Inglorious Basterds

[GoldenRivet]

Here be Spoilers :arrgh!: So read on only if you are interested










when it comes to movies, particularly world war two movies, im a big historical accuracy buff. The guns have to sound right, the synchronization with historical events have to jive, etc.

It is my realization that anachronisms, name changes and fictionalization of events is impossible when a film is made for entertainment purposes but it is also based on real events. however these things should be followed as closely as possible whenever possible.

so that aside.... there are things i liked about basterds and things i didnt like about basterds.

firstly, if you are going to see this film based on some expectation of seeing a "behind enemy lines" action flick like the dirty dozen or where eagles dare just stop right there... its not that in the slightest sense.

if pulp fiction had sex with oceans eleven and they have a baby that grew up to have sex with the dirty dozen with more blood, and less drugs... inglorious basterds would pretty much be the offspring produced.

Quinton Tarantino's direction is the stuff of cinematic genius... there is no doubt about that, however he is no world war two film director.

one thing i liked about the film was the little details. The opening scene was particularly gripping... slow... but gripping.

the SS Colonel is conducting an informal interrogation of a french dairy farmer suspected of hiding Jews. now when you think of an interrogation, a certain image comes to mind.

this scene is not that image, the SS colonel is portrayed as a very sinister individual who hides underneath a veil of civilized conduct. This makes him all the more frightening, because you just know that right in the middle of the skillfully guided conversation / interrogation he is just going to go nuts and kill someone.

The opening scene is drawn out, almost too long, you the viewer pretty much know whats coming, you almost want to warn the dairy farmer and his hidden Jews... but you cant.

another neat attention to detail was in the sound score of the movie.

there are two references to the 1933 film King Kong (if im not mistaken)

first, when playing the guessing game at the bar with the SS officer, his card says "King Kong"

Second, when the black film projector operator goes back stage to light the fire which is meant to consume the theater and kill the German High Command, the theme song to the 1933 film King Kong plays.

another sound score used in the film was that of the film Kelly's Heroes. During the scene where Brad Pitt's men begin to take their position to carry out their execution of the operation, the suspenseful song "Tiger Tank" from Kelly's Heroes is played.

quinton skillfully places these musical pieces into the film where they probably wouldnt be noticed by the average war film veteran.

Now for the bad news:

This film... from a historically accurate standpoint is an absolute train wreck.

Not only did the basterds prove victorious in their plot to kill every single member of German High Command in the most brutal fashion possible in some cases.

But

Adolf Hitler, Oberster Kommandant das wehrmacht und Allen das deutschland... and all of his highest commanders, generals, and staff went... in secret... to Paris, France... to see a fricking movie... during the largest amphibious invasion in the history of warfare which was taking place only about 70 miles away!!!!

absolutley inconcievable!

if you are looking for a real time waster on a friday night... its an okay film.

if your looking for a ww2 espionage flick... spend the money on liquer and a decent woman... you will get more bang for your buck:up:

[OneToughHerring]

Quinton Tarantino's direction is the stuff of cinematic genius...

Personally I never really agreed with this. I saw Pulp Fiction in the movies when it came out and it has a nice 'flow' of the scenes. However the scenes that often just seem to be geared towards eliciting a chuckle from the adolescent-minded and nothing else. The sum of Tarantino's movies always seems to be less then the individual parts, just MHO.

Yes I know that it's about personal taste but I think it's been mostly the commercial US media that has touted Tarantino as a 'genious' and European media has been quite a lot more critical about him.

[Aramike]

Personally I never really agreed with this. I saw Pulp Fiction in the movies when it came out and it has a nice 'flow' of the scenes. However the scenes that often just seem to be geared towards eliciting a chuckle from the adolescent-minded and nothing else. The sum of Tarantino's movies always seems to be less then the individual parts, just MHO.

Yes I know that it's about personal taste but I think it's been mostly the commercial US media that has touted Tarantino as a 'genious' and European media has been quite a lot more critical about him.I had to skip the first post in the thread because of spoilers but...

Wow, I actually totally agree with you for once, OTH. To add, I think Tarantino is a terrible story-teller. Even one of the only films of his I like, Reservoir Dogs, was completely about the visceral experience versus the story.

