Inglorious Bastards

[Highspeed]

Anyone seen it ?

I tried to watch it yesterday and just gave up after about 40 minutes. I quite like Tarantino films, but this really wasn't the right subject matter for him.
The acting was poor ( I don't think much of Brad Pitt, but he usually does a good enough job - not in this case ) and it just came over to me as being in really bad taste.

I know there were all kinds of brave people playing hell behind enemy lines in Europe, they deserve to have their stories told properly.

[308Mike]

I know there were all kinds of brave people playing hell behind enemy lines in Europe, they deserve to have their stories told properly.

I COMPLETELY agree! And I'd prefer if they left out much of their "artistic license" and told the stories for what they are/were. The way they filmed "We Were Soldiers" could almost be deemed a documentary, so much was the attention to detail and sticking to what REALLY happened on both fronts - in Vietnam and at their homes too.

If you get a chance to watch this movie on DVD (We Were Soldiers), make sure you also watch the movie including the commentary by the director regarding how hard they worked to keep the story to what really happened, and NOT cave to pressure from people wanting them to change dialogue to make it more dramatic or that might have sounded cliche ("tell my wife that I love her", or "I'm glad I could give my life for my country").

A quote from the Colonel (Hal Moore) and Vietnam movies, pointing out this movie in particular: "This time they got it right."

[FelixEstrella]

Lighten up. It's not a war movie. It's not a documentary. It's a Tarantino movie, ergo it's a cartoon.

FWIW, I liked it. The first time. Fell asleep the second time.

[308Mike]

Lighten up. It's not a war movie. It's not a documentary. It's a Tarantino movie, ergo it's a cartoon.

FWIW, I liked it. The first time. Fell asleep the second time.

True, true - but much of it goes back to expectations. If you're going to see that movie with the expectation that it's kinda' real, you're going to be sadly disappointed because it OBVIOUSLY is not. OTOH, if you start watching the movie with the knowledge there is NOTHING factual about the movie (except the uniforms and weapons), then you might be entertained when all those evil Nazi bastards get what they deserve.

I haven't seen the movie, and know from what little I've read about it that almost ALL of it is complete fiction and strictly a blow-em-up, shoot-em-up movie who's only aim is to entertain, NOT inform - but if they are talking about SPECIFIC battles (and I don't know if they did or not), or specific units engaged in those battles, if you're going to name them and units/locations, then the part that happened in reality should at least be told accurately.

My mom's fiance was in WWII, and if they changed parts of certain battles he was in, even though he KNOWS it's a movie (unfortunately in our schools today, they aren't teaching WWII history and kids are picking it up from movies and WWII apologist activists), it still makes his blood boil knowing what they did is NOT what is on the screen and Hollyweird is lying to the public and teaching the less-bright that this is what happened in WWII ('cause their teachers aren't telling them anything different). So they need to know when they talk about and show certain things on the screen, there are still people alive WHO WERE THERE and when you lie about what they did, it's NOT just 'slightly' changing the facts or "viewpoint" - but then again, those morons don't get it in the first place.

Yes, I already know there's going to be a LOT of Marines pissed off at what this new Tom Hanks mini-series is going to do for their war int he Pacific. I wouldn't be surprised at this being the tipping point for many where Tom jumps the shark regarding his draw for movies and show. MANY people will simply not watch ANYTHING he's doing/done because they don't want to have ANYTHING to do with contributing to his finances to do anything else like it.

Stick a fork in Tom Hanks - he's done.

[Highspeed]

Lighten up. It's not a war movie. It's not a documentary. It's a Tarantino movie, ergo it's a cartoon.

With the greatest respect, I disagree. There are some subjects which are suitable for that kind of treatment and some which aren't. Just in my opinion.

I'd just about called 'enough' when " The Golem " beat the German POW to death with the baseball bat but I carried on watching a while longer.
Let me tell you something - I have, somewhere, a Wehrmacht issue officers wristwatch that my dad brought back from active service in WW2. When I was a kid I felt let down that he'd bartered for it with a POW, I wished he'd killed the guy and took it off his twitching corpse.
Now I'm so glad that he swapped it for a bar of ration chocolate and some cigarettes.
It shows that WE aren't like THEM.

Mike :- I have both the book and the movie of 'We Were Soldiers' - I've got some issues with the movie, but the book is unlike anything I have ever read on the subject of war. It's like a scholarly after action report written for a war college combined with a eulogy to the men under Col Moores command. What a guy.

[blackeagle603]

Inglorious Bastards was the very definition of gratuitous violence and gore: a public display of self masturbatory artistic excess.

Or something like that.

Ask me again later. I'll tell you what I really think of the movie and Tarantino. I mean besides him being a boil on the butt of US popular culture.

[Jericho941]

I saw the whole thing at the insistence of a coworker. On one hand... "the Jew Hunter" was such a perfect villain, great acting, totally wasted on an affront to history. The fact of the matter is that the Allies did recruit Jewish refugees to serve as commandoes, but they didn't behave anything like the "Basterds."

Worse, I'm not even sure what Tarantino was thinking half the time he made the movie. There's a LOT of subtle commentary that is completely wasted in the flood of blood and gore. It's like he WANTED to make a movie that was less one-dimensional crap than what we usually get, and then just threw it aside in favor of his usual one-dimensional exploding head montage.

[George guy]

It's a shame that the most egotistical directors are the ones whose talents are really suited to an assistant role that they'd most likely never take.

[FelixEstrella]

With the greatest respect, I disagree. There are some subjects which are suitable for that kind of treatment and some which aren't. Just in my opinion.

In theory I think I agree, but I can't for the life of me think of a single example at the moment. And I won't bore you with the "only when we can find humour in a subject have we come to terms with the subject matter" argument.

But in this case, (and in all Tarantino movies) the execution is so over the top that any comparison to reality is, IMHO, immature and/or petulant.