Chamber of Secrets

Chamber of Secrets (http://www.cosforums.com/index.php)
-   In Cinemas & General Movie discussion (http://www.cosforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)
-   -   Inglourious Basterds (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=122484)

DML1991 August 26th, 2009 12:03 am

Inglourious Basterds
 
The new film by Quentin Tarantino about jews striking their revenge against the Nazi's. It's a bloody, sometimes uncomfortable, yet hilarious and entertaining film. I'd say this is a certain choice for "most misleading trailers of all time", the 'Basterds' are hardly even in the film, maybe a third of it at most. But considering they're surprisingly the least interesting aspect of the film (perhaps not due to themselves but the characters who get more focus than them are surprisingly much stronger characters), I hardly say this as a complaint. I can't wait to see it again, because my reaction was the same reaction I had to Pulp Fiction and I expected it, at first one might find it uneven with it's cuts to different characters and random happenings, but a rewatch will only allow me to appreciate the story's structure and how it plays with the character's situations and motivations.

Discuss.

NumberEight August 26th, 2009 12:51 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
As I said in the "Rate the last film you've seen" thread, I think it is needlessly long, laced with pretentiousness, and the only redeeming factor is the hilarious violence. I would not see this movie again. Many people I have spoken to said that if this film was made by any other director besides Tarantino, it would probably be panned. If you like Tarantino, go see it. If you want to see it because Brad Pitt and the Basterds are in it, don't see it, because as DML1991 said, they are not in it very long. After further evaluation of the film, I'd give it an excellent 5 out of 10.

DML1991 August 26th, 2009 1:39 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Pretentiousness? You didn't see the intentional mocking of it? It was entirely self aware to it's nature as it payed an homage to Leone.

NumberEight August 26th, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DML1991 (Post 5401985)
Pretentiousness? You didn't see the intentional mocking of it? It was entirely self aware to it's nature as it payed an homage to Leone.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

I am not familiar with Leone's work. I do not care that it's a supposed "homage". I do care that the dialogue is full of pretentiousness and is almost unbearable. I care that the film becomes repetitive with the supposed tension-laced dialogue scenes that then erupt in violence. I care that the film could be immensely shortened if such useless dialogue wasn't present. I care that audiences were tricked and lied to by the trailers, which is a deceitful tactic to bring in money. Tarantino will no longer receive any money from me.

DML1991 August 26th, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLTucker (Post 5402014)
SPOILERS FOLLOW

I am not familiar with Leone's work. I do not care that it's a supposed "homage". I do care that the dialogue is full of pretentiousness and is almost unbearable. I care that the film becomes repetitive with the supposed tension-laced dialogue scenes that then erupt in violence. I care that the film could be immensely shortened if such useless dialogue wasn't present. I care that audiences were tricked and lied to by the trailers, which is a deceitful tactic to bring in money. Tarantino will no longer receive any money from me.

:rolleyes: That's the Weinsteins fault for misleading the audience, the film shouldn't be judged by it's trailers but by it's own merits. Tarantino didn't set out to make the film according to the trailers.

And whether or not you care about it being an homage, it's not pretentious, it's mocking pretentiousness. There's a difference.

NumberEight August 26th, 2009 3:41 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DML1991 (Post 5402041)
:rolleyes: That's the Weinsteins fault for misleading the audience, the film shouldn't be judged by it's trailers but by it's own merits. Tarantino didn't set out to make the film according to the trailers.

I didn't blame Tarantino for the false advertising. I was clearly talking about the studio. They did indeed lie about the film. A trailer is supposed to give you an idea about what a film is about. The trailer for this film did no such thing. I have never seen a film that was so different from a trailer and I've seen hundreds. This is on par with those product infomercials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DML1991 (Post 5402041)
And whether or not you care about it being an homage, it's not pretentious, it's mocking pretentiousness. There's a difference.

How is anyone not familiar with Leone's work supposed to know that? I don't think the film did a great job showing it was mocking pretentiousness. Even if it did, I would still think it's a bad film for the reasons I listed in a previous post.

DML1991 August 26th, 2009 6:03 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLTucker (Post 5402078)
How is anyone not familiar with Leone's work supposed to know that?

That has nothing to do with it's "pretentiousness". I said the film's scenes with characters just standing or sitting there, or scenes of just talking, the slow burning tension, was an homage to Sergio Leone, particularly Once Upon a Time in the West. I didn't say one has to know that, but this is no first time where Tarantino has borrowed entirely from one other influencing style. Everything he's done is an homage to something else, Death Proof payed several homages to Vanishing Point. Tarantino's a "film lover", and his films are examples of it.

Heck, I was thinking of Miller's Crossing with the final scene. And I don't even know it that was intentional or not.
Quote:

I don't think the film did a great job showing it was mocking pretentiousness.
How so? I mean, watch the expressions, musical choices, editing, and camera angles man.

