May 20, 2009, 5:25 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 5:26 p.m. CST
" If anything, this film feels the least bit "homage"-like out of any of QT's movies..." Bullshit. Every poster I saw has been an "homage". In the trailer, I saw several shots that looked like an "homage" to other films.
May 20, 2009, 5:30 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 5:34 p.m. CST
I don't know any. Maybe one or two.
May 20, 2009, 5:34 p.m. CST
"if you listen very closely, you can hear the sound of QT's typewriter in probably every scene in Death Proof"
May 20, 2009, 5:34 p.m. CST
I'm just saying Take it for what it "hopefully" is, a Spaghhetti Western.
May 20, 2009, 5:36 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST
Just kidding, that's not nice. But I really did hate that guy for Cabin Fever and Hostel. But then he made Hostel 2. That movie worked, and how!
May 20, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 5:40 p.m. CST
for his "acting" in Death Proof. Geez, what does Taratino see in this guy, except maybe he's a fellow film geek...
May 20, 2009, 5:43 p.m. CST
Hey Quentin, Sly's The expandables will butt bang your sorry ass!
May 20, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST
And this is coming from someone who thinks Pulp Fiction is probably the best movie of my generation. I don't think Inglorious Basterds will even come close to fucking with PF...it might be good...but THAT good? C'mon now...
May 20, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST
Well, the review gives me some tentative optimism about the Basterds. Tarantino is going for the tradition of the Dirty Dozen, but I am also kind of hoping for more cerebral, gutwrenching moments a la Big Red One (partciularly the concentration camp scene). Tarantino hold Samuel Fuller in high respect and I hope he does not forget him here.
May 20, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST
Do people need "Thanksgiving" so badly that they wish violence against him?
May 20, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST
And they've been surfacing all over the net. Could it be that they're in the bag for QT regardless of outcome due to Harry's set visit? The mind ponders...
May 20, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST
His idea of playing a different character is by stretching his mouth in a different way when he talks for each character. But his mouth-stretching in this one is very similar to Benjamin Button.
May 20, 2009, 5:53 p.m. CST
..and I WANT YOU to suck my small, thin COCK!!
May 20, 2009, 5:55 p.m. CST
I don't like to hear this phrase this early into a year.
May 20, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST
I'm still confused about this movie.
May 20, 2009, 6:04 p.m. CST
The shots in this movie look pretty unoriginal. And Brad Pitt channeling John Wayne is a yawn. This movie is probably a little better than Death Proof.
May 20, 2009, 6:20 p.m. CST
"Good bad in the ugly"? That sounds like a euphemism for a filthy sex act.
May 20, 2009, 6:20 p.m. CST
by --- Emperor ---
Damn you to hell.
May 20, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST
This wasn't even in the top 5. <p> There are plenty of negative reviews circulating online. But Harry-friend-of-QT hasn't run any of them. <p> I wonder why...
May 20, 2009, 6:32 p.m. CST
u know i tell this for month, that this movie suck and it does, read review from a real critic and not tarantinas bitch! Tarantino reviews: 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, 6:32 p.m. CST
"You may have seen the film but as someone who has studied the posters and the trailers I say you are wrong!"
May 20, 2009, 6:33 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 6:40 p.m. CST
The stench of clorophyl is strong here.
May 20, 2009, 6:43 p.m. CST
QT hasn't made a decent film since Pulp Fiction. Of those made since, they're either poorly edited, too self-aware/indulgent or just generally shambolic (sometimes all three). Any new guy on the block wouldn't even get noticed if they'd produced the crap he has in the last 15 years. This is guy is dining out on past glories. Damn you... Quentin Tarantino...
Its strange. I had a feeling this film would be bad, but the negative reviews have very odd complaints. Take this from Screen International: "Inglourious Basterds is composed of a series of long-running vignettes strung together by a slender story thread. The problem is that no one character or set of characters runs through the entire two-and-a-half hour running time, and, with some of the scenes running up to half an hour each, the thread of the drama is left disjointed and the focus ever-changing." Isn't that just Pulp Fiction? Back in the 90s he was praised for this stuff, but now it's suddenly a problem. Other complaints include: Not enough action- Again all his early work follows that pattern. Why now a problem? Too much talking! Ok I understand why this was a problem in Death Proof - his characters were simply talking bollocks- but most of the negative reviews are saying that the dialogue was great, but are still complaining (!). So I don't know what to think. Hollywood Reporter's negative review is a well reasoned read though.
May 20, 2009, 6:55 p.m. CST
http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/05/74450/ Now this (!?) The plot thickens
May 20, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST
It's all dried up and wrinkly-looking.
