Inglourious Basterds Review
Posted by Jeffrey Harris on 08.21.2009
The latest offering from one of the most celebrated, controversial, and debated filmmakers of all time brings his take on WWII which might not be the movie you are expecting.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino Written By: Quentin Tarantino Runtime: 153 minutes Official Site:Inglourious Basterds Homepage MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
Lt. Aldo Raine - Brad Pitt Shosana Dreyfus - Mélanie Laurent Col. Hans Landa - Christoph Waltz Sgt. Donny Donowitz - Eli Roth Lt. Archie Hicox - Michael Fassbender Bridget von Hammersmark - Diane Kruger Fredrick Zoller - Daniel Bruhl Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz - Til Schweiger Marcel - Jacky Ido Adolf Hitler - Martin Wuttke General Ed Fenech - Mike Meyers Winston Churchill - Rod Taylor Narrator - Samuel L. Jackson
Inglourious Basterd's very own Donny Donowitz, Eli Roth, was live in attendance at the San Diego Comic Con for the US premiere of the movie. Fans such as myself who were following the twitter were lucky enough to get official Basterd dog tags allowing us to gain entrance into the screening. Elijah Wood and Domnic Monaghan were also in attendance. Roth introduced the feature in front of a rabid and very pro-Tarantino crowd pleading with fans that they needed to spread the good word and be the soldiers for this film. That said, after the movie was over, I wasn't ready to jump online and start broadcasting my thoughts one way or the other. This was a movie I wanted to digest over the next month.
So basically, when you first hear about this, you think oh cool, the genre-savvy Tarantino is going to give his take on WWII pictures with a cool men on a mission ensemble ala The Dirty Dozen. While the aforementioned feature is definitely a classic of the genre, the flick is not a personal favorite of yours truly. If you were to hold a Donowitz baseball bat to my head, in a split second I would scream Where Eagles Dare. Where Eagles Dare is a classic WWII action/adventure movie starring Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton as part of an Allied Forces Unit that basically go behind enemy lines and win WWII (slight exaggeration). But its a freaking awesome movie. So one figures, Tarantino is going to do something Dirty Dozen/Where Eagles Dare-esque? Sounds cool, right? Well not quite.
Remember Death Proof? Tarantino's portion of the Grindhouse double feature. While I'm sure even though the movie wasn't much of a hit, the fanatic faithful probably love it. What was insipid about that movie was the horrendously boring and endless talking head scenes. Goodness gracious. Just these dumb talking scenes that go on for ever and ever and are absolutely ridiculous and make you hate these idiotic women even more. So just so we are clear, Inglorious Basterds has a lot of talking head scenes. But they aren't of the same variety of Death Proof. Whereas in Death Proof the talking head scenes were horrendous, here Tarantino uses them as an excellent film school style example of building tension and Alfred Hitchcock's style of lighting the fuse and showing everyone where the bomb is before it explodes. Tarantino builds numerous sequences with excellent, nail-biting tension that end in a short, quick, and loud explosion.
Now here's the other thing. This is not really an action movie. The Basterds themselves are barely even incidental to the story. I'd barely even call Brad Pitt's charismatic and entertaining Aldo Raine, leader of the Nazi-hunting behind enemy lines army unit dubbed the Basterds, a plot device. After the premiere, Eli Roth says Tarantino wanted to make more Basterd movies including a prequel about the Basterds. OK, so . . . why wasn't that this movie? Most of the Basterds barely even really do anything or really bring about any of the significant turning points or actions in the story. And I keep wondering, what is the deal with the turncoat that joins the Basterds, Hugo Stiglitz (Schweiger, also the star of Uwe Boll'sFar Cry). There's a montage of Stiglitz murdering German soldiers before being recruited by Raine. There's also a brief flashback of Stiglitz being whipped in captivity. So what is this about? Is Stiglitz some sort of anti-Nazi, anti-Hitler soldier like the guys in that much stronger WWII era movie, Valkyrie? Or does Stiglitz simply do it for the pleasure? Probably the latter.
