Comments on: Inglourious Basterds

By: delarge

delarge — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:00:16 +0000

What's the beef with Kill Bill then? I thought collectively it was bang on, thoroughly enjoyable and definitely QT on form.

Death Proof in my humble was a bit 'meh! But over here we never got to see that and Planet Terror the way it was originally intended together with the trailers in between in proper grindhouse style, that would've added to it/them .

I'm in total agreement with the review though, the opening 20 minutes appear very special and like you're in for a thrill ride. It does go downhill, the worst part for me is Eli Roth, he's dreadful and not really an actor. That role should've been for someone decent, he's actually rather annoying.

I still purchased the dvd. Albeit the R1 2 disc S/E one as the UK release looks pretty pissy in comparison.

By: @fortunesfool73

@fortunesfool73 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:41:09 +0000

I saw this late as I was expecting Quentin to disappear up his own arse again. Kill Bill (though occasionally inspired) was clearly made to amuse a very small group of people and Death Proof was a couple of great set-pieces surrounded by hours of banal dialogue.

My word though, he's back on form with this. He's like the Sergio Leone of dialogue. It takes great writing (directing and acting too) to wring such tension from a few guys sat around a table. The finale is an absolute joy and even Eli Roth is entertaining. Very surprised with it and delighted to see Quentin back on his game.

By: Jordanhex

Jordanhex — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:16:34 +0000

he is a great director whilst you are just a loser. sorry. just thought it needed saying. loser.__

By: ollie3

ollie3 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:22:01 +0000

OMG! After I read your reply, I suddenly realised how what I said could have been misconstrued. What I meant to say was that after years of watching Hollywood use women in a highly sexualised way and sometimes only giving them one dimensional characters, it was a complete breath of fresh air to see the female characters in IB take complete control of every single scene they were in. 'Manly' may not have been the right word, more so in control of all their faculties, no one was going to make them do something they didn't want to. Believe me, I much prefer strong female characters, I see them actually as more realistic than male. That is what I meant of Kruger and Laurent's characters in IB, they were so powerful and their dialogue really controlled the path of the film, while at the same time managing to be in complete control of their sexuality.
But hey! at the end of the day, the ideology still stands in the institution of Hollywood about women and sex, but it takes performances like IB's to break them…

By: LSt

LSt — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:14:26 +0000

So, women have to be 'manly' to justify being heard as well as seen? Remind me, what year is this again?

By: ollie3

ollie3 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:20:22 +0000

Apple Strudel, Landa, the Basterds… I seem to be in the minority who wanted a longer cut of IB. Not only did I think that good old QT bettered his last few efforts, I may even go so far as to say this may be my favourite (between this and Dogs).
I thought the acting was exquisite, the dialogue was distinctly trademark of a QT production, the story was fascinating and the entire feel of the story was (lost for words, can't quite find or remember a good enough descriptive word!). What many forget to remember is that QT is a fanboy, he enjoys film from yesteryear and his entire work (as a whole) is a homage to the thing he loves. Why does the finale of IB, perhaps the most amazing QT scene of all with the burning cinema take place in the cinema? Because without is, QT just wouldn't know what to do with himself.
It's a parody of WWII which I would hope many people would actually accept, he changes the history but so what if it's historically incorrect, when has anything of his actually been any semblance of reality, coming from the director who wrote the bank heist film without ever showing the heist!
I agree with many that Waltz's acting was a highlight, fingers crossed for a Supporting Academy Award, and even the use of Pitt was good. His didn't over shadow but was just right. The humour used was a great touch on the tough subject (re. Italian language). And the two main women in the film were just manly enough not to feel that they should be seen and not heard.
At the end of the day, loved the film, want the DVD and want to watch all over again…

By: NJS

NJS — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:12:38 +0000

Thanks Anton.

I blame Jonathan Crocker for encouraging it. Calling QT a "banana-chinned supergeek", not very nice is it!? The man has feelings you know! Let's stop with the name calling, one love and all that.

By: Anton Bitel

Anton Bitel — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:08:21 +0000

Hear hear! Good online discussions are always about arguing (or even agreeing) with other people's views, not attacking the people themselves. And homophobic slurs should be left behind in the playground…

By: NJS

NJS — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:59:48 +0000

QT is a victim of his own relative success, his recent creations are meticulously dissected. Of course he doesn't do himself any favours by generating huge pre-release hysteria, but I didn't think Inglouriuos Bastards was bad at all.

What is the facination with people turning online discussions into anonomous slagging matches?

"you're a fag!" "your mum's gay?" etc.

Justin, Marcus is just offering his opinion.

By: Marcus Swift

Marcus Swift — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:42:52 +0000

I see the Americans have arrived to raise the tone.