May 20, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST
Yet somehow they have-for the most part- been portrayed as 2d monsters throughout cinema. That's why I find the premise of this film to be utterly ridiculous. No one seems to comprehend the fact that most of the Germans who joined the army in WW 2 didn't do so to exterminate the Jews... Ironically enough, Speilberg is one of the few filmmakers who has given Nazis some measure of depth (in Schindler's List, that is)
May 20, 2009, 6:59 p.m. CST
UP was, well, what did you expect it to be? But UP isn't the sort of thing that belongs at Cannes.<P> ANTICHRIST is the one that people won't shut up about.<P>
May 20, 2009, 7:03 p.m. CST
Sure, the plant could have seen the film and of course, he's more qualified to speak than I am. This is all I'm saying: He says there's no homage...but it is definitely evident just in the few snippets of footage we've seen. Is it possible that it's only evident in the few moments we've seen? Probably. But to say it isn't there is silly. I'm not saying QT is a hack or anything...but he's anything but subtle about the material from which he lifts/pays homage to.
May 20, 2009, 7:04 p.m. CST
All I care is the fact that the heroes of this movie are a bunch of psychopaths. <p> Put it this way, if in a prison movie molestors and child murderers are getting rapped does that necessarily mean the guys rapping them are heroes and doing it for noble reasons? No, they are just as bad and psychotic as their victims, its just that their good fortune to select targets who are hated way more than they ever could be.
May 20, 2009, 7:04 p.m. CST
i couldnt resist!:)
May 20, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST
by Sweet Action Hero
not what the peeps at cannes are saying.
May 20, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST
Obviously meant Raping and Raped. And yes, I am an idiot.
May 20, 2009, 7:09 p.m. CST
"Quentin Tarantino,fucking Harrys arse in 2009"
May 20, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST
I can't wait. But this Basterds movie, I can wait.
May 20, 2009, 7:28 p.m. CST
Are we going to get a review an hour, like back when every single person was cast we'd get a MAJOR UPDATE. Fuck. And you wonder why there's a big backlash in the Talkbacks. <p>To see non-Plant reviews that don't ejaculate ohmygodohmygodwowwwwww, go to Rotten Tomatoes, where the Basterds are fighting for their lives.
May 20, 2009, 7:33 p.m. CST
In the climax are <P> SPOILER <P> SPOILER <P> SPOILER <P> The top Nazis, including Hitler, killed? Does the film take place in an alternate reality? <P> END SPOILER <P> END SPOILER <P> This is what I want to know, because if so, the movie's even shittier than the script.
May 20, 2009, 7:34 p.m. CST
at this point...hearing wildly different responses to this film. ill just do what i always do and decide for myself.
May 20, 2009, 7:39 p.m. CST
11 min standing ovation, brilliant!!
May 20, 2009, 7:42 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, 7:46 p.m. CST
What fucking nauseating coverage AICN is giving this bullshit. Its a shit cast, a shit script, and one of the worst trailers ever made. Why do you suppose people will go see this again?
May 20, 2009, 7:48 p.m. CST
Including Variety, well done QT, this will be bigger than Avatar.... Easy!
May 20, 2009, 7:54 p.m. CST
If you think those are boring than you belong having Tea with Brett ratner and McG
May 20, 2009, 8:01 p.m. CST
didn't have half-hour sequences deliberately shot in bad imitation of French New Wave styles. Spaghetti Westerns told simple stories about hatred, fear, and the like without being bolloxed up with phony artistic conceits.
May 20, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST
by Dapper Swindler
Revenge of the Jews
May 20, 2009, 8:13 p.m. CST
NOOOOO. Say it ain't so.
May 20, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST
Thanks, but no thanks, i'll pass and catch this on a cheap pirated DVD. The Expendables is all i'm looking forward to, thanks God for Stallone!
May 20, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 8:48 p.m. CST
The spelling and grammatical errors don't quite jibe with the more-self-aware tone and language scattered throughout, which undermines its credibility. Who knows, maybe this is just what an enthusiastic, articulate-but-non-grammar-expert fan sounds like. But something felt funny.
May 20, 2009, 8:52 p.m. CST
If the first sentence of your review features a fourth-grade-level misspelling... You are automatically judged a dumb-ass and nobody will be listening.
May 20, 2009, 8:54 p.m. CST
I'd still rather read your plantastic review than anything by Yoko.
May 20, 2009, 8:59 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
May 20, 2009, 9 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
May 20, 2009, 9:26 p.m. CST
Outlander. That movie is all kinds of awesome. Glad I bought it blind. And it has it's main character learning Norse in little under 30 seconds and it makes sense in the context of the film. Unlike the 13th Warrior bullshit.<P> "Well you see, I was just sitting around this here campfire and watching and listening to you all talk, and BAM, I just understood it."
May 20, 2009, 9:36 p.m. CST
by dirty john
May 20, 2009, 9:41 p.m. CST
Cuz thats the vibe I'm getting..a war movie with little war...intrusive voice overs...out of place music...and patented QT aimless dialog(which was fine in Pulp...but expected and boring now). I am hearing the "Jew Hunter" is a standout part...but nobody (other than here), is crowing much about anything else.</p><p>2hr 39M run time v. 1.5hr DL time. Another one for the review before I pay file.</p><p>Oh..for those keeping score...I paid to see Star Trek after I DL'd it. It was not, is not, can't be "TREK", the script was shit, the plot paper thin and Roddenberry is cartwheeling in his grave...but it was stupid/fun popcorn flick. Don't think old QT will fare as well though from the trailers and reviews I've seen.