So ultimately, where a movie like Where Eagles Dare will succeed and Inglorious Basterds sort of fails in that Where Eagles Dare has one of those really good, well built talking head scenes that builds the tension to that one crucial moment and explosion. But Where Eagles Dare does not use those types of scenes as the back bone of an episodic story as Tarantino has built this film. However, that does not mean you cannot delight in the sequences and Christoph Waltz' both chilling and hilarious take on the German SS officer, Hans Landa. My main problem with the feature is a great deal of the story is centered on a young French-Jew, Shosana (Laurent), who runs a cinema while hiding from the Nazis. Shosana is the daughter from the family Landa had butchered, and a young German war hero, Frederick (Bruhl), has taken a keen interest in courting Shosana. Shosana's story just isn't compelling. The personal problem is overcoming how you want to see this war movie about Jewish soldiers killing Nazis, and then you have Shosana's story essentially taking over the movie. So, if that's not an issue and you were in fact expecting that, then this movie will probably be the bees knees to you.
And props to Tarantino because the movie is incredibly well shot and edited. This might not be the action-packed WWII blood bath one might expect, but again, Tarantino does a great job with the episodic chapter sequences and building those awkward moments and seeing those realizations of those small insignificant errors that change the course. Unfortunately, Tarantino's penchant for hating composition of origincal music scores has never been more apparent. This is a movie with very minimal use for music. What music there is, some of it you will recognize. The Ennio Morricone stuff was good. The Johnny Cash tune just didn't work for this type of picture.
The 411: Tarantino does a fine job here in putting together an interesting, well done, and incredibly shot fantasy WWII-era picture. Certainly not the greatest one ever made. There are some fun performances, and some excellently shot and edited sequences that build great tension, but ultimately you don't get to spend as much time with the Basterd characters as you would like.
Anyone who thinks they are going to see a "Tarantino" film will be sorely disappointed.
Posted By: Alcoholic (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Totally agree. As much as I liked how the film was shot, it really bored me to tears. As usual, he teases you with action and then blindsides you with meaningless dribble and bland characters.
Posted By: Marius423 (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM
funny i wonder if the critics would have been just as open if it had been Nazi beating ( we Americans and jews ) with baseball bats !
Hollywood is truly becoming a sad place !
Posted By: Guest#0013 (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 02:36 AM
i hated it - i walked out after an hour because I was utterly bored.
one long, tedious dialogue-heavy scene after another and nothing happening.
Posted By: Hank (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 03:03 AM
The more I hear about this, the less I want to see it. Death Proof was mind numbing with the talk. I prefered Planet Terror a lot more.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 05:32 AM
Who's in the picture with Ben Stiller?
Posted By: Propagandhi (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 08:04 AM
Tarantino has his head stuffed so far up his own asshole all he can smell or taste is his own shit. Seriously, this guy loves himself so much he thinks he is a genius who can do no wrong, and forgets nothing he has done since Pulp Fiction has come anywhere near to living up to the hype around him. Fucking tool.
Posted By: Guest#2041 (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I haven't even seen this movie yet, but why do I have a feeling that nobody leaving comments on here has seen a single Tarantino movie outside of Death Proof? His movies are incredibly dialogue based... Always have been.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Jackie Brown will always have a place in my heart. :)
Posted By: Blade Brown (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Brad Pitt, you and your contrived southern accent show them darn Nazis, SHOW 'EM REAL GOOD!!
Posted By: Todd (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 01:57 PM
i disagree that shosannas story isnt interesting. her revenge near the end "big head" is the most iconic image of the film
Posted By: bennymeter (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 02:17 PM
"I haven't even seen this movie yet, but why do I have a feeling that nobody leaving comments on here has seen a single Tarantino movie outside of Death Proof? His movies are incredibly dialogue based... Always have been."
Pretty much my thoughts. I haven't seen this movie, so I can't judge, but I expect a dialogue heavy movie when I see Tarantino's name on the marquee.
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 02:38 PM
I thought this movie was amazing from beginning to end. I also thought The Basterds were in the movie just the right amount of time, anymore and they would have gotten stale. I loved the scene in the basement bar, and any seen with Landa. The first chapter of the movie is probably one of the best scenes Tarantino has ever done.
And seriously? "Anyone who thinks they are going to see a "Tarantino" film will be sorely disappointed."
Um...have you see a Tarantino movie? Because this had his signature all over it.
Posted By: EricG (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 02:40 PM
I think people who found the movie "boring" are really sad. I respect people's opinions, but when you go in expecting just non-stop violence you don't notice the amazing dialogue and character scenes the movie is just over flowing with.
Example:
"i hated it - i walked out after an hour because I was utterly bored.
one long, tedious dialogue-heavy scene after another and nothing happening."
Have you seen any Tarantino movies before this? I understand people want action, but it's like you are too busy waiting for the next one-screen killing you just shut your brains off.
