Inglourious Basterds

[Bomby]

^^ Because said resident film nerds are concerned with more than just the superficial aspects of films.

[Deepfake]

*shrug* different people look for different things in film

[Lurch1982]

^^ Because said resident film nerds are concerned with more than just the superficial aspects of films.

Don't care how well it was shot and how good certain performances and scenes were, the script as a whole is fragmented and ****ty and thus the entire product suffers. The script is not a superficial aspect to it and to claim otherwise basically undermines the entire concept of plot-driven films. If he was going for a purely visual work, yeah, you'd have a point. Not here.

[Bomby]

Having awareness of other aspects of filmmaking besides the story alters one's perception of a film. This contributed to us "film nerds" collective enjoyment of the film. You didn't like it? Fine by me, but when you word your posts trying to get a reaction by all means expect a reaction.

[Lurch1982]

I'm just trying to get exactly WHY people are saying its his best work. I don't really see it at all (Personally, I'd go Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, then this one).

Even knowing other aspects that go into filmmaking, I can't get past the sloppy script and haphazardly cut/pasted feel from it. Honestly, he should have just dumped Pitt's side of the story and worked with the fairly strong "French Jewish girl in hiding's revenge" story.

[Bomby]

As far as the Basterds themselves go, I feel like the fourth chapter was spectacular entertainment which more than justified their inclusion. The second chapter is easily the sloppiest chapter of the bunch, especially after the brilliance of the first chapter, but it's inclusion in the narrative is justified by the fact that it introduces us to their line of work. [spoiler]I did find it disappointing that the Basterds who were specifically made out to be complete badasses didn't get to show off their badassness later on in the film, therefore rendering their extended exposition sequences a bit counteractive.[/spoiler]

It all really comes together in chapter five. As an audience, we are meant to sympathize with both the Basterds and Shoshanna, and learning [spoiler]that their plans may counteract with each other[/spoiler] is a source of great narrative suspense that is meant to arouse curiosity in the viewer. As far as how much it worked, your mileage may vary, but for me it worked great. Because of this, I feel that the dual storylines made Basterds a stronger work than it would have been had it simply been the story of Shoshanna.

[Rainbow Dash]

oh noooo it's lurch

[Lurch1982]

As far as the Basterds themselves go, I feel like the fourth chapter was spectacular entertainment which more than justified their inclusion. The second chapter is easily the sloppiest chapter of the bunch, especially after the brilliance of the first chapter, but it's inclusion in the narrative is justified by the fact that it introduces us to their line of work. [spoiler]I did find it disappointing that the Basterds who were specifically made out to be complete badasses didn't get to show off their badassness later on in the film, therefore rendering their extended exposition sequences a bit counteractive.[/spoiler]

Here's the thing. You go into this and you're instantly hit with the first chapter. This is probably one of the best scenes Tarantino has ever shot or written, and it comes off amazing on the screen. Then everything after that is a splintered trainwreck that's haphazardly connected. You don't have the buildup, you don't have the suspense, and unlike the first scene, I kept wondering why I should actually give a ****.

The second chapter feels like a rough draft. There's hints of great stuff in it, but absolutely nothing is fleshed out to any sort of point that makes the Basterds coherent or even anything much more than a sidebar. The way he shot the Basterds doing pretty much anything (outside of Ch. 4) was basically from the point of view of the Germans. This actually would have worked extremely well if they would have told it from the point of view of the SS guy. Actually, that would have worked even better because it could have at least established a motivation for a high ranking SS officer to agree to assassinate the leadership of Germany.

I mean, the entire reason the LCD-types are saying this is a German apologist film is because the Basterds are not fleshed out in any way shape or form. The only two that I could name without looking up were Donny Donowitz (The Bear Jew) and Hugo Stiglitz. The former because they actually gave him a few lines (Bostonian references combined with a baseball bat); the latter because they gave him a very brief origin story and flashed his name across the screen. The other dozen guys besides Brad Pitt? I couldn't tell you anything about them because they didn't really do anything but stand there and scream. The Basterds arcs weren't fleshed out at all, and they really didn't have any sense of personality or (for the most part) style. Ch 4 made them look fairly incompetent IMO, and there's no sense as to how they survived as long as they did if they couldn't instruct a plant on subtle ways to blend in. But hey, at least we got the classic Tarantino Mexican-standoff.

