Inglourious Basterds

[noxnoctum]

Just got done watching this on DVD (unfortunately missed it in the theatre), and wow, let me say this movie kicked some major ass.

First off, the trailer makes it seem MUCH more over the top than it really is (i.e. the scene with a dude running through a hall firing a MG42 from the hip---is not actually in the movie). It's very reminiscent in style (in fact I think the whole think is pretty much an homage) to the classic classic WW2 commando movies in the 60's and 70's like Dirty Dozen, Guns of Navarone etc... "Where Eagles Dare" especially reminds me of it, there's an entire long bar scene that reminded me a ton (in a good way) of this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWLE7wLnN0U

Again, it's a good bit more serious than the trailer makes it out to be, it's very much one of those WW2 adventure movies, rather than the Tarantino gorefest I expected. In fact, it got criticized apparentally for being "overly chatty" (a very good thing IMO).

I guess what I'm saying is, don't let yall's realism obsession keep you from checking this out. It's worth seeing just to see Christopher Waltz's "Landa" character.

[MeatEtr]

Hell yeah it's a good movie, I caught it in the theater. Is it just me or did the Jew Bear annoy anybody else when he talked?

Here's a crap(filmed in the theatre) clip of part of the bar scene from the movie at youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5HCeA-IptI&feature=related

[Sgt Joch]

Watched it over the weekend on DVD and was very impressed as well.

I like the homage to "Once upon the time in the west" and other Leone movies, very apparent in chapter one which has framing and music lifted straight out of those movies.

I especially enjoyed the writing which shows a very european sensibility. All of chapter 1, where the conversation between Landa and the LaPadite is part seduction, part intimidation and it is unclear whether LaPadite betrays the jewish family because of intimidation, reward and/or shared anti-semitism. Same with chapter 4, where the British agent is betrayed by cultural miscues so small that only a native German would notice them.

...and of course, Landa is such a delicious character, a wonderful movie villain...

[Blackhorse]

...Same with chapter 4, where the British agent is betrayed by cultural miscues so small that only a native German would notice them.

Those that have seen know the "big" one (and it's the only one I am aware of).

What are some others?

[Sgt Joch]

There was his accent, which is mentioned, although I do not speak german myself and cannot comment on that and the hand gesture when ordering drinks.

Perhaps a fluent german speaker could also comment on this, I presume there are other we missed as well.

[panzermartin]

Loved it. I liked how the roles, even cartoonish, were far from black and white, opposed to the classic hollywood WW2 films. The "good" guys are not so good, most of the times they seem dumb, immoral and crude.

I also think that for the first time they were some indirect messages from Tarantino. Fascism has no uniform, those who applaud at the brutal killings of innocents, even done from the"good" side (The execution of the german sergeant with the bat comes to mind) sit on the same seats as Hitler and co, watching and having fun with the propaganda film. At least thats how I saw it.

Hilarious bits, like the "italian" scene and excellent casting make this one of the most memorable movies of the recent years.

[Other Means]

Cut-n-shunt of a movie. The non-basterds bit was quite good, the basterds bits were awful. It was like one bit was written by a proper writer and one by a hyperactive 12 year old who'd never met.

I could imagine it coming out of a writers workshop where they pass a script back and forth between two people who have completely different styles.

Not awful, but you want someone to grab Tarentino and shake all the adulation he's had over the past 15 years out of him so he goes back to writing kick-ass scripts with tight, focused dialogue.

[panzermartin]

Quite true..however It was a bit of a parody of those classical ww2 films, hence the long dialogues and the slower pace. The bastards were purposedely made a bit shallow imo. What depth can you add to characters whose main goal is to collect scalps? You can actually see them as an allegory of the short-minded revenge mentality of post 9/11 America. I may go too far for a Tarantino film but characters like the redneck Brad Pitt for instance made this quite ovbious.

[REVS]

I liked the ending the best, in the theatre, emptying the magazines... oops, almost spoiled it didn't I? And I liked the chattiness a lot, too.

[Lets_All_Fight]

My favourite film of the year. I flat out loved it. Actually, I might buy the DVD tomorrow. Or I might not. My GF got me the complete 'World at War' box set and I reckon that might take me a couple of days to get through.

[Dietrich]

Considering that no one has yet posted that they didn't really like it, I reckon my observations may well seem out of place. Besides, it's plausible that my perceptions could be dismissed by a mere "lighten up, it's just a movie!".

For the record, I'm not dissing Tarantino, nor am I saying that Inglorious Basterds isn't a well-made film.

Has it not occurred to anyone to wonder at how the Basterds -- by killing (and then mutilating) pretty much every German they encounter and mutilating every one they don't kill -- are actually worse than those German troops whose actions are universally decried (as at Malmedy)? Raine specifically says "every man under my command owes me one hundred Nazi scalps"; that means he expects the eight men in his team to kill (at least) 800 German soldiers. Even at Malmedy -- the most famous atrocity on the Western Front, and widely regarded as the most heinous -- the Waffen-SS troops killed not more than 90 men.