Posted By: Myst031 (Registered) on August 21, 2009 at 02:44 PM
"Seriously, this guy loves himself so much he thinks he is a genius who can do no wrong, and forgets nothing he has done since Pulp Fiction has come anywhere near to living up to the hype around him. Fucking tool."
Kill Bill says hello.
Posted By: Myst031 (Registered) on August 21, 2009 at 02:55 PM
I'm gonna pass and go see District 9 again! Hope Pitt bombs...
Posted By: Guest#8780 (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 07:03 PM
I loved this movie. It was tense and excting througout. A lot of people seem to be hating this film because they were expecting 2 and a half hours of blood and guts, not a film that actually has a very decent plot which requires you to concentrate.
I love all tarantinos films (even death proof) and i would say this is probably his second best film after pulp fiction.
Highly recommended
Posted By: Jimmy (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 07:15 PM
GREAT MOVIE.
Great pacing and drama. I think most people speaking out against the movie expected more action and shoot-em-up sequences.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 09:39 PM
This was everything I hoped for from this movie. It maybe makes you think a little more than other Tarantino movies, but this was everything I hoped for from the movie. Some action, some comedy, great performances, amazing story, great dialogue, everything done right. Sorry to some people here who had to do some reading because of the subtitles. Boo-freaking-hoo. This may go down as his best movie since Pulp Fiction, as that is exactly how I see it.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 09:52 PM
hated it - i walked out after an hour because I was utterly bored.
one long, tedious dialogue-heavy scene after another and nothing happening.
Posted By: Hank (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 03:03 AM
Dont worry, I'm sure Vin Diesel will have a new movie coming out soon. Many things will 'splode all over the screen for you.
Posted By: Guest#8495 (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 11:13 PM
What's with all the ten year olds that were bored with dialogue. Have you people ever even seen his movies before, aside from like 4 seens in Pulp Fiction there's like no action at all. What makes him great is the dialogue, thats what sets him apart. All the people who hated this probably loved Wolverine.
Posted By: MADHOUSE of EXTREME (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM
this is a great movie. it's all about the build w/ great pay off.
Posted By: scott liedle (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Anyone who thinks they are going to see a "Tarantino" film will be sorely disappointed.
Posted By: Alcoholic (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM
ummm... Actually it was just like a Tarantino film. This movie was great, and just like Madhouse said, No Tarantino movies have very much action in them. It is the dialogue that drives his movies with bits of extreme violence or action that make his films great. If you can't sit through a 2 1/2 hour movie that has an interesting plot, and remarkable dialogue, then perhaps you should go watch GI Joe for the 18th time.
Posted By: Guest#7733 (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 12:25 AM
I feel bad for anyone who walked out before the ending, because it was fucking intense!
Posted By: Guest#3480 (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 01:19 AM
Inglourious basterds was clearly represented as an action movie, but it was not. I couldn't tell if it was an action or comedy. This is because there was so little of either one in the intire 2 1/2 hours of snooze fest that was inglourious basterds. The parts of action in the movie were incredibaly graphic and vile. The humor was dry and the plot seemed as though it was going to be about the inglourious basterds due to its name yet there was a part that they left out of the trailers witch was alomst the entire film about Shosanna. I was VERY disepointed with this movie it was very misleading and lead you to nowhere. I would recomend not seeing it but dont not go my account.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 02:40 AM
Many of today's ADD-style movie goers thinks that unless the movie is supposed to be all "oooh look Mommy, I wanna see stuff blow up" kind of action the entire flick, then it sucks.
This wasn't one of them. Yes, it may have dragged on at times, but the final 20 minutes alone was worth it! Great plot, solid development, and the main characters play their parts well.
Sure, it would've been nice to have more of Pitt's character in it, but overall it was a fun experience. 8 out of 10!
Posted By: Orlando (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 03:00 AM
I think people who found the movie "boring" are really sad. I respect people's opinions, but when you go in expecting just non-stop violence you don't notice the amazing dialogue and character scenes the movie is just over flowing with.
Example:
"i hated it - i walked out after an hour because I was utterly bored.
one long, tedious dialogue-heavy scene after another and nothing happening."
Have you seen any Tarantino movies before this? I understand people want action, but it's like you are too busy waiting for the next one-screen killing you just shut your brains off.
