Inglorious Basterds homage

Loved the nod to giallo muse Edwige Fenech from Tarantino in naming the British General Fenech. Also found in the character of Hugo Stiglitz (named after the actor from Umberto Lenzi’s City of the Living Dead/Nightmare City. Awesome! :smiley:

[quote=“TheBigSmokedown, post:20, topic:1928”]Jesus Christ. This is massively overrating Tarantino in my opinion.[/quote]hmm, based on one viewing I’d rate it similarly. But I definitely must see it few times more the make judgement, one of Tarantino’s better films for sure anyway.

[quote=“sartana1968, post:19, topic:1928”]only the inglorious bastards 1978 it’s the best! they can’t never made a good remake fim
no one can replaced the old ones…[/quote]

Yes i can understand that. i once heard the ABBA tribute band, shit what lame show that was. :wink:

But QT’s film is not a remake.

And after re-watching it on DVD I have no problems to give it a 10/10. Often brilliant.

I was joking Staton ;D
And yes its a 5 out 5 to me too, best job for Tarantino so far, and unfortunately I didn’t watch in the cinema. I will have to give a second view in a few months

4/10 for me. Boring stuff, annoying Pitt, overlong and very little action. Only good thing was the guy who played the Jew hunter.

My viewpoint is somewhere between this and Stanton’s, but I’m extremely glad I’m not the only one who isn’t buying the hype.

I couldn’t say it better myself.

Hype? You think people tend to make this better than they think it is, because of a hype?

Maybe, but then, for every one who does so, there is another one who is eager to make it worse than it is because he won’t be part of the suspected “hype”.

In the end I mostly think that a “hype” damages a film’s reputation more than it helps. But it makes more money than without the hype.

Yes i can’t really understand this thing, i must confess that the last Tarantino works before Inglorious were something of a let down to me, trying to recycle the past is not always an easy job, and the tendency was to the guy becoming trapped in his own world.
Inglorious on the other hand has nothing of that, it recycles the past yes, but in an innovative way and even with intelligence and artistic quality, my favourite Tarentino film so far was Jackie Brown cause it was te perfect mix of all the exploitation flicks the man loves so much with the best of his innovative narrative style, also with great performances fom Grier, De Niro and Keaton, and Forster (it did have some exploitation stars for a start) but in Inglourious this goes even further being the most clever of his films, its the perfect recycling film because it can recycle without being a copy of the past or even worst a bad copy of the past, a rare thing in my view, and about Pitt I have no prejudiced agaisnt the guy, the time were I ripped Bravo magazine Duran Duran posters from the girls out of pure envy is long gone ;D, and if the guy was cool in the first Ocean films, he does not spoile the film for me, and then we have Waltz one of the greatest actors of the present days. Boring I think Kill bill was boring this one its the real Mckoy to me.
To me it’s a great film and the best Tarentino so far.

Pitt is not the best actor in the film (the level of acting is as usual for a QT film very high), nor is he the best actor in teh world. But people tend to underrate him for being a “women’s man” and a big star. But Pitt was always willing to take risks and to do other films beneath some of the usual star vehicles (I do respect Tom Cruise, an actor I don’t like, also for doing films which are risky and pretty different from the films he makes his money with).

And Pitt has a very self ironic role in IB, and one for which he takes the burden of looking dumb, and one for which it is easy to blame him, even more as it seems to be a limited role compared to so many others in IB, who have the fillet pieces of the dialogues, but it works pretty good in the contrast.
Pitt is for me the great underrated actor in IB.

Well, apart from a few moments in the first scalping scene, this is a perfectly balanced film. And death Proof is a similar masterpiece.

And for me is Jackie Brown, a 8/10 film, his least work so far, the only film so far which I think has pacing problems, and seems to be half an hour to long for me.

