Author Topic: Badass World War 2 movie (Read 14752 times)

CMF · « **on:** March 25, 2009, 03:48:21 PM »

here is the trailer of the new Quentin's filled of adrenaline movie Inglorious Basterds

What's better than non-stop mayhem Nazi killing action movie?

Robin-Graves · « **Reply #1 on:** March 26, 2009, 05:34:50 PM »

Two of them? lol

smokester · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2009, 07:00:40 AM »

Not sure about this at all? It is complete fiction right? and most of Europe have reservations about America's role in World war 2 in a non fictional sense.

CMF · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2009, 03:39:42 PM »

Quote from: smokester on March 27, 2009, 07:00:40 AM

It is complete fiction right?

When did Tarantino make a documentary?
I guess it will be just a movie full of testosterone and a lot of meaningless violence.

jackalope21 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2009, 04:23:36 PM »

Quote from: smokester on March 27, 2009, 07:00:40 AM

Not sure about this at all? It is complete fiction right? and most of Europe have reservations about America's role in World war 2 in a non fictional sense.

how so?

jacktheripper305 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2009, 05:18:45 PM »

After Benjamin Button, its good that Pitt is doing something with a little more Awesome to it. Button severely lowered his Awesome Factor.

Quote from: smokester on March 27, 2009, 07:00:40 AM

Not sure about this at all? It is complete fiction right? and most of Europe have reservations about America's role in World war 2 in a non fictional sense.

I'm curious also, what reservations do they have?

smokester · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2009, 03:38:56 PM »

Now that would be a minefield waiting to be trodden on.

Instead I'll just say: "Overpaid, oversexed and over here".

It appears there is already some outrage from the Germans about this film, and I am still not sure about it?

jackalope21 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2009, 03:42:22 PM »

Quote from: smokester on March 28, 2009, 03:38:56 PM

Now that would be a minefield waiting to be trodden on.

Instead I'll just say: "Overpaid, oversexed and over here".

It appears there is already some outrage from the Germans about this film, and I am still not sure about it?

hopefully ALL europeans aren't ungrateful

smokester · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2009, 04:01:29 PM »

Quote from: jackalope21 on March 28, 2009, 03:42:22 PM

hopefully ALL europeans aren't ungrateful

It had nothing to do with the Europeans, America effectively joined the Second Sino-Japanese War, which then became part of WW2. Admittedly Britain had tried to buddy America into the conflict, but apparently they were too busy housebuilding

smokester · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2009, 05:16:57 AM »

Quote from: christ on March 29, 2009, 02:40:07 AM

That is sort of the attitude that people over here dislike - the American assumption that the rest of the world owes them 'gratitude'.

The US of A delayed their entry into the war in Europe for as long as possible, which caused the maximum misery to Europe; then they only entered on terms that were to their maximum benefit, to the detriment of Europe; then they exited having wrung the best deal for themselves from the deal, again to the detriment of Europe. Their attitude to the end of the war, and their view of the Russians, forced Europe into 40 years of cold war.

Vietnam wasn't the first war in which the US military failed comprehensively to endear themselves to the indigenous populations of the countries that they were 'saving' - they made it abundantly clear that they were involved purely and only for the interests of the US of A, it was only collateral damage if the locals were helped.

None of the above is intended to be critical of the Americans, they did what any non-combatant would do on being dragged into a war that they were reluctant to take part in - the UK would maybe have done the same if they had been far enough away, but it does go some way to explain why 'gratitude' is not the primary emotion of those that were 'saved' by the Americans when they eventually deigned to come to the party.

Some of us wish that the Americans had shown the same reluctance to go to war when the Middle East was involved, but the isolationism that prevailed for so long before the US entry into WWII seemed notably absent when W was in charge, and wanted to show off how macho he was - but strangely enough the view of the locals seems pretty much the same. I guess you could describe the attitude as 'ungrateful', from one perspective.

