Ugh. So much Tarantino love on this thread. He keeps remaking the same idiosyncratic, self-indulgent, egocentric bullshit movie over and over and over and over. The snarky pop culture in-jokes and gratuitous violence are lame and lazy substitutes for genuine cleverness or meaningful social commentary. He's easily the most overrated filmmaker of his generation.
I'm so eh on this movie. I'll eventually see it because I eventually see everything but the previews don't make me want to run out and see it.
I'm sure this movie has been in development for years, but I keep thinking its like the whole movie is built on that line in Knocked Up about Jews kicking ass, so he made up an entire bloody storyline. I'm sure loads of people will also think this is based on some true events
Why are critics so confused by the fact that he made some awesome, but not really that realistic or coherent entertainment? Isn't that a Tarantino trademark? He strives for originality and a particular cinematic style, not historical accuracy.
I do look forward to seeing the film. I think working with Tarantino might have highlighted Brad Pitt's best side as a performer, which is an edgy attitude with a hint of parody. I consider him a really crappy drama actor in general, but I do think he has a rather offbeat comic timing that works best with dark humor.
@Casquivana: He gets "Tarantino speak" beautifully. In fact, I think all of the actors get it beautifully (and in three languages. You can still here the distinct timing/tics in French and my German-speaking friend assures me it's the same in German.)
@LaComtesse: Oooh, I'm gonna love that! I'm kind of a geek when it comes to detecting cadences and ticks in other languages. And is kind of an habit too, since I learned those languages in countries that are not the "main" source of the language (i.e. my crappy German is Austrian, etc.) But I always love noticing that in movies.
As for "Tarantino speak," I get what you're saying. I always thought it was such a shame that John Travolta did the kind of movies he did after Pulp Fiction, because he can be so cheesy in certain types of drama, but he totally got "Tarantino speak." And I've always believed that's exactly the kind of material Brad Pitt needs to stick to.
I saw Julie & Julia the other day and when I told my friend that I wanted to see Inglourious Basterds next, she gasped. Like, why would I want to see this movie?
Because I love Quentin Tarantino and his films, duh.
((aannnndddd I may have a bit of a crush on Eli Roth too))
@KathrynwithaY loves Joan Collins: One of my husband's employees asked if I liked the movie. When I said I loved it she gasped and said
"YOU?! But you love Jane Austen."
"What can I say? I am an enigma wrapped in a puzzle cloaked in mystery."
Oh. And Eli Roth is totes crushable. He was at the screening and talked about having a blast bashing in Nazis with a baseball bat and the camaraderie he felt with the German actors who wanted to do the same.
I love all Tarantino flicks, but my favorite remains Jackie Brown. I feel like he reigned in some of his more outlandish tendencies and really came through. I think it's still the only film he's directed that he didn't write completely (but rather, adapted).
That said, I think not enough people have seen Death Proof. It's AWESOME.
@jengrrrl: I am torn between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill V.2 as my favorites. Pam Grier was so fucking amazing. so cool. I wanted to live in her body in her life. (pardon creepiness)
@bluebears: @I_can_still_pitch: Pam Grier was FIERCE. To this day I'm disappointed she didn't get an Oscar nod. Robert Forster was good, but that movie was HERS.
@Rooo sez BISH PLZ: I know. Or like I can still pitch notes, when has any Tarontino film been realistic? It's not his thing. Why do critics not get him?
@bluebears: I think they get it; I also think they're bored with it. Tarantino's talented, but he keeps taking different ideas and source material, and then ultimately giving them the same treatment. It's his inability to branch out and mature as a director that keeps him from becoming truly "great" and earning more critical praise.
@Rooo sez BISH PLZ: It irritates me that people think if one doesn't like Tarantino, one must be a sparkly princess into ponies and rainbows. To me, Tarantino's approach to violence is so PG: it is cartoonish, pure fantasy - Tarantino is Fluffbunnies. Give me the darker, more complex Cronenberg any day.