I disagree with the film simply because it perpetuates the militarily stupid idea that "take no prisoners" is acceptable (let alone tactically/strategically advantageous) SOP. It's perfectly understandable for front-line troops to want to wreak lethal vengeance on any enemy troops who surrender to them, especially when the general consensus is that said enemy troops would do likewise anyway. But does it never occur to anyone that when you kill enemy POWs, that not only makes the enemy less likely to surrender (thus making future battles tougher and more costly) but also makes the enemy more like to massacre friendly troops who surrender? When the bad guys commits atrocity, though, the good guys have the green light to do at least as bad in return from then on.

Overall, it strikes me as not unlike if Uwe Boll were to direct a film about the men of Sonderkommando Dirlewanger and make them seem like the good guys. But if such a film were to be made, it would probably be banned and the director fined and/or blacklisted, whereas Tarantino enjoys praise and commercial success.

As I said, however, pretty much any critical assessment of the film can be easily dismissed by pointing out that the film was obviously in no way intended to be historically accurate or militarily realistic.

On a positive note, I was pleasantly surprised by the subtlety of the bar-room scene, as well as the inclusion of German actors and of German-speaking in the film.

[panzermartin]

Sorry but I think you missed the point. Tarantino didnt intend to make germans look better than americans but to ridicule the good/bad roles so steroetyped in classical hollywood cinema. 99% of the hollywood films focus on the good GI's that face the stupid, faceless ape army of the Nazis. Enemies have no face, they die always stupidly and are almost cartoonish. These films were the number one reason why I play mostly germans in wargames They just don't do justice to both sides. Because both sides had humans, with the same fears and hopes for going back home in one piece.

Now, Tarantino's film is maybe the first that turns this upside down and I'm pleased that the audience finds this embarassing for once. It portrays the "good" guys as almost a retarded bunch of criminals that take pleasure in dismembering enemies. They have no honor as opposed to their victims. (The scene with the execution of the German sergeant celebrated as a baseball game), they are dumb and illiterate (the funny italian scene), in other words they are plain savages. On the other hand you have types like Fredrick Zoller, which almost is a likeable character with his love for cinema and the jew girl. And even the bad guy Landa turns into a main hero with his unsurpassed style and sharp language. Imo its a satyrical triumph over the clice of Hollywood. Bad guys still lose in the end but I guess the B-movie ending was just made for the average Joe that didnt grasp the irony.

But the whole satyrical theme didnt really have to do with the Nazis of the 40s but it was mostly an allegory for today.The whole simplistic black/white stereotypes are a crime of commerical cinema in my opinion. It made dragging people to stupid wars much easier.

[Dietrich]

I'm willing to reckon that it's more than likely that I missed the point.

However, perhaps you miss my point. My point wasn't whether or not Inglorious Basterds was a smart and well-made film, nor was my point to accuse Tarantino of anything.

My point is simply this: I don't like this film insofar as it encourages the killing and mutilation of POWs and makes it look like the cool/manly thing to do. That's all.

But since pretty much anything goes in the movies, I guess it actually doesn't matter what the supposed good guys do or don't do. *shrug* So then my basis for dislike of the film is moot, especially since these are the days of protagonists who often are just as violent and vicious as the bad guys were in generations past (and sometimes even as violent and vicious as their antagonists).

Similarly, the "killing POWs is wrong" argument could be obviated simply by the perception of the various characters in the film which the typical audience member is likely to have. The film indeed has a "lawless no-man's-land" vibe, and what with the pretty much definite spaghetti-western sense of it, the protagonists and antagonists -- whether GI or Landser, French cinema proprietress or Nazi war hero -- come across more akin to their Old West forebears than to the "occupied France in spring 1944" archetypes their clothing and accents proclaim them to be. In other words, the typical audience member likely doesn't see the Basterds as US Army soldiers or the "Nazis" as Heeressoldaten.

I concede that I don't "get" Tarantino. I likewise concede that my analogy of Uwe Boll making a film about Dirlewanger's mob was a poor one.

Elsewhere I've also read the assessment that Inglorious Basterds could be likened to an allegory for how Tarantino himself "uses film as a weapon". (On reading that, I thought: "Certainly sounds hip... but what does it mean?")

That said, I bow out of this thread.

[panzermartin]

I know what you mean but I'm a bit skeptical about the encourangment thing. 13yr olds shouldnt be allowed to see the movie, if grown ups find the smashing of the skull of a common soldier (and one that refuses to betray his comrades) entertaining and encouraging to kill POWS then something is really sick about our world and its not Tarantino's fault.

[Sandokan]

Well, just to add my opinion. After watched the movie my first tought was "This isn't a IIWW movie. It's a spaghetti western in disguise!". Anyway, Tarantino is a bit too much gorey for me. Even if I have to admit this time is somehow milder than other of his works.

Changing slightly subject. Has anybody watched "El Alamein-Deserto di fuoco"? It's one of the best IIWW movie I've seen in the last 3-4 years but I don't know if it was released abroad too.

[Lets_All_Fight]

Changing slightly subject. Has anybody watched "El Alamein-Deserto di fuoco"? It's one of the best IIWW movie I've seen in the last 3-4 years but I don't know if it was released abroad too.

