True, it was not bad as Kill Bill. Being a fan of him early on it sucks to see him go from good writing and direction to essentially hax.Bevo wrote:
The entire movie is a farce. Tarantino has always had a "thing" for excessive blood... it's not quite in the spotlight as much as say Kill Bill, and doesn't really distract from the rest of the movie IMO.jsnipy wrote:
I completely get the point. That's all he seems to do anymore. Its so excessive, it just becomes meh.Bevo wrote:
I think you're missing the point. It's so over-the-top it's not meant to be "credible".
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.DesertFox- wrote:
And?N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Oh god, the "you have to love movies to like this" copout.
...
I thought so.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
But of course this wouldn't be necessary if the dunce realized how stupid that copout sounds.Winston_Churchill wrote:
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.DesertFox- wrote:
And?N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Oh god, the "you have to love movies to like this" copout.
...
I thought so.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
I speak German pretty fluently... I wasn't analyzing every actor in there that spoke German, but the main characters were all fluent.BALTINS wrote:
Not all the actors, most of the german soldiers were just reading lines in a cheesy german accent, if you understand german it sounds horrible.
But Christoph Waltz really was great.
According to his IMDB profile, he's fluent in French and English (lots of German speakers are fluent in English). My Italian friend tells me that if you can speak Italian, you can make the jump to French since the languages are similar (she's a translator, but I speak neither language). Similar to someone who can speak English and German making the jump to Dutch, quite easy since Dutch is VERY similar to German.Finray wrote:
Really? Is French, English and Italian also his native language?
+1N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Oh god, the "you have to love movies to like this" copout.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6691
Just watched Pulp Fiction again. Basterds didn't have enough long explanations for plot drivers.
I got the DVD as a present and watched it the other night. Sorry, but didnl't like it. Not saying it was a bad movie, not saying anything about the acting, I just didn't like it. How many times did we hear the dialog; "Do you know who I am?" "Yes." "Do you know what people call me?" "Yes." "Tell me what they call me." Or some subtle variation thereof.
I have to agree with a previous poster - the first scene was .... So, did the Jew Hunter already know? If so - WTF with the Mr. Nice Guy routine?
The bar scene - seriously? A drunk enlisted guy is going to question an officer's accent? That was a very forced scene.
And lastly - I simply have a really hard time with the whole "The only way to get this done is lock ourselves in the burning theater, gun everyone down & blow ourselves up." mentality. Again - seriously? I thought this was some sort of crack squad of the "Best Troops"????
I think that's my main problem with the whole thing - the entire plot was forced. I was very let down.
I have to agree with a previous poster - the first scene was .... So, did the Jew Hunter already know? If so - WTF with the Mr. Nice Guy routine?
The bar scene - seriously? A drunk enlisted guy is going to question an officer's accent? That was a very forced scene.
And lastly - I simply have a really hard time with the whole "The only way to get this done is lock ourselves in the burning theater, gun everyone down & blow ourselves up." mentality. Again - seriously? I thought this was some sort of crack squad of the "Best Troops"????
I think that's my main problem with the whole thing - the entire plot was forced. I was very let down.
this thread, with 3 pages of replies, is over-rated
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
And yet you've never given a proper reply...man up, son. I wrote more than that one sentence.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
But of course this wouldn't be necessary if the dunce realized how stupid that copout sounds.Winston_Churchill wrote:
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.DesertFox- wrote:
And?
...
I thought so.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
I dont have to, because instead of windbagging a paragraph of shit i can get my point across in one sentence.DesertFox- wrote:
And yet you've never given a proper reply...man up, son. I wrote more than that one sentence.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
But of course this wouldn't be necessary if the dunce realized how stupid that copout sounds.Winston_Churchill wrote:
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
never stopped you before.
were you reterds expecting saving private ryan?
no, but I was expecting a film that didn't take history and shit all over it, turning into some idiotic warped fantasy. I also expected a decent plot, interesting characters, and all that in a reasonably short time i.e. under 2 hours. I got none of them. In fact, I fell asleep during this film it was so fuckin boring. That's how shit it was.Reciprocity wrote:
were you reterds expecting saving private ryan?
Come back Pulp Fiction, all is forgiven.
it was a good movie, fuck you all
So. . .Because you love movies and have seen more than most, your opinion is therefore, more credible then others? Makes sense. . .That would allow you to compare movies like Vertigo with The Sixth Sense, I see the logic!Winston_Churchill wrote:
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.DesertFox- wrote:
And?N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Oh god, the "you have to love movies to like this" copout.