Posted By: Myst031 (Registered) on August 21, 2009 at 02:44 PM
Exacually. I was going to post a long comment about this. But you hit the nail right on the head Myst031, This is a Tarantino movie. I think it was one of his bests and probally one of my favorite films of the year. a great performance by all and brad pitt. Everybody in my theater was laughing almost every word he said. And my theater was full and people cheered at the credits and stood up clapping. I don't know about the rest of you. But alot of people in my audience had a good time. If you like a bunch of action scenes with no good plot. Go watch GI Joe or Transformers. Oh and to the guy who walked out of the theater. Why do you do that? You wasted eight bucks right there. So stupid.
Posted By: Guest#5284 (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 03:49 AM
"Anyone who thinks they are going to see a 'Tarantino' film will be sorely disappointed."
*************************************
If you mean anyone expecting beginning-to-end action like "Kill Bill, vol.1" you would be right.
If you mean EVERY other movie written or directed by Tarantino, that would make you... and everyone else bitching that this isn't a "Tarantino" movie... ignorant fucks who don't even have a clue what a Tarantino movie actually IS.
Posted By: Truth Detector (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 05:39 AM
And another thing... this WASN'T a "War" movie. It was a Spaghetti Western. And, just like every Spaghetti Western that has ever existed in the entire history of cinema, there is more "talking heads" that action.
Funny how most of you nimwits who complain about movies never really KNOW that much about them to distinguish from one genre to the next.
Posted By: Truth Detector (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 05:44 AM
ITT: Kids upset at lack of action and sad fanboys trying to defend their over-rated god's latest sub-par offering.
Posted By: Truth (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 08:26 AM
I thought this movie was amazing. It was never slow and kept me on the edge of my seat. Brad Pitts character was probably his best performance, especially his Italian imitation...
Insanely graphiC when it cam to the bear Jew killing that guy with the bat but Hugo Stiglitz is a god!!
Posted By: The Biz (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Saw the movie last night and it annoyed me. I wasn't alone in that. Seven people walked out. There were cell phones being lit up all the time, so people could see when the movie would be over. I heard many sighs and yawns. My problem was the way some of the "talking" scenes would just ramble on and on. The "bar scene" is a great example. I'm not sure how long it was, but it felt like eternity. They keep talking about things that I just didn't give a fuck about. I kept on thinking to myself, "JUST GET ON WITH IT!". Somebody on here was talking about others hating subtitles. My problem with them is that if I wanted to read, I'd have a book. It's not just that, you can't enjoy the performances, because of the reading. Many of those moments sucked the life out of the theater. I will say that the action was very well done and the comedy was nice as well. Pitt doing Italian was a joy to watch. If you don't mind subtitles and can enjoy VERY talky scenes, by all means, go and see it. It's just odd when a movie gets so much right, but the parts that are wrong just drive you insane. 7/10
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I actually liked this movie a lot more than I was expecting too. Liked the dualism with the Jews essentially becoming Nazis (everything they did to the Nazis happened in reality to the Jews (except the Bear). Call it turning the tables 70 years later or a comment on vengeance, although it was somewhat disturbing to see people laughing at the violence. I also extremely enjoyed that 70% of the movie was subtitled, it added a nice atmosphere. The only thing I didnt like were some of the cues and names being lit up; Tarantino makes an intricate movie, but the "pop ups" are like a cliff notes that the audience cant understand what was going on. Its not like there was a labyrinthine plot.
Still, I enjoyed it. Actually, I thought the basterds brought it down. The Shoshanah and Landa scenes were probably the best. Also liked the tavern scene, though the end of it was little too long (didn't mind the build to the reveal).
Posted By: Dave C (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 03:50 PM
Inglourious basterds was clearly represented as an action movie, but it was not. I couldn't tell if it was an action or comedy. This is because there was so little of either one in the intire 2 1/2 hours of snooze fest that was inglourious basterds. The parts of action in the movie were incredibaly graphic and vile. The humor was dry and the plot seemed as though it was going to be about the inglourious basterds due to its name yet there was a part that they left out of the trailers witch was alomst the entire film about Shosanna. I was VERY disepointed with this movie it was very misleading and lead you to nowhere. I would recomend not seeing it but dont not go my account.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 02:40 AM
What were you expecting from Tarrintino? Fluffy bunnies and people smiling all the time and giving hugs out? Have you even seen a Tarrintino movie before? If not then shut the hell up.
