Inglorious Bastards

[namethebats]

I also wonder how it'll hold up on the second viewing (and there will be one). A lot of the appeal for me came in predicting how the plot would unfold and being proven wrong on almost everything. At least a few of those scenes will stay with me (the opening scene, the bar and anything with the main Nazi character), but I don't know how it'll fare as a whole.

[Christina]

Here's an even better question: why does Tarantino get a pass for recycling junk? If anyone else did it, surely no one would pay attention to him. But because this idiot "loves film" so much, everyone loves him.

I don't think he gets an across-the-board pass, though ... I think he has as many detractors as he does fans.

[SJK]

Here's an even better question: why does Tarantino get a pass for recycling junk? If anyone else did it, surely no one would pay attention to him. But because this idiot "loves film" so much, everyone loves him.

I didn't like it. It's some strange twisted revenge fantasy mixed up in what B_Buster pointed out, the whole recycling of junk, Mexican stand off is one example. Please move on, evolve...adapt! Some time ago Tom was making the point about how his peers have moved on in terms of style and subject matter making far superior films, Coen brothers No Country for Old Men for a face melting example. On a separate technical note, I watched a hi res (2k/4k?!) digital projection here in the backwoods that is Saskatoon and it looked amazing, the pictures were outstanding.   

[Chris L]

Here's an even better question: why does Tarantino get a pass for recycling junk? If anyone else did it, surely no one would pay attention to him. But because this idiot "loves film" so much, everyone loves him.

I don't think he gets an across-the-board pass, though ... I think he has as many detractors as he does fans.

Here's an even better question: why does Tarantino get a pass for recycling junk? If anyone else did it, surely no one would pay attention to him. But because this idiot "loves film" so much, everyone loves him.

I don't think he gets an across-the-board pass, though ... I think he has as many detractors as he does fans.

Or, as Glenn Kenny puts it in his rave review:

I can't think of a singly contemporary filmmaker who brings out the scolding third-grade teacher in so many cinephiles more than Quentin Tarantino does. Get thee to just about any film-enthusiast message board, or any comments thread to a post about Tarantino on any film blog, and you'll see any number of what we might call "Work Habits And Character" complaints, which all boil down to something like "While Quentin is a bright, clever, and sometimes resourceful student, he needs to focus more on the 'real world' and less on his own personal obsessions if he ever hopes to amount to something." Put another way: Quentin Tarantino could be a genuinely great filmmaker if only he could get over his puerile, annoying insistence on making Quentin Tarantino movies.

I think the guy is basically a bonehead and will continue to say so but he is some kind of filmmaking savant.  The quote about Red Dawn from that Atlantic profile sounds like the musings of a psychopath but damn if this doesn't achieve some of the catharsis (for some) that sleepyjack mentioned

[Chris L]

Here's an even better question: why does Tarantino get a pass for recycling junk? If anyone else did it, surely no one would pay attention to him. But because this idiot "loves film" so much, everyone loves him.

I didn't like it. It's some strange twisted revenge fantasy mixed up in what B_Buster pointed out, the whole recycling of junk, Mexican stand off is one example. Please move on, evolve...adapt! Some time ago Tom was making the point about how his peers have moved on in terms of style and subject matter making far superior films, Coen brothers No Country for Old Men for a face melting example. On a separate technical note, I watched a hi res (2k/4k?!) digital projection here in the backwoods that is Saskatoon and it looked amazing, the pictures were outstanding.  

The Coens certainly knew a good thing when they saw it with that novel.  The film is practically right there on the page and they did an outstanding job transplanting McCarthy's vision while throwing in idiosyncratic touches of their own.  I wouldn't generalize their artistic temperment as being light years beyond Tarantino's.   If anything, their films are far more snide, insular and increasingly self-indulgent, albeit sometimes in tremendously entertaining ways.  

Or, to put it another way, No Country is kinda like their Jackie Brown!

[SJK]

Here's an even better question: why does Tarantino get a pass for recycling junk? If anyone else did it, surely no one would pay attention to him. But because this idiot "loves film" so much, everyone loves him.

I didn't like it. It's some strange twisted revenge fantasy mixed up in what B_Buster pointed out, the whole recycling of junk, Mexican stand off is one example. Please move on, evolve...adapt! Some time ago Tom was making the point about how his peers have moved on in terms of style and subject matter making far superior films, Coen brothers No Country for Old Men for a face melting example. On a separate technical note, I watched a hi res (2k/4k?!) digital projection here in the backwoods that is Saskatoon and it looked amazing, the pictures were outstanding.  

