It is complete fiction right?
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
What's better than non-stop mayhem Nazi killing action movie? :D
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)
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.
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...
I'm looking forward to it. I love Tarantino films. :)
I take it you are no fan of the Guardian tho'.
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.
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.
Daily Mirror ??? The Guardian ???
What are these strange names ???
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.
As long as you don't read the Sun. >:(
This happens a lot, where trailers tend to misrepresent the movie, and it annoys me so much.
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!"