This is not directed at you, specifically - I just used your comment as a jumping-off point to address this too-common misconception.
@Diziet_Sma: blerg. as if assuming that all not-fans of tarantino are into ponies and rainbows is any better than insinuating, (by way of calling all tarantino's films puerile) that all fans of tarantino must have juvenile, genuinely poor taste in film.
why can't we just agree to disagree, and not assume shit about one another based solely on one's tastes and personal preferences?
and if you dislike his movies so much, why bother pissing on this thread? your pretension is stinking up the place.
@birminghamdrunk: I never said anything about his fans; you're reading into my comments a little. And you misunderstand me. It's all a question of personal taste - I get that. I love pure, dumb entertainment when it doesn't have pretenses to be anything else - Star Trek is one of my favorite films of the year. Tarantino's desire to be regarded as a film genius is pretentiousness writ large.
I'm sorry my personal tastes rattle you so much. But there's nothing I can do about that, is there? Each to her own.
@Diziet_Sma: i read into your comment exactly what you read into Roo's comment. i see you clarified that it wasn't directed at here, but rather an address to a mis-conception...what i'm saying is that i've never seen that misconception made. perhaps we both read too deep...?
9 times out of 10, someone who doesn't like tarantino is either a) incredibly smart and has preference towards more intellectually stimulating film (as you've pointed out) or b) incredibly dumb, and just "doesn't get it" (i'm sure you've heard someone say they "couldn't keep up" with pulp fiction- RALF). i've never once heard anyone (who doesn't like tarantino) described as all ponies and rainbows and glitter.
perhaps this is just a disconnect, or a miscommunication...either way, your personal taste doesn't rattle me, as long as mine doesn't rattle you. and yes, to each her own, and though i would love to argue with you about tarantino, i see this is just an issue of opinion, and perhaps better off left alone...my apologies for coming off as berating.
Now critics are knocking Tarantino for suspending reality? Because obviously, Pulp fiction was an extremely realistic look at the LA underworld and Resevoir Dogs shows exactly how a robbery gang is formed, interacts and pulls of their caper. Kill Bill - I knew it was realistic because that type of thing happens to me every day. Also, Jackie Brown - just like real life and Dusk to Dawn: the most accurate portrayal of vampires so far. He makes entertaining, interesting movies. Enjoy them for what they are critcs, and stop taking yourselves so effin' seriously.
PS: I know Tarantino didn't direct Dusk to Dawn, but he had a lot to do with it.
@birminghamdrunk: I didn't read the article you refer to, but Tarantino does use B movie genres as inspiration and impetus. They are essentially B movies with a big budget and stars - and that's a very unique characteristic of his work.
@JerkoftheMonth: yes yes, but the quote is a backhanded insult and that's obvious. it's playing on his modus operandi, and the author's tone is beyond belittling.
regardless to the genre's of all of tarantino's movies, they were all A's. when you consider what else is in rotation at the theaters right now, and back then, it's beyond ridiculous to insinuate that tarantino's body of work is nothing but a fancy, shiny, newly-packaged collection of B movies. or at least that's how i took it. bleh.
Whenever critics critique a Tarantino movie why do they almost always refer to Pulp Fiction as his best film? Do most people feel this way? This always happen when he releases a new movie so i'm kinda curious.
@Eric Northman is mine: From the critics' standpoint, Pulp Fiction is regarded as far and away his best movie. I think the general public would agree, although I know Tarantino fans tend to have a more mixed reaction as to which film of his is the best one.
@Eric Northman is mine: Yes, everyone feels this way, although a lot of people love Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill as well. I've spent my share of time among film geeks and Pulp Fiction is the film most of them wish that they had made.