When you get down to it, he had the foundations to make two films that intertwined with each other, but for whatever reason jammed them into one film. The narrative just went downhill from the first chapter, and it was very strange to actually watch a Tarantino film where I felt characters were not fleshed out through dialogue (pretty much all of the basterds). If the dual storylines were actually strong and built up, then yeah they would certainly work better than one standing alone. However, one storyline was extremely weak and not developed while the other one was, so it just made the entire project feel weak from a narrative standpoint.

[spoiler]also, loved the irony that the film within a film was what the unwashed masses thought this would be.[/spoiler]

[Bomby]

I agree with you about the second chapter. Though it was entertaining in parts, as a whole it could have been pulled off a lot better. I don't feel that Tarantino really should have fleshed out every character in the entire team, especially since their function was basically the same: they're Nazi hunters. I do wish the ones that had been made a point of introducing earlier had more significance later in the film.

I disagree with you on chapter four. It wasn't the Basterds who were incompetent, it was the British Liutenant and the actress. This is highlighted by the fact that Aldo Raine, toward the beginning of the chapter, had major qualms about the strategy of the plan.

What I liked even more about chapter four:
[spoiler]The demonstration of the truth that anyone can die, at any time. Any other filmmaker, and Tarantino himself at different points in his career, would have at least kept Stiglitz alive through the end of the sequence. I felt that there was a significant loss to the Basterds at this point.[/spoiler]

There was plenty of suspense throughout chapter four. We know that the actress has a substantial piece of information to tell the Basterds. We know what it is. But her telling of the information is continually put off by partying Nazis. [spoiler]Then the other Nazi comes in and starts questioning them.[/spoiler] The tension is continually escalated throughout the scene and until its climax, the audience is unsure of whether or not the Basterds will ever get the information that they would be giddy with excitement to receive.

I feel that I already explained the suspenseful elements of chapter five. I also agree that the first chapter is the best part of the film, and is quite possibly the best scene Tarantino has shot since the last scene in Pulp Fiction.

[Sean P Kelly]

Considering that the only recognizable faces for me within the Basterd underlings were Sam Levine (from Freaks and Geeks) and B.J. Novak (The Office), it's probably best that they remain faceless.

However, I did worry for a while that Novak took that time off from The Office to be in the film and he would end up not getting any lines (so, I was relieved when he literally showed up out of nowhere towards the end).

[Prince Toad]

Well I loved this movie, but frankly it would have been worth it even if I hadn't just to see Ryan from the Office scalping a Nazi.

[Lurch1982]

I agree with you about the second chapter. Though it was entertaining in parts, as a whole it could have been pulled off a lot better. I don't feel that Tarantino really should have fleshed out every character in the entire team, especially since their function was basically the same: they're Nazi hunters. I do wish the ones that had been made a point of introducing earlier had more significance later in the film.

I disagree with you on chapter four. It wasn't the Basterds who were incompetent, it was the British Liutenant and the actress. This is highlighted by the fact that Aldo Raine, toward the beginning of the chapter, had major qualms about the strategy of the plan.

What I liked even more about chapter four:
[spoiler]The demonstration of the truth that anyone can die, at any time. Any other filmmaker, and Tarantino himself at different points in his career, would have at least kept Stiglitz alive through the end of the sequence. I felt that there was a significant loss to the Basterds at this point.[/spoiler]

There was plenty of suspense throughout chapter four. We know that the actress has a substantial piece of information to tell the Basterds. We know what it is. But her telling of the information is continually put off by partying Nazis. [spoiler]Then the other Nazi comes in and starts questioning them.[/spoiler] The tension is continually escalated throughout the scene and until its climax, the audience is unsure of whether or not the Basterds will ever get the information that they would be giddy with excitement to receive.