Sure, some people will say that such an experience is good, but the problem comes in when you realize that there are directors that can produce BOTH a story as well as the visceral experience. Tarantino only does will with half of that equation, and that makes him a subpar artist in my eyes.

[XabbaRus]

Adolf Hitler, Oberster Kommandant das wehrmacht und Allen das deutschland... and all of his highest commanders, generals, and staff went... in secret... to Paris, France... to see a fricking movie... during the largest amphibious invasion in the history of warfare which was taking place only about 70 miles away!!!!

Yes but I think that can be forgiiven as it isn't meant to be a wwII flick is it. AS Aramike said it is classic Tarantino in WWII setting.

AS for story telling I though Pulp Fiction was good and Kill Bill

REservoir Dogs never did it for me. Pointless to the extreme.

I will wait for Basterds to come out on DVD over here and then watch it.

[Jimbuna]

I'm actually looking forward to it.

Wish I'd never read your post now GT :oops:

[Torplexed]

If you can suspend historical knowledge and common sense for 2.5 hours, you're in good shape with this movie. I mean, the final chapter at the French movie theater felt as if it were written by a junior high school student. Hitler protected by only two guards?? Absolutely nobody on guard at ANY of the theater exists??

Also, it seems as if Brad Pitt gets more mediocre as he gets older. He just came across as a one-dimensional hillbilly stereotype that seemed too stupid to figure out how to tie his own boot laces. I was hoping to see a second layer to this character that suggested he knew his stuff backwards and forwards. Him and his basterds made the film seem like Hogan's Heroes; The Movie. I would love to see Tarantino make a smart movie that has some semblance of plausibility. Jackie Brown and True Romance were screenplays that dealt with a nice ration of intelligent plot turns and character development. Seems like Tarantino just wants to concentrate on explosive individual scenes with his last three movies.. And it also sucks that he enjoys reminding his audience that they're watching a piece of Tarantino kitsch art as opposed to a good story about WWII. The modern day vernacular, the new wave Bowie song, the funky 1970s font throughout the movie, Sam Jackson with his hip, cool narration...I guess I didn't find those things as charming as Tarantino does.

[GoldenRivet]

100% agreed.

with the fullest respect to the Jews and Tarantino... and no disrespect to anyone involved in the film or its making etc i have to say...

... with as many Jewish producers, writers and actors as there are in Hollywood, i think any film piece written by any 5th grader in American which deals with the delusional fantasy of killing Hitler and his goons would go straight to the theaters. :haha:

furthermore, my mildly dyslexic wife hated the film, lost interest and caught a good nap due to the endless stream of fast paced sub titles being machine gunned in her direction. ;)

poor girl :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

Yes but I think that can be forgiiven as it isn't meant to be a wwII flick is it. AS Aramike said it is classic Tarantino in WWII setting.

Tarantinos own words

"Yes... it is a world war two film.... just a different type of world war two film."

that is a direct quote from an interview

how can it be that it isnt meant to be a wwII flick when the director says "it is a world war two film"

im confused

[Torplexed]

how can it be that it isnt meant to be a wwII flick when the director says "it is a world war two film"

im confused


It's Quentin Tarantino's World War Two movie, which means it has more to do with World War Two movies than with World War Two itself. ;)

Oh well, David Lynch became a parody of himself with the Twin Peaks movie and was able to make a come-back a few years later. Now, Tarantino and Tim Burton have become cartoonish parodies of themselves as well and they're STILL the critics' sweethearts. I'm sure they'll continue to do well and sell well.

[mookiemookie]

It's Quentin Tarantino's World War Two movie, which means it has more to do with World War Two movies than with World War Two itself. ;)


Exactly. He also described it as a spaghetti western in a WW2 setting. Think more a "Where Eagles Dare" and "Dirty Dozen" and less "History Channel".

I loved it.

[GoldenRivet]

Exactly. He also described it as a spaghetti western in a WW2 setting. Think more a "Where Eagles Dare" and "Dirty Dozen" and less "History Channel".

