May 20, 2009, 8:46 a.m. CST
I won't believe it.
May 20, 2009, 8:47 a.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 8:47 a.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 8:48 a.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 8:50 a.m. CST
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS "a colossal armor plated turkey from hell...awful."<p> The Guardian review. Fuuuuck this film is getting slated by the pros.
May 20, 2009, 8:51 a.m. CST
Although there were no boos either.
May 20, 2009, 8:52 a.m. CST
michael j plant, at your service!
May 20, 2009, 8:52 a.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
Because The Revenge of the Giant Face was fucking awesome. Heaps of people won't get it, but it was, is and always will be a brilliant fucking way to end this movie.
"almost like THE LONGEST DAY"<p> Wtf???!!<p>
May 20, 2009, 8:58 a.m. CST
by S-Mart shopper
'cause that's how the movie's been promoted so far.<p>sounds like Transformers in THAT respect.
May 20, 2009, 9 a.m. CST
Also wary of reviews that use the verb "deliver" when it comes to the subject film. Finally, Melanie Laurent must have gotten hold of some of Natassja Kinski's DNA.
May 20, 2009, 9 a.m. CST
Promising one thing and giving endless dialogue? Don't get me wrong. I'm still there opening day. I'm just glad I know what not to expect before I buy my ticket, that's all
May 20, 2009, 9:04 a.m. CST
this is a pretty lukewarm review. i was definitely not a fan of the script - felt like a high schooler's attempt at a movie ie. embarassing. While the trailers have looked awesome, these reviews give me the impression tarantino's direction can't compensate for the script's weaknesses. my prediction: this is self-indulgent quentin who has failed to deliver on what was an absolutely fantastic idea (bring back the men on a mission ww2 movie). also what is brad pitt talking about 'his masterpiece'? what happened to fight club or seven?
May 20, 2009, 9:08 a.m. CST
Just read elsewhere that the Cannes screening was a disaster...the final nail in Tarantino's long overdue demise.
May 20, 2009, 9:09 a.m. CST
And yes, it was the Guardian review ;)
May 20, 2009, 9:10 a.m. CST
wtf? that sounds terrible! who gives a shit?<p> Anyway, that review was positive enough to add to the dvd pile. Glad to hear it's not full of gratuitous nazi-slaughter as the trailer made out.
May 20, 2009, 9:13 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
Man if you work for a studio and you're going to big up your own product at least try not to lie about a commonly reported fact that there was no booing and no cheering or raptuous applause. The guardian's already slammed this film and said there was dead silence after the credits rolled,and to be honest I trust the Guardian more than Mr Matt 'Plant' Dentler. Man this movie looks fucking terrible. What is a hip soundtrack, sassy dialogue with overly cool and violent bloody scalping and killing doing in a film about a war where over seventy three million people lost their lives through illness, bombing, nuclear devices, conflict and holocausts. Tarantino should have perhaps treated the subject with more respect.
May 20, 2009, 9:16 a.m. CST
Everything I've read so far says..."Meh".</p><p>When reports are saying that a French Audience cheered for a fucking cartoon; but appeared rather reserved at the end of a talky/art house take on killing Nazis...that is kinda damning.
May 20, 2009, 9:17 a.m. CST
http://www.empireonline.com/features/cannes2009/Post.asp?id=537 although the other two empire reviewers aren't as enraptured. despite wise's assurances that he was 1000 per cent entertained, the review sounds more like he's trying to convince us it doesn't suck...not a particularly good sign...
May 20, 2009, 9:19 a.m. CST
This is a review from the 2nd Screening today - which went even better than the first according to reports.
May 20, 2009, 9:22 a.m. CST
What the fuck, man?<br> I mean seriously.<br> What.<br> The.<br> Fucking.<br> Fuck?
May 20, 2009, 9:25 a.m. CST
We've got this movie, right. It's got Schwarzenegger. Stallone. JCVD. Chuck Norris. Christopher Walken. They all play these fucking furious bad-asses, each with their own particular style. They come together as a team for the most fucked up mission of their lives. <p> And we'll see a bit of that, but mostly it's just talking. <p> NO! You fucktard!
May 20, 2009, 9:27 a.m. CST
...you posing fucks (you know who you are) will still claim to hate it. Just like you'll claim that T4 is a better movie than T2. Makes me fucking laugh...
May 20, 2009, 9:30 a.m. CST
as having read the hugely self-indulgent, often tedious and largely childish script the trade reviews on Screendaily.com and HollywoodReporter.com fit much more with how i expected it to turn out. In fact they say it has more good points than i would have thought from the script. Some negatives three reviews i've read all mentioned: 154mins, self indulgent, less witty repartee than usual QT, lack of focus, no character development, Pitt is "one-note", jarring Samuel L voiceover half-way through, very little action, largely wasted cast. The opening scene alone in 20 minutes long. There are good qualities apparently but the overwhelming impression given is one of disappointment and given the script that doesn't surprise me.
May 20, 2009, 9:33 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
That would explain the different reactions, but it still sounds like it's going to polarize audiences. Like Marmite. Still doesn't stop it being awful. Sventy three million people. Just think about that for a minute. Seventy three million people. And now over sixty years later it's fun and cool to kill Nazis to a hip soundtrack. Urgh.
May 20, 2009, 9:37 a.m. CST
to be fair to the reviewer the Guardian review, as with the trades, would have come from the main first press screening (they all have white press passes, or at least pink - it's a very strict system in Cannes and the established pros get priority) and from experience those screenings often have far less emotional responses. The thing to remember with Cannes and such is booing and ovations often mean nothing as booing stories invariably come from press screenings (the main competition public screening sees most people too polite) and the ovation stories usually come from the main competition public screening which has the director and cast in attendance, so again almost every film gets applauded and everyone nearby the filmmakers stands to applaud out of politeness, unless it's a real turkey. Believe i was at the competition screening of te uncut Southland Tales in 2006 and that got a standing ovation. These stories can't be trusted as a true indicator of audience reaction.
May 20, 2009, 9:38 a.m. CST
so, where is the star if the basterds are barely in the film? Pitt sure is hogging the spotlight for this one. LoL
May 20, 2009, 9:39 a.m. CST
...at Cannes. So yes, it might be possible that they were applauding at the movie. That's the interesting part about audiences: They react different in every single showing of the same movie.
May 20, 2009, 9:41 a.m. CST
I've read a lot of reviews now and that's the general impression I'm getting. Maybe not a classic like his first two movies, more good but with reservations. <p> The media do want to rehabilitate Tarantino, it just seems that this doesn't go all the way.
