*** Official "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS" Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Movies' started by George_W_K, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. George_W_K

    George_W_K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    Ohio
    Real Name:
    George
    Thanks for the review, nice to hear that this is another winning film from Tarantino.
     
  2. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    Thanks for the review. Are you a fan of the original film? I see you said it wasn't a direct remake (they never are anyways) but I'm interested in seeing how close it is to Tarantino's "original" idea of the remake. He talked about some of it on the original film's DVD.
     
  3. Timothy E

    Timothy E Supporting Actor
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    61
    Real Name:
    Timothy Ewanyshyn
    I have never seen Castellari's Inglorious Bastards. I have reviewed a synopsis of the plot from the 1978 film and it is apparent that Tarantino's screenplay is entirely original. I cannot say whether Tarantino placed any "easter eggs" in his film other than the cameo roles by Castellari and Bo Svenson. I hear that Castellari's film is being released soon on Blu-ray to coincide with the release of the new film.
     
  4. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,241
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Inglorious Basterds". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

    All HTF member film reviews of "Inglorious Basterds" should be posted to the
    Official Review Thread.

    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


    Crawdaddy
     
  5. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    Thanks. I'm looking forward to seeing how much Tarantino "borrows" as this is always added fun to his movies. It seems a lot of people are objecting to this all of the sudden but I don't have a problem with it.
     
  6. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,261
    Likes Received:
    3,556
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
     
  7. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    To a certain level I think they have a point though. The "My name is Buck..." line from KILL BILL is often used as "showing how great of a writing Tarantino is" but that line is from someone else. That other person should technically get credit and there have been hundreds of other items in his movies that were "borrowed" yet he gets credit for them. Some use this as a negative and perhaps it is but I've always find the little winks at other films to be funny. For the most part Tarantino says where they come from and he certainly doesn't try to hide the fact that he does this unlike so many other directors.

    I'm hoping to be off work the day this opens so I can check out the first screening. I'm not a huge EuroWar fan but I'm still looking forward to this.
     
  8. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,261
    Likes Received:
    3,556
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    That's why it never bother me. Plus, he usually elevates what he's 'stealing'. For example, I love Eaten Alive (where the "My name is Buck..." line originates from) but Kill Bill is a far superior movie.
     
  9. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,512
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Ebert's review is up and is also incredibly positive. I'm now pumped. I'm there at 12:01 tonight..



     
  10. Timothy E

    Timothy E Supporting Actor
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    61
    Real Name:
    Timothy Ewanyshyn
  11. JonZ

    JonZ Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    7,795
    Likes Received:
    8
    James B says its QTs best film since Pulp Fiction (Im partial to Jackie Brown myself)

    http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=1774

    My anticipation for this was very low, guess Ill have to reconsider and check it out.
     
  12. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    I'll be seeing it at 12:40 tomorrow if all goes well. I'm wondering if the disaster (box office wise) known as GRINDHOUSE is the real reason Pitt is in this movie. I'm curious if Tarantino felt he needed a hit and what might happen if this film doesn't go over well. I'm interested to see the numbers but from talking to people at work, more "mainstream" people, it seems none of them are interested and that includes some die-hard Pitt fans.
     
  13. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,261
    Likes Received:
    3,556
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    ^ Not like I know but I think the "Let's kick some Nazi ass!" aspect of the movie is more of an attempt at a box office hit than Brad Pitt. Not that he hurts but he's a legitimately good actor so it's not like Zac Efron or Megan Fox or one of the Twilight vampires is in the movie.

    I'm going tomorrow morning at 11 AM.
     
  14. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    My theater had about 30+ people at the first showing. I was shocked to see how "aware" the group was as there was a lot of discussion going on about the original movie. A group of five where in there saying they bought and watched it last night.

    After the movie was over it seemed everyone was very disappointed. From the comments leaving the theater it didn't appear that anyone enjoyed the film. I found it to be a major dud and if you're going to change history why not have the Basterds really rip Hitler apart?

    In the box office thread Adam asked how disasterous the Friday to Saturday numbers are going to be and now I'm curious about this. I think the word of mouth is going to kill this movie and it's not because of the 70% subtitles. I think the misleading ads are going to have people killing this movie and with two bombs in a row, Tarantino might be in trouble (if this one does bomb).

    I'm going to see it again just to make sure I didn't lose my mind for 152-minutes but as of now I'm very disappointed. And yes, the 1978 version was better as it was at least fun to watch.
     
  15. Rhett_Y

    Rhett_Y Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    2
    How is the violence in this one? From the previews it looks like there could be ample amounts of it!
     