I loved it.

while i didnt really dislike Basterds... i think that 'where eagles dare" and "dirty dozen" have much more credibility than Basterds.

in other words... the activities in Dirty Dozen and Where Eagles dare are actually plausible. Hypothetical as their plots may be... the dont pretend to change major war history.... the context of the films could have actually been real WW2 operations for all the viewer knows.

Basterds on the other hand... while it would have been an opportunity the allies jumped right on so far as an assasination attempt goes... it is based in no part in reality whatsoever.

How i would have ended te movie.

1. The SS colonel is headbutted by Brad Pitt's character. Immediately thereafter brad Pitt's Character is shot point blank in the head and killed instantly.

2. the nazi goons escort the "little man" to the interrogation table where he refuses to spill his guts about the operation and he is shot dead.

3. the SS Colonel calls the ghestapo at the theater, warns them of the men in seats 0023 and 0024.

4. The Ghestapo, warned that the men have explosives kill the men without question and in doing so, uncover the plot to burn down the theater.

The basterds go down in history as one of those heroic groups which nobody today knows anything about.

[CastleBravo]

I hear this flick is a big hit in Germany.

[GoldenRivet]

I hear this flick is a big hit in Germany.

it is? i guess it could be...

though i couldnt imagine why

nobody will let the Germans "live down" the Nazi years. :nope:

[CastleBravo]

it is? i guess it could be...

though i couldnt imagine why

nobody will let the Germans "live down" the Nazi years. :nope:


German critics lap up Tarantino's Jewish revenge fantasy
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.fdc24718ee84a912c2aa2914ba6c8c6 0.5c1&show_article=1

[GoldenRivet]

From the linked article

Ahead of the film's international release this week, German reviewers were rapturous over the fictitious squad of Nazi killers who stop the Holocaust

Ehhhh... no they didnt stop the holocaust as being that the assasination sene was set in 1944 most of it was already over with. :-?

Only a handful expressed qualms over Tarantino's trademark gore-splattering, most relishing the cinematic massacre of the Nazi brass including Adolf Hitler by a band of Jewish-American soldiers, led by Brad Pitt as deeply satisfying.


Agreed that they would find this deeply satisfying, however it was my opinion that the film, on a couple of occasions, portrayed the average german soldier as a Nazi. Historically, this was not always the case.



"This ain't your daddy's World War II movie," Tarantino has said.


no doubt a bold move for a director to make... considering 99.9% of War movie fans love "Daddy's War Movie"





"Because, unlike 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Kill Bill', only the evil are massacred, the audience cheers the violent scenes with gusto,"


Not every person who died in the film was evil, in fact there were quite a few deaths which were senseless.



having read that article... i can see why the people of Germany would like the film... however, i cant say i would enjoy seeing common German Soldiers being murdered if i myself were german. ;)

[Dan D]

From what I have read, Tarantino declared that he he sees himself as an ambassador for Germany with this movie. If it is true, the movie was basically directed at German locations, with a lot of German actors, some of them from Austria even, who possibly get the chance to make it to Hollywood and finally three generations of Germans would be dreaming of killing Hitler with a big blow.

He seems to be a smart guy who knows how to sell a movie.

[Richard G]

The best thing about this movie was the Nathans hot dog I got at the concession stand.

[Kloef]

I decided to skip this one.

Although i am a big fan of Tarrantino i like my ww2 movies a bit realistic,or at least somewhat fact-based.

Please correct me if i'm wrong,i saw a small trailer and read the first post and some more,but it seems like an out of style movie or something..

[GoldenRivet]

it is rather a fantasy ww2 movie.

the title should have been "How Tarantino would have ended World War Two assuming of course that the Nazis were completely incompetent stooges"

[Schroeder]

assuming of course that the Nazis were completely incompetent stooges"

Doesn't that description fit a lot of them?;)

[Raptor1]

Doesn't that description fit a lot of them?;)

Especially the big boss himself...

[GoldenRivet]

Doesn't that description fit a lot of them?;)

Stooges perhaps. :03:

Incompetent?

No.

Your general Staff and Officers and Soldiers cant be "incompetent" and still manage to overtake most of Europe no matter how token the resistance might be in such a short, swift and decisive time frame as the NAZIs did.

but in the film... they didnt even post guards to ANY of the doors... what?