May 20, 2009, 9:43 a.m. CST
I suppose you also had a problem with Tropic Thunder, MASH, Hot Shots and probably a million other essentially frivolous movies set during wars. Besides, killing Nazis is, and always was a cool thing to do.
mode_7, killing nazis - it's not what you do it's the way that you do it.<p> Murdering unarmed German prisoners HOSTEL style is not the same as your regular WWII flick.
May 20, 2009, 9:59 a.m. CST
too bad the basterds weren't the focus. Definitely passing on this one.
May 20, 2009, 10:05 a.m. CST
by Series 7
You mean with a bad Johnny Knoxville impersonation by Brad Pitt, right?
May 20, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/20/cannes-film-festival-tarantino-inglourious-basterds it was destined to suck from the moment pitt was cast
May 20, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST
suddenly looks mighty po-faced. This looks nothing like Sly's flick.<p> This looks fun. Kind of like a cross between The Last Metro, Zwartboek and The Dirty Dozen. I'll be there.
May 20, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST
by Series 7
I guess Mike Myers still sucks because this guy didn't even give him ANY sort of recognition, good or bad. He is still in it right?
May 20, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
cobra--kai summed it up better than me. There's a world of difference between MASH, Tropic Thunder and tis flick. I just find Tarantino gratuitous, and I know people adore his films, I just don't. I watched Kill Bill 1 and 2 wanting to like them and I just couldn't, I got to the slaughter in that dojo and I just found myself thinking god this just doesn't have the class of the 70's kung fu it's trying so hard to emulate. I just find with Tarantino there are other films and directors that do it better than him to be honest with you.
May 20, 2009, 10:11 a.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 10:13 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
Thanks for the clear-up! I've never been to Cannes so I have no idea of any of the structure, so ta for the info! Does that mean Dr Parnassus is showing last day out of competition or all through the festival?
May 20, 2009, 10:13 a.m. CST
by Shepard Wong
but I have serious reservations about this film. I hope it wins me over. My own personal theory on Tarantino, after watching Grindhouse, was that the drug use has pushed him beyond the point that he can focus long enough to make great cinema anymore. Hope I'm wrong.
May 20, 2009, 10:15 a.m. CST
could be on to something there...
May 20, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST
by Stuntcock Mike
This one gets my dough opening day.
May 20, 2009, 10:18 a.m. CST
If you don't like the movie or the man himself then fine, whatever. But to imply it's very concept is somehow irresponsible or in bad taste is just plain bullshit in light of plenty of movies that have come before it.
May 20, 2009, 10:22 a.m. CST
Only two scenes of the basterds hunting? Damn you Tarantino!
May 20, 2009, 10:25 a.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 10:30 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
What movies exactly? You've listed three so far. Two spoofs (which play on movie treatments of violence), one comedy drama (which plays on the conflict itself with compassion). This film just sounds pretty horrible with no thought given to it's subject matter other than 'hey lets scalp a bunch of Nazis with blood and gore an modern music.' Where's the compassion? Where's the Empathy?
May 20, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST
I repeat what I have said before: if Til Schweiger is in the movie, I'm out. It's about time actors devoid of any talent get "rationalized", just as is happening in any other profession right now ...and sadly not just to people without talent.
May 20, 2009, 10:47 a.m. CST
Compassion and empathy...for Nazis? WTF?
May 20, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
hmmmm... maybe not empathy as the Nazis were a vile regime, but to me this just smacks of violence for violence's sake. But maybe I'm wrong, people are saying it's wordy, maybe the compassion is in the talking. But I doubt it.
May 20, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST
And they're usually fairly on the money in their Culture section...
May 20, 2009, 10:54 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
... yeah I shot myself in the foot there saying compassion and empathy. The Nazis were terrible, but films about them tried to show that they were human; Das Boot, Downfall, Valkyrie. This just sounds like gore porn...
May 20, 2009, 10:59 a.m. CST
I've ever heard. By the way, this is not a good review. It lacks real substance.
May 20, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 11:20 a.m. CST
He used the word 'boring'. Any self-respecting movie critic knows he, or she, can never use the word boring to describe a movie.
May 20, 2009, 11:20 a.m. CST
I really disliked Death Proof and Kill Bill was incredibly uneven. I think the man has talent but at the same time I wonder if he'll ever have anything to offer but homage-type films.
May 20, 2009, 11:23 a.m. CST
What makes real cruelty so outrageous is that it's performed by men, not monsters. So there's nothing wrong with portraing german soldiers, including those slaughtered by the Basterds as humans, regardles of the amount of the individual's guilt. Which of course there is, I as a German would be the last to deny that. <p> So I hope QT doesn't fall in the cheap vein of portraing cruelties just so that the audience gets some kicks out of it. Thats why the presence of torture pornographer Eli Roth keeps me a little sceptic about this films. Though I do put some trust in QTs talent and don't see his previous films as a cheap glorification of violence. <p> From the interrogation clip of today it seems the germans are at least not the faceless, dehumanised cannonfodder of this film (think stormtroopers, masked ninjas, zombies). How the inevitable kill plays out remains to be seen, will it be cruelty to be perceived as entertainment or as... cruelty?
May 20, 2009, 11:25 a.m. CST
according to The Auteurs.com
May 20, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
Good point dude! I'm interested to know if there will be any morale ground on the inevitable killing or whether it's just an excuse to demonise an already demonised era of history just to show violent death. I'm not interested enough to go see the movie, as I think I already know the answer. I know Tarantino has a knack for pulling out the unexpected violence for the comedy reaction (e.g. the gun going off in the car in Pulp Fiction) but I feel that he (and a lot of other directors/studios/movie makers) have lost the idea that horrific violence for violences sake has no impact or point. This isn't a historical re enactment, every line and move on the screen is directly out of the brain of Tarantino, and this ghoulish concept says a lot more about the man than any flaming or praising session on this talkback could ever say. Violence is something he seems fixated on and it looks like he's lost why he shows it in the first place. If bloody death is what you like then I'm sure you'll have a ball, but I kind of need something else from it to make a film enjoyable let alone watchable.... Did you quote that line 'real cruelty is that it's peformed by men, not monsters' from somewhere? It sounds familiar. If it's not a quote then that's possibly one of the most eloquent and true things anyone's ever written on this site.
May 20, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST
Nothing there really except a synopsis of the screenplay. <p> I could have done that.