  16. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,512
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    Real Name:
    Matt
    There is a good deal of it, but not nearly as much as you'd think. But the violence that is there, especially what gets inflicted by the bastards, is surprisingly rewarding :)
     
  17. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,261
    Likes Received:
    3,556
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    If you saw the trailers and the commercials, you've seen most of the action in the entire movie. Obviously, it's more graphic in the movie though.
     
  18. Guest

    Hi Michael, interesting to see your people could have had such opposite reactions to the crowd I saw it with. As I said I think its important to go into QT's movies post-Jackie Brown not expecting them to be a certain way, because they'll undoubtedly disappoint. Not to take away from the validity of your experience, but is it possible that comparisons to the original more action-filled Inglorious Bastards, of which this movie is not meant to be an exact remake of, made it seem slow and ponderous, when if taken as its own experience, it might not have disappointed?
     
  19. Cory S.

    Cory S. Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    8
    Having a very, very hard time placing this in QT's filmography. For me, Pulp Fiction is the standard setter. I know some believe that Jackie Brown is that film(I actually have Jackie Brown last on the list but that's because it's probably been 9 years since I've seen it and I just can't recall much of it, compared to his other films, which have stayed with me). Either way, after those two films, for me, it's a toss up at to which film I'd place next in line.

    I can make serious arguments for the Kill Bill Saga, Death Proof, and now this. I just don't know. I do know that it's one of the best films of the year, by far. It'll take another viewing before I can really place this film.

    From my gut, I think I enjoyed Kill Bill and Death Proof(especially the Unrated Cut) more than this but there is something unique about this film...something I felt after watching Pulp Fiction, which did take me three viewings before I fell hard for it. With Kill Bill and Death Proof, it was immediate. I knew I was in love. Here, I was jazzed as I left the theatre, grinning from ear to ear. But, it was different from his two previous films.

    I will say one thing. This is easily my favorite performance by Brad Pitt. He just nailed everything in this film. Pitch freaking perfect. I wouldn't say he's the best performance of the film. He's just my favorite.

    And the balls on QT to have Pitt's character say that last line in the film. Just brilliant.

    By the way, if you get a chance to catch the absolutely ridiculous teaser trailer for Christopher Nolan's Inception, you're in for a real, real treat. My man is now a brand name.
     
  20. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    That is certainly what I'm hoping happened to me. It didn't have so much to do with the original movie but more as to what the ads were making it out to be. I'm not one of those who will read a screenplay before the movie is out and I know several versions of this movie leaked out way back when. I'm hoping I'll get more out of the movie on a second viewing and I was prepared to go back today but last night I watched Tarantino on Charlie Rose and I've decided to put off the second viewing for now.

    I first heard about this film back when he was promoting JACKIE BROWN (his best film since we're now on that subject) and I believe he was on Dateline or one of those types of shows. I remember him talking about this movie and the various ideas he had about it. On the original films DVD (and Blu-ray) he does a one hour interview/discussion with the original director where the two talk about what they should/would do with this "reworking". The thing that caught me off guard after watching the movie is that not many of these great ideas ended up in the finished film. Perhaps this ruined something for me.

    However, to back up my original thoughts of the lazy writing, on Rose last night Tarantino was talking that his script was done but he put it to the side and instead started writing KILL BILL. The theater owner in IG was apparently going to have a lot of "character development" behind her actions as was the German actress. All of this was cut out of the movie and something I complained about since we never were really told much about them. According to Tarantino, the theater owner was suppose to be the "revenge" aspect of the film but he took all of that out of the current screenplay and instead gave it to Thurman's character in KILL BILL. I found it interesting that a lot of the original ideas for this movie ended up going into KILL BILL.

    As I was watching the interview I couldn't help but get a little disappointed in some of the things Tarantino did here. He talked about some of the negative reviews out there for IB and I think he made a few good points but overall I still think he missed the boat. I'm hoping to be proving wrong though. For the record, I didn't care for KILL BILL VOL 1 either but loved the second one. Even sitting back and looking at my own thoughts, it's rather strange that I would love and defend DEATH PROOF, his most hated film, and yet sit here and think he missed the boat so badly here.

    The one thing Tarantino said that I thought was funny goes back to the mystery of the briefcase in PULP FICTION but here it's the rope burn around Pitt's neck. Rose wanted to know how he got it but Tarantino said it was up to the viewer, something he liked because each member of the crowd could be seeing a different movie just by the thoughts in their mind as to why and how Pitt got that burn.
     

Share This Page