May 20, 2009, 9:42 p.m. CST
May 20, 2009, 9:46 p.m. CST
Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill are two of the best films of the last 20 years, but Death Proof was really terrible. I get scared when I read that the dialogue needs to be "tightened" for IB...
May 20, 2009, 9:47 p.m. CST
Damned space limitations...
May 20, 2009, 10:13 p.m. CST
And I NEVER say that about reviews. Ever. But holy shit, there wasn't a SINGLE part of this review that rang true for me. I don't buy any of it. Sounded like placating from a die hard Tarantino fan.
May 20, 2009, 10:31 p.m. CST
People have to finally realize this. He is just a guy you want to be, but his performances aren't that great. They never have been. He has no stretch when it comes to his performance chops.
May 20, 2009, 10:41 p.m. CST
Can't get excited about this. I keep telling myself everything I've seen is way out of context, and that theory has played out having seen what the trailer says the movie is about vs. the sheer number of stories being actually told. But even the new clips just seem so forced, so needlessly stylistic.
May 20, 2009, 11:07 p.m. CST
blehhhh i dont think he was right for this type of film, and i think he's just going to kill it. but than again alot of people might just go see this because he's in it. but, idk eww.
May 20, 2009, 11:41 p.m. CST
isn't this film a remake of a french film from the 70's that was essentially a remake of the dirty dozen? i'm glad tarantino has quit trying to hide his stealing of other peoples work (there's a difference between paying homage and no creativity) and just started blatantly remaking films. yes his dialogue is good, i'll give him that much.
May 20, 2009, 11:52 p.m. CST
...there is only ONE man to blame. <p> Shane Hurlbut. <p> He should have been looking FAR more closely at the light, if you ask me.
May 21, 2009, 12:06 a.m. CST
especially those that were there and seen it. They don't want to hurt little QT's feelings or get him pissed off.
May 21, 2009, 12:24 a.m. CST
This review was written by committee.
May 21, 2009, 12:46 a.m. CST
by Teddy Artery
May 21, 2009, 12:52 a.m. CST
such a funny word
May 21, 2009, 1:09 a.m. CST
http://bit.ly/17bDTv but then i kinda figured the reviews here would be one sided.
May 21, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST
Great in dramas. Smarmy, irritating in comedies/semi-comedies.
"The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography." . . . "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself." - Oscar Wilde (from the Preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray")
May 21, 2009, 1:27 a.m. CST
...and a "misfire". (Gulp.) I had high hopes for this one but now I'm getting a sinking feeling.
May 21, 2009, 1:27 a.m. CST
more talky than Death Proof? Suddenly this has slipped slightly on my MUST SEE list.
May 21, 2009, 2 a.m. CST
May 21, 2009, 2:19 a.m. CST
As long as Eli Roth gets a nice painful violent death I suppose....
May 21, 2009, 2:25 a.m. CST
Getting great reviews from the right places, sounds better than any of the star wars films
May 21, 2009, 2:34 a.m. CST
If not, what could the characters possibly talk about?
May 21, 2009, 2:36 a.m. CST
There's a chapter title. A bad guy meets a good guy. They talk pleasantly, then the conversation turns to the worse. Over and over and over. I saw all of his movies at least a couple of time. If they play, I'll watch them. But not this one.
May 21, 2009, 3:13 a.m. CST
by Righteous Brother
so who gives a flying fuck what they have to say?
May 21, 2009, 3:25 a.m. CST
outside of ledger's performance...(though creed from the office did it better than him...way scarier...)
May 21, 2009, 3:57 a.m. CST
He says most of the films he's seen have bored him? Well what films has he seen? Audiard and Bellocchio have got great reactions and boring is the last thing you would describe Von Trier's Antichrist as.
May 21, 2009, 4:03 a.m. CST
I could not see past the fact that Nazi's in Valkyrie were speaking english. It just took me out of the time period. I always prefer authenticity in my period films. I don't mind reading subtitles.