Quoted for posterity.

jackalope21 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2009, 07:37:45 AM »

well, if that comment was directed at the repercussions of the war, then i am cool with that

i read it as Europeans didn't think America had a role at all and coming from a military family where everyone in my grandparents family lost someone in that war, that kinda rubbed me the wrong way....i took it as trivializing our involvement when so many Americans died on foreign soil

smokester · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:07:54 AM »

Quote from: jackalope21 on March 29, 2009, 07:37:45 AM

well, if that comment was directed at the repercussions of the war, then i am cool with that

i read it as Europeans didn't think America had a role at all and coming from a military family where everyone in my grandparents family lost someone in that war, that kinda rubbed me the wrong way....i took it as trivializing our involvement when so many Americans died on foreign soil

That statement was lost on me a bit I fear? Europe had 23,000,000 civilian casualties during WW2 and the Americas had 0? Our tiny little nation alone, also lost a similar amount of military personel as the US - and as I have already mentioned, the US had to get involved in the Second Sino-Japanese War because of Japan's assault on Pearl Harbour, not because it wanted to stop Hitler.

jackalope21 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:14:18 AM »

Quote from: smokester on March 29, 2009, 08:07:54 AM

That statement was lost on me a bit I fear? Europe had 23,000,000 civilian casualties during WW2 and the Americas had 0? Our tiny little nation alone, also lost a similar amount of military personel as the US - and as I have already mentioned, the US had to get involved in the Second Sino-Japanese War because of Japan's assault on Pearl Harbour, not because it wanted to stop Hitler.

because i wasn't talking about civilian casualties......

smokester · « **Reply #13 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:27:27 AM »

These are precisely the issues that Europeans may have with this film. It was no secret that Roosevelt wanted no part of WW2 and who can blame him. America wanted to "build" and didn't want to affect the "balance of power" in Europe - fair enough I suppose although Hitler was doing it by force. When they did get involved it was always only going to be a matter of time before the allies won, which is what the British had imagined would happen at the beginning of the war.

It is all history now but I am not sure what Tarantino is trying to achieve by creating a fictional band of "American" Jewish commandos, that go about mutilating the Germans in order to bring the Third Reich to its knees?

smokester · « **Reply #14 on:** March 29, 2009, 11:26:19 AM »

Quote from: christ on March 29, 2009, 08:59:03 AM

Take it whichever way you want, that is, of course, your right.

I didn't attempt to trivialise anything - I was trying to explain something to you about our 'gratitude', or lack of it.

A hell of a lot more Europeans died resisting Hitler than did Americans (particularly civilians, as noted by smokes), and we (mostly civilians, as you will observe) are somehow expected to be grateful? I am not belittling the contribution of your soldiery, nor that of their equipment, but if you expect gratitude then you are looking in the wrong place.

"We'll come and help, but only on our terms, only if we are allowed to be in charge, only if we set the terms of closure, only if you pay us back when we go, and only if we get to rule the world thereafter" OK - you are right, we are ungrateful basterds. Just like the few surviving Iraqis, who are expected to be grateful for the imposition of a "democracy" that they didn't want, at the cost of a few hundred thousand of their men, women and children. Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, can you?

... and don't get me started on American WWII fiction.

Quoted as usual.

jackalope21 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 29, 2009, 11:45:50 AM »

Quote from: CMF on March 25, 2009, 03:48:21 PM

What's better than non-stop mayhem Nazi killing action movie?

to answer the question......nothing

jacktheripper305 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:36:09 PM »

I'm sure Tarantino's aim in this movie is simply for the audience to watch a bunch of nazis get killed in the most brutal and entertaining way possible. For some reason, I doubt that hes trying to make a movie with political and moral overtones. (or even undertones for that matter)

smokester · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:14:28 AM »

Quote from: jacktheripper305 on March 29, 2009, 08:36:09 PM

I'm sure Tarantino's aim in this movie is simply for the audience to watch a bunch of nazis get killed in the most brutal and entertaining way possible. For some reason, I doubt that hes trying to make a movie with political and moral overtones. (or even undertones for that matter)

Really? So you make a film about a group of Jewish Americans commiting war crimes against German soldiers (no soldier deserves to be scalped and mutilated as they are only doing their job right?), and to make it less political, you film it in Germany?

smokester · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2009, 05:12:04 AM »

I do not watch war films or TV programmes as a matter of course (although I do have a soft spot for "The bridge over the river Kwai"). I get nothing from the violence involved in war; as I cannot get away from the fact that soldiers are usually doing the insane bidding of a handful of lunatics in power, and those soldiers no matter what side they are on, have families and children that love them. I wouldn't subject my children to this kind of "entertainment" either, as it would break my heart if they were enthusiastic about a film that depicted the brutal treatment of anybody, military or otherwise.

I can understand the anger from some Germans over this film, and the fact that they question why he chose to make it in Germany - Tarantino was definitely up to something? maybe he was short changed by a German waiter and wanted revenge?

jacktheripper305 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:04:09 PM »

Quote from: smokester on March 30, 2009, 05:12:04 AM

I do not watch war films or TV programmes as a matter of course (although I do have a soft spot for "The bridge over the river Kwai"). I get nothing from the violence involved in war; as I cannot get away from the fact that soldiers are usually doing the insane bidding of a handful of lunatics in power, and those soldiers no matter what side they are on, have families and children that love them. I wouldn't subject my children to this kind of "entertainment" either, as it would break my heart if they were enthusiastic about a film that depicted the brutal treatment of anybody, military or otherwise.

I can understand the anger from some Germans over this film, and the fact that they question why he chose to make it in Germany - Tarantino was definitely up to something? maybe he was short changed by a German waiter and wanted revenge?

Indeed. I agree with you 100%. In real life. However, once we move to the movies, It's a different story. Because its fictional. Unless this actually happened, and Tarantino is trying to glorify the people that did this, I think its purely for entertainment, just as any other movie is entertainment.

Personally, i enjoy a movie where someone gets what they deserve, and I think thats what this movie is trying to capitalize on. No one likes a Nazi.

Also personally, I enjoy horror movies. I like violent and gory movies. And thats what i think this movie is supposed to be. Not much more...

smokester · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:28:34 PM »

Quote from: jacktheripper305 on March 30, 2009, 02:04:09 PM

Indeed. I agree with you 100%. In real life. However, once we move to the movies, It's a different story.

Quote from: jacktheripper305 on March 30, 2009, 02:04:09 PM

Also personally, I enjoy horror movies. I like violent and gory movies. And thats what i think this movie is supposed to be. Not much more...

The point is why do people like horror and gore? The general expectation is that it will invoke the emotion of fear.

Why may some enjoy films that depict some kind of personal vengeance? I believe that is because it will invoke the feeling of justice.

Why do some like watching erotic movies? I can vouch that it is because it stimulates the sensation of sexual arousal.

Why would anyone want to watch a war film, showing the grotesque butchering, of soldiers on either side of a conflict, that probably have little opinion in what they are fighting for? Beats me but there has been the suspicion of "propaganda" in the past.

I have no problem with fiction that is not based on major historical events, as it does not distort anything in the process. I'll personally sign up to fight the Cardassians any day, and I may even club a few to death with a sharpe machete. I also like both fictional and non-fictional accounts of retribution, as the bad guy is easy to spot.

I wasn't always like this, I used to be a Rambo-loving, saturday night punch up kind of guy - that is until I realised that latter was caused by the former...

