Inglourious Basterds Movie Review Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 51 - 57 of 57
<<  <  3 4 5 6 
Muenster 8/24/2009 5:00:53 AM

Bas-turds. First time I've walked out on a film in more than three years. It was boring, poorly acted, ridiculous, and tastelessly incredulous. 45 minutes in and I was looking at the pretty wall sconces on the auditorium wall. Not sure how this film racked up so much cash, as there were very few people in the theater with me, and I live in a large market. (Perhaps it’s the Brad Pitt effect the amount of screens it was released on?) I must have read the pre-release info about this overly talky, (… And talk, and talk, and talk, they do!) B-grade, 60’s-ish style film and gleaned that it was supposed to be an action adventure type film. I usually like WWII flicks, but this one was just plain crap. If Tarantino wanted to make a wartime fantasy film then he should have put his energies into producing “Werewolf Women Of The SS”, the title would obviously speak for itslelf.

shadowprime 8/24/2009 9:05:24 AM

 

Responding a bit late, but...

No, I am not "into" seeing movie-Nazis tortured, thanks.

The subject of movie violence is one that can be discussed and debated at great length and I can understand, to some extent, the basic question of why it might be "okay" to see a bad guy killed on screen, but not to see him tortured. After all, it is all "fake" violence, make-believe, etc. Got it. But, IMHO, there is a line you cross when you revel in sadism. In torture. In the deliberate infliction of suffering, even on a movie bad guy (or good guy). I don't have any illusions about changing anyone's mind or tastes here, just saying that in my case, I am not interested in a "Nazi torture" movie.

I have enjoyed parts of just about every QT movie I have seen. At his best, he has a great ear for dialogue, for combining seemingly incongrous pop-culture, B-movie, and cinematic (in general) material into a bizarre but coherent whole. But - personal preference - I am not a fan of his penchant for lurid sadism.

And I think it is a little..odd... to suggest that enjoying a little on-screen torture is okay, we just have to make sure that the right people are getting tortured. I know, I suppose you could make the same argument about onscreen killing, but I think there IS a difference. In one case, the audience sees bad people brought to their (violent) end. In the other... the point is to "enjoy" making people suffer. I don't see anything positive in that impulse,  myself.

WarCry 8/24/2009 11:27:30 AM

One thing I haven't seen is anyone actually calling out QT for that type of scene in this movie. Frankly, if you're going to see Tarantino, it's to be expected.

Shadowprime, I can see where you're coming from, and in some cases I agree, but there are SOME times when it's fitting to the story. Resevoir Dogs comes to mind - it was appropriate to the story. Another is just about any season of 24.

My take is this: It happens in the real world. To pretend it doesn't is naive. Now, that's not to say every movie, show, etc should have it in there, but saying it should NEVER be in there is a little to 'head-in-the-sand' for my taste.

I see Tarantino's name on a film, I'm fully expecting grotesque scenes of blood and gore. It pretty much goes along with the name.

Brainguy 8/25/2009 8:37:55 AM

Saw it last night, and thought it was quite wonderful. The only problems I saw:

1) Yes, some lengthy, gratuitous dialogue, but so what? Refreshing after a summer of shouted blurts of; "Look out!", "Optimus!"

2) Pitt's masterbatury candied ham performance distraced the hell out of me, though this doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone else. I must be biased.

Still, the basement tavern scene? The movie theater flame out? The cinemaphotography of the projection room shoot-out?  The movie has some very cool set-peices that keep turning over in my mind. I recommend it, just be prepared for what you're walking into. Not the best, but very good. How about...A-?

Incidentally, I can't stand the Kill Bill movies. I've seen them both a few times, and they just don't fit. Basteds is much, much, much better.

Just my inglourious opinion.

shadowprime 8/27/2009 5:46:03 AM

 

Saw it last night. Didn't care for it.

My main problem is that, for me, Pitt's crew were presented as pretty much a bunch of sadistic monsters. Not soldiers, not even assassins, but sadistic criminals who got off on committing atrocities and torturing prisoners. If there is a difference between their bat-wielding dimwit and the killers who saw off heads for Al-Q, it escaped me. The average German soldiers we encounter are more human, more well-rounded than Pitt's crew. I found most of the so-called  "heroes" to be utterly unsympathetic (the British liasion being one exception, and the German actress and the cinema owner and her lover to be others).

QT has a genuine gift for dialog. He can stage some unusual and interesting scenes (the opening sequence in the farmhouse, the tavern-basement scene).  The primary Nazi antagonist was a unique and interesting villain. But he can't resist playing up the sadism, and he can't seem to get over his penchant for creating protagonists who are little or no better than the "villains" they oppose. I find the former sickening, the latter leaves me wondering why I should care.

Shadow

ilovefoo 9/2/2009 3:46:26 PM

I can't wait to see this movie!

Inferno 9/12/2009 10:56:40 AM

Good movie but I still prefer The Dirty Dozen.

<<  <  3 4 5 6 

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.