that doesn't work. my wife always gets loaded and she says I'm never the right length.
hey-ooooo!
hey-ooooo!
Inglourious Basterds & Tarantino in general
- Thread starter Ambreen
- Start date
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Thank you for that.
nervas
more crickets than friends
Hahhahahha, Hooch that was funny, Holy Mackeral! hahahah. mjp, I think that was one of my main reasons for staying away from basterds for so long. I kept thinking, eh I don't have the time, and the reviews, trailers, etc never made me want to see it too badly. So one random morning I said, ok I'm watching it. It certainly did not seem that long, and when it was over, I wanted more. Give it a shot, some of the actors were pretty damn amazing and I gotta say, I was even impressed with Pitt.
C
Composer
I've seen it 3 times so far, and I think Christoph Waltz give a superb, multi-level performance. On the surface, he first appears charming and sophisticated, a man you'd like to have over for dinner. Underneath is a heart as cold as stone. He doesn't hunt Jews so much because he hates them, but because it's his job and he has no feelings at all.
But there's more. At the end of the film, he reveals another nature - an insecure, silly little man who postures as a cold-hearted villan n order to survive, but who will throw it all out to save his skin.
The other characters seemed far less defined. Brad Pitt's Tennessee accent is hilarious, though not at all believeable, and most of the rest are pretty one-dimensional.
But there's more. At the end of the film, he reveals another nature - an insecure, silly little man who postures as a cold-hearted villan n order to survive, but who will throw it all out to save his skin.
The other characters seemed far less defined. Brad Pitt's Tennessee accent is hilarious, though not at all believeable, and most of the rest are pretty one-dimensional.
mjp
Founding member
We watched it this weekend and I felt every long, droning minute of it. It is typical Tarantino. All surface gloss, no guts. There is no undercurrent, subtlety or surprise in anything he does, in any character he writes. It's all out there to see, and it's all very shallow and stupid crap wrapped in a thick layer of "ironic" pop culture detachment.
He's nothing more than a tragically wannabe hipster Roger Corman with a bigger budget. None of his movies will stand the test of time. The older ones already look like the stinky cheese that they are. Put them into a time capsule with everything Spike Jonze ever did and bury them deep in the ground in an ironic, self-referential time capsule for the ironic worms to enjoy.
Aside from that I have no real opinion on the matter.
He's nothing more than a tragically wannabe hipster Roger Corman with a bigger budget. None of his movies will stand the test of time. The older ones already look like the stinky cheese that they are. Put them into a time capsule with everything Spike Jonze ever did and bury them deep in the ground in an ironic, self-referential time capsule for the ironic worms to enjoy.
Aside from that I have no real opinion on the matter.
mjp
Founding member
I've been thinking about it, and Tarantino's movies are certainly entertaining, as long as you go into them without any great expectations. What fries my noodle is when people talk about him being a great director or a great artist. He is neither. Shock and gore is cheap and easy, and that's all he's got.
nervas
more crickets than friends
You know, after having re-watched all his movies in the last year. I was just shocked at how it felt like water torture getting through Resevoir Dogs, Kill Billl I/II, and especially Pulp Fiction. I mean, I was floored, sitting there thinking, didn't I used to LOVE these movies? I still say I found Jackie Browne as entertaining as I always have, actually liked it more nowadays. But I really could not believe how hard it was to sit through Pulp Fiction. I don't think I will ever watch it again, ever. I'll have to watch Basterds again in a couple of years and see how it holds up for me.
It's fashionable to hate on Tarantino and fuck fashion I'm of the singular mind-set he's a brilliant filmmaker. Every film he makes I look forward to and I could care less what the naysayers say. Pulp Fiction is a classic. It created a cottage-industry in Hollywood for years - countless films were created in its wake. Doesn't much sound like it was much but what do I know?! That's sarcasm in the best of terms. Industry changing focal points must be dull and listless. Right? Punk rock, anyone?!
mjp
Founding member
Such as?
Imitation is not an indication of quality. Every Sunset strip band form the 80s is painful testament to that.
Not sure what that means. It it's a defense of shock and gore and smirking irony being the only elements of your "art," then it's not a very good defense.
Tarantino's movies have no soul. They are detached and self-aware, as all ironic art is. His characters are trite, cliched and one dimensional, so you can't ever relate to or empathize with any of them. None of them have any love or passion for anything. In fact, love and passion in any form are completely absent from every Tarantino movie.
You can work within those limitations and be a good filmmaker, but you will never make great films.
There's some humor too.
Jules: I used the same soap as you and my towel didn't end up lookin' like no goddamn maxi pad.
Wolf: Now let's not start suckin' each other's dicks just yet.
Marcellus and Butch with ball gags?
But you're spot on about not having any expectations other than some entertainment.
he borrows excessively from other films and pieces together the borrowed bits with lots of irony glue. sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's entertaining, but I always have the feeling when I'm watching his films he thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and it's smarmy and condescending. there's always an element of 'let's see if the rubes can figure out what Japanese film that was never released I'm referencing now!'
but I liked Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs when they first came out.
but I liked Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs when they first came out.
nervas
more crickets than friends
Fashionable where? I know no one would probably say he sucked to his face. But in June as my FNG iPOD was being stolen out of my car, I was outside of the Viper room smoking a cigarette as some local homeless guy came telling me and a few other people Tarentino was a few feet behind him with two girls, and had just given the homeless dude $20 bucks....Sure enough he was, as he came strolling up the sidewalk two minutes later. All of a sudden the 15 people outside smoking turned into 50, each one of them telling Tarentino what a genius he was. He certainly seems to be pretty well liked and adored around here. In addition all my friends, every single one of them, it's a very small circle, but anyway every single one of them thinks he's BRILLIANT! On and on we sit and argue why I think M. Night Syhmalan was 10X the writer and director Tarentino ever was! But, I don't know, I think, as far as I've ever known, it was more fashionable to worship Tarentino in these parts.