Robin-Graves · « **Reply #21 on:** April 01, 2009, 05:15:10 PM »

Man,,I love a good horror movie ( not the Friday the 13th poo or Freddy,,theyr just stupid)
Check out Altered.

smokester · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2009, 04:49:19 PM »

This film is desperately trying to do the rounds over here at the moment, and they have even dropped the "Basterds" from the title to make it more appealing. So far there seems absolutely no interest in it by anyone, and for the most part no one seems to have even heard of it. It is no wonder considering how it did at Cannes and this review says enough to explain that, so perhaps there is something better than a "non-stop mayhem Nazi killing action movie"?

redlandslide · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2009, 05:21:00 PM »

I'm looking forward to it. I love Tarantino films.

smokester · « **Reply #24 on:** August 19, 2009, 05:28:58 PM »

Quote from: redlandslide on August 19, 2009, 05:21:00 PM

I'm looking forward to it. I love Tarantino films.

I take it you are no fan of the Guardian tho'.

redlandslide · « **Reply #25 on:** August 19, 2009, 05:53:17 PM »

Quote from: smokester on August 19, 2009, 05:28:58 PM

I take it you are no fan of the Guardian tho'.

Does that mean people who like Tarantino movies are unintelligent and what newspaper you read is a measure of a persons intelligence?

Well, I don't read the Guardian. In fact I don't read any national newspapers. The only newspaper I read is the Liverpool Echo, to keep abreast of local news. "Red top" papers are full of celebrity poo and the "quality" (debatable) papers are full of political poo, neither subject holds any interest to me.

If your statement was meant in this way then it seems quite sneering.

If, however, you're referring to the movie "Guardian", then you're right, I thought it was shite.

smokester · « **Reply #26 on:** August 19, 2009, 06:10:29 PM »

Easy!

I was merely pointing out that after a review that bad ("Brad Pitt's worst performance" type bad), and the fact that it didn't dissuade in the slightest (it certainly did me), the paper would have to hold little water in your opinion.

Personally I read at least 5 different reviews (to ensure a balance), including the ones on this forum, to get an idea if a film is worth going to see, wait till it's rentable, or that insignificant that I should obtain it elsewhere. I don't like to leave many things to chance.

As a point of interest I personally read the Daily Mirror which as you know is considered a low-brow tabloid, that is getting more "low-brow" by the minute. I read it as I have always read it from my days as a Labour party member.

CMF · « **Reply #27 on:** August 19, 2009, 06:59:55 PM »

Daily Mirror

The Guardian

What are these strange names

redlandslide · « **Reply #28 on:** August 19, 2009, 07:12:06 PM »

Quote from: smokester on August 19, 2009, 06:10:29 PM

Easy!

I was merely pointing out that after a review that bad ("Brad Pitt's worst performance" type bad), and the fact that it didn't dissuade in the slightest (it certainly did me), the paper would have to hold little water in your opinion.

Sorry about that, I obviously misconstrued your last comment.

On the subject of reviews, I personally don't read any. Any profession where a person is paid to pass judgement on other peoples work just seems wrong. That's not only movie reviewers, but art critics as well. I've found the best way is to watch a movie and then judge whether it was good or bad, rather than relying on someone else to judge for you.

Quote from: smokester on August 19, 2009, 06:10:29 PM

As a point of interest I personally read the Daily Mirror which as you know is considered a low-brow tabloid, that is getting more "low-brow" by the minute. I read it as I have always read it from my days as a Labour party member.

As long as you don't read the Sun.

Quote from: CMF on August 19, 2009, 06:59:55 PM

Daily Mirror The Guardian

What are these strange names

Just some things that aren't worth killing trees for.

feelingindifferent · « **Reply #29 on:** August 19, 2009, 07:53:35 PM »

Quote from: jacktheripper305 on March 29, 2009, 08:36:09 PM

I'm sure Tarantino's aim in this movie is simply for the audience to watch a bunch of nazis get killed in the most brutal and entertaining way possible. For some reason, I doubt that hes trying to make a movie with political and moral overtones. (or even undertones for that matter)

Apparently all the critics disliked it because they were expecting that, but instead they got a load of talking.