May 20, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST
"Intertwined in these moments is plenty of discussion about German cinema... Some have commented that the film is too talky, but I'd argue these dialogue-heavy scenes work rather well, especially when placed in sequences that are incredibly tense..." <p>Sounds like it fits right into my QT critique from another talkback: his films are okay to view ONCE, because you wade through the selfindulgent dialogue as you wait for something to happen. The anticipation brings the tension. But once you've seen the movie, seeing it a second time is unfuckingbearable because you're just watching two hours of yapping with all the tension gone.<p>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
May 20, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
... I didn't mean you personally with the 'if you like a bloody death' bit. I meant it to people in general you know?
May 20, 2009, 12:02 p.m. CST
i was very underwhelmed by the trailer, but this review makes it sound like that concentrated only on a very small part of the film. after hating kill bill 2 and being left cold by death proof i am cautiously looking forward to this.
May 20, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST
Really looking forward to it.
May 20, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST
before the general release.
May 20, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST
also, pitt is always a polarizing figure in movies - people either hate him or love him; I rarely hear someone say - he was great in fight club but crap in meet joe black (both true). he has turned in some stellar performances (se7en) and some of the worst on record (interview with a vampire).
May 20, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST
The trailers made it look like it was going to be wall-to-wall torture porn and Jew-on-German revenge fantasy. And that would have been not just distasteful (which can be a virtue in the right movie) but far worse: boring. If the Basterds themselves are not really the focus of the movie though, then I'll have to pay a bit more attention to this flick.
May 20, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST
'"For me, it's like kosher porn," Roth said. "It's something I have fantasized about since I was a very young child. And it really was like I performed a sex scene when I beat that guy to death and blood is spurting."'<p> Ye Gods that guy's a dickhead!
May 20, 2009, 12:38 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 12:39 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 12:41 p.m. CST
this is my most anticipated film to watch this summer, but then a first review in a german "time" like newsmagazine is very bad. Overlong, no tempo and such. Hopefully its a rough cut. And weinstein was said to be not happy at all.
May 20, 2009, 12:43 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST
I don't think has "lost it" concerning the violence in his movies, I rather think he knows pretty well what he's doing.<p> When it started with the ear-cutting in Reservoir Dogs you reacted with revulsion, you didn't want to see that. At least I seriously hope so. It made absolutely clear those weren't some cool gangstaz but murdering criminals at work here, raised the stakes, worked to the culmination of tension in this thriller.<p> Of course Tarantino's films play to the lower instincts at times, but when he embraces his pulp/trash genres he allways knows exactly what else it is in these genres that the audiences fall in love with, that gives the genres their following. <p> Pulp Fiction acknowledges and embraces the over-the-topness of pulp stories and puts its charcters in such chlichéd and grotseque situations that that gun going off in the car fits in rather nicely. In another movie it wouldn't be the least bit funny. <p> Kill Bill. If there's one genre that defines "movies playing to lower instincts", other than porn, it might be revenge movies. But there's so much more in these two films that violence for the sake of violence, or of comedic effect just isn't the point. There's the pathos of Easterns. And Westerns. The fascination of the perfect swordfighter. At times a quite touching story. And of course total badassery. The violence either motivates the story (the bride's head shot), is insanely over the top superhero stuff (house of blue leaves) or very well deserved payback (my name is buck; plucking Elle's eye out) <p> So I hope there'll be more to Inglorious Basterds than bloody kills. The reviews indicate this. So far I found enough else to cherish in all of Tarantino's movies and didnt see them as tasteless violence porn.<p> Though you do have a point, when you see a Tarantino at the theatre there's plenty of people who are there for nothing but the bloody kill. I think there's a large percentage of Quentins audience who don't see the real qualities of his movies.
May 20, 2009, 12:57 p.m. CST
as in the script? I was reading along, sighing at some of the more obvious excesses, but accepting it as a QT project, until I reached the climax. At that point I gave a massive sign and realized the whole picture was just an excuse for QT to throw in some historical revisionism and create an alternate timeline, for whatever reason!
May 20, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST
We really need an edit function, Harry. The ZONE has one, why not here?
May 20, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST
God this is one of 5 threesomes i fantasize about. This is a beautiful fuckfest of: Tarintino, Kellys Heroes, and Til Schweiger,(love SLC Punk). It even outranks Meghan Fox, Scarlett Johanson, Me.
May 20, 2009, 1:13 p.m. CST
Why did you steal my name you little bitch? (sigh) That being said,..Eli Roth needs to toss Ron Jeremy's salad.
May 20, 2009, 1:13 p.m. CST
If Tarantino plays "We Will Rock You" from Queen I'm walking out.
May 20, 2009, 1:15 p.m. CST
Most of the time people will be polite at the movie screenings.The audience will clap and give accolades. After all, who wants to piss off QT. He might cuss and spit on them.
May 20, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST
And I'd wager most Jews have a fantasy or two about bashing a Nazi over the head. Seems perfectly normal to me. :)
May 20, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST
<p>The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.</p>That movie is absolutely incredible.
May 20, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST
***SPOILERS*** Its yet another genre-twisting turd by Tarantino. Only this time the "genre" is propaganda movies. The "twist" is having Jews going after Hitler, and succeeding. If you're expecting some kind of badass Dirty Dozen homage, you'll be disappointed. But, I'm sure reviewers like this one and Harry will all still say its badass. Which you might agree with, if you think Eli Roth is a badass Jewish soildier who could lift a heavy baseball bat, let alone smash Nazi's heads in with it. Its mostly him and the jewish girl during the whole movie. Pitt's role could be considered a cameo. The jewish girl sets up her theater to catch fire when a bunch of Nazi's come to see a new propaganda film, including the Nazi soldier who killed her family (its her family that's killed in the opening scene) and Hitler. The "Inglorious Basterds", or I should say Eli Roth, Diane Kruger, and Brad Pitt, get assigned to pretty much do the exact same thing (by Winston Churchill and Mike Myers). They succeed with the help of a Nazi soldier who asks for clemency in return. Which they give him. But, before that, Pitt carves a Nazi swastika in his forehead and says "This might be my masterpiece". I shit you not. That's it. It basically has the bullshit talking from DEATH PROOF; everything matches the theme, which is that the movie is a twist on propaganda movies (like how everything matched up to the fact that DEATH PROOF was a twist on slasher movies), and it has the action of KILL BILL cut down by half. Again, if you're expecting this so-called huge WW2 "masterpiece" that Tarantino has been supposedly working on for well over a decade, you'll be disappointed. Its yet another Tarantino "Look how much I know about genres!" movie.