Yes the level of acting is real high for a QT film, althought that was not a problem in films like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown. I have not seen Death Proof in a very carefull way (one of those Cinema Office sessions) but in comparison with Planet terror it comes out loosing in my view, because it didn’t seemed more than an pretty straighforward movie, and Russell as much as I liked the guy, was to old for the part, in any case a more carefully view may be needed for more definitive conclusions.
The reason I do prefer Jackie Brown is because it was made after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, he was then capable to put in the screen in the most perfect way his complex (yes) cinematographic narrative ideias, also the fact of having Pam Grier gives the film great credillity, but I know iI’m pretty alone on this, and in the end it’s more a matter of personel taste.
In any case Reservoir Dogs is one of the best first works from a director.

In fact many people who don’t care very much for QT say that Jackie Brown is his best film.

About the Grindhouse Double Feature. For me Planet Terror was mostly fun to watch, but never in any way exciting and even boring in places (while Machete recently was a great pleasure). But I enjoyed Death Proof immediately and a re-watch on DVD made it even better.

Jackie Brown has also great individual ideas and scenes, but it doesn’t work as good for me as in all the other QT films. But this is complaining on a very high level.

You mean the acting is here better than in other QT films?

For me the acting in every QT is excellent. But it should anyway, if actors have the chance to get all these brilliant lines.

Yes better than Kill bill and Death Proof for instance.
But then I must say that one of the most positive things about QT films is that he can make bad actor’s look god like Travolta on Pulp Fiction.

[quote=“Stanton, post:29, topic:1928”]Hype? You think people tend to make this better than they think it is, because of a hype?

Maybe, but then, for every one who does so, there is another one who is eager to make it worse than it is because he won’t be part of the suspected “hype”.

In the end I mostly think that a “hype” damages a film’s reputation more than it helps. But it makes more money than without the hype.[/quote]

I think that fans of Quentin Tarantino, and a lot of people who are into the kinds of films he’s associated with, tend to get overexcited about what he produces. That means that when a film comes out, they are looking for positives and too eager to proclaim his next film a work of genius. The same happens to any creator with a strong, dedicated fanbase.

Inglourious Basterds was fun, had some really great scenes, but didn’t hang together well at all. Poorly plotted with characters that didn’t quite work together in terms of their motivations and their roles within the context of the films. The Jew Hunter was such a great character, brilliantly portrayed by Christoph Waltz, but he didn’t get to fulfill his potential because the script fell short in the end. Brad Pitt was horrible as Aldo Rayne and his entire squad forgettable. I did like Diane Kruger, even though Tarantino forced me to endure yet another of his foot fetish sequences.

I’m just not dedicated enough to Tarantino and his work to get excited when he steals ideas and music from other films and then pastes it together. In fact, I feel a bit cheated when I find out that crucial parts of the film are actually taken from earlier works from other directors. For example, I thought the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds was exceptional and really expected to be in for a treat. However, it kind of bugs me that he borrowed music from Morricone to try and replicate the emotional impact of The Return of Ringo. I wish he would stop doing that and either use music not specifically created for other films or use an original composer, because what he does is sort of cheap.

Personally, I’m worried that Tarantino, given infinite amounts of freedom by studios, has now fallen into producing self-satisfying, nerdy work made almost entirely from the perspective of a fan. Since Kill Bill he’s pretty much made nothing but films which homage the works he finds himself most obsessed with, and I genuinely would like to see him move away from that and do something a bit more interesting or original. I am starting to feel the same way about Robert Rodriguez, but Rodriguez has always produced more light-hearted fare so it doesn’t feel like he’s taking a step backwards when he makes films like Machete.

How can you give this film a perfect score? You mean it has no flaws, no room for improvement? It’s on the same level as the other films you consider great? It has some fine acting, a few neat ideas, but I don’t even consider it to be one of Tarantino’s best films.

who else would you make movies for, if not the fans? :wink: the alternative is make movies for every 13 year old teenie girl running around in the streets today, but we have michael bay for that :wink:

I don’t understand this, you’re talking about the fact that crucial parts of the film are taken from earlier works, but your example is a musical one? Is the only thing similar in this scene the music?

I have no problem with Tarantino using older scores for his movies, I can’t imagine why I would be bothered, especially since it fits the scenes so well. I don’t even mind that Bruno Mattei steals Goblin’s music and in that case it’s really stealing. Nothing sounds out of place in Tarantino’s movies and sometimes it even works better than in the original movie.