:nope:

[XabbaRus]

I think I will give it a miss too.

I do agree that Tarantino is a one trick pony. I don't mind violence in films but with Tarantino is just for the sake of it.

Like I said Pulp Fiction was imo a good tale and cleverly done, Kill Bill not bad, and Dusk til Dawn a hoot.

[Schroeder]

Stooges perhaps. :03:

Incompetent?

No.

Your general Staff and Officers and Soldiers cant be "incompetent" and still manage to overtake most of Europe no matter how token the resistance might be in such a short, swift and decisive time frame as the NAZIs did.

I was more thinking of Hitler, Göring, Himmler etc.... who all lived in their own little world far away from reality.:dead:

[GoldenRivet]

I was more thinking of Hitler, Göring, Himmler etc.... who all lived in their own little world far away from reality.:dead:

yes... and in the end they got theirs in the film.

but their demise was only a few short minutes.

most if the German casualties were common Privates, Corporals and Sergeants... many of whom were not card carrying Nazis by 1944-45 and many of whom were either conscripts or stuck in a bad situation.

of course... like earlier posts read... you have to put common sense and historical accuracy in the mud if you expect to enjoy this film.

[AVGWarhawk]

I watched this movie. It was quite good. I really enjoyed the dramatic effect of particular scenes. The bar scene for one was excellent and a excellent stand off situation. Brad Pitt played his part well. So did the others. Good movie. Entertaining, yes. Not much else though.

[Platapus]

The sum of Tarantino's movies always seems to be less then the individual parts, just MHO.

I would agree with that. That pretty much sums up Tarantino in my opinion.

Immediately thereafter brad Pitt's Character is shot point blank in the head and killed instantly.

I think it is a given that any movie can be improved by having Brad Pitt's character shot point blank in the head and killed instantly.... preferably during the opening credits :up:

Script example:

Pitt: <enters room stage right> "Good morning everyone"

<Gunshot, Pitt collapses, insert CGI special effects of head shot>

<pause action for thunderous and prolonged applause from audience>

<continue action>

:yeah: Academy Award material in the first 20 seconds. :shucks:

[AVGWarhawk]

No way, I liked Pitts portrayal of his character. Better than what I expected from him. :yep:

[Freiwillige]

Brad Pitts role was very well done and in fact it is a shame that it was wasted in this film as he could have gotten that role further in a more mature film style. Saving Pvt Ryan style.

"Now if you ever want to eat a SaurKraut sandwhich again you will point your schnitzle licking finger right here on this map and tell me what I want to know~ Lt. Aldo Ray" Classic!

The film sucked but the acting was brilliant.

[frau kaleun]

Brad Pitts role was very well done and in fact it is a shame that it was wasted in this film as he could have gotten that role further in a more mature film style. Saving Pvt Ryan style.

"Now if you ever want to eat a SaurKraut sandwhich again you will point your schnitzle licking finger right here on this map and tell me what I want to know~ Lt. Aldo Ray" Classic!

The film sucked but the acting was brilliant.

I was very impressed with the actor playing the SS officer who interrogated the French farmer at the beginning of the film. He was such a complete tool and hid it under that oh-so-cultured exterior. Chilling. The fact that he was so eager at the end to turn traitor in exchange for personal profit, and was almost buffoonish in his glee over having (presumably) succeeded in pulling it off was just the icing on the cake.

The funny thing was, I saw the name "Eli Roth" in the credits or somewhere before I watched the movie and that SS dude looked to me so much like Tim Roth that I thought Eli must be Tim's brother and that it was him playing the SS guy. Turned out it wasn't. Can't remember the name of the actual actor offhand, don't think I'd ever heard of him before... but I was impressed.

Overall I have to say I was a bit disappointed in the movie because I loved Kill Bill so much and I thought I would be bowled over in similar fashion. I think though that because I'm already familiar with QT's bizarre style, there was nothing that surprised me that much so I was a bit underwhelmed at first, and I'd had such high expectations after seeing the trailer in the theater.

I'd probably have to watch it again and see if it grows on me, or if my reaction gets more "meh" on repeat viewings. But I doubt that I'd rent it again just for that purpose.