May 20, 2009, 2:18 p.m. CST
That's about it in a nutshell. Tarantino is a genius homage genre film maker. He has never really taken it on further than that and since Jackie Brown I think his work has been tired and lumbered by predictability. When Dogs and Pulp were released he looked like a master magician but now it's more like a cheap street card tricks. His work from Kill Bill onwards has had absolutely no relevance which is shocking. You can't say that for contemporaries like Fincher, Aranofsky, Coens or Del Torro. They are all still pushing film forward. Tarantino is still jerking himself off with the same old tricks from a decade ago.
May 20, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST
think about it
May 20, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST
and we have to accept everything at that level only. Disappointed? Then go read a book.
May 20, 2009, 2:51 p.m. CST
Meta before meta was a buzzword. The guy knows what he's doing.
May 20, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST
diminished expectations. qt can't handle the long form, chatty, interweaving thread ensemble any more because it has become a cliche and his talent has been imploding for years (no, make that decades). i'd like to see him return to form, but i was far more pumped for this when it was going to be a direct and to the point dirty dozen type deal with a bunch of jewish american soldiers with an ax to grind laying on the ultra-violence across nazi-occupied france. now we are probably going to get some epic bs period piece with the middle age hipster edge we have all grown so tired of (except harry of course...did you know he knows qt personally?...and that their friends?...and that he has been to his house?...and that they are friends?...and...). Still hope for the best.
May 20, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST
more concise, less exhausting version to which the trailer seem to suggest was on the way. I may actually wait for the dvd version so I can skip each scene that doesn't involve the apache kill squad. The rest is going to be the usual crap.
May 20, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST
by Flames gotta Eat
What's disappointing to me is that this doesn't sound like half of the movie this was hyped to be. We've heard that Quentin has been writing this script for over 10 years, it was his WWII epic. He wanted Stallone and Arnold and Willis. This could have been his action legacy film. Instead it doesn't sound epic and it doesn't sound legendary. It sounds good at best. The whole thing is just one big let down, and yes there is the argument that NOTHING could have lived up to the hype we've generated over the years, but thsi sounds more lackluster than it should be.
May 20, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST
"By the end of the film — almost two-and-a-half hours later — its hard to care much about what happens to anybody on screen." <p>Reviews are coming in. NOT good. Split 50/50 at Rotten Tomatoes. <p> Read more about he "boring basterds" at http://tinyurl.com/boringbasterds
May 20, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST
My god, I don't see how anyone who wasn't on Crystal Meth could stay awake long enough to watch Death Proof in it's entirety.
May 20, 2009, 3:55 p.m. CST
"deliberately incoherent"<p> "entertaining yet uneven"<p> "still is too long and lacks pace. By giving his characters oodles of dialogue to spout he tends to slow down the action."<p> Yes...and those are from the POSITIVE reviews. So for all those QT worshippers, to quote the Wolf, don't start sucking each other's dicks just yet.
May 20, 2009, 4:43 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
that is what he does. why are people surprised by this?
May 20, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
so who gives a fuck what happens there.
May 20, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST
in pretty much every shot that I´ve see so far. Always grimacing or overaction like in a weird comedy, maybe he´s channeling his buddys, Clooney´s, Performance from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". Or maybe it´s just the influence of that ´stache??? However, this seems like just another talky, lengthy and narcissistic trip into Quentin´s Headspace, surely being praised by his fans as the 2nd coming of jesus.
May 20, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST
especially when he was beating up that kid. the right director can always pull a good performance out of pitt.
May 20, 2009, 5:57 p.m. CST
When he shows up uninvited to the Fords house is probably Pitt's best scene ever. The way he's able to make the scene so suspenseful by his subtle actions is just one of the many reasons that movie was one of the top 3 of 2007 (but so vastly underrated). I might have to watch that fucker tonight.
May 20, 2009, 6:19 p.m. CST
How can there be geek talk if its set in the 1940's? I have my reservations about this. I hated "Death Proof" with the terrible female characters talking about nothing! Eli Roth's nostrils are fucking scary.
May 20, 2009, 6:20 p.m. CST
Pitts was great, but that movie sucked the high hard one. Another talking scene? And another, and another and another....
May 20, 2009, 6:20 p.m. CST
best. spelling. error. EVER!!!<p>who else is picturing Schweiger in complete SS regalia, with full on tranny make-up?<p>oh, priceless. bad spelling...making Wonka laugh since 1998.
May 20, 2009, 7:10 p.m. CST
i told you for month this will suck!:) Guardian-uk Like the loyal German bourgeoisie in 1945, trying to keep patriotically cheerful despite the distant ominous rumblings of Russian tanks, we Tarantino fans have kept loyally optimistic on the Croisette this week. We ignored the rumourmongers, the alarmists and defeatists, and insisted that the Master would at the last moment fire a devastating V1 rocket of a movie which would lay waste to his, and our, detractors. But today the full catastrophe of his new film arrived like some colossal armour-plated turkey from hell. The city of our hopes is in flames. Quentin Tarantino's cod-WW2 shlocker about a Jewish-American revenge squad intent on killing Nazis in German-occupied France is awful. It is achtung-achtung-ach-mein-Gott atrocious. It isn't funny; it isn't exciting; it isn't a realistic war movie, yet neither is it an entertaining genre spoof or a clever counterfactual wartime yarn. It isn't emotionally involving or deliciously ironic or a brilliant tissue of trash-pop references. Nothing like that. Brad Pitt gives the worst performance of his life, with a permanent smirk as if he's had the left side of his jaw injected with cement, and which he must uncomfortably maintain for long scenes on camera without dialogue. And those all-important movie allusions are entirely without zing, being to stately stuff such as the wartime German UFA studio, GW Pabst etc, for which Tarantino has no feeling, displaying just a solemn Euro-cinephilia that his heart isn't in. The expression on my face in the auditorium as the lights finally went up was like that of the first-night's audience at Springtime for Hitler. Except that there is no one from Dusseldorf called Rolf to cheer us up. Pitt plays Lt Aldo Raine, the leader of an anti-Nazi commando unit whose avowed mission is to get 100 Kraut scalps apiece; we see the scalpings in full, gruesome detail, yet that figure is entirely forgotten about by the end. Mélanie Laurent plays Shosanna Dreyfus, a beautiful young Jewish woman whose family were slaughtered by SS Col Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz. She got away and (somehow) attained not only a new identity, but also ownership of a Paris cinema which is to play host to the premiere of Dr Goebbels's latest propaganda movie, in the presence of the Führer himself. Her plan is to incinerate the entire first-night audience by bolting the doors and igniting her vast inflammable stock of nitrate film. Meanwhile Lt Raine has his own plans for killing Hitler at the movie theatre and the Brits get involved too, in the form of suave Michael Fassbender as Archie Hicox, a crack commando making contact with exotic spy Bridget von Hammersmark, played by Diane Kruger. There are some nice-ish performances, particularly from Fassbender and Waltz, but everything is just so boring. I was hoping for Shosanna at least to get a satisfying revenge on the unspeakable Col Landa. But no. The two Hitler-assassination plots cancel each other out dramatically and the director's moderate reserves of narrative interest are exhausted way before the end. He should perhaps go back to making cheerfully inventive outrageous films like Kill Bill. Because Kill Adolf hasn't worked out. • Peter Bradshaw is the Guardian's film critic
May 20, 2009, 7:14 p.m. CST
As if "gone beige" weren't lame enough.