Wab August 26th, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
All reports I've heard jibe pretty well with JLTucker. Overlong, over violent and self-indulgent. In short, a Tarantino film.

SiriusBrown August 28th, 2009 3:56 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
10/10 Tanrantino's best since Pulp Fiction (the greatest film of all time), a masterpiece of modern cinema.

FleurDeLaPointe August 28th, 2009 6:31 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
It's a Tarantino film. Audience getting tricked by the trailer? How is this any different from audience members thinking that Date Movie will be hilarious, or Legion will be good? This is no where nearly as bad as Executive Decision where Steven Segal's character was killed off in the first 20 minutes of the film. Seriously though, anyone who should be blamed should be the audience for expecting anything different from Tarantino at this point of time.

NumberEight August 28th, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
I am responding to this post from another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DML1991 (Post 5403799)
There's many necessary things said during that conversation. It begins with the cunning subtlety, Landa is a wolf in sheep's clothing but we first must believe him to be the sheep, and right when we believe they've escaped doom by tricking him, his sophistication far outwon their weak hiding. It's extremely crucial for everything to start formal, and continue until the point we believe they've avoided harm. It's very realistic, actually.... Everybody in the movie is portrayed by an actor. What does this even mean? Of course the real Hitler wasn't sitting their laughing. :huh:

I'd strongly disagree. That scene is full of useless dialogue, especially the bit about rats and squirrels. And it was highly predictable that most of the Jews being hidden were not going to make it out alive. Tarantino failed on that part.

So I thought about how this film is pretentious. The biggest giveaway? Tarantino shoving it in your face that he knows a lot about cinema. "Look at me! Look at me! My knowledge about cinema is so great!" Well, who cares besides you?

I have another complaint: the film is nothing more than a set of disjointed skits. God I hate this movie.

alwaysme August 28th, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Wow a lot of mixed reviews. I will keep this in mind when I go to see it. I am a big Tarantino fan.

nina__ August 28th, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
I thought it was brilliant :lol:

lcbaseball22 August 28th, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Saw this last night with a few buddies. We all had the same general consenus...except they managed to stay awake for the whole thing :lol:

Here is the review, copied over from the "rate the last film" thread:


Inglourious Basterds- 8/10

I've had very limited exposure to Tarantino films (just Kill Bill vol. 1 and 2) but ever since I saw the teaser trailer for this film I thought it looked pretty freaking sweet and something worth checking out. Well, I def agree with those who've said the trailers were misleading.

That's not to say it was a bad film, but I was expecting a lot more with Brad Pitt and the Basterds. And through the first 20 minutes I was about to write this off as one of the most boring films I'd ever seen. The first scene was excruciatingly boring, just dialogue between two guys not speaking English! And the only significance of this scene far as I could tell, was revealing this dairy farmer was hiding Jews. The subtitles were annoying as well, it's straining on the eyes and tiresome to read for prolonged periods of time. In fact, sometime after this (right after Brad Pitt's crew was introduced I believe) I started dozing off actually...I think I possibly missed a good 45 minutes or so :lol: I woke back up during another excruciatingly boring scene that must have lasted another twenty minutes before it ended in a big shootout with everyone except "Helen of Troy" (wonders how many will get this :whistle: Anyways, I'm referring to Diane Kruger's characer :p) being killed. From this point on however, the film really picked up and did keep me awake. The ending was awesome...even if it was very over the top.

I mean did we really need fire, dynamite, AND machine guns?! :err: The doors were sealed, everyone was going to die...the other stuff was extraneous. It made for an action packed climax though :cool: Well, to be fair I think I need to give this another watch when I'm more alert.

But as of right now, my opinion is that this film is much longer than necessary. I say cut it down to like 2 hours and it could be great. :tu:

Oh, and Brad Pitt (what limited scenes he's in) is what makes this film. The acting of Christoph Waltz (Col. Landa) is excellent as well.

As for the violence. Well, if you live in the US I think you become pretty desensitized to this stuff when you see it throughout media. :relax: Whereas Europe is tolerable of sexuality...for us it's violence. However, some things like skinning their scalps made me a bit squemish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLTucker (Post 5402078)
I didn't blame Tarantino for the false advertising. I was clearly talking about the studio. They did indeed lie about the film. A trailer is supposed to give you an idea about what a film is about. The trailer for this film did no such thing. I have never seen a film that was so different from a trailer and I've seen hundreds. This is on par with those product infomercials.

Yep :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 5402199)
All reports I've heard jibe pretty well with JLTucker. Overlong, over violent and self-indulgent. In short, a Tarantino film.