May 21, 2009, 4:23 a.m. CST
You need to check this out! Were Aldo Raines and Blakey from on the buses swapped at child birth? http://www.autoshite.co.uk/images/HolidayOnTheBuses06.gif
May 21, 2009, 4:42 a.m. CST
Reactions are in from the premiere of Quentin Tarantino's long-brewing flick "Inglourious Basterds" at Cannes, with most critics expressing disappointment in what many hoped would be the director's magnum opus. The film, described by movie writers as a first in the "spaghetti war" genre, stars Brad Pitt as leading Basterd, Lieutenant Aldo Raine, and Christoph Waltz as evil SS officer Landa. The film is set between France and Germany, with languages from those countries, plus English, spoken throughout with subtitles. Most reviews refer to the movie's final line, "This might be my masterpiece," which could easily be interpreted as Tarantino's own self-congratulation; however, according to several early reviews, "Inglourious Basterds" misses this high mark due to its heavy dialogue, expectation of more war sequences, Pitt's caricatured character and disagreement on pace. Positives include rave response to Waltz, Tarantino's mix of history and fiction and the director's typical inclusion of wit and humor in even the most gruesome scenes. Below is a summary of many outlets' reviews from the screening. Check out our photo gallery from the premiere, with shots of Tarantino, Pitt and beyond, for more "Inglorious" coverage. The Hollywood Reporter: "'Inglourious Basterds' merely continues the string of disappointments in this year's Competition... for a war movie there is very little action... Tarantino never finds a way to introduce his vivid sense of pulp fiction within the context of a war movie." The Guardian: "[T]he full catastrophe of his new film arrived like some colossal armour-plated turkey from hell... 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." Sharon Waxman of The Wrap: "[I]t was hard to miss Tarantino's skilled embrace of the elements that make theatrical moviegoing just plain great: scenes filled with dramatic tension, performances with depth and humor, rich and witty scoring choices, multi-lingual dialogue that Tarantino still stamps as his own, and knowing nods at cinematic history and the power of the medium he loves so well... As Brad Pitt says in the very last frame of the film, looking straight into the camera after a gruesome, signature task: 'This might be my masterpiece.'" Indie Wire: "[The flim] feels like a bubblegum sidedish to the heavy dinner plate of [Tarantino's] career... To watch 'Basterds' without considering Tarantino's implementation of enyclopedic movie knowledge makes it into a breezy, insignificant experience... dialogue scenes go on and on, people gets shot, lavish music cues make way for interstitial moments of contemplation, and so on. Get around to it, already." Variety: "[O]nly fully finds its tonal footing about halfway through, after which it's off to the race. By turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, the picture is a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor that's new for the director... pic features terrific production values across the boards." BBC News: "'Inglourious Basterds' clocks in at nearly three hours, and its director could certainly have trimmed more of its flab. This, and Pitt's character not getting the screen time he deserves, are the main disappointments... [Tarantino] is royalty at this festival - and as long as you can suspend disbelief and offence, he remains the king of trashy cinema." The Telegraph: "The problem is that there's not enough roaring or headhunting... There is far too much yakking, some of it thickly accented and hard to follow, most of it without the rhythmic zing of his best work... It's not so much inglorious as undistinguished." Boston Globe: "It's as talky as the talkiest films in the competition, but Tarantino composes great comedic dialogue that lasts the entire film... Tarantino never cuts totally loose... [Tarantino's] working with a large canvas here, and I think the scope of a war film doesn't entirely jibe with the kind of intimate violence he's so good at staging but never bothers with here... Even at 160 minutes, the film feels rushed." Daily Mail: "Vintage Tarantino to be sure, but a little more action would have been glorious... Not enough scalps."
May 21, 2009, 4:56 a.m. CST
by Lost Jarv
fuck this shit. Tarantino hasn't made a good film since Pulp Fiction.
May 21, 2009, 5 a.m. CST
it reads like a large studio potted geranium
May 21, 2009, 5:09 a.m. CST
Give it a rest, huh?
May 21, 2009, 5:30 a.m. CST
Too long, too much talking, badly structured plot...sounds like a certain film I saw a couple years ago.
May 21, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST
Wouldn't it be neat if "most reviewers" would stop giving away the ending?
May 21, 2009, 5:37 a.m. CST
Kill Bill 1? Kill Bill 2? Four Rooms? Death Proof?
May 21, 2009, 5:45 a.m. CST
Best movie so far this year. Funny, emotional, adventurous. You will care about the animated old dude within the first four minutes of the movie more than any character in 160 minutes of Basterds...or any character in ANY recent movie.<P>QT needs to go back and rewatch the performance he got out of Travolta in Pulp Fiction to remind him of what it's like to actually have someone in a movie that people give a damn about. (And after Travolta's string of whogivesashit, he should rewatch it as well.)
May 21, 2009, 5:47 a.m. CST
...don't suggest he has done anything new. And that has to be the whole fucking point!<p>(Enter Rumsfeld stage left)It used to be new to take the old and make it seem new again (early Tarantino) but then you want this new way of making the old new to evolve into a new way of presenting the new.<p>When was the last time QT had a new idea, did anything fresh? Is there so little originality left that we have to cling to the ball sack of a nostalgia junkie and stroke his droppers simply because he wakes the dead every couple of years?
May 21, 2009, 5:49 a.m. CST
Anyone who doesn't like TDK is simply not a film fan, plain and simple.
May 21, 2009, 6:56 a.m. CST
Brilliant and truthfully spot on post, nice one.