May 20, 2009, 7:19 p.m. CST
Not by a long shot.
May 20, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST
As if "only more so" isn't an option?
May 20, 2009, 7:31 p.m. CST
There is no appeal whatsoever for mainstream audiences.
May 20, 2009, 7:35 p.m. CST
" Cannes review: Tarantino's Basterds is an armour-plated turkey Quentin Tarantino's wartime spaghetti western about a bunch of Nazi-hunting Americans is just Gott-awful 1 out of 5 * Peter Bradshaw * o Peter Bradshaw at the Cannes film festival o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 May 2009 13.43 BST o Article history Scene from Inglourious Basterds (2009) Shooting blanks ... Inglourious Basterds 1. Inglourious Basterds 2. Release: 2009 3. Country: USA 4. Directors: Quentin Tarantino 5. Cast: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Mike Myers, Samuel L Jackson 6. More on this film Like the loyal German bourgeoisie in 1945, trying to keep patriotically cheerful despite the distant ominous rumblings of Russian tanks, we Tarantino fans have kept loyally optimistic on the Croisette this week. We ignored the rumourmongers, the alarmists and defeatists, and insisted that the Master would at the last moment fire a devastating V1 rocket of a movie which would lay waste to his, and our, detractors. But today the full catastrophe of his new film arrived like some colossal armour-plated turkey from hell. The city of our hopes is in flames. Quentin Tarantino's cod-WW2 shlocker about a Jewish-American revenge squad intent on killing Nazis in German-occupied France is awful. It is achtung-achtung-ach-mein-Gott atrocious. It isn't funny; it isn't exciting; it isn't a realistic war movie, yet neither is it an entertaining genre spoof or a clever counterfactual wartime yarn. It isn't emotionally involving or deliciously ironic or a brilliant tissue of trash-pop references. Nothing like that. Brad Pitt gives the worst performance of his life, with a permanent smirk as if he's had the left side of his jaw injected with cement, and which he must uncomfortably maintain for long scenes on camera without dialogue."
May 20, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST
....Time Magazine says its a "Misfire."<p>But this douche bag loved it? Mmmmmmkay.
May 20, 2009, 7:43 p.m. CST
dont say i didnt warned you for month!;) Critics attending the Cannes Film Festival are mostly expressing disappointment over Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. An unsigned review on the Hollywood Reporter website says, "The film is by no means terrible -- its running time of two hours and 32 minutes races by -- but those things we think of as being Tarantino-esque, the long stretches of wickedly funny dialogue, the humor in the violence and outsized characters strutting across the screen, are largely missing." The British trade publication Screen Daily says that it "offers considerable challenges to the attention span of mainstream audiences." Sukhdev Sandhu concludes in the London Telegraph: "Cannes normally adores Tarantino (he won the Palme d'Or for Pulp Fiction), but this time? It's not so much inglorious as undistinguished." But several critics take a machine gun to it. Peter Bradshaw in Britain's Guardian newspaper calls it a "catastrophe" and goes on: "It isn't funny; it isn't exciting; it isn't a realistic war movie, yet neither is it an entertaining genre spoof or a clever counterfactual wartime yarn. It isn't emotionally involving or deliciously ironic or a brilliant tissue of trash-pop references. Nothing like that."
May 20, 2009, 7:48 p.m. CST
....OF THIS PIECE OF SHIT. There are plenty out there to choose from.
May 20, 2009, 8 p.m. CST
why would anyone care for a review containing these words in this sequence?
May 20, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST
by Missing Dink
May 20, 2009, 8:24 p.m. CST
Jesus I'd love to watch that hack suffer.
May 20, 2009, 8:51 p.m. CST
Simple as that. Doesn't seem to need to exist.
May 20, 2009, 9:26 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Hopefully Basterds is good, it looks like shit. I'm sure its just another Seven Samurai rip-off.
May 20, 2009, 9:53 p.m. CST
a contest from a post I did for tastybooze. don't know if you wanna post it on AIBN, but there's a $25 gift certificate on the line for the best comment, and you can enter as many times as you can write funny comments. plus, the picture I found is, trust me, PRICELESS.<p> http://tastybooze.com/2009/05/guesstimation/
May 20, 2009, 10:22 p.m. CST
The picture you found is, trust me WHATEVER FUCK YOU!
May 20, 2009, 10:29 p.m. CST
I don't know how to respond to that. is that your girlfriend or something? or did it just make you throw up a little...
May 20, 2009, 11:23 p.m. CST
I hate to use the word, but Pitt's performance in Jesse James was kind of retarded. Not sure where he was going with it. Not a fan... Other than: Fight Club and Se7en
May 20, 2009, 11:56 p.m. CST
fucking amazing in Jessie James. The dumb down attitude of the general public didn't go for it b/c it was like nothing i"d ever seen before. Very Terrence Malickish(sp?) and can't wait to see him in an actual Malick film coming out later on. The best comparison I can give is in Fight Club, you had an actor and a movie star in the two leads. Nothing bad about it and he has had plenty of great performances over the years. Legends of the Fall, Babel, Snatch, Interview with the Vampire, all the work w/ Fincher , River runs through it, etc. He's really a younger Bobby Redford. They could be father and son in the looks department. But the guy has the pick of the litter when it comes to the big boy directors. No doubt about that. Just looking at his imdb he has a shit load of projects on the horizon and just about every one of them look interesting. But to say he wasn't great in Jessie James is horseshit. and of course the director had a lot to do w/ it as well.
