Not movie making, just movies. Think about how many conversations there are about german cinema, plus many references to other movies (it's obviously Tarantino). That's just the literal part.

There is an actress and a film critic fighting against the Nazis and Shoshanna owns a movie theater. It is literally (highly flammable nitrate) film that burns down the theater, kills all the Nazis and ends the war.

That's strange. It seems like most people have seen another movie than the massively uninspired, below-average borefest that ran in our cinema under the same name.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

We get it, Meat. You don't like Tarantino and his films. You and Nou have weekly meetings on how much he sucks as a writer and director.

Shit, I agree with Nou on this one? NOU?!?!
Fuck, I meant to say this is an awesome movie.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

I can see how one can hate Tarantino, some of his movies feel like a chore to sit through (Reservoir Dogs for me... yeah). The Basterds are different, though. It's not like you have to know hundreds of obscure pulp movies to enjoy all the knowing winks, this movie can entertain you on its own. You just have to be familiar with the basics of WW2 history and some of the stereotypes to see how Tarantino subverts them. You will still miss more subtle references and jokes but it shouldn't ruin the whole experience.

And who would be hating on Tarantino here? I don't, and openly admit that he has done good stuff, foremost Pulp Fiction. However he's pretty overrated imho, and his recent work, while not horribly bad, is uninteresting and mediocre at best.
What especially irritates me is how everyone who wants to be avant-garde and sophisticated names Tarantino as a favorite and raves about how brilliant his dialogues are. Not talking about anyone here, but I've heard this from friends and people I met where it was clear that they had absolutely no clue what they were talking about.
I have no problem with people liking him or his work, but what's annoying is how few people seem to possess the slightest faculty of judgement, instead they're simply fans of just about any shit he throws out.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

Yeah, but it's those people who are stupid, not Tarantino. I understand how can it influence your judgment of those films overall, but you still haven't said why do you think his movies are uninspiring (Basterds specifically).

For the record, I didn't mean to say you hate Tarantino; I just know he's controversial and people usually have strong opinions about him.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews but you still haven't said why do you think his movies are uninspiring (Basterds specifically).

I have. Just a quick summary, as I have to work:
The first part of the movie is utterly boring. Diane Kruger is a terrible actress. The plot is not good at all, and not dense or well written. Take Til Schweiger's character for example. He serves no purpose whatsoever, and there's no need to have him in the movie at all. There are other scenes as well that are rather useless and just seem like a try-hard attempt by Tarantino to be cool and different, while his main concern should have been to be entertaining. For large parts of this very long movie he isn't. Christoph Waltz alone saves this movie from being utterly bad.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

the Jew hunter made the movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Take Til Schweiger's character for example. He serves no purpose whatsoever, and there's no need to have him in the movie at all.

This is the only part I can comment on, I can't argue against "boring" when it's unsubstantiated.

Til Schweiger is Hugo Stiglitz, right? I took his character as a reference to guys like Claus von Stauffenberg from Valkyrie who infiltrated the Nazi regime from inside.

Also, he is named after a Mexican actor, which makes him your token blaxpoitation character (his flashback is narrated by a black dude - Samuel L. Jackson, also the font his name is written in resembles those movies). Notice, how it is him who writes "King Kong" on the card when they're playing the game in the tavern.

Edit: I guess I know how you meant it. Yes, the story could very well exist without him, Hitler would still be killed, the theater would still burn etc. When you're looking at it from a purely narrative standpoint, it wouldn't make a difference if he wasn't in the movie. However, he is part of the whole "subverting stereotypes" subtext I was talking about before; he is a badass blaxpoitation guy that is played by a white, German actor. So yes, it makes sense.

That's like the Tom Bombadil character in Lord of the Rings is completely disposable, because Frodo would successfully travel to the Mount of Doom anyway (as