And still, Kill Bill: Vol. 2 and Inglourious Basterds are probably the films that have the most substance in his whole filmography (okay, I haven’t seen Jackie Brown yet).

I’m not a big Tarantino fan, I mean, I like all of his movies, but I only love one or two and I also think Inglourious Basterds is his best. You were also saying that the script falls short in the end, I couldn’t disagree more, I think it’s perfect in this regard.

No, no, he’s making films from the perspective of a fan, singular, not for the fans. There is a difference.

[quote=“I love you M.E. Kay, post:37, topic:1928”]I don’t understand this, you’re talking about the fact that crucial parts of the film are taken from earlier works, but your example is a musical one? Is the only thing similar in this scene the music?

I have no problem with Tarantino using older scores for his movies, I can’t imagine why I would be bothered, especially since it fits the scenes so well. I don’t even mind that Bruno Mattei steals Goblin’s music and in that case it’s really stealing. Nothing sounds out of place in Tarantino’s movies and sometimes it even works better than in the original movie.[/quote]

It’s just an example, don’t get hung up on it.

Personally, though, I find stealing music from other films slightly annoying. If you take an extremely well known piece of music like maybe John Williams’ Superman theme and use it in another context, perhaps in a whole bunch of films, the associations of the original piece of music become muddied. People forget them and the music becomes associated with something else, or it becomes a composition without associations.

If the music is specifically intended to be used in a particular context, then to lose that is a shame in my opinion. I’m sure most people would hate to see famous, iconic film scores lose that resonance. For me, a lot of the scores Tarantino “borrows” have a similar resonance, even if they are lesser known and don’t have the same resonance for most other film goers.

Sadly, I expect more people now associate Morricone’s ‘L’incontro con la figlia’ with Inglourious Basterds than with The Return of Ringo. However, I know the music from The Return of Ringo, I think it’s used with more impact in that film, it works better, and I don’t like that Tarantino has managed to appropriate the music.

The most substance? No, I disagree. They may have more elaborate settings and plots, characters with supposedly more complex motivations, but I don’t think that translates to being more substantial.

The finale in the cinema is not bad (although it’s again influenced by another film, Il Boss by Fernando Di Leo). However, Christoph Waltz’s demise is just so meh.

I’m a big Tarantino fan. I think its fantastic how he integrates a lot of the subcultural appeal and aesthetic into his films, while still making them palatable to a large audience. Personally, I don’t feel its a bad thing at all. While I feel Death Proof takes his dialogue obsession a bit far, Kill Bill is a masterpiece, in my opinion, together with Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs I felt Inglorious Basterds was a fine piece of film, as well, in line with most of his work.

If most directors would make films from the fan’s perspective and not for the fans I guess films would be much better, what many director’s do is going agaisnt the fan’s while thinking they are doing a great thing.

One of the things I do appreciate in QT films is without any doubts the use of music, used before or not, yes you can argue that there’s no imagination no creativity, but for me recycling those tunes the way he does, got nothing to do with lack of originality, by the contrary the way he uses it, creating new environments for old tunes, and very specific tunes that we remember (or not) from specifics films resembles in my view the same what some musicians do with samples, like Madonna did with that ABBA tune, even more difficult for QT cause there are images involved in the process of recreation.
To me Kill Bill is one the weakest QT efforts the plot is no more than a Thriller a Cruel Picture rip off with Hollywood money, by the contrary Inglorious is one of the smartess films I have ever seen, it works better than let’s say Spielberg’s The Schindler’s List because it does the same propose while you are having fun, and that for me it’s one gigantic task that I thought not possible.
So for me no doubt about that Inglorious is the best QT work so far witha a fantastic script and with lot’s of substance even if hidden in an intelligent way.
I like most of QT films some more than others, and a few I don like much, but in any case he’s the director responsible for bringing those old VHS tapes from Mattei, Di Leo, Lenzi …from SW’s from exploitations of all kind, from whatever of those now closed video rental stores had in their shelves to the digital age.