May 21, 2009, 5:03 a.m. CST
Sorry, only just saw your question about Parnassus. The press screening will be within 24 hours of the official screening (they are usually night before or morning of - as the QT was). Parnassus has not sold in all countries though so may well also have market screenings which could take place in the Palais du Festival or around town at various points. These are for buyers though and you are not likely to see reviews out of them, so the press reactions should hit day of the official screening.
May 21, 2009, 7:17 a.m. CST
May 21, 2009, 7:36 a.m. CST
by balls of steel
Cheers for the info dude! Slightly off topic I know, but does this mean Gilliam's having trouble selling Parnassus to different countries? That surprises me as the cast (Ledger, Depp, Farrell.... and I guess Law to some extent) is pretty big!
May 21, 2009, 8:31 a.m. CST
As with so many of the great artists like Gilliam the bottom lines are not always great and as his last film, Tideland, bombed drastically distributors have been nervous about taking it on. So many distributors ignore a great film because they're not sure how to sell it and Gilliam on full Gilliam mode (like Brazil) is a tough first tiem out sell. It may, like Brazil, come to be seen as a masterpiece but no big distributor is interested in that. The problem, ironically, here is the name recognition of the cast will cause the sales company to charge fairly high terms in all likelihood which indies in many countries would struggle with (for instance in the UK several of the key independent distributors have gone under and closed down in the past 6 months and others are laying off staff all over the place) while the studios don't want to take a risk, they'd rather just make endless mid-budget remakes that they feel they know how to sell. Bitter, me?! Yes, well, maybe. This may not be the problem with Parnassus but i expect it's this cowardice amongst distributors for so-called "difficult" projects that have kept them off prior to critical and public reaction. If the reaction in Cannes is as strong as early indications suggest it should be i'm sure the film will get swept up quickly. I have to admit though i was surprised it had been a struggle on Parnassus as i would have thought the "Ledger's final film" angle would have been enough to hook distribs in all the major markets. Recession i guess it making them even more cautious than usual.
May 21, 2009, 8:46 a.m. CST
I never think that works... it just looks stupid.
May 21, 2009, 8:59 a.m. CST
Just checked out the trailer.... maybe there's another trailer out there, but the one I saw was just Brad Pitt talking about Killing Nazis. Is this a joke? I don't see where the humor is going to be.<BR><BR> The movie looks like it's written by a 4th grade Jewish kid wishing he could go back in time and exact revenge on the Nazis.
May 21, 2009, 10:34 a.m. CST
Sadly the script reads like it was written by a 4th grader as well! Personally i think that's where the title spelling comes in too. QT said in Cannes this week when asked about it that he wouldn't explain it because when you make an artistic decision like that to explain it is to take something away. I call bull on that. I've read the script. The whole thing is full of terrible grammar, spelling errors, misused words where you know what he meant but got the wrong term - and not always in the dialogue where you might argue it could be a deliberate Mrs Malaprop character-type, but in the stage directions etc. Equally this is not in a couple of errors nit-picking sort of way, this is lucky to get through a line without an issue. It is one of those scripts that if it weren't written by QUENTIN TARANTINO would be laughed out of the office, any script-reader would abandon within 10 pages. If it weren't for his name the reactions would have been similar to the exec in Ed Wood who thinks a joke is being played on him when he screens Glen Or Glenda. It is also terribly juvenile. The ironic thing i've found reading some of the talk-backs is the number of people that wish he'd focused on the Basterds exclusively, when ironically while reading the script i wished he had excised them completely and focused on the Shosanna character who in the script was the one fully formed character with back-story, drive, emotional realism. Had the story been done seriously and just about her this could have been his masterpiece (her sections of the script are brilliantly written and show both the flair for dialogue you expect from QT combined with the maturity he developed through Pulp and Jackie Brown before concentrating his talents into homages to his favourite genres.) It really could have been his Black Book, but instead he ruins it with the poorly written, and surprisingly non-key Basterds. It is bizarre that if you took the Inglourious Basterds out of Inglourious Basterds it actually wouldn't lose a thing, but it might gain something!
May 21, 2009, 12:39 p.m. CST
...All you have to do is enter your email into the newsletter thing, and they'll send you an entire spoiler for this movie... www.themoviespoiler.com
May 21, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST
dont say i didnt told you!:) it nice quentin gets what he deserves with such a no go cast like this! Devastating review from German Magazine "Der Spiegel", 20 May 2009 Author: dirtyfinger from Germany http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/kino/0,1518,626076,00.html Aus Cannes berichtet Lars-Olav Beier Marodierende Soldaten skalpieren im besetzten Frankreich Nazis. So weit, so grotesk und so typisch Quentin Tarantino. Ganz Cannes fieberte dem Film "Inglourious Basterds" entgegen - und hatte nach der Premiere des zähen Werks das Gefühl, Blut beiSelten sah man so viele Männer auf dem Podium einer Pressekonferenz in Cannes so heftig schwitzen wie an diesem Mittwoch. Unmittelbar nach der ersten Vorführung von Quentin Tarantinos heiß erwartetem Film "Inglourious Basterds" stellte sich der Regisseur mit seinem Team den Journalisten.m Trocknen zugeschaut zu haben. Mike Myers, der im Film einen kühlen britischen General spielt, glänzte die Stirn schon vor der ersten Frage. Daniel Brühl, den Tarantino als schneidigen Nazi besetzt hat, öffnete den Kragen seines Hemdes und zog den Schlips herunter, um sich ein wenig Frische zu verschaffen. Und der Regisseur selbst sah aus, als sei er gerade zwei Stunden lang durch den Regenwald gejoggt. Nur einer schwitzte nicht. Er saß allerdings auch nicht auf dem Podium, sondern direkt davor, zu Füßen des Regisseurs. Das war der Produzent Harvey Weinstein, der viele frühere Filme Tarantinos wie "Pulp Fiction" oder "Kill Bill" verliehen hat und damit sehr reich und sehr mächtig geworden ist. Im Sommer wird er nun auch "Inglourious Basterds" in den USA ins Kino bringen. Reglos, mit einem Blick, der den übelsten Schurken dazu bringen könnte, sich auf der Stelle zu entleiben, starrte er seinen Regisseur an. Dem strömten die Worte so unkontrolliert aus dem Mund wie das Wasser aus den Poren, dabei lachte er immer wieder hysterisch. Man konnte den Eindruck haben, Weinstein wollte nicht weniger als den Skalp von Tarantino. Warum