The Coens certainly knew a good thing when they saw it with that novel.  The film is practically right there on the page and they did an outstanding job transplanting McCarthy's vision while throwing in idiosyncratic touches of their own.  I wouldn't generalize their artistic temperment as being light years beyond Tarantino's.   If anything, their films are far more snide, insular and increasingly self-indulgent, albeit sometimes in tremendously entertaining ways.  

Or, to put it another way, No Country is kinda like their Jackie Brown!

I would generalize that their artistic temperament is light years ahead. I should qualify that it's a matter of my personal taste. All of the CB's films v QT's films...for me there is no comparison. I find the Coen brothers work far more entertaining and might agree with you about the snide, insular and increasingly self-indulgent side of their work. QT could be accused of the same. The CBs have put out some clunkers to be sure.  

I would also like to make it clear that I have paraphrased Kid Jersey, poorly. I do apologize if I did misrepresent his words and beg for forgiveness. I still agree with the quote even if i did screw it up.

[masterofsparks]

Has anyone heard the QT interview on this week's installment of The Treatment? Spoiler alert: QT comes across like a real dunce.

At one point, in the course of praising the actors in this movie, he says something like "If you want to act in one of my movies, you can't be dumb. Dumb people can't understand my poetry."

I may be mis-quoting, but I know the phrase "my poetry" was in there. I almost choked on my butter croissant when I heard that.

[dave from knoxville]

Has anyone heard the QT interview on this week's installment of The Treatment? Spoiler alert: QT comes across like a real dunce.

At one point, in the course of praising the actors in this movie, he says something like "If you want to act in one of my movies, you can't be dumb. Dumb people can't understand my poetry."

I may be mis-quoting, but I know the phrase "my poetry" was in there. I almost choked on my butter croissant when I heard that.

On Charlie Rose, he said that he thought this might be his masterpiece, but he would have to wait 3 years to see where it fit in his "oeuvre".

[Christina]

On Charlie Rose, he said that he thought this might be his masterpiece

God, I think he says this every movie.

[Ike]

Has anyone heard the QT interview on this week's installment of The Treatment? Spoiler alert: QT comes across like a real dunce.

He has never, EVER had a good interview.  Ever.  He might be the single worst "guest" ever, in the history of entertainment.  Did you see him on Letterman last week?  It's always hard to even just watch him sit there, all coked out of his mind. 

I saw this last week and I'm still thinking about it.  That is pretty rare for me.  I will see it again, and this time I will focus on peripherals a lot more. 

[Christina]

Or, as Glenn Kenny puts it in his rave review:

I can't think of a singly contemporary filmmaker who brings out the scolding third-grade teacher in so many cinephiles more than Quentin Tarantino does.

I think the guy is basically a bonehead and will continue to say so but he is some kind of filmmaking savant. 

Yeah, I think this pretty much nails it - his rabbity Dexedrine personality gets in the way every time. It's what makes him run his mouth incessantly and ruin interviews, it's what makes him decide to do parts in his own movies (ie his car-crash of a performance in Pulp Fiction), and I'm going to guess he just wears down anyone involved in his productions. 

[todd]

Or, as Glenn Kenny puts it in his rave review:

I can't think of a singly contemporary filmmaker who brings out the scolding third-grade teacher in so many cinephiles more than Quentin Tarantino does.

I think the guy is basically a bonehead and will continue to say so but he is some kind of filmmaking savant. 

Yeah, I think this pretty much nails it - his rabbity Dexedrine personality gets in the way every time. It's what makes him run his mouth incessantly and ruin interviews, it's what makes him decide to do parts in his own movies (ie his car-crash of a performance in Pulp Fiction), and I'm going to guess he just wears down anyone involved in his productions. 

Was he all that bad in Pulp Fiction? I thought it was fine.

[Christina]

Was he all that bad in Pulp Fiction? I thought it was fine.

Really?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-7f7vVCqvI[/youtube]

Not only does he drop the n-bomb about eleventy times (TO SAMUEL L. JACKSON'S FACE), but his overall delivery in this scene is just ridiculous. And who's there to reign him in and say "maybe not a good idea"?

Answer: nobody.

[todd]

Was he all that bad in Pulp Fiction? I thought it was fine.

Really?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-7f7vVCqvI[/youtube]

Not only does he drop the n-bomb about eleventy times (TO SAMUEL L. JACKSON'S FACE), but his overall delivery in this scene is just ridiculous. And who's there to reign him in and say "maybe not a good idea"?

Answer: nobody.

 I had a feeling this was your criticism. Who gives a shit. It's a character in a movie. Samuel L. Jackson didn't seem offended, I don't know why you need to be on his behalf.

[Matt]

That's another good thing about INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS: N-bombs weren't flying left and right. People in this movie use "Negro". Very classy!