May 21, 2009, 8:07 a.m. CST
Those people you pity, the ones who struggle to enjoy Quentin Tarantino's recent output, need nothing of the sort.<p>They're the ones who pay to support original and fresh film-making.<p>I couldn't give a shit about who enjoys his films and who doesn't - that's entirely a personal choice. What I do give a shit about is the fact that it's a sad indictment of the modern cinema when reheated work gets people all hot and bothered - so what if he's "obviously passionate and in love with the medium": I'd imagine most of the people who review films also feel the same way. It doesn't make them the be all and end all. Nor should it affect how one judges their output. Headgeek is passionate and in love but his reviews are appallingly compromised by backhanders.<p>QT created a huge stir with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since then his films have been riffs on a theme, tapping the same vein and having to suck even harder to get any life from a rapidly shrivelling body of inspiration.<p>How is quality judged? By box office? Well, his returns are rapidly diminishing but money should not be a true signal of quality. How about awards? Oscar ahoy in 1995, with another nomination...same with the Golden Globes; Independent Spirit? Head back to the mid 1990s; ditto Sundance; NSFC? Same again. In fact, nothing of note for well over a decade. But what do critics know? Right? So I guess it just has to be based upon opinion which can be debated until we're blue in the face.<p>QT gets a lot of love for Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction: that was one helluva combination, but since then it might seem like he has been peddling the same-old-same-old, just tarting it up with an even broader range of meta-filmmaking.<p>He reminds me of Guy Ritchie - both had shit-hot openers (Reservoir & Lock Stock), followed them with strong or stronger seconds (Snatch & Pulp Fiction) then gradually let themselves and a generation of fans down by grinding out the same sort of I-love-film-therefore-love-me shtick.<p>I can't think of worse comparison than Ritchie and Tarantino, but there you go.
May 21, 2009, 8:07 a.m. CST
That's some serious torture you did to yourself.<p>Why hasn't this site reviewed "AntiChrist" yet anyway? It is the most talked about film at Cannes.
May 21, 2009, 8:08 a.m. CST
by Shepard Wong
written by someone who is not borderline retarded.
May 21, 2009, 8:32 a.m. CST
Some would argue that QT got even better after PF, you may or may not like KB, but this is, according to most ppl from a poll of thousands of ppl by Total Film, his best film. Guy Ritchie... Please!! He has yet to hit the heights of QT in any form. Anyway, whatever, u prob won't like IB, I prob will, who cares. Whatever happens it will be better than anything michael bay puts out past or future.
May 21, 2009, 8:36 a.m. CST
May 21, 2009, 8:59 a.m. CST
He ain't all that. Seriously. He makes movies like a 12 year old.
May 21, 2009, 9:17 a.m. CST
Same with George Lucas & James Cameron
May 21, 2009, 9:27 a.m. CST
Bale is a false god. Repent you cunts.
May 21, 2009, 10:25 a.m. CST
Given the number of articles this site has posted since QT announced this project (how many years ago has it been?, it's not surprising that every media outlet has been lining up to slurp on Quentin's ball sweat. There was no less than THREE separate articles on IB in a recent Toronto paper. (yes, I know print is dead.) hey, Quentin, you hipster fuckhead doofus. Wake me up when you write something original. No "riffs, rip-offs, re-inventions or homages." Surprise me.
May 21, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST
May 21, 2009, 10:28 a.m. CST
Are you fucking kidding me? James Cameron wipes his ass with Tarantinos Scripts. The god is a fucking moviegod. Trannytino got Pulp Fiction, I give him that. But Cameron made masterpieces like Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2!!! Welcome back to reality, man!
May 21, 2009, 11:14 a.m. CST
fucks who give Tarantino shit should be given an injection of the aids virus into your cornea. Yabble-Dabble.
May 21, 2009, 11:16 a.m. CST
May 21, 2009, 11:33 a.m. CST
but forget Jackie Brown. Maybe Tarantino should try another adaptation, since it seems he's wrapped up in his own hype to know when to edit himself.
May 21, 2009, 11:34 a.m. CST
I loved it. I am a big Tarantino fan. The long conversations that took place in DP, loved them. I found them entertaining. Inglourious Basterds will be fantastic like I predicted it would be when I first heard he was shooting it. The trailer looks great. Eli Roth didn't have a large enough speaking roll in DP for me to officially say he sucks but I will judge him by this movie. IB will be/is a masterpiece amoung Tarantino fans. I have read some bad reviews and I must say that thier complaints were bullshit. Too much talking? Reservior Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Death Proof. Not enough action? All those same movies. Kill Bill was full of action because it was supposed to be like that (a hard, driven, revenge flick). Inglourious Basterds isn't supposed to be like another KB. Its going to be like wonderful, good ol' Tarantino fashion. P.S.: For those that saw it and/or read the script, is there any mention of Coolige's gold watch from PF?
May 21, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST
They were racist and deserved to be destroyed. Go Allies!
May 21, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST
...HOW DOES THAT SUCK!? The scene where they break that dude out of prison. FUCKING AWESOME! WHOEVER SAYS THIS MOVIE SUCKS HAS THIER HEADS WAY UP THIER ASSES!
May 21, 2009, 12:06 p.m. CST
how can this possibly be tarantino's masterpiece?
May 21, 2009, 12:07 p.m. CST
i'm a big tarantino fan but this movie sounds like the complete opposite of what i wanted in one of his films. the action set pieces in all of his films are most excite me. so the idea that this doesn't really have much action and that its a WAR film really bums me out.