I feel that I already explained the suspenseful elements of chapter five. I also agree that the first chapter is the best part of the film, and is quite possibly the best scene Tarantino has shot since the last scene in Pulp Fiction.

Here's the thing. I get the 'anyone can die at anytime' deal, but I as a viewer simply don't care because I have absolutely no attachment to the characters. In a very un-Tarantino like move, he managed to go the entire bloated length of the movie without giving me anything to work with on any of the Basterds. You could have replaced them with cardboard standups and it would be the same effect. No personality, and their entire side of the story suffers because of it. We don't really know anything about them and it doesn't really work. Shining example:
[spoiler]Why exactly should I buy that they're very willing to run a suicide attack? I have absolutely no concept of their fervor, dedication to the cause, or motivation for such.[/spoiler]

It would be one thing if the entire film was shot from the POV of Waltz. You could do all sorts of interesting, compelling **** of him basically (for lack of a better term) CSI'ing the bloody aftermath of the Basterds and piecing together survivor accounts. THAT would add something, and it would make the confrontation scene between Pitt and Waltz far more compelling. It would also allow us to see exactly why [spoiler]Waltz is very quick to basically destroy Nazi Germany[/spoiler]

But really, I still don't see how this can be Tarantino's "best work" because outside of Chapter 1, the movie was very disjointed and fragmented from a script POV. There's absolutely nothing wrong with how its shot, or even actor performances, but the script just lacks focus throughout and goes through stretches where it absolutely lacks a solid direction that's fleshed out and thought out. The entire thing reads like someone copy/pasted 4 or 5 different rough drafts together to beat a deadline.

Considering that the only recognizable faces for me within the Basterd underlings were Sam Levine (from Freaks and Geeks) and B.J. Novak (The Office), it's probably best that they remain faceless.

However, I did worry for a while that Novak took that time off from The Office to be in the film and he would end up not getting any lines (so, I was relieved when he literally showed up out of nowhere towards the end).

That's a pretty ****ty rationale. I'm not demanding that they give every single member of the Basterds a back story and fullblown flashback sequence, but at least flesh out three or four of the characters so I actually give a damn when they wind up dead.

[ZeldaGirl]

But really, I still don't see how this can be Tarantino's "best work" because outside of Chapter 1, the movie was very disjointed and fragmented from a script POV.

The thing is, I don't think Bomby was arguing that it was his best work, though. So...it seems this argument is kind of moot.

[Lurch1982]

Inglourious Basterds has topped every movie I've seen this year, including such excellent films as (500) Days of Summer and The Hurt Locker. It has topped at least three of Tarantino's previous films (Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, and Death Proof) and is making good company with his other two (I count Kill Bill as one film).

In other words, I liked it quite a bit.

Aaaand:

I consider this Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction (though I still consider that one my favourite of his films)

[Bomby]

Basterds is a easily better film than Reservoir Dogs and Death Proof, and I personally enjoyed it more than Jackie Brown. In retrospect, I can easily say that it's not as good as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I also did happen to like it more than everything else I've seen in 2009. I've already explained why, and your last post was nothing but repetition of earlier points that I already vocalized my disagreement with. Unless you have anything new to say, I'm done for now.

[Lurch1982]

Basterds is a easily better film than Reservoir Dogs and Death Proof, and I personally enjoyed it more than Jackie Brown. In retrospect, I can easily say that it's not as good as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I also did happen to like it more than everything else I've seen in 2009. I've already explained why, and your last post was nothing but repetition of earlier points that I already vocalized my disagreement with. Unless you have anything new to say, I'm done for now.

I think the one sentence summary is that I don't understand how something with a sloppy script gets praise.

We can agree to disagree on it I suppose.

[ZeldaGirl]

Wow Lurch. Way to prove me wrong...by not actually proving me wrong. Never did Bomby say it was his best work. And I wasn't talking about Sean. So...good job, man.

[abrocks22]

good movie