I am so looking forward to seeing this, argh but i've got extended essay to finish for school. it's opening in HK today!

i want to see it

This may be a bit late, but the french trailer is a lot more badass:

CMF · « **Reply #30 on:** August 19, 2009, 08:15:03 PM »

Oh, oui!!!!!

mishca09 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 19, 2009, 08:48:26 PM »

"We in the business of killing Nazis, and business is a-boomin'."

brad pitt looks too much like george clooeny in some of the scenes which weirds me out.

smokester · « **Reply #32 on:** August 20, 2009, 02:25:06 AM »

Quote from: redlandslide on August 19, 2009, 07:12:06 PM

As long as you don't read the Sun.

I would never read that pile of garbage for precisely the reason we do not speak of.

jacktheripper305 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2009, 12:00:57 PM »

I just saw this movie a couple nights ago, and though I enjoyed it, it wasn't what I expected. I wish I had seen the french trailer, so I would have had a more accurate impression of what the movie was about.

I was expecting it to be about the exploits of the basterds... nothing else...

This happens a lot, where trailers tend to misrepresent the movie, and it annoys me so much.

mishca09 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2009, 06:46:10 PM »

Quote from: jacktheripper305 on August 23, 2009, 12:00:57 PM

This happens a lot, where trailers tend to misrepresent the movie, and it annoys me so much.

me to.

smokester · « **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2009, 05:11:22 AM »

I read another review of this yesterday that gave it a 4 out of 5 rating, but the critic also mentioned that it was not at all what he expected and could hear some grumbling and groaning from others who had expected something else. By all accounts, as JTR has suggested, this film has been misinterpreted beforehand due to some misrepresentation perhaps? It seems that it is no more than some good ~~clean~~ fun (I have no issue with the comedic approach to war) and may well prove worthy of QT afterall.

feelingindifferent · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2009, 05:29:32 AM »

I loved this movie, the dialogue was beyond superb (so hard to get good conversations in Hollywood anymore). Even in a foreign langauge! E.g. when Landa says "Bravo, to your 'filles' and your 'vaches'" or something like that to LaPadite, I read somewhere that 'vache' in slang means vajayjay.
And even in the opening scene (which was exactly like The Good the Bad and the Ugly) the tension was through the roof.

Spoiler (hover to show)

smokester · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:22:22 AM »

"The Good the bad and the ugly" is beyond compare..

I will personally never see this film as I don't really agree with its premise as I have already stated, but then I have never seen a "chick flick" either so I'm used to missing out on a good laugh..

I am left wondering why, if there was such confidence in this film by its producers, did they spent $35 million on a marketing campaign? That is a fairly unprecedented amount.

feelingindifferent · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:27:18 AM »

I guess after Kill Bill, most people think that his movies are just full of gratuitous violence, of course, wrongly. So I suppose the producers employed the bait and switch method of marketing to rake in more cash.

Also, there isn't a weak performance in this movie. Christoph Waltz, you need an Oscar. "THAT'S A BINGO!"

smokester · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:38:07 AM »

Quote from: feelingindifferent on August 25, 2009, 06:27:18 AM

I guess after Kill Bill, most people think that his movies are just full of gratuitous violence, of course, wrongly. So I suppose the producers employed the bait and switch method of marketing to rake in more cash.

Also, there isn't a weak performance in this movie. Christoph Waltz, you need an Oscar. "THAT'S A BINGO!"

I'm all for some of QT's "gratuitous violence", it's the subject matter of this film that I am not comfortable with.

I can't see Brad Pitt winning an Oscar for this judging by the fairly universal criticism of his performance, which is a shame as I quite like Brad Pitt.

IB strikes gold

jacktheripper305 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:21:13 PM »

This film is more about an assassination plot than it is about a squadron of jews killing nazis. I'll be honest, I went into it expecting it to be about a guerrilla squad killing nazis, but it wasn't really. The conversation and tension in the movie, even without the gratuitous violence was still really good. Just not what I was expecting out of the movie.