@Eric Northman is mine: I think Kill Bill was his best, for many reasons, although I don't think it should've been split. Pulp Fiction was very, very good, but seemed like a tarted up Reservoir Dogs to me. I also think that in a few more years Death Proof will come to be regarded with the appreciation it deserves. I think in some ways it is really his masterpiece, but of course I am a plebeian.
yes i am a film studies geek and it's probably the reason for my dislike for Tarantino. Resevoir Dog's is actually inspired by a Hong Kong film, City on Fire but I know a lot of films are inspired by each other, I digress...
I truly enjoyed the dialogue of Pulp Fiction because it was random but also somewhat realistic. I can see two hit men talking about foot massages and Fast Food differences in Europe. The dialogue exchange between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper in True Romance was pretty brilliant as well. I guess I can say I am a fan of his earlier work and it set a pretty high standard for me thereafter.
PS. The best part of Kill Bill 1 - the animation sequence introducing Lucy Liu's character. I admit that was pretty badass!
No offense, Jezebel editors, because alot of the reviews coming out this week spoil it too (and reading those first early reviews after it debuted at Cannes, I was able to put together big finale hinted at it with distaste when describing the gung-ho violence...) but hy did you spoil the film?
I've read three reviews so far that spoil it, detail-by-detail. Why? What are reviewers thinking?
To be fair....some of those reviews were listed under Rottentomatoes but looked like film blogs, instead of "top critics"/major newspapers...but not all of them. Mainstream critics are spoiling it too.
Why?
That said...I think it's creative if you can stomach the "toying" with the Holocaust and the convoluted talkiness before the third act. Christoph Waltz--the German actor who plays the villain-- is getting rave reviews and is a revelation in this movie.
But then that's undermined by the involvement an asshole like Eli Roth, who has a big role among the Basterds.
@bluebears: I enjoy reviews, I enjoy the buildup to films that look good, and I like knowing whether a comedy is actually funny, a drama is actually moving or interesting, and getting SOME idea of what the plot is about, the level of violence, or the caliber of the performances, but geez--I've read reviews for movies where the reviewers don't spoil the whole damn thing. They give a basic picture of the film and the atmosphere and let me know what to look forward to--in this case, I guess it'd be Christoph Waltz.
I can never find spoilers when I want them, and then when there's a movie that's sparked my curiosity, the first reviews of this film's opening weekend lay it all out, and I don't know why, but it pissed me off. Do they assume that the cat is out of the bag b/c it got so much publicity at Cannes?
Or am I just not paying enough attention, and the "spoil a well-publicized film" trend is more common than I'm aware of?
@maude_flanders: Generally, historical facts aren't considered spoilers in reviews. This film falls in a gray area, basically. "Hitler dies" isn't really a spoiler, but at the same time . . . since this is a fictionalized version of history, it should probably be treated as a fictional film would.
@maude_flanders: I realize I am picking out one tiny point in your discourse, but if you ever find yourself seeking spoilers, I have discovered that wikipedia is the place to go.
@nora charles:
Generally, historical facts aren't considered spoilers in reviews. This film falls in a gray area, basically. "Hitler dies" isn't really a spoiler, but at the same time . . . since this is a fictionalized version of history, it should probably be treated as a fictional film would."
Did I complain about historical facts in my original comment?
I know Hitler committed suicide (or, died) at the end of the war in real life around the time that the film is set; I know the movie is not historically accurate and is a fictional romp with WWII as a backdrop.
My complaint isn't about the movie itself, it's this---one review after the next has given away the climax of the film (which is not simply that "Hitler dies," but HOW he dies); what's the point of reading movie reviews to know whether a film is good, or if there's anything to look forward to, when they spoil the whole damn movie?
Not clues or hints of the plot--detailed spoilers. I don't get it.
@maude_flanders: If I don't want to be spoiled, but I'm not sure something is going to be good, I just check the rating on Rotten Tomatoes. No need to read reviews that way.
I've seen a lot of people complain that Tarantino isn't taking WWII seriously enough, and that rewriting history is bad. But honestly, we've had SO MANY Nazi films. Isn't it kind of fun to be able to play with the genre after 60 years? I'm the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor. I'm not saying that I should be the absolute barometer of WWII offensiveness, but I seriously seriously don't mind people mixing up a topic that has frankly been overdone.