May 21, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST
Last I checked there was a lot of ACTION during World War Two. Or am I mistaken about that fact?
May 21, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST
by Quake II
What's the fucking bile all about on here? I am more excited to see Basterds than any other movie this summer. By far. Tarantino has a pretty good track record. Reservior Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown..All exceptionally shot, smart & well written films. Kill Bill was decent fun. Worth the admission. Death Proof was "ok". Not a lot of replay value but better than 90% of the "blockbuster" films Holywood shits out every year. Basterds sounds like an amazing time at the movies. And I love World War 2 films. Realistic or not.
May 21, 2009, 12:17 p.m. CST
by Shepard Wong
before judging Eli Roth. Surely under the Grand Master of Film's direction, he could give nothing than the finest performance in the history of film.
May 21, 2009, 12:17 p.m. CST
And then say its way more talky than you'd expect and have some "pretty decent complaints"? <p> Reaction does not compute and reeks of someone who was disappointed and wants to convince himself it was "awesome".
May 21, 2009, 12:24 p.m. CST
THE FOOT FETISH SCENE??
May 21, 2009, 12:26 p.m. CST
Why does everyone say Death Proof sucked? Ummmm, cuz it did...
May 21, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST
After watching and enjoying Planet Terror, Death Proof just came off as a tedious and dull exercise in lengthy gab sessions that went nowhere. The stuff with Russell was good to a point but generally the whole thing felt like a ridiculously self-indulgent venture, which frankly goes against the grain of what Grind House is supposed to be all about. I read critics praising the dialogue and to this day that mystifies me because I found nothing memorable about any of it. Also, that whole ironic shift, where we discover Stuntman Mike is a pussy who squeals from the pain of being shot, is incredibly lame because it literally makes no sense. A guy who smashes up cars and breaks his own bones when killing others suddenly turns into a petrified little bitch when receiving a flesh wound? It was a nonsensical twist that punctuated what I found to be a very dull film.
May 21, 2009, 12:47 p.m. CST
a magazine rack in the convenience store that, I believe, is very telling. Visible during the pan are copies of Film Comment (I seem to remember) next to Fangoria. I think Tarantino was implying that Death Proof was a film to satisfy both the elite critics and the gorehounds, and in trying to do so, he satisfied neither.
May 21, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST
by I am_NOTREAL
He's a guy who can't control his own worst instincts and has no discipline as a storyteller. He's almost cursed by the success of Pulp Fiction because now he's like a painter who just spazzes out over a canvas Pollock-style with no good reason for his stylistic flourishes (the animated section of "Kill Bill 1" being a classic example--what the fuck for? Except just because you can?) Pulp Fiction WAS genius, but with each passing film it is revealed as lightning in a bottle, a one-time, just-right confluence of writing, direction, and acting that produced a true high water mark of American cinema. He's been chasing it ever since. I would say that AICN is the only place that drools over Tarantino now, but I recall EW gushing over both Kill Bills AND Death-Proof, when all of those films were nothing more than interesting failures. Interesting, but failures nonetheless.
May 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST
James Cameron = overrated
May 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST
by I am_NOTREAL
He recycled exact same mannerisms for David Mills in "Seven" and Jeffrey in "Twelve Monkeys" (although in that film, cranked up to 11) and then Tyler Durden. I like both "Seven" and "Fight Club" and love "Monkeys" and I even like him in all three, but in truth, the guy has no real range. The nom for "Button" was inexplicable, thank God he didn't win. He's just riffing on himself in every movie, or else playing a total blank a la "Interview With a Vampire."
May 21, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST
More than the disappointment of Guy Ritchie though, I would compare Tarantino to M Night. Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were fantastic stories with people you care about...but each subsequent movie became more about the gimmicks and selfindulgences than about telling a great story. (M Night infamously had "no-rewrite" clauses when he sold a script...what a douche.) QT doesn't tell great stories anymore, he comes up with one basic idea, a genre, and a million visual flourishes. <p>Painter spazzing on a canvas...lol...spot on.
May 21, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST
enjoy gi joe. QT>>>>>>>>cameron,Spielberg>>>>>>>>bay
May 21, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST
Its ironic, but I recall his voice over work for King Of The Hill as Boomhauer's brother was pretty good.
May 21, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST
Tarantino hasn't made a good movie since Pulp Fiction, and even that movie makes me cringe half-the-time. His hipster dialog is cribbed from the thousands of other films he's stolen from. Hell, he couldn't even give this flick an original title; he had to steal it from a movie he supposedly loved so much he couldn't bother remaking it, so he just nicked the title. You know what movie I want to see Tarantino make next? I want to see him make a film in which all of the other filmmakers he's stolen from beat his coke-addled ass with a length of rubber hose and boards with nails through 'em. That's what I wanna see. Fuck Quentin Tarantino. Fuck him in his Frankenstein skull.
