Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS" Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
42 replies to this topic

#1 of 43 OFFLINE   George_W_K

George_W_K

    Screenwriter



  • 1,467 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 13 2003

Posted July 28 2009 - 01:10 PM

Thanks for the review, nice to hear that this is another winning film from Tarantino.

#2 of 43 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted July 29 2009 - 10:02 AM

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 of 43 OFFLINE   Timothy E

Timothy E

    Supporting Actor



  • 890 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2007

Posted July 30 2009 - 03:05 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

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.
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 of 43 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul



  • 25,101 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 31 2009 - 04:16 PM

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

 

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#5 of 43 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 01 2009 - 04:44 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy E View Post




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.

 

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 of 43 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,345 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted August 02 2009 - 04:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott ">

It seems a lot of people are objecting to this all of the sudden but I don't have a problem with it.

You gotta hate everything, it's the internet. 
					
					<br />
					
				</div>
				
				
								
				
				
				
			
				<ul id='postControlsNormal_3481676' class='post_controls clear clearfix' >
					<li class='top hide'><a href='#ipboard_body' class='top' title='Back to top'>Back to top</a></li>
					
					
					
					
					
					
				</ul>
					
			</div>
		</div>
	</div>
		
		
		<hr />
                
                

<script type= var pid = parseInt(3481676); if ( pid > ipb.topic.topPid ){ ipb.topic.topPid = pid; } // Show multiquote for JS browsers if ( $('multiq_3481676') ) { $('multiq_3481676').show(); } if( $('toggle_post_3481676') ) { $('toggle_post_3481676').show(); } // Add perm data ipb.topic.deletePerms[3481676] = { 'canDelete' : 0, 'canSoftDelete' : 0 };

#7 of 43 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 02 2009 - 07:01 AM

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 of 43 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,345 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted August 02 2009 - 07:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

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.

 

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 of 43 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,066 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted August 20 2009 - 05:51 AM

Ebert's review is up and is also incredibly positive.  I'm now pumped.  I'm there at 12:01 tonight..


Quote:

After I saw “Inglourious Basterds” at Cannes, although I was writing a daily blog, I resisted giving an immediate opinion about it. I knew Tarantino had made a considerable film, but I wanted it to settle, and to see it again. I’m glad I did. Like a lot of real movies, you relish it more the next time. Immediately after “Pulp Fiction” played at Cannes, QT asked me what I thought. “It’s either the best film of the year or the worst film,” I said. I hardly knew what the hell had happened to me. The answer was: the best film. Tarantino films have a way of growing on you. It’s not enough to see them once
 



trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#10 of 43 OFFLINE   Timothy E

Timothy E

    Supporting Actor



  • 890 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2007

Posted August 20 2009 - 07:09 AM

I was fortunate enough to attend an advance screening of Inglourious Basterds on July 25 in San Diego.  My opinion is that it is Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.  My review is up on the Official Inglourious Basterds Review thread in this forum:  http://www.hometheat...s-review-thread

#11 of 43 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted August 20 2009 - 12:07 PM

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 of 43 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 20 2009 - 01:29 PM

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 of 43 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,345 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted August 20 2009 - 02:36 PM

^ 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 of 43 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 21 2009 - 09:53 AM

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 of 43 OFFLINE   Rhett_Y

Rhett_Y

    Screenwriter



  • 1,260 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2001

Posted August 21 2009 - 01:34 PM

How is the violence in this one?  From the previews it looks like there could be ample amounts of it!

My DVD Collection

#16 of 43 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,066 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted August 21 2009 - 02:14 PM

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 :)
trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#17 of 43 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,345 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted August 21 2009 - 02:41 PM

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 of 43 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted August 21 2009 - 05:50 PM

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 of 43 OFFLINE   Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor



  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted August 21 2009 - 10:48 PM

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. 


"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#20 of 43 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 22 2009 - 05:14 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire View Post

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?

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.