@viklane: As a student of WWII, I have to say that while I understand where you are coming from, I've never been a fan of Hollywood's WWII. Very few movies have been made that capture the essence of what that war really encompassed, from any side. They are too busy trying to make men more heroic than they were, while skirting the contributions of women during the war. The Nazis portrayed in most movies are cartoonish and clownish, not nearly as ruthless and single-minded as the real thing.
Perhaps I'm too stodgy in this regard, but then I've invested many an hour into research and reading, and I find that the actual stories of those who fought and died in the war are far more compelling than anything Hollywood has dreamed up.
@viklane, @NefariousNewt: I think when it comes to films that have a real-life setting, people assume that the film should therefore be factual. Film is fiction - people don't (or shouldn't) complain when novels take liberties with actual events - and it's possibly because of the visceral qualities of film that are absent from literature that makes them feel 'realer.'
And maybe WWII is such a horrendous experience in recent history that many are reluctant to produce self-aware pastiches, though the amount of romanticised and glamourised stories of the era are plentiful and no less fictional.
And I like your point, @viklane, about the meta qualities of Basterds referencing WWII FILM rather than the actual event.
08/22/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
08/21/09
I'm sure this movie has been in development for years, but I keep thinking its like the whole movie is built on that line in Knocked Up about Jews kicking ass, so he made up an entire bloody storyline. I'm sure loads of people will also think this is based on some true events
08/21/09
BRING IT ON!
08/21/09
I do look forward to seeing the film. I think working with Tarantino might have highlighted Brad Pitt's best side as a performer, which is an edgy attitude with a hint of parody. I consider him a really crappy drama actor in general, but I do think he has a rather offbeat comic timing that works best with dark humor.
08/21/09
08/21/09
As for "Tarantino speak," I get what you're saying. I always thought it was such a shame that John Travolta did the kind of movies he did after Pulp Fiction, because he can be so cheesy in certain types of drama, but he totally got "Tarantino speak." And I've always believed that's exactly the kind of material Brad Pitt needs to stick to.
08/21/09
08/21/09
Because I love Quentin Tarantino and his films, duh.
((aannnndddd I may have a bit of a crush on Eli Roth too))
08/21/09
"YOU?! But you love Jane Austen."
"What can I say? I am an enigma wrapped in a puzzle cloaked in mystery."
Oh. And Eli Roth is totes crushable. He was at the screening and talked about having a blast bashing in Nazis with a baseball bat and the camaraderie he felt with the German actors who wanted to do the same.
08/21/09
08/21/09
That said, I think not enough people have seen Death Proof. It's AWESOME.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Iiiiiit's Tarantino, krit ppl. Srsly.
Did you think you were watching the Fluffbunnies premiere?
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
This is not directed at you, specifically - I just used your comment as a jumping-off point to address this too-common misconception.
08/22/09
why can't we just agree to disagree, and not assume shit about one another based solely on one's tastes and personal preferences?
and if you dislike his movies so much, why bother pissing on this thread? your pretension is stinking up the place.
08/22/09
I'm sorry my personal tastes rattle you so much. But there's nothing I can do about that, is there? Each to her own.
08/24/09
9 times out of 10, someone who doesn't like tarantino is either a) incredibly smart and has preference towards more intellectually stimulating film (as you've pointed out) or b) incredibly dumb, and just "doesn't get it" (i'm sure you've heard someone say they "couldn't keep up" with pulp fiction- RALF). i've never once heard anyone (who doesn't like tarantino) described as all ponies and rainbows and glitter.
perhaps this is just a disconnect, or a miscommunication...either way, your personal taste doesn't rattle me, as long as mine doesn't rattle you. and yes, to each her own, and though i would love to argue with you about tarantino, i see this is just an issue of opinion, and perhaps better off left alone...my apologies for coming off as berating.