er so finster guckte? Man kann nur mutmaßen. Vielleicht lag es daran, dass Tarantino auf dem Podium fröhlich erzählte, er könne sich mit allen Figuren des Films identifizieren, folglich auch mit Hitler (gespielt von Martin Wuttke) und Goebbels (Sylvester Groth), die in "Inglourious Basterds" von einer Gruppe amerikanischer Soldaten und deutscher Überläufer bei einer Filmpremiere in Paris getötet werden sollen. Oder lag es daran, dass der Regisseur nur wenige Monate nach Drehschluss einen Film abgeliefert hatte, der so viele Längen hatte, als handle es sich um die erste Rohschnittfassung? Denn "Inglourious Basterds" zu sehen ist so, als würde man dem Blut beim Trocknen zuschauen. Allein die erste Dialogszene dauert über 20 Minuten. Ein Nazi-Offizier (Christoph Waltz) sucht im Jahr 1941 mitten in Frankreich einen Bauernhof auf, um Juden aufzuspüren. Er schraubt seinen Füller zusammen, als würde er eine Waffe zusammensetzen, er trinkt voller Genuss ein Glas Milch, erklärt lang und breit, was er so macht, und trägt höchst umständlich seine Ansichten über Rattenbekämpfung vor. Nach etwa 15 Minuten schwenkt die Kamera nach unten und entdeckt unter den Dielen versteckte Menschen. Doch bevor sie kurz darauf von Maschinengewehrgarben zerfetzt werden, bekommt keiner von ihnen ein Gesicht. Tarantino beginnt mit totalem Stillstand - und nimmt danach langsam das Tempo heraus. Ohne jedes Gefühl für Timing walzt er seine Geschichte geschlagene 160 Minuten lang über die Leinwand. Er erzählt von einer französischen Jüdin (Mélanie Laurent), die den Nazis entkommt und danach in Paris ein Kino übernimmt; von einem britischen Spezialagenten, der früher Filmkritiken geschrieben hat; und einem deutschen Scharfschützen, der ein großer Bewunderer des Regisseurs G.W. Pabst ist. Die ganze Welt ist cinephil, und so ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass am Ende eine gewaltige Explosion in einem Kino Hitler, Goebbels und Konsorten hinwegrafft. Das Kino erlöste die Welt von den Nazis - das ist eine schöne retrospektive Utopie. Zugleich aber völliger Unfug. Nur in grotesker Übertreibung könnte diese Geschichte wohl einen Sinn ergeben. Doch Tarantino kann sich nie entscheiden, ob er sie nicht doch lieber ernst nehmen soll. Brad Pitt muss als Anführer der "Basterds" noch heftiger grimassieren als jüngst in "Burn After Reading"; Laurent dagegen spielt die Heldin der Résistance mit psychologischem Realismus. In diesem Film passt wenig zusammen. Wenn sich Weinstein mit Tarantino noch einmal an den Schneidetisch setzt, gibt es viel tun. Und mit einem feinen Skalpell wird es da nicht getan sein.
May 21, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST
its grotesque, stringy work, it looks like a rough cut, not a whole movie, harvey weinstein looked like he was pissed at quentin, maybe because of this movie with a lot of lenghts. it also says watching this movie is like watching blood is drying out (boring)without any feeling of timing tarantino waltzes his overlong movie. tarantino can not decide if he wants to take his own movie seriously or not. in this movie a lot of things doesnt fit and if weinstein wants to cut it with quentin again, there is a lot to do.
May 21, 2009, 8:33 p.m. CST
I am trying to write a script of my own so I deceded to download the script for IB, just for technique purposes...but I cant put the damn thing down..It is amazing!
May 22, 2009, 5:36 a.m. CST
Ah the irony.
May 22, 2009, 9 a.m. CST
PLEASE, I knew this would be shit when I read the sad-ass script. ADMIT IT IS FAILING AT CANNES, HARRY. MAN THE FUCK UP.
May 22, 2009, 9:36 a.m. CST
....is going to really grade on my nerves in this film, I can tell already..He should have got someone else to play the role..Pitt is too much the Hollywood glamour boy...
May 22, 2009, 10:44 a.m. CST
heh langhaariger: eine antwort vom headgeek persönlich... chick! muri71: coole sache! hab ähnliches gelesen. trotzdem gespannt. entire audience: never mind, it´s just german issues...
May 22, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST
May 22, 2009, 3:39 p.m. CST
In Dogs, Pulp, and Jackie, the long dialogue revealed character. But, lately, he can write reams of dialogue, have actors say them, and you learn nothing about that character. You learn everything about Tarantino - his fetishes, likes, dislikes, posturing - but it comes across, essentially, as someone who likes to talk about himself. In any case, I always hope for the best, if for no other reason than Tarantino goes to the same coffee shop I do, and he's always seemed like a down to earth guy.
May 22, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST
May 22, 2009, 8:02 p.m. CST
This from twitch (again, a site everyone should check out...) "Bad news, Quentin: Universal Pictures - production and distribution partners on Inglorious Basterds - apparently are insisting Tarantino head back in to the editing room and trim the film down following the mixed reaction in Cannes. Harvey Weinstein - never a quiet man - aint sayin’ nuthin’, which tells me this report has got some legs to it. "
May 22, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST
yep, sure is.
May 22, 2009, 9:58 p.m. CST
yeah - see there is an attitude I can support. "man the fuck up" and admit that for all of your unrequited qt love, this thing needs fixing before release. the second i read that ultra violent nazi killing machine that had been the focus of the clips wasn't going to be central to the plot, i started to lose interest. when i saw the reports coming back from cannes, i knew there would be massive edits - and that, my friends, is fine with me. i don't need another 4 hour hipster gabfest.
May 22, 2009, 10:13 p.m. CST
May 23, 2009, 9:20 a.m. CST
They don't need this propaganda movie. If the Germans would make a movie in which they go help the Palestinians against their Jewish oppressors the world would be too small.
May 23, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST
No - they should be reminded over and over and over again. That's how it works - you try and commit genocide, slaughter millions and lose then you get your nose rubbed in it until the end of time. And your argument doesn't really make sense - sure the Palestinians have a valid complaint; what does Germany making a movie about their suffering have to do with the monstrous crimes Nazis committed last century? If you're suggesting that might somehow make things all better, you're a moron - and a strange one at that. Another thing - how is this a propaganda movie? If the villains were the Taliban, would that be a propaganda movie?
May 23, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST
they created a monster. they must live with what they did forever so that it doesnt happen again.
May 24, 2009, 3:13 a.m. CST
from the Nazi regime. I would love to see how the Americans react when someone makes an anti-American movie. Oh, and if you think Germans should be reminded of their past over and over again then so should the Americans be reminded of their crimes over and over again. And if you call the American crimes fights for freedom you are even a bigger moron than you claim me to be.