...
I thought so.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
The movie was meant to be over the top, tongue-in-cheek, and what were those "1-2 good scenes" you were talking about, maybe the ending and some part with the 'bear jew?' Something. . .Exciting!
Tarantino isn't for everyone because he has such a strange style which I assume you know. He uses witty dialogue in most of his movies to break up his absurd action scenes (Reservoir dogs, Pulp Fiction. . .Okay not so much in Kill Bill(s) and I actually haven't seen Grindhouse)
It's Fucking Quentin Tarantino. . . How and why were you expecting something that didn't shit all over history? When has he ever been accurate to history or politically correct or anything of the sort?ruisleipa wrote:
no, but I was expecting a film that didn't take history and shit all over it, turning into some idiotic warped fantasy.Reciprocity wrote:
were you reterds expecting saving private ryan?
How can Avatar be overrated? As stupid as this sounds (and I'm sure you've heard this before) it revolutionized film-making. Not only did they invent new technologies to allow on the spot rotoing and compositing to allow Cameron to see his actors in their CG environment and new facial recognition software, but that movie was almost entirely CG, composited perfectly, a step up from from anything else that has been made.blademaster wrote:
yeah still have to see it but I thought that movie Avatar was overrated...Eifa wrote:
It was something you could expect from Tarantino.
Gotto agree with Macbeth tho, it was good but overrated.
And Yes the plot was lacking, reminiscent of 'Fern Gully' at points, but it was still an original story. Like all movies it was loaded with typical plot devices that everyone saw coming, but, it was still entirely enjoyable. I guess though if it was overrated that $250 million + budget is going to barley turn a profit. . .
Actually i did quite like it too, Its not horrible IMO, not the best Tarrantino film ever i must admit, but its far from a pure piece of shit...you want shit..watch Dark Harvest 2.Gooners wrote:
it was a good movie, fuck you all
Overrated...maybe, maybe not, once again you cant discuss taste.
then go watch i.e. under 2 hours of the fuckin history channel.ruisleipa wrote:
no, but I was expecting a film that didn't take history and shit all over it, turning into some idiotic warped fantasy. I also expected a decent plot, interesting characters, and all that in a reasonably short time i.e. under 2 hours. I got none of them. In fact, I fell asleep during this film it was so fuckin boring. That's how shit it was.Reciprocity wrote:
were you reterds expecting saving private ryan?
Come back Pulp Fiction, all is forgiven.
lol why the fuck would I do that if I wanna watch a good movie? Weirdo.Reciprocity wrote:
then go watch i.e. under 2 hours of the fuckin history channel.ruisleipa wrote:
no, but I was expecting a film that didn't take history and shit all over it, turning into some idiotic warped fantasy. I also expected a decent plot, interesting characters, and all that in a reasonably short time i.e. under 2 hours. I got none of them. In fact, I fell asleep during this film it was so fuckin boring. That's how shit it was.Reciprocity wrote:
were you reterds expecting saving private ryan?
Come back Pulp Fiction, all is forgiven.
Well come on, that last scene in the theatre was pure bullshit. Don't get me wrong, Tarantino has made some good movies IN MY OPINION (let's not forget it's just opinions here!) - Pulp Fiction was brilliant, at least, and I actually quite liked Kill Bill. But Jackie Brown, Death Proof, other ones he's been involved in like Four Rooms - all bullshit IN MY OPINION.Mafia47 wrote:
It's Fucking Quentin Tarantino. . . How and why were you expecting something that didn't shit all over history? When has he ever been accurate to history or politically correct or anything of the sort?ruisleipa wrote:
no, but I was expecting a film that didn't take history and shit all over it, turning into some idiotic warped fantasy.Reciprocity wrote:
were you reterds expecting saving private ryan?
Don't care if he's politically correct btw, but Pulp Fiction was definitely the pinnacle of his film-making. Now he's just run out of ideas, and his dialogue isn't anywhere near as witty as it was back then. Fuckin jabber jabber jabber. He's full of shit I tell ya. Like in Death Proof - I mean shut the fuck up and show us some bloody characterisation ya know?? Or even, like, a PLOT? I just checked out IMDB and realise dhow he's built his career on one innovative movie (reservoir dogs), one brilliant movie (pulp fiction), and a load of shit...
And as for IB - all I have to do to support my case is offer two words. BRAD PITT.
@Mafia47 - when was the last time Tarantino did a movie about "history"? He's never done a movie that deals with previous, true events. This was his first one. And he failed miserably.
