture?

To be fair, the reality of WW2 and Inglourious Basterds rarely meet, it's intended to be ridiculous most of the time, but tempered by some very tense / believable dialogue scenes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 15, 2010)

no one's gonna come out of watching IB thinking that's what really happened


----------



## fen_boy (Feb 15, 2010)

The least funny episode 'Allo 'Allo ever.


----------



## Santino (Feb 15, 2010)

fen_boy said:


> The least funny episode 'Allo 'Allo ever.



Except for that last episode when half the cast was lynched for collaborating with the Nazis. Grim stuff.


----------



## fen_boy (Feb 15, 2010)

I went to see the stage show of 'Allo 'Allo when I was about 13, but they had a stand-in for Rene because someone lobbed a chunk of concrete off a motorway bridge onto Gordon Kaye's car and it split his head open.

e2a actually reading up about the accident on wikipedia it seems it wasn't deliberate or a concrete block at all. I wonder where I got that from.


----------



## Reno (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> Cause Hitler and what he did are too real and too important to mess with for shits and giggles.  I'm rather nonplussed that that seems a radical concept in this conversation.
> 
> GS(v)



I always find it odd when people have a censorious taboo attitude to any subject matter. 

Maybe you should check out The Great Dictator by Chaplin and To Be or Not to be by Ernst Lubitch. Both mess with Hitler "and what he did" for "shit and gigles" and they did so in the 40s.

The concept of political satire seems to be completely alien to you then...


----------



## fen_boy (Feb 15, 2010)

You could have removed the entire Inglorious Basterds bit of the storyline and it would have been a much better film.


----------



## Reno (Feb 15, 2010)

fen_boy said:


> You could have removed the entire Inglorious Basterds bit of the storyline and it would have been a much better film.



Not that I hated it, but that episode is the least interesting part of the film. People who haven't seen the film seem to think that this is what the entire film is about, but the closest the film has to a central character is not Brad Pitt, but Melanie Laurent's Shosanna Dreyfuss.

I conviced a friend of mine to watch this with me last weekend. She said that apart from Jackie Brown she didn't really like any of Tarantino's films. In the end she said that the film was absolutely nothing like what she thought it would be like from the publicity and she really liked it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 15, 2010)

brad pitt is the worst thing in it really. that lazy shit-eating grin is phoned in.


----------



## fen_boy (Feb 15, 2010)

This film really needed a decent editor and for tarantino to be kept out of the cutting room entirely. It's a mess.

There are 2 or 3 really good scenes, the beginning, the one in the bar and some of the stuff in the cinema at the end before it turns into 'Bad Taste', but it's just ruined by the rest of it.

All the pointy arrows and Samuel L Jackson voice-over explanations were the shittest thing about it. I really wish he'd stop doing stuff like that.


----------



## Reno (Feb 15, 2010)

fen_boy said:


> This film really needed a decent editor and for tarantino to be kept out of the cutting room entirely. It's a mess.
> 
> There are 2 or 3 really good scenes, the beginning, the one in the bar and some of the stuff in the cinema at the end before it turns into 'Bad Taste', but it's just ruined by the rest of it.
> 
> All the pointy arrows and Samuel L Jackson voice-over explanations were the shittest thing about it. I really wish he'd stop doing stuff like that.



I liked the way the film was paced and structured. Just as a piece of film making I thought it was Tarantino's most accomplished work so far. Nearly every American film these days can't wait to get to the action, but this takes it's time to unfold. I suppose attention spans weaned on modern American films may suffer as this was a return to the way films in the 70s were paced (and this is modelled on a sub-genre of Italian war/revenge films of the 70s).

It was also gratifying to see that as a film about film, this took so much of film history into account. His knowledge of German Nazi period films in particular was astonishing to see in a US film, being very aware of even obscure bit players and relationships between various historical characters (Goebbels and the Anglo-German film star Lillian Harvey, who fell out of favour when she refuse to denounce her Jewish friends). Briget From Hammersmark is partly based on Zarah Leander, the Third Reich's biggest film star who it is thought was also a double spy for the allies.

IB can be enjoyed as a straight forward war film, but if you have some knowledge of film history, especially of German films of the 30s and 40s and Italian exploitation films of the 70s, then this becomes great fun for the film buff. And I like, that in this shallow fan boy age, where for so many people film history starts with Star Wars, that Tarantino reaches into an older and richer cinematic culture and fashions something very distinctive from it.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Feb 15, 2010)

I liked pretty much everything about the film _except_ the way it was paced and structured, which led to large parts of it being insufferably dull, imo.


----------



## Flashman (Feb 15, 2010)

Worth watching if only for Christoph Waltz's incredible performance.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2010)

I like film. i'm not gay, i love the films it was a homage to - didn't work at all.


----------



## Reno (Feb 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I like film. i'm not gay, i love the films it was a homage to - didn't work at all.



what does have being gay to do with anything


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2010)

Nothing?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 15, 2010)

Found it boring...


----------



## Dj TAB (Feb 15, 2010)

...me and Mrs TAB really enjoyed it but that could have something to do with lots of wine and several fat lines of M.....


----------



## gsv (Feb 15, 2010)

Reno said:


> I always find it odd when people have a censorious taboo attitude to any subject matter.
> 
> Maybe you should check out The Great Dictator by Chaplin and To Be or Not to be by Ernst Lubitch. Both mess with Hitler "and what he did" for "shit and gigles" and they did so in the 40s.
> 
> The concept of political satire seems to be completely alien to you then...


I don't consider the subject taboo at all. I find the ultimate treatment extremely distasteful. If IB were satire it might be a different matter. It wasn't - it was a fantasy lark.

GS(v)


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 15, 2010)

it's just a bit of fun


----------



## Reno (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> I don't consider the subject taboo at all. I find the ultimate treatment extremely distasteful. If IB were satire it might be a different matter. It wasn't - it was a fantasy lark.
> 
> GS(v)



Cool, you've discounted the fact that elements of the film are satrical despite all evidence to the opposite and instead you have invented a new genre for yourself: "fanasy lark". 

Honestly, I don't care if you are offended.  Just give others the option not to be.


----------



## RubyToogood (Feb 15, 2010)

gsv said:


> I don't consider the subject taboo at all. I find the ultimate treatment extremely distasteful. If IB were satire it might be a different matter. It wasn't - it was a fantasy lark.
> 
> GS(v)


It wasn't just a fantasy lark - it was utterly up its own arse in a "woo look at me I'm so clever and I've seen every film ever made" way. And it did grate for me with the subject matter.


----------



## gsv (Feb 16, 2010)

OED's definition 2b seems to be most inclusive of cinema satire:
"The employment, in speaking or writing, of sarcasm, irony, ridicule, etc. in exposing, denouncing, deriding, or ridiculing vice, folly, indecorum, abuses, or evils of any kind."​
I saw loads of fantasy elements - the Basterds unit, the plum opportunity for vengeance, the cool standoff, the ending, the bad guy - but little satire (some very marginal lampooning of Third Reich hierarchy and the British officers). What "elements of the film are satrical" and how should they influence my understanding of it?

GS(v)


----------



## belboid (Feb 16, 2010)

well, all the ones you thought were 'fantasy' were satirical in my book. Mainly satires of other examples of genre films, which is what QT tends to satirise


----------



## Random (Jun 22, 2012)

Just seen this and really enjoyed it, without really getting most of the film references. A good sign is that even thought it was so long I'd happily have watched more. Lots of the characters  could have done with more screen time. I'd have happily have watched a mini-series version.

Liked the unpredictability of it. Even film nerds and Hitler can die.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 22, 2012)

Goebbels shagging.


----------