May 24, 2009, 9:09 a.m. CST
http://tiny.cc/3uJNX read a real review not some plant
May 24, 2009, 9:10 a.m. CST
May 24, 2009, 9:11 a.m. CST
May 24, 2009, 9:13 a.m. CST
was he didn't finish the job he started... now the world is filled with people worse than nazis
May 24, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST
by Larry Sellers
I don't think the *Germans* are solely responsible for the atrocities committed during WWII, the Fuhrer and his Nazi regime were. Just like I myself didn't bomb innocent villages in Iraq or torture prisoners. Call it a lack of pride or responsibility or whatever, it's just unfair and irrational to make that type of generalization. No *country* deserves to be reminded of a period in their history. You think they're really embarrassed by a silly American film that glorifies violence? And considering what's described in the reviews around the net, this isn't really propaganda but it's just using WWII and attitudes held during that time as a springboard for Tarantino conversations and headsplitting. Whoever is being a touchy prick should know that. I don't think QT's intention was to rally hatred against Nazism or Germany 50 years after the war. He's just using that gritty backdrop to tell an interesting story in that crazy style of his. But as for the review...not one mention of B.J. Novak?
May 24, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST
by andrew coleman
Sorry I get the QT hate but at least he is trying something different and telling a story in a different way. I fucking wish someone did that with Wolverine they basically put Wolverine in a basic action movie plot and went "tah dah" this movie at least will be something different. I just can't handle the same shit over and over. That is why I like QT his movies are different and sometimes fun to watch because of the style and dialogue.
May 24, 2009, 11:28 p.m. CST
Maximize the ROI.
May 24, 2009, 11:31 p.m. CST
<P> <P> http://tinyurl.com/t9szx <P> <P>
May 25, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST
Valley of the Wolves, Redacted, Lions for Lambs, etc... and American audiences have all reacted the same way towards them. We refuse to go see them and they FAIL at the box-office, because outside of Hollywood, VERY few Americans feel like wasting their hard-earned money and time watching crappy propaganda films that falsely depict the United States as the world's chief villain.
May 25, 2009, 8 a.m. CST
if a movie's rated R? Gore and nudity don't make a movie great, otherwise Caligula would top the IMDB list. Drag Me To Hell is PG-13 and it looks damn scary.
May 25, 2009, 8:11 a.m. CST
but there is a huge disconnect between what the U.S. government does and the way Americans perceive themselves as a beacon of democracy. Sounds like this movie is no different. And while we can all agree that the Nazis were bad,I think Tarantino is being irresponsible putting out this movie at a time when we're dealing with torture (and the U.S. has tortured and has condoned torture, make no mistake). As well, his comments about "this is how the war would end if these guys were in it" are just frightening.
May 25, 2009, 8:40 a.m. CST
by Star Hump
You are one stupid motherfucker.
May 25, 2009, 9:45 a.m. CST
Especially ones made by Americans. Because for most people who fancy themselves discriminating, clever artistes, self-loathing + cynicism + despair = awesomeness. I mean, who has more super-cool-awesomeness than an anti-American, nihilistic atheist?
May 25, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST
May 25, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST
I'm still down to see it.
May 26, 2009, 7:12 a.m. CST
Saying he's inciting hatred against Germans is really a stretch, even for an AICN shit-talker. Do we have to disavow Raiders of the Lost Ark now? Are depressing Holocaust-weepies the only "responsible" WWII movies you can make anymore? And... There's a big thick line between hating on a filmmaker because his movies suck, and wishing he would get cancer and die because you hate him on a profoundly personal level that has to do with more than you just not liking his movies. I can understand disliking him as a filmmaker, but some of the haters here are taking it way too seriously, like Tarantino has personally wronged them in a way beyond just making bad movies.
May 26, 2009, 8:05 a.m. CST
This has nothing to do with the Germans and everything to do with the way the US conducts itself in war. All it takes is one or two gung-ho servicemen to see this movie and think of the Taliban or Iraqis as the new Nazis and things could get really f*cked up really fast. Tarantino ought to know better than to put crap like this out in the middle of a war. And like somebody said, Indy fought the Nazis but he didn't scalp them.
May 27, 2009, 1:16 a.m. CST
Why does no one talk about the cinematography of this film? It LOOKS awful! So clean, generic, and TV-like, just atrocious. The fact no one bags on QT for his bland cinematography in both Kill Bill films, Death Proof, and now this, is a sad commentary on either people sucking his cock, or people being completely illiterate in film. Probably a bit of both. <p><p><p> Hi.
May 27, 2009, 3:02 a.m. CST
The reason people don't bag on his cinematography is because, while he has thousands of mindless ragers, like yourself, none of them know shit about film.
May 27, 2009, 8:23 a.m. CST
If that´s bland cinematography, give me more crap.
May 27, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST
then I'm seriously confused.
May 30, 2009, 4:51 p.m. CST
I used to try and watch every Tarantino movie at the cinema as if it was a religion - until Kill Bill vol 1 which disappointed a little, vol 2 which disappointed and lot, and then Death Proof which I caught on DVD and seriously hated - I mean, the so-called "homage" to '70's car-chase movies like White Lightning and Dirty Mary and Crazy Larry amounted to what felt like 60 hours of UK daytime series Loose Women with swearing, and 5 minutes of chases!! I saw the ad for Inglorious Basterds today, and it looks like the pretentous rubbish that's held-aloft in glory by a bunch of 'up their own ass' Cannes critics!! I'll treat this with the same caution as most other Cannes biggies (and critically accaimed Oscar winners), in that I'll try to keep a wide berth of it!!
Dec. 24, 2009, 12:05 a.m. CST
I have watched this movie over and over for the last 4 days. This movie is bad ass. you fucking haters talking shit about a movie, that depicts a fictional ending to the war. Why? Because it does not focus on Jews being fumed, sickly people dying, nukes, frontline shit? Well I for one loved the scalping and gore of ball bats bashing Nazis, machine guns puncturing bodies, a bitch being choked out, and Hitler's body being riddled with hundreds of bullets. I loved when Pitt carves the swazy in the Nazi's heads. That is what could have happened had the U.S. not been pansies and sent in some crazy fucking men and women!!! so I say to all you haters FUCK OFF YOU CRY BABY BITCHES!! YOU ARE NOT REAL CRITTICS SO GET LIFE'S!!!!!!!!!!!