08/21/09
PS: I know Tarantino didn't direct Dusk to Dawn, but he had a lot to do with it.
08/21/09
08/21/09
You can raise B pictures to A picture status, as Tarantino has made a career out of doing, but giving them A picture value is not so easily done
Really? Pulp Fiction? Kill Bill? Jackie Brown?
If you really feel that way, then well, GOOD DAY, SIR.
I SAID GOOD DAY.
08/21/09
08/21/09
regardless to the genre's of all of tarantino's movies, they were all A's. when you consider what else is in rotation at the theaters right now, and back then, it's beyond ridiculous to insinuate that tarantino's body of work is nothing but a fancy, shiny, newly-packaged collection of B movies. or at least that's how i took it. bleh.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
I cannot stand Tarantino but I will always give him credit for Pulp Fiction. True Romance is a close second since he wrote that film.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
yes i am a film studies geek and it's probably the reason for my dislike for Tarantino. Resevoir Dog's is actually inspired by a Hong Kong film, City on Fire but I know a lot of films are inspired by each other, I digress...
I truly enjoyed the dialogue of Pulp Fiction because it was random but also somewhat realistic. I can see two hit men talking about foot massages and Fast Food differences in Europe. The dialogue exchange between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper in True Romance was pretty brilliant as well. I guess I can say I am a fan of his earlier work and it set a pretty high standard for me thereafter.
PS. The best part of Kill Bill 1 - the animation sequence introducing Lucy Liu's character. I admit that was pretty badass!
08/21/09
Seriously, I watch it SO much.
08/21/09
I've read three reviews so far that spoil it, detail-by-detail. Why? What are reviewers thinking?
To be fair....some of those reviews were listed under Rottentomatoes but looked like film blogs, instead of "top critics"/major newspapers...but not all of them. Mainstream critics are spoiling it too.
Why?
That said...I think it's creative if you can stomach the "toying" with the Holocaust and the convoluted talkiness before the third act. Christoph Waltz--the German actor who plays the villain-- is getting rave reviews and is a revelation in this movie.
But then that's undermined by the involvement an asshole like Eli Roth, who has a big role among the Basterds.
08/21/09
08/21/09
I can never find spoilers when I want them, and then when there's a movie that's sparked my curiosity, the first reviews of this film's opening weekend lay it all out, and I don't know why, but it pissed me off. Do they assume that the cat is out of the bag b/c it got so much publicity at Cannes?
Or am I just not paying enough attention, and the "spoil a well-publicized film" trend is more common than I'm aware of?
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
I saw Twelve Monkeys that way and it was amazing. Like roller coaster ride where you can't see the tracks ahead of you.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Generally, historical facts aren't considered spoilers in reviews. This film falls in a gray area, basically. "Hitler dies" isn't really a spoiler, but at the same time . . . since this is a fictionalized version of history, it should probably be treated as a fictional film would."
Did I complain about historical facts in my original comment?
I know Hitler committed suicide (or, died) at the end of the war in real life around the time that the film is set; I know the movie is not historically accurate and is a fictional romp with WWII as a backdrop.
My complaint isn't about the movie itself, it's this---one review after the next has given away the climax of the film (which is not simply that "Hitler dies," but HOW he dies); what's the point of reading movie reviews to know whether a film is good, or if there's anything to look forward to, when they spoil the whole damn movie?
Not clues or hints of the plot--detailed spoilers. I don't get it.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Perhaps I'm too stodgy in this regard, but then I've invested many an hour into research and reading, and I find that the actual stories of those who fought and died in the war are far more compelling than anything Hollywood has dreamed up.
08/21/09
08/21/09
And maybe WWII is such a horrendous experience in recent history that many are reluctant to produce self-aware pastiches, though the amount of romanticised and glamourised stories of the era are plentiful and no less fictional.
And I like your point, @viklane, about the meta qualities of Basterds referencing WWII FILM rather than the actual event.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09