Posted By: Guest#2068 (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 05:43 PM
No one expected fluffy bunnies or non-stop violence in this movie. What did dissappoint me was the lack of screen time for "The Basterds". The movie was about 1/3 about them and 2/3 about the SS Colonel and the Jewish girl from the opening scene. I have to admit I have vowed not to be "Tarrantinod" again for $10. Many people had the same problem with Reservoir Dogs as they did with this movie. A lot of people thought the robbery would have been a better story. I disagree with that movie, but think this pertains to IB. Pulp Fiction was a game changer for cinema in 1994. Unfortunately, audiences as well as pop culture caught up to Tarantino's/Seinfeld's dialogue about nothing. I hated Jackie Brown when I first saw it although it has aged well after the hype wore off. I still would cut the last 2 minutes of Pam Grier singing to herself in the car... but it's his movie. Kill Bill Volume 1 was Tarantino's best film to date. Unfortunately he followed it up with the turd Part 2. WTF!! Bill and the Bride could have gone to counseling for Christ's sake! End of Movie. Death Proof was entirely too much dialogue. Kurt Russell also went out like a bitch. So I give that one a thumb's down.
IB had the potential to be really good. I think I saw on 411 that Tarantino said he thought a full length movie about the Basterds would be a good flick. Why the hell didn't he do that here? The fucking thing was marketted like it was The Dirty Dozen. Instead I got "The Nazi Stays in the Picture".
I'm not entirely suprised the flick was so dialogue heavy, just surprised it was a different film that in was portrayed everywhere else. When QT puts his next flick out in 2012 I'll be seeing it at the Dollar Theatre.
Posted By: Obrie007 (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 09:36 PM
Ok, time to drop back in here and defend both sides.
I recommend sitting as far back in the theater as possible so that you can see the subtitles and the performances at the same time. I loved the movie, but was sitting up front, so I did miss the subtleties of the performance a little bit. The movie blew my mind but it would be even better otherwise.
Whoever was saying how they were sitting through the bar scene and people were talking about things he didn't give a shit about... Clearly has no appreciation for tension OR suspense. Or plot for that matter. Like others have said... go watch Wolverine.
And yes, the commercials were misleading, and it was made to look like an action movie. But people who know Tarantino movies should know what they're in store for when they see a movie. Pulp Fiction was 95% dialogue. The rape scene, Bruce Willis getting hit with a car... maybe the overdose scene. That was basically ALL the action in Pulp Fiction. If you don't want to see dialogue about life in Germany in the 1940s, why did you go see a WW2 movie?
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I haven't seen the film, but I'll just ring in here with some thoughts about action and dialogue.
Tarantino films are generally a bunch of messed up, over the top action sequences counterbalanced with a lot of inane dialogue. The problem that I think the majority of people are having here is that they're fine with the messed up, over the top action sequences dominating the film, but find their patience tested when the inane dialogue dominates the film.
Here's the real problem: Tarantino makes generally poor films. Yes, some people really love them. Yes, sometimes they're critically acclaimed. But what most people miss is that the man doesn't understand the first thing about plot and pacing in a film.
Where's the proof, you ask? Well, his movies tend to be really long, for one thing. Second, his films tend to be jumbled pieces of stories spun together.
So, why is he considered successful? People tend to find the over the top violence entertaining. And when you wrap the violence in some witty and snappy dialogue, people tend to feel they were thoroughly entertained, despite the fact that the story was really weak.
And as this film seems to have proven, the out of balance the elements of his films are, the less successful they are. The weakness of his filmmaking styles becomes apparent and people get irritated.
So, love him or hate him, the fact is the man makes poor films. They look good and sound good and the acting tends to be good. But there's more to filmmaking then that.
Posted By: Guest#0692 (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 03:25 AM
That's the creepiest picture I've ever seen. Why would he post that?
Posted By: Champzilla (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 09:58 AM
James(Registered), My problem is that too much of what they were talking about had nothing to do with the story. The card game: I don't need to see that. The new German father: A quick mention was all that was needed. 12 Angry Men is a good example where the talk has something to do with the story. It's only every now and then that anybody would say something otherwise and those moments would be quick. As far as sitting far away goes, that would help and I would have done that, except that somebody threw up in that area of the theater the show before and NOBODY wanted to near it. I'd still say I was at least 50 feat away from the screen and maybe as much as 75. Again, too much oof the talk was just filler. If not for that, I would have given it a good 9/10.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 10:55 AM
So, love him or hate him, the fact is the man makes poor films. They look good and sound good and the acting tends to be good. But there's more to filmmaking then that.