May 21, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST
Article 85. Killing of Prisoners<p> A commander may not put his prisoners to death because their presence retards his movements or diminishes his power of resistance by necessitating a large guard, or by reason of their consuming supplies, or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty through the impending success of their forces. It is likewise unlawful for a commander to kill his prisoners on grounds of self-preservation, even in the case of airborne or commando operations, although the circumstances of the operation may make necessary rigorous supervision of and restraint upon the movement of prisoners of war. <p> Article 89. Humane Treatment of Prisoners <P> Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. <p> Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. <p> Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
May 21, 2009, 2:19 p.m. CST
Who gives a fuck about the rules? QT fans won't care. <P> Although, in reality, there were occasional violations of the law, German POWs were generally treated quite humanely. Given the circumstances, that is. <P> The big deal about the last line? No big deal. Pitt's "masterpiece" can be dealt with in several ways that will allow the other man involved to "win." Pitt's character isn't just a cracker; he's an idiot.
May 21, 2009, 2:21 p.m. CST
There is a foot-fetish scene, sort of, at least in the script.
May 21, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST
A band of renegade US Soldiers called the "Basterds" waged war against Germany and the Nazi party inside occupied France, killing and butchering many SS and Nazi commanders. Their brutal tactic of killing all prisoners and scalping and mutilating the dead was effective at inspiring fear amongst many German soldiers and Nazi officials. <p> However, because of their actions Hitler, the SS and the Luftwaffe no longer respected the rights and lives of American POW, who up until than were treated fairly and humanely. If the US was not going to treat the German soldier humanely, the Nazis figured, than the Germans would treat their GIs the same way they treated the Russians and other Slavs they captured, who had an incredibly high mortality rate. <p> In addition, German soldiers no longer accepted US troops who surrendered or took captives, but instead killed all US troops they entered, even those who were injured or unarmed. Maybe in a world without the Basterds a Malmedy Massacre would have been an anomaly, but thanks to their actions hundreds of such massacres against surrendering and captured US troops occurred.
May 21, 2009, 3:05 p.m. CST
you dumb shit. You should be destroyed and your ashes should be used to soak up hooker vomit. Go suck a homeless Indian off. Same goes to the rest of the haters. Deeeezzzz!
May 21, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST
I loathed The Kill Bills (Really, did we need two films?) Jackie Brown overall was his BEST movie. Resevior Dogs was a close second, True Romance (Although he didnt direct) then maybe Pulp Fiction. The only thing Death Proof had going for itself was Kurt Russell. For someone who pride themselves on they're writing. The dialog was long winded and forgettable, possibly his worst. That movie was nothing but an opportunity for Quentin to explore his fucking foot fetish.......Geez whatta weirdo
May 21, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST
by Damien Chowder
UK's Telegraph paper this<p> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/cannes-film-festival/5356927/Inglourious-Basterds-disappoints-at-Cannes.html
May 21, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST
Yeah sure an obvious and cliche choice, but hey what works, works.
May 21, 2009, 4:12 p.m. CST
by Anything But Tangerines
May 21, 2009, 4:25 p.m. CST
That's what I want!!!
May 21, 2009, 5:09 p.m. CST
And I quothe: WOWEE WOWEE WOWEE WOW WOW WOWSERS!!! A BIG FUCKING PLANT!!!!! COKEY DOES IT AGAIN!
May 21, 2009, 5:19 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/k ino/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. ------------------------------------- its says something like this: 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, 5:30 p.m. CST
for what he did on kurt in deathproof & casting shit actors in basterds, way to go m.knight tarantino!
May 21, 2009, 6:39 p.m. CST
Just because I don't think this movie looks good doesn't mean I don't like good cinema. QT neither makes art nor entertaining "audience" movies like Bay. QT makes movies for himself. And that's his problem. <p>And if you want to talk about polls and popularity of his movies...Grindhouse made around 25 M...which means around 3 M people saw it in theaters. Around the same number that watches an average episdode of One Tree Hill or Gossip Girl. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. <p>Thanks.
