tover26 18 Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 ... might be Pitt's best acting role, I think. I'm surprised this forum's not lit up on it. Bunch of Americans waging guerilla war in France with lots of references to apaches. Not tons of action but lots of build up of the characters and Tarantino's penchant for arching threads coming together for the plot climax. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thehopping1 105 Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 This movie is great. Very graphic and another Tarantino classic. I would not hesitate to go watch it again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stiletto raggio 20 Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Better than Fight Club? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 One of the few recent movies that I plan on spending the ridiculous movie ticket prices to see in theater. Looking forward to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Twinsen 86 Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 I thought it was his weakest movie ever, besides Death Proof. I went into it expecting to be disappointing, and it sure didn't disappoint in disappointing. Most of the movie is waiting. Then you finally see the Basterds that are so crazy and nuts and amazing, but they've already done everything that made them famous and you don't get to see it. It's just people telling stories for three hours. FUCK! I'm a movie nerd and all, but holy shit I couldn't get into this movie. Also, like most movies of the past 3 years or so, nothing made sense. Why'd that guy shoot that other guy in the balls? If he shot him in the head, they'd have gotten out alive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigj480 203 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) I thought it was a pretty good movie, myself, even though it way have been a little longer than necessary. Definitely worth the $5.50 it cost to see it. It's not the type of movie you should take really seriously. Why did the guy at the table shoot the other guy in the balls? Well, it was pretty obvious that the guy that started the shooting liked killing and wasn't exactly what we would call normal. During the scene they made it obvious that the legit officer was getting on his nerves. Well, he got his revenge. Edited August 24, 2009 by bigj480 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigcec1 72 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 I seen it last night I thought it was pretty good kinda long but I guess every ones stories had to be told but I never ask why did some one do something in a Quentin Tarantino movie cause there is no point in why. im shure in Quentin Tarantino,s head it makes scence why but not any one elses good stuff though Wish it was 5.50 for me to see it though but it was woth it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Going to see it with my Son tomorrow night!!! Have seen every Tarantino with my son since kill bill.... Loved the Shogun Assassin tribute in KB2.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
forceflow17 16 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Just got back from seeing it, and it was amazing! "Quite frankly, Werner, Donny beating Nazis to death is as close as we ever get to going to the movies." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Racer 27 37 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm not going to watch this movie, most likely ever. Taranintono is just fucked up in the head. I have watched the last 4 or 5 movies of his the only one that was any good was From dusk to dawn. He is an over rated producer that has nothing to offer but an over-aboundice (spelling) of blood. Did I mention that he is fucked in his head? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigj480 203 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm not going to watch this movie, most likely ever. Taranintono is just fucked up in the head. I have watched the last 4 or 5 movies of his the only one that was any good was From dusk to dawn. He is an over rated producer that has nothing to offer but an over-aboundice (spelling) of blood. Did I mention that he is fucked in his head? I'm not a big Tarantino fan either, but I enjoyed this movie. The only other Tarenteno movie's I've really watched is "From Dusk to Dawn" and "Death Proof"(lame), and I thought this movie was going to be cheesy and lame, but I was pleasantly surprised. There is less blood that I thought there would be, too, not that I care. It is long, though, and I do think Tarantino is a bit strange. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) ... might be Pitt's best acting role, I think. I'm surprised this forum's not lit up on it. Bunch of Americans waging guerilla war in France with lots of references to apaches. Not tons of action but lots of build up of the characters and Tarantino's penchant for arching threads coming together for the plot climax. I saw it the other day and agree, Pitt did a great job. Christoph Waltz, the actor that played Col. Hans Landa also did a great job as the very gracious and polite villain. Til Schweiger as Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz did the same type of deadpan and stolic killer he played in "The Replacement Killers." But that is really what the part called for! But the multi thread to big ending plot was not handled as well as it was in Pulp Fiction and the movie really dragged along in places. I also wanted to see more of the exploits of the Bastards and there the movies suffered as well. Tarantino has a well deserved reputation for being a master of dialog, but he has indulged himself in that area too much for my taste in this movie. It was not a bad movie, it was worth seeing, but it could have been better. I give it, one thumbs up. Edited August 24, 2009 by Azrial Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Definitely worth the $5.50 it cost to see it. Damn, where do you go see movies? Last time I was at the theater, a couple months ago, it was $18 and some change for my girl and I. Even the "matinee" prices are like $7 here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tover26 18 Posted August 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) Definitely worth the $5.50 it cost to see it. Damn, where do you go see movies? Last time I was at the theater, a couple months ago, it was $18 and some change for my girl and I. Even the "matinee" prices are like $7 here. Edited August 24, 2009 by EricinMaryland Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ryann 8 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Definitely worth the $5.50 it cost to see it. Damn, where do you go see movies? Last time I was at the theater, a couple months ago, it was $18 and some change for my girl and I. Even the "matinee" prices are like $7 here. Yeah, really! Our theater is 10 bucks a pop, good grief! I loved it, but SO gruesome... in a way only Taranintono can do. It made me all squeemish! Not the usual blood and guts... The very last seen where Brad is carving his last victim... That will be an image I'll never forget! (among others...) I liked it though, I'd see it again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tover26 18 Posted August 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 There are some subtleties to the movie. Most WW2 movies follow the Saving Private Ryan style, which while a great movie, sought to recreate some actual event. Inglorious was a complete twist. I'm not going to give away any spoilers, but you have to know a little bit about WW2 and WW2 movies. For example, the filming of "Nation's Pride" as a plot mechanism shows all this stuff going on, which basically follows almost every WW2 movie ever made. In the midst of that, you have a subplot going on... that follows it