Posted By: Guest#0692 (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 03:25 AM
So a movie that looks good, sounds good, and has awesome acting still sucks? Please enlighten me on what these other factors are, "Oh Great One that has not Seen a Film but Bashes Anyway."
Posted By: Guest#8351 (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM
So a movie that looks good, sounds good, and has awesome acting still sucks? Please enlighten me on what these other factors are, "Oh Great One that has not Seen a Film but Bashes Anyway."
Posted By: Guest#8351 (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Well, I didn't bash the film, did I? I said he makes poor films. I've seen several of his films and while I didn't hate any of them, in the end, there wasn't anything I needed to see again in them. But that's my personal opinion.
As for what makes a great film other than acting, pretty cinematography and snappy dialogue and interesting soundtrack choices? Well, story for one. Telling a well-crafted story is an art unto itself. And Tarantino isn't great at it. He can isolate parts of a story that he wants to show. But it's all about what he wants to show and not about whether the audience is interested or not. Sometimes it's compelling. Sometimes it's stupid.
Pacing is a fairly important part of filmmaking. You can make a film about the most exciting subject in the world, but if it's poorly paced, you've either bored people or you've moved too fast for anyone to really enjoy what's going on. Tarantino may throw in over the top action sequences, but there's often no rhyme or reason as to why. It's just time to liven things up. And if he wants to bore the audience with 15 minutes of pointless dialogue, he will. Some call it brave. I call it wasting people's time.
Dialogue and action are not the basic components to a film. Those are the tools that move the story. If you can't effectively use them, then you're making a poor film. Yes, you may fool enough critics into thinking your snappy dialogue about nothing is artfully employed. Yes, you may shock enough people into thinking that your action was amazing. But in the end, all you've really done is make a crappy movie that goes to extremes.
If you want to hail Tarantino as a genius for doing those things, go ahead. I'll stick with Chris Nolan or Bryan Singer or any number of other directors that can tell a coherent story.
Posted By: Guest#0692 (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 02:20 AM
All of his movies are dialogue based. If you went in not expecting what you recieved, then that is your fault (or the trailer's fault. It is kind of misleading). It really gets on my nerves that everyone on this site thinks that they know more than Tarantino does (or any director for that matter). How can you honestly say all of his films are crap? That is the most ubsurd thing I have ever read.
All these comments I have read about people getting bored with this movie must be from people who thought this was going to be just violence, violence and violence. And you probably enjoyed G.I. Joe or some other truly crappy movie more than this. This is Quentin Tatatino we are talking about. This movie isn't going to satisfy everyone; none of his movies do. But when one of his movies gets all the critical acclaim that is deserves, suddenly everyone who hated it, begins to like it. That's a very odd thing. And don't tell me that never happens, because it does.
The entire movie to me was extremely interesting. Tarantino must know that he is going to make some people bored with all of the dialogue in some scenes, so what does he do? He adds tension. That is what kept me interested (the opening scene is probably the best in the entire movie in my opinion). The man knows how to write, and has an amazing talent for as filmmaker. If some of you guys think you know how to direct/write a better movie, I would love to see it. Otherwise, leave the movie making to the professionals.
Posted By: Guest#2663 (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 02:44 AM
You know something... Guest#0692 has convinced me.
ANY film with pacing that falls out of the Hollywood cookie-cutter norm sucks hard and ruins the entire movie.
How could I have been so BLIND!??!
THANK YEW, GUEST #0692!
Posted By: Truth Detector (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 04:36 AM
It was no "The Dirty Dozen". Ending to far fetched.
Posted By: gruggier (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Capt Smooth, I like the cut of your jib. Debating without getting all "oh my god you fuckin n00b" like most everyone else.
Pukey theaters are no bueno at all. And I can see where you're coming from on the card game scene. However, I think the fact that so much of the dialogue was about pointless things was still relevant. They planned on a meeting with no Nazis present, and ended up with a bar full of them. At no point was the English guy expected to be able to blend in, and if the Nazis weren't drunk he wouldn't have gotten away with it even as long as he did. I thought the suspense that was built there was of epic proportions, with them waiting to either be able to get out of the bar, or continue their discussion. But the card game got them stuck there, and, well, you know how it turned out from there. It did drag a little bit, and they could have made it a tiny bit shorter. I'm not gonna lie, I took a short piss break for a good 90 seconds of that scene, so I didn't catch the whole thing =P
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 01:46 AM
James(Registered), I think that just about sums it up. Piss breaks are the world's saviors. "Cue the Epic, Oscar winning music."
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 05:33 AM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