It seems a some people didn't quite "understand" the film
Maybe you should try reading what I was quoting. One of the most common 'arguments' (if you can even call it that) is that you need to 'love' movies in order to like this movie. What I was saying is that I love movies just as much as anyone else and still dont like this movie.Mafia47 wrote:
So. . .Because you love movies and have seen more than most, your opinion is therefore, more credible then others? Makes sense. . .That would allow you to compare movies like Vertigo with The Sixth Sense, I see the logic!Winston_Churchill wrote:
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.DesertFox- wrote:
And?
...
I thought so.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
Your argument is supporting what I'm saying by discrediting the fact that 'loving' movies makes you more credible to know what movies are good and bad.
You honestly think he was attempting to depict true events from WWII? I don't think he ever mentioned trying to do that and I'm fairly sure this story is a work of fiction and only loosely based off of the 1970's Italian version of this movie. (That one as well is primarily fiction with just as much ridiculous battle scenes and plot exploits as this version)CapnNismo wrote:
@Mafia47 - when was the last time Tarantino did a movie about "history"? He's never done a movie that deals with previous, true events. This was his first one. And he failed miserably.
Tarantino makes movies for your entertainment, not so you learn about history. I'm sorry but if you went into that movie expecting to see an accurate portrayal of WWII you're an idiot.
Okay, how about this. It doesn't matter how many movies you've seen, how much you 'know' about the history of film; everyone has there own opinion about the movie(s) and it's fairly obvious that we aren't going to agree. And I'm a bit confused by your last sentence but I don't think it matters because we're just getting way off topic.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Maybe you should try reading what I was quoting. One of the most common 'arguments' (if you can even call it that) is that you need to 'love' movies in order to like this movie. What I was saying is that I love movies just as much as anyone else and still dont like this movie.Mafia47 wrote:
So. . .Because you love movies and have seen more than most, your opinion is therefore, more credible then others? Makes sense. . .That would allow you to compare movies like Vertigo with The Sixth Sense, I see the logic!Winston_Churchill wrote:
I love movies just as much as anybody, probably more than most. I watch at least 3-4 movies a week and have almost 5TB in movies, probably one of the biggest collections of people on this site, if not the biggest. I'll try just about anything and give it a fair chance.
However, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a completely overrated movie. It had maybe 1-2 good scenes. People only like it because its cool to like Tarantino.
Your argument is supporting what I'm saying by discrediting the fact that 'loving' movies makes you more credible to know what movies are good and bad.
I am referring to this quote. Geeze, if you go into a Tarantino movie expecting anything accurate, I agree, you have very false expectations. Pulp Fiction, however, I would argue, was a very realistic portrayal of organized crime. I had expected a realistic portrayal of war (as the trailer tag lines all claimed) and not the bullshit I was force-fed during Inglorious Basterds.Mafia47 wrote:
It's Fucking Quentin Tarantino. . . How and why were you expecting something that didn't shit all over history? When has he ever been accurate to history or politically correct or anything of the sort?
And that is exactly what I said from the beginning. The common argument as to why people dont like Inglourious Basterds is because they dont love movies or have poor taste. I'm saying thats bullshit.Mafia47 wrote:
Okay, how about this. It doesn't matter how many movies you've seen, how much you 'know' about the history of film; everyone has there own opinion about the movie(s) and it's fairly obvious that we aren't going to agree. And I'm a bit confused by your last sentence but I don't think it matters because we're just getting way off topic.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Maybe you should try reading what I was quoting. One of the most common 'arguments' (if you can even call it that) is that you need to 'love' movies in order to like this movie. What I was saying is that I love movies just as much as anyone else and still dont like this movie.Mafia47 wrote:
So. . .Because you love movies and have seen more than most, your opinion is therefore, more credible then others? Makes sense. . .That would allow you to compare movies like Vertigo with The Sixth Sense, I see the logic!
Your argument is supporting what I'm saying by discrediting the fact that 'loving' movies makes you more credible to know what movies are good and bad.
What in the blue fuck are you on about. Nothing in this film is intended to be real. There was no Frederick Zoller, there was no Hans Landa, there was no OSS Squad with Jewish-American soldiers hellbent on getting 100 nazi scalps each. And there certainly was no Bear Juden.CapnNismo wrote:
This was his first one. And he failed miserably.
Anyone who thinks Inglourious Basterds was supposed to be real or based off of any real events probably thinks Transformers was based off of real events too. It's a WWII fantasy revenge film and a fantastic one at that.