Yep, that sounds about right. Except I dunno, are all Tarantino films like that? I'm surprised his films are so popular if that's the case. :hmm:

Hmm, I was considering watching some of his other pieces of work like Pulp Fiction...but if they drag like this one did, maybe not. It was odd how there was like absolute boringness for what seemed like endless amounts of time and then suddenly an intense action scene. :shrug:

But like I said, the 2nd half was loads better and very entertaining...so overall Basterds balanced out to be an above average film (>7/10)

DML1991 August 29th, 2009 1:28 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLTucker (Post 5403852)
That scene is full of useless dialogue, especially the bit about rats and squirrels.

Useless how? It's very necessary metaphorically, and says alot about the situation at hand.
Quote:

And it was highly predictable that most of the Jews being hidden were not going to make it out alive. Tarantino failed on that part.
Of course we knew he was hiding the jews and it was going to turn nasty. We just didn't know when or what would be the circumstances, much like when Vincent accidently shot that guy's head off in the car in Pulp Fiction.
Quote:

So I thought about how this film is pretentious. The biggest giveaway? Tarantino shoving it in your face that he knows a lot about cinema. "Look at me! Look at me! My knowledge about cinema is so great!" Well, who cares besides you?
Uh, how exactly is he doing that? By paying homages to spaghetti-westerns that you haven't seen? Every film he's done is an homage to something else, that's how he's built himself up as a filmmaker. And if anything, it's what makes him unique from the rest. If you think he's pretentious or this film is displaying him saying "I know so much about movies! look at me!", no offense, but you don't know much about film and got the entire wrong impression on this one.
Quote:

I have another complaint: the film is nothing more than a set of disjointed skits.
All of which come together in the end and couldn't have been developed any other way. Like Pulp Fiction, except with more of a clear headed point here.

Hysteria August 30th, 2009 7:29 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
I really enjoyed IB. It's most certainly a Tarantino film through and through. I disagree with those who say it was pretentious and had no meaning. Much like Pulp Fiction, a few different things are going on at the same time and then they all mesh at the end, but IMO PF was more successful in this. There were parts of IB that I felt could have been done better (some scenes were too long like the opening scene and the scene in the bar) but overall I found it amusing, entertaining, interesting and nowhere near as gory as some people have made it out to be.
Nobody who has ever seen a Tarantino film should be the least bit surprised by IB.
Quote:

JLTucker
I care that audiences were tricked and lied to by the trailers, which is a deceitful tactic to bring in money
I don't really think this is anybody's fault but the audience. Who watches a trailer and then goes to see a movie without hearing ANYTHING else about it? Without reading/hearing/watching anything else? It's a Tarantino film, you know it's not straight forward. Anybody who read one review would realise the trailer wasn't a fair representation, so sorry, no sympathy for them.

Yoana August 30th, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
I haven't seen the film yet but I want to say somthing general in view of the debate above - intertextuality doesn't always equal pretentiousness. I don't know which one is true for Inglorious Basterds, but just because a film uses elements from other films or makes references to other works of art or other media, it doesn't make it automatically pretentious. It can be justified and working within the film in question - like the Bollywood elements in Slumdog Millionaire for example. Intertextuality is one of the core AND differentiating features of 20th century art (including cinema and literature).

NumberEight August 30th, 2009 4:08 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hysteria (Post 5405287)
Nobody who has ever seen a Tarantino film should be the least bit surprised by IB.

Incorrect. I was surprised by how awful it is, even though I really like all of his previous movies, sans Death Proof, which I haven't seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hysteria (Post 5405287)
I don't really think this is anybody's fault but the audience. Who watches a trailer and then goes to see a movie without hearing ANYTHING else about it? Without reading/hearing/watching anything else? It's a Tarantino film, you know it's not straight forward. Anybody who read one review would realise the trailer wasn't a fair representation, so sorry, no sympathy for them.

:rolleyes: Maybe those who do not scour the internet for movie news and reviews?

whodude August 30th, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
I thought it was brilliant 9.5/10. Definatley Tarantino's best since Pulp Fiction. I didn't find it overly long or pretentious at all and the dialogue was mostly brilliant, the scene in the bar where they are playing the drinking game is brilliant.

I would say that it you are not a Tarantino fan then you probably won't like this film.

Hysteria August 31st, 2009 2:27 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLTucker (Post 5405484)
:rolleyes: Maybe those who do not scour the internet for movie news and reviews?

Yes because the internet is the only outlet of information these days. It's not some obscure independent film, there's information everywhere about it (hell if there's information HERE all about it, there must be much more elsewhere). Trailers are put together to make people go see movies. Everyone knows they put the best bits in (from the PoA trailer I thought that would be a good movie but I don't feel like I was 'lied' to). If the audience aren't savvy enough to know that by now, they only have themselves to blame.
This trailer leaves bits out (as all trailers do) and it overplays the Basterds' roles but from it we get that there's going to be a film premier which Hitler and other important Nazis are going to be at and a bunch of American Nazi-killers are going to storm it with the help of a 'double agent'. If you take out the role of the theater owner (whose name I cant think of right now), that's pretty much what it's about.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 3:33 pm.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.