scarykitties on 18/9/2009 at 18:46
This is the first Tarantino movie I've ever seen (walked in on my foster bro once watching Kill Bill--the scene where the girl plucks out someone's eye and squishes it between her toes--and I immediately left and didn't turn back). I have to say, it's well-made. I'd say, overall (for what it's trying to be), it's a good movie. The plot is fairly solid, the characters are pretty well-defined, there's some great tension and excellent dialog (love how the bad guys are usually clever enough to see through the ruses, but they play along to mess with the... "good guys").
With that said, I didn't care for the movie. It was well-done, and I can see why it's so popular, but the brutality of it, the way that being the good guys means being as ruthless and bad as the bad guys, it left sort of a bitter taste in my mouth, as it wasn't so much a study on, "how can you defeat evil without being tainted" as a, "meeting brutality with brutality is the way to win." It wasn't too gross for me, as I've seen all the Saw and Hostel movies and only winced a couple times, so that wasn't the problem. So, as I've said, I appreciate what it is, but I didn't care for it.
june gloom on 18/9/2009 at 19:25
So because it wasn't a glorified, Hollywoodized "The Allies are Shining Heroes Who Can Do No Wrong" you didn't like it?
And I'm the one 242 makes fun of?
scarykitties on 18/9/2009 at 19:51
No, I didn't like it because I didn't leave the theater feeling satisfied by my purchase.
Much like if I'd eaten at a gourmet restaurant, then left feeling like that high-class food I had just didn't fit my tastes.
june gloom on 18/9/2009 at 21:52
Quote Posted by scarykitties
No, I didn't like it because I didn't leave the theater feeling satisfied by my purchase.
That's quite the non-answer.
SubJeff on 18/9/2009 at 22:09
Dude, he answered you here.
Quote Posted by scarykitties
the brutality of it, the way that being the good guys means being as ruthless and bad as the bad guys, it left sort of a bitter taste in my mouth, as it wasn't so much a study on, "how can you defeat evil without being tainted" as a, "meeting brutality with brutality is the way to win." It wasn't too gross for me, as I've seen all the Saw and Hostel movies and only winced a couple times, so that wasn't the problem. So, as I've said, I appreciate what it is, but I didn't care for it.
june gloom on 18/9/2009 at 23:41
I was being sarcastic. My original question was rhetorical.
Thirith on 19/9/2009 at 10:36
Quote Posted by scarykitties
With that said, I didn't care for the movie. It was well-done, and I can see why it's so popular, but the brutality of it, the way that being the good guys means being as ruthless and bad as the bad guys, it left sort of a bitter taste in my mouth, as it wasn't so much a study on, "how can you defeat evil without being tainted" as a, "meeting brutality with brutality is the way to win." It wasn't too gross for me, as I've seen all the Saw and Hostel movies and only winced a couple times, so that wasn't the problem. So, as I've said, I appreciate what it is, but I didn't care for it.
I saw it on Thursday evening and I would pretty much say that the bitter taste is *supposed* to be there. It's supposed to be ambivalent. I didn't see the film as a variation on "The ends justify the means" - not least because there's a pretty heavy subtext of the Basterds not being the heroes of their own film. They're goons and thugs, and the only reason why people cheer for them is because Nazis are an easy target - but Tarantino takes several of those easy targets and humanises them, while he doesn't really do the same for the Basterds. In the end, it's not even they who end the war - it's poor, doomed Shosanna, and the Basterds are just lucky to be along for the ride.
Kuuso on 19/9/2009 at 12:39
Quote Posted by Thirith
I saw it on Thursday evening and I would pretty much say that the bitter taste is *supposed* to be there. It's supposed to be ambivalent. I didn't see the film as a variation on "The ends justify the means" - not least because there's a pretty heavy subtext of the Basterds not being the heroes of their own film. They're goons and thugs, and the only reason why people cheer for them is because Nazis are an easy target - but Tarantino takes several of those easy targets and humanises them, while he doesn't really do the same for the Basterds. In the end, it's not even they who end the war - it's poor, doomed Shosanna, and the Basterds are just lucky to be along for the ride.
This.
It's a nice step outside the typical american cinema.
scarykitties on 19/9/2009 at 15:26
Agreed, well said Thirith.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Basterds was poorly done, a bad movie, etc., just that it resonated in a way that I didn't care for, which may have been the point.
june gloom on 19/9/2009 at 17:56
See, you yourself said it was well-made. That's not what I was attacking. My entire point was that not liking a movie because it didn't conform to standard (
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericaWinsTheWar) America Wins The War fare is, well... dumb.
At its heart, Inglourious Basterds is a revenge film, just like they used to make back in the 70s. As such it's full of black and grey morality and OTT gore. If you can't handle that then that's fine, but don't criticize it because the Basterds are bastards.