Heard the name but don't know whether I've seen it distributed here. I imagine it's available on DVD somewhere. I'll have to keep a look out.

[Sandokan]

Ahahah! Silly me! The correct title is "El Alamein- La linea del fuoco". Sorry...

Anyway on you tube can be found a few pieces. But just to have an idea of the movie, since there are not subtitles. Italian audio only.

[xor+]

There was his accent, which is mentioned, although I do not speak german myself and cannot comment on that and the hand gesture when ordering drinks.

Perhaps a fluent german speaker could also comment on this, I presume there are other we missed as well.

The accent is very noticeable, and the explanation that people from the Piz Palu region (which isn't in Germany) speak like that is somewhat ridiculous.

I'm not so sure about the cultural significance of that hand gesture for "3", it's probably exaggerated a bit. If you're going to start shooting people based on that, I'd expect to see a lot of false positives (and false negatives as well). Just shoot the bugger based on his accent and move on.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I just loved the fact that the guy who played the terribly 'British'.... look out for the hun in the sun old chap type of character was a German actor. Wonderful casting!

Regards

Jim R.

[Sgt Joch]

The accent is very noticeable, and the explanation that people from the Piz Palu region (which isn't in Germany) speak like that is somewhat ridiculous.

does the accent sound british?

I speak french and the actors playing the french roles, i.e. LaPadite, Soshanna Dreyfus & her cameraman are all native french speakers, although the dairy farmer LaPadite probably has too much of a Parisan accent for a real french farmer.

Landa and Zoeller both speak french fluently, but with a noticeable accent.

[Sgt Joch]

I just loved the fact that the guy who played the terribly 'British'.... look out for the hun in the sun old chap type of character was a German actor. Wonderful casting!

Regards

Jim R.

Michael Fassbender who plays lt. Hicox was born in Germany, but was raised and has spent most of his life in the UK. From what I read on the net, he qualifies his german as "rusty", although I thought it sounded pretty good myself.

There is something to be said for filming a movie set in ww2 with German actors acting in their native language. I very much enjoyed Valkyrie, but British actors playing Germans, no matter how good they are, does not cut it. There is a self confidence and gregariousness in Germans which only a real German can portray. The best example is the Gestapo major in chapter 4. The actor playing him is actually unimpressive physically, slight of build and a bit pudgy, but from the moment he appears, he owns the scene and is the most dangerous threat in the room.

I have watched the DVD a few times and I would rate this as my favorite movie of 2010 and the best Tarantino has done since Pulp Fiction. Great writing, great acting and a wicked, sarcastic sense of humour!

[gunnergoz]

Haven't seen the film yet, but have seen most of Tarantino's stuff and the comments here make me want to pose the question: "Just because a film CAN be made, is that sufficient justification for MAKING it?"

Tarantino may well be making a sophisticated point or two about violence, films, hypocrisy, patriotism or whatever...but do the points made justify the extremes depicted in the film being put out there to begin with?

Just a question...

[Blackhorse]

Haven't seen the film yet, but have seen most of Tarantino's stuff and the comments here make me want to pose the question: "Just because a film CAN be made, is that sufficient justification for MAKING it?"

Tarantino may well be making a sophisticated point or two about violence, films, hypocrisy, patriotism or whatever...but do the points made justify the extremes depicted in the film being put out there to begin with?

Just a question...

Does any film need justification to be made?

I mean, did they need to have justification to make Dirty Dozen or Kelly's Heroes or Dirty Harry or the Death Wish series or Doctor Zhivago?

Nah, if they want to make it, let em. If people want to see it, they will, if not, they won't.

[Michael Emrys]

Does any film need justification to be made?

I mean, did they need to have justification to make Dirty Dozen or Kelly's Heroes or Dirty Harry or the Death Wish series or Doctor Zhivago?

Nah, if they want to make it, let em. If people want to see it, they will, if not, they won't.

Well, there's a problem with that, you see. There are limitations on how much is available to make movies with. Limits on actors and other personnel, limits on equipment and facilities, and most of all limits on the amounts of money available. So there already is in place a system of selection of which scripts get the green light and which don't. All movies have to justify themselves in order to be made. Gunner is just raising a question about what kind of criteria ought to be used in the process.

Michael

[Blackhorse]

Well, there's a problem with that, you see. There are limitations on how much is available to make movies with. Limits on actors and other personnel, limits on equipment and facilities, and most of all limits on the amounts of money available. So there already is in place a system of selection of which scripts get the green light and which don't. All movies have to justify themselves in order to be made. Gunner is just raising a question about what kind of criteria ought to be used in the process.

Michael

Those are great points.

gunner asked "Just because a film CAN be made, is that sufficient justification for MAKING it?"

The key word here being "can".

I took that to imply that all of the issues you bring up were non-issues and that the ability of a studio to make a film were not constraints.

I understood the question to be one asking the question of whether or not the movie should be justified on a philosophical/moral level.

I probably totally misread the question, which wouldn't be the first time...