Hooch, couldn't agree more, I thought both Pulp and Resevoir dogs were amazing when they came out, and now I can't sit through either one of them, especially Pulp.
All of which is irrelevant to me when it come to film. If he thinks he's a genius and/or people tell him he's a genius, it's not even a rat's ass to me. All I expect out a film is entertainment of some sort and he generally delivers. I expect more from books and paintings and music, so the qualities you mentioned can be more annoying in those media to me. {queue comments about pretentious prog bands I like...}
it's irrelevant to you because you've decided film is a lesser art form. which is fine. I can't really argue that.
my mother liked romance novels and Thomas Kincaid paintings because they made her feel good. was she right? yes. did I agree that romance novels and Kincaid paintings were the best that those respective mediums could produce? no. but that's what she wanted from writing and art.
my mother liked romance novels and Thomas Kincaid paintings because they made her feel good. was she right? yes. did I agree that romance novels and Kincaid paintings were the best that those respective mediums could produce? no. but that's what she wanted from writing and art.
While it's true that I see it as a "lesser art form," I would really like to enjoy film more. See notes below.
You needn't argue the point that my opinion is that film is a lesser art form, since arguing about opinons is like trying to shoot mosquitoes with a musket. But that's not the point, You can certainly argue the point within a film context because I confined my position about "only expecting entertainment" to film. Therefore, there is no "lesser art form" in the context of this conversation. All else hath been removed, so all that remains is fair game.
In the film genre, I'll admit that QT does seem to try to hover above all with these smarmy ideas and presentations that are meant to speak to a cognescenti few. It's not that this is immatarial to me because I see film as a lesser form of art, but because I refuse to be sucked into that realm - that so endearing academic realm that would speak to me of his pretense. Certainly there is good film, but how much ponderousness must we endure to see the light in a visual image already spoon-fed into our weakened psyche?
I would so much rather someone write about it and let me interpret it - no need for me to get it just as the author intended; no, no. Let me be sucked in to my interpretation of your world. If your goal is to get a specific message across, why not write an editorial column?
Juvenile comparison. We all get the whole concept here. Tarantino's arrogance is immaterial to me because I don't care about it. Picasso's arrogance is also immaterial to me even though I do care about it.
Edited to add: Well, it would seem as though I've made your argument for you. G'night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_Fiction_(film) pan down to Influence and reputation - I was just going to list a bunch of films but this says it better.
No, not defense of the violent aspects of his films but the narrative structure, energy/vibrancy of the dialogue and composition. Surely you'll not care for his films if you don't care to watch graphic violence. I'm not so sure he even pushed the envelope that much with "shock scenes" as say A Clockwork Orange.
I really like Kubrick but feel this way about his films. Technically brilliant but emotionally sterile, hospital smell detachment. Don't get that same sense watching Tarantino. If you're not moved by, say the opening scene at the dairy farm from Inglourious Basterds, maybe what we define as "soul" is different.
All over the 'net, nervas. Visit a site where films are discussed and you'll probably find at least one thread devoted to bashing Tarantino. And they often get silly. He talks too fast, he has a misshaped head, his shoelace was untied.
What I just wrote took all of two hours to finish. Jesus Christ! My computer is fucked and keeps shutting down on its own. copy-notepad-paste I've now mastered and will suffice till I figure out what's wrong.
I thought I had to keep it simple. I mean, you do like Jethro Tull, right?
heh.
mjp
Founding member
I must have missed the part in A Clockwork Orange where the brains splattered all over the back seat of the car. But you inadvertently make my point for me; Clockwork was infinitely more disturbing than any Tarantino movie. Ask yourself why that is. They didn't use anywhere near the level of graphic, close-up violence or language, yet the movie really gives you the fucking creeps. That is because one was made by a filmmaker and the others were made by a shallow hipster jerkoff.
Not moved by it one bit. Good example, because it perfectly demonstrates that Tarantino is incapable making you care about any of his characters. Not to mention the fact that you knew how that scene was going to end as soon as the Nazis got out of the car.
When people meet their grizzly end in a Tarantino movie I just shrug and yawn. I have no emotional investment in any of them, and if you can't get me to care about someone, anyone, you can't make a great film. How anyone can sit through something like Deathproof and consider it anything other than one of the worst films ever made is beyond me. The final scene is nothing but gratuitous gore. You don't give a shit about any of those characters. When they are ripped apart in the oh-so-clever ways, it's like; "Oh. Okay. Is there any pizza left? Hand me the bong and that Jethro Tull album..."
We're just friends with two different Izzys. Izzy Not and Izzy Too and you know how those two enjoy going round and round. You've seen Deathproof? That one if you'd blinked you would have missed it at the theater. Just begs the question why do you continue to watch his films if you feel the way you do about him?
reasonknot
Founding member
cant read all this thread but do remember watching inglorious bastards off the IFc channel or something and another movie ,paid for both and was upset at wasting money .curiousness bites.you know .watch a movie but eventually not having to thus living.blopity blop
what.the Pixies are on the cover of Stomp and Stammer this month.where am I.
what.the Pixies are on the cover of Stomp and Stammer this month.where am I.
Bukfan
"The law is wrong; I am right"
I finally watched Inglorious Basterds' and what a disappointment it was. The plot was completely unbelievable and the ending was pretty tame with the scalping and the etching of the swastika into Lamda's forehead. I'm glad I bought the DVD on sale.
Last edited by a moderator: