It seems like I’m the only person who didn’t like this movie. It was entertaining but I didn’t think it was nearly as good as many people claimed. My girlfriend told me that she thinks I didn’t like it because I’m a “World War II snob” but I think it’s more because I’m just not a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s movies. I was wondering what people thought of this movie on this forum?
There was a fair amount of discussion concerning this movie in another thread, but my opinion is that if someone is a fan of Tarantino’s movies, then it’s a fine picture. If one views this as a serious treatment of WW II, then its falls well short.
If one views this as a serious treatment of WW II, then its falls well short.
Tankgeezer, I hereby nominate thee for “Understatement of the Year Award.”
Can’t argue that…
Heh.
I’ve heard the theory that all of Tarantino’s movies are set in the same universe, so that the events of this movie lead to the events of Pulp Fiction and his other creations. That kind of explains the events of Inglorious Bastards… Not well, but in a broad general sense…
Kind of a Dr. Who thing, or maybe Dr. WTF?
Sounds about right.
Funny enough, “WW2 snob” though I might be, I quite enjoyed this piece of adult comic book nonsense, for which the war was sort of borrowed as a set. Nothing much to do with history, however; except, perhaps in that alternative universe already mentioned. Yours from Tarantino’s playpen, JR.
Saw part of this laughable piece of cinematic drivel on free to air television tonight.
Starts out well with reasonably compelling farmer / hidden Jews scenes (apart from the opening mystery of why a farmer would waste his time hacking with an axe into the top of a tree stump left by a tree which had been chainsawed off ((we burnt the stumps in place or blew them out with black powder and burnt the remnants, as had been done since long before WWII)) - or maybe this is just referenced early in the film to point to the general pointlessness of most of the rest of the movie). It degenerates rapidly through unrelated vignettes into magnificent infantile cartoon nonsense which (with apologies to JR and others who found it watchable) is an offence to any sentient being , never mind anyone with the slightest knowledge of a well known event commonly referred to as World War Two, unlike the debased, distorted and psychotic version of 1930s Hollywood cowboys and Indians movies which, to the extent it wasn’t written by an inmate in a lunatic asylum, appears to be the, using the term loosely, historical and artistic inspiration for this travesty.
I turned it off after the gratuitous scalping scenes culminating in the moronic scene involving the Jewish Bear, or whatever he was called, clubbing a German soldier to death to the childish, enthusiastic, noisy, and implausible approbation of the assembled armed morons infesting the clumsily referenced wooded Colosseum (a scene better suited to a 1950s low budget Italian gladiator movie with lousy subtitles and even worse lip sync, but a more convincing story line and better acting). It brought to my mind the confusing pointlessness of scenes in movies such as Satyricon, Apocalypse Now, and Troy, but without any of the meagre saving graces of those other rambling and directorially self-indulgent large scale wastes of film stock.
The only positive comment I can make about Inglorious Basterds is that I’m glad I didn’t waste a cent of my hard earned and a moment of my time on seeing it at the movies.
Most overall offensive movie I ever wasted time watching.
No redeeming value whatsoever.
Stupid Movie.
Sculpting of German sculpt? Really? We needed to see that??? Gross!
What is it with Brad pitt “I’m going to kill nazis” ? in IB and with Fury.
You might write the people who developed the scripts of those films, and pose your questions to them. Let us know what their response is.
Rising Sun* - pity you switched off when you did; it gets even more ridiculous later. As I said, I found myself enjoying this, not as a war film, but as a bit of crude, comic-book nonsense that borrowed WW2 as a sort of backdrop or set. Typical of Tanantino, and not just because of the violence. Take “Reservoir Dogs” - hardly an accurate reflection of the low-level gangster world in which it is set. Again, the gangster background was borrowed as a backdrop or set in which a stylized, violent comic book fantasy was played out.
By the way - anybody interested in seeing an accurate dramatic representation of low-level gangsters, Dublin-style, would be strongly recommended to seek out the RTE (Radio Teilifís Éireann - Irish Broadcasting Service) series, “Love/Hate”, a four-series production hailed by many as the best drama production ever by RTE. I believe it is available on the RTE Player (on www.rte.ie), and the box set may also be available through such as Amazon. Be warned - it is not an easy watch at times; still, when screened in Ireland, and after a rocky start in terms of audience response, it yielded record audiences for RTE-produced drama. The latter part of the cycle, in which the compelling gang leader Nigel (“Nidge”), played by Tom Vaughan-Lawlor, comes fully to the fore, is particularly strong. We have a small but particularly nasty and vicious drug-fuelled gangland here, fully reflected in the series, hence my “parental warning”. The authenticity of the series was confirmed by imprisoned gangsters interviewed by journalists, who went so far in some cases as to identify with characters in the drama - "Dat Nidge was based on me !.
Watch it if you dare ! JR.
Nidge and the Boys, and the way they might look at you …
A contemporary version of "Peaky Blinders " ?
Perhaps, tankgeezer - but with lots of nose candy being shipped around, and a fair bit more violent, in a wider range of ways. Best regards, JR.