May 21, 2009, 6:40 p.m. CST
okay, well this was my first time sending a review into aint it cool, so its very mind boggling that this has all happened...i would have never guessed the review was going to be posted...so thanks for all the response everyone... to address some of the things i read in the talkback: yes, this review wasnt amazingly written...i didnt even proofread it that well. sorry. no, i am not a plant. i am a college student actually who got into the screening on a whim. i cant even say that i like everything tarantino does; liked reservoir dogs, LOVED pulp fiction (like everyone else), never even bothered to watch jackie brown all the way through, think kill bill vol. 1 is meh outside of the house of blue leaves scene, vol. 2 is fantastic, and really did not care for death proof. trust me - tarantino can grate at times, but his talent is undeniable... i really think basterds ranks up there with some of the best moments of vol. 2, and while it isnt a game changer like pulp fiction, it will be remembered as a really great film...i would also like to mention that it is most definitely his funniest film (there are a lot of laughs throughout that were unexpected but fit perfectly). some other things to address (MEGA SPOILERS): I WARNED YOU no foot fetish scene (theres a scene where hans landa puts on bridgets shoe and strangles her...the camera lingers on her feet during it, but thats about it in terms of feet in this movie) yes, the film does take in an alternate reality - hitler dies as do everyone big in the nazi party the night of the premiere. tarantino envisions the burning down of the cinema as the end of wwII, and he does it in a pretty inventive way (i wont give that away...you'll hopefully see for yourself)... eli roth has barely any lines in the film...which is great, considering he sucked it up in death proof...his presence is totally fine in ib ib is NOT more talky than death proof. death proof just went on and on...dialogue scenes went nowhere. whats great about this movie is the dialogue scenes actually GO somewhere (and in the case of the bar scene, into one of the coolest shootouts ive ever seen). and finally, the last line: it was a bit of a surprise, but it really works when you see it. trust me. anyway, you'll see for yourself in august...sorry if i pissed off the haters (at least i learned how to spell taut correctly today)
May 21, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST
by Nuking the Fridge
I mean really go fuck yourself, like so hard that you will really say "OHMYGODHOLYSHITWOWOWWOW" but with the conviction of having QT's dick up your ASS.
May 21, 2009, 8:01 p.m. CST
for some reason i detest the phrase 'pitch perfect' and therfore couldn't take the review seriously. not that anyone cares, but I thought i'd share.
May 21, 2009, 8:36 p.m. CST
Un-CAPPIE that bitch! it's UNSTOPPABLE---
May 21, 2009, 8:41 p.m. CST
to the trailer. Fuck this movie, it looks like complete shit.
May 21, 2009, 9:09 p.m. CST
May 21, 2009, 9:24 p.m. CST
For just such an occasion.
May 22, 2009, 2:05 a.m. CST
and boy, did that script suck! Hardly ANY action at all, hours of talking, stupid ending. Have fun, you fucking idiots.
May 22, 2009, 9:15 a.m. CST
--seem to be an AICN exclusive. Everywhere else people are saying it mostly sucks.
May 22, 2009, 9:17 a.m. CST
May 22, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST
I like how all the haters are desperately clinging to the fantasy that this won't be one of the greatest WWII movies ever made. Some of these guys are even resorting to becoming Nazi sympathizers just to take the piss out of this movie. I've never seen so many people so enraged by a positive review. Sorry it doesn't suck as bad as you were praying it would, fellas, them's the breaks. Sometimes you can wish with all the hatred in your heart for someone to fail, and they still succeed.
May 22, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST
Get all the hate out now, because all you're going to be hearing for the rest of the year is how great this movie is and you'll even get tired of hearing yourself talk shit about it. You've only got a few short months left to shit on a movie you haven't seen, enjoy them while you can.
May 22, 2009, 10:56 a.m. CST
"QT makes movies for himself. And that's his problem. " So should a director make a movie they don't like? That's fucking retarded. The only way to be good at what you do is to do it for yourself. Thinking otherwise is to say that artists are supposed to pander, they're supposed to be condescending and consider themselves better than the audience. Michael Bay makes movies for himself, so do Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick, etc etc etc. Only a hack makes movies for everyone else.
May 22, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST
It's not that directors should make movies they don't like, but they need to be able to collaborate to tell the best story possible. Look at Pixar. A lot of story input and people taking the time to get things right, emotionally and visually and narratively. When I say QT makes movies for himself, he makes things that he thinks is cool, whether narratively it makes sense, whether it doesn't further character or the story, whether it's overindulgent dialogue that you will fast forward on DVD to get to the better parts, etc.<p>Of course I agree with you 100% that artists shouldn't pander and make shit, but there is a big difference between pandering and creating a satisfying film that audiences will enjoy. Don't tell me that QT doesn't want people to enjoy his films!!!! lol Of course he does!!! So instead of being a narcissistic auteur he should start listening to criticism. THAT'S my point. <p>If a comedian is telling an inside joke to one of his friends, that could be hilarious to the two of them. If he's trying to tell that same joke in a club and no one's getting it...time to rethink your act.<p>
May 22, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST
...That this WILL be one of the greatest WWII movies ever made? How are you any different?
May 22, 2009, 3:23 p.m. CST
The reviews I read from Cannes said it was long, talky and a disappointment. Death Proof had a great ending,which took way too long to get to.
May 23, 2009, 10:56 p.m. CST
I don't understand why he likes it, he merely addresses the go-to complaints going around about Tarantino these days, i.e. "too talky" "death proof sucked" "all his films are homages". This guy may not be a plant, just a tarantino apologist. Its AICN's fault for choosing to ignore the reality of negative reviews out there, and negative talk of IB. AICN is in the tank for Tarantino. Believe it.
May 24, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST
i hope that im not the only one bored by this...it just sounds stupid jews killing nazis and germans getting killed and blah blah blah..sick of world war 2 films already.We need a good vietnam film...
May 24, 2009, 8:30 p.m. CST
This turd has been shit, sunk to the bottom of the bowl, and is ready to be flushed. Brad Pitt needs to stay away from this loser.