with the pretty boy Zoller romancing the cinema owner... because that pretty boy romance was completely left out of the Nation's Pride movie. I find things like this a bit slow in development, but very fun that a director went out of his way to do some character and plot development while criticizing the massive movie budget reliance on special effects and canned cliches. The fact that they don't show a lot of the basterds exploits lends to the movie as well, though I think it would have been fun to see more. I think less is more. You hear about it by reputation and story telling and in the reactions of the different characters. In actual WW2, during this time, you have massive guerrilla war breaking out all over France and Spain as the allies get ready for D-Day. You have spies everywhere as well and anyone in France during the weeks leading up to D-Day would have been on high alert especially in/near Paris and all along the coastline. Spies everywhere and loyalties all messed up. In the middle you drop a Gestapo agent, a bunch of drunk Nazis, a double-agent, the basterds, and Ally spies. Shooting the guy in the nuts works just great and, I felt, illustrated how no amount of planning can accurately create a rock solid plan... reality interrupts too much and changes things. To the dialogue point, I felt it was effective in drawing me into the movie. Death Proof sucked... most boring movie ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) I thought it was a lot of fun, which is what movies should be. I agree with the "long" comments. However, the first chapter was done ala Sergio Leone and without such a stellar soundtrack, the Dollars series would have been awful and boring! But due to Ennio's soundtrack they are classics! I think it is very similar to Tarantino's other fair where action is not really shown (Kill Bill being the exception), but eluded to in flashbacks and dialogue. However, I wouldn't have been upset to see more of the Basterds exploits... especially The Bear Jew! Eli Roth did a great job! I was disappointed when certain characters that you really grow to like end up dead, but that is another trademark of Quentin's movies (John Travolta died in Pulp Fiction, The Kung Fu Master in Kill Bill, and everyone in Reservior Dogs but Mr. Pink). Edited August 24, 2009 by BuffetDestroyer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigj480 203 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Definitely worth the $5.50 it cost to see it. Damn, where do you go see movies? Last time I was at the theater, a couple months ago, it was $18 and some change for my girl and I. Even the "matinee" prices are like $7 here. Cinemark Tinseltown 15 Beaumont, TX Adult Matinee before 6pm $5.25 We drove out there just for the hell for it, from Houston, and we wanted to eat at Checkers for the first time in years. Unfortunately I-10 was shut down on our way back so gas made up for low ticket prices several times over. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vbrtrmn 167 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 My brother said this was a decent flick, I'll probably watch it this week. My favorite Tarantino movie is a very little know one called "Jackie Brown", staring Pam Grier, Robert Forster, Robert De Niro, Samuel L. Jackson, Bridget Fonda and Michael Keaton. Great flick, great soundtrack and totally fucked up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Brown_%28film%29 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SovietGinger 16 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) Bonjourno. Edited August 24, 2009 by SovietGinger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GregM1 241 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 i am afraid of reading this thread for fear of spoilers. If any are included, could we alter the title of the thread? let me know if i should wait to read this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kriegerwithin 0 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Weren't the Nazis denounced because of their torture and murder? Weren't alot of POWs executed after WW2 for their war crimes? Why weren't these people denounced or executed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigj480 203 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Weren't the Nazis denounced because of their torture and murder? Weren't alot of POWs executed after WW2 for their war crimes? Why weren't these people denounced or executed? The film is not an accurate depiction of history. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Weren't the Nazis denounced because of their torture and murder? Weren't alot of POWs executed after WW2 for their war crimes? Why weren't these people denounced or executed? No they were denounced because they lost. If they had won no one would be denouncing them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kriegerwithin 0 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 No they were denounced because they lost. If they had won no one would be denouncing them. Your not getting my point though. We set rules and regulations for the whole world to follow by but don't govern ourselves by them. The Allies, (mostly the USSR, this movie is a prime example of American crimes also) committed more war crimes than the Nazis but the Nazis were the only ones to be punished for them. Don't get me wrong, my grandfather fought the Nazis and got some impressive medals and stories from the war. All I'm sayin is, if both sides commit crimes, both sides need to be punished for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cvhanh20 1,052 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Taranintono is one fucked up dude! Anyone that stars in his own movie where his nuts are falling off while his trying to rape a woman hits both sides of that fence. He is big on himself but what the hell, I'm whit Jugg, me and my boys will see this together soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 No they were denounced because they lost. If they had won no one would be denouncing them. Your not getting my point though. We set rules and regulations for the whole world to follow by but don't govern ourselves by them. The Allies, (mostly the USSR, this movie is a prime example of American crimes also) committed more war crimes than the Nazis but the Nazis were the only ones to be punished for them.... Dude, this is not a documentary. This is not real. It never really happened that way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BronCobraJet 80 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Dusk to dawn and Planet Terror, among others were fun to watch. Anyone that has enough imagination to put an AR-15 on an amputees stump (Cherry) gets my vote! I will definately look out for this one! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kriegerwithin 0 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Dude, this is not a documentary. This is not real. It never really happened that way. I never saw the movie, but I'm sayin it DID happen did it not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigsal 757 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) Your not getting my point though. We set rules and regulations for the whole world to follow by but don't govern ourselves by them. The Allies, (mostly the USSR, this movie is a prime example of American crimes also) committed more war crimes than the Nazis but the Nazis were the only ones to be punished for them. Are you fucking kidding me? The US and her allies committed far, Far , FAR less criminal acts during the 2nd World War than the Nazi enemy. Youve been spending to much time reading stormfront.org, try cracking a book. Also, I hate you and I hope you die. Edited August 25, 2009 by bigsal Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.