Inglourious Basterds - TTLG Forums

Renault on 14/7/2009 at 16:06

I'm guessing the same people who now rip Tarantino's films were total fanboys of his back when the films were released.

Queue on 14/7/2009 at 18:49

Quote Posted by ercles

I'm sorry but you need to re-think The Godfather. It's that good. It's been copied by just about every mob film since so it may not seem original, but I always compare it to Shawshank or 2001:A Space Odyssey where everybody rants about them but they are simply that good that they can't disappoint.

(Why in the hell did I type it as: "God Father"? Who art in Heaven?) :o

I think that watching it for the first-time, so long after viewing Casino and Goodfellas, may be the cause of my rather mundane reception. I enjoyed it, but wasn't blown away by it. Not to reduce Coppola by any means, but Scorsese did the others so well is the problem.

It was like watching Star Wars in the theater when it first came out; it seemed like something new and incredible, but in hindsight--meh. It really wasn't that good, ripped off Flash Gordon, and has since been pulverized into utter crap by the pursuit of mass-marketing (ala Godfather III). But, it was ground-breaking in bring incestuous themes into the mainstream.

I can appreciate The Godfather for being the ground-breaking work it is, but I think Coppola was only ever truly amazing with creating Apocalypse Now. He shot his load with that one.

...and even then, he had the strength of Conrad to pull from.

But, yes--2001 is simply that good. :thumb:

PeeperStorm on 15/7/2009 at 01:50

Watching a Tarantino movie is like dating someone who's wealthy, good looking, and a complete airhead. As long as you don't expect interesting conversation and deep thoughts, it's all good.

Scots Taffer on 15/7/2009 at 02:10

That's ironic, since snappy dialogue is about the most Tarantino has going for him. That and his encyclopaedic knowledge of cinema, although I feel like that's been a hindrance rather than a benefit.

I like a lot of Tarantino's stuff but I don't love it. I find it very hard to come back to, probably due to the fact that his movies are too often love letters to periods of cinema that I honestly have zero connection with - spaghetti westerns, samurai sagas, blaxploitation etc.

I have found almost all of his work entertaining, but Kill Bill and its sloppy dog-eared nature killed a lot of my enthusiasm for his directorial abilities - I reckon it was a good two or three versions away from being what it needed to be. And then Death Proof, a literal car wreck of a movie, a fucking mess with one fantastic scene. For the first time his customary sprawling dialogues became a bore and irritation. I seriously did not like much about that movie at all.

Perhaps due to that, or the fact that it genuinely doesn't look terribly inspired, I've been tepid on Basterds every step of the way. The trailers aren't doing much to convince me either.

ercles on 15/7/2009 at 03:11

Although not as good as Planet Terror, Grindhouse made for a terrific drinking film. I think the reason that Pulp Fiction stands out amongst Tarantino's other efforts is how tight it is. The script of that film is just sublime. It's certainly rambling in parts, but where compared to something like Kill Bill it's positively lean. The heartbreaking part is all of his films have incredible scenes, but he clearly can't help himself from masturbating irrelevant dialogue and film references all over what could otherwise be compulsive viewing.

PeeperStorm on 15/7/2009 at 05:53

Compulsive viewing? So it would cause a mental illness?

Scots Taffer on 15/7/2009 at 05:55

wut

ercles on 15/7/2009 at 06:32

Was going to quote sam jackson, but the tags beat me to it

Thirith on 15/7/2009 at 08:32

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

That's the strange thing - I'm not all that keen on the genres Tarantino's so clearly in love with, but at least with Kill Bill his postmodern mix'n'match approach worked wonders for me. I saw both parts at the cinema three times and every time I came out feeling excited.

With some of the genres I guess it's an acquired taste, though; I don't go out of my way to watch spaghetti westerns, but Leone's just such a skilled yet infuriating filmmaker - his films are big, sloppy, operatic messes, but then there are scenes of such precision and tension (mainly by means of the visual composition, editing and use of music) that I want to rewind and watch them all over again. Watching Leone's films I tend to go from rolling my eyes to being absolutely entranced all the time. IMO the black and white bit in Kill Bill 2 before the wedding massacre works very similarly, and (to my mind) similarly well.

It helps, though, that I have a very high tolerance level for postmodernism's way of bashing disparate things together, when I consider it done well. At its best I prefer its eclecticism to the more classical unity of genre, tone, narrative etc.

Angel Dust on 15/7/2009 at 09:56

Quote Posted by Queue

I can appreciate The Godfather for being the ground-breaking work it is, but I think Coppola was only ever truly amazing with creating Apocalypse Now. He shot his load with that one.

Actually I think it was the other film he released that year that is his true masterpiece: The Conversation. I appreciate and enjoy the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now but none of them resonate with me like The Conversation does.

As far as QT goes: I generally enjoy his films (I love Jackie Brown and the more I watch it, the more I think it's his real high water mark) but I haven't been very interested in Inglourious Basterds. The trailers look pretty bad and the reception luke-warm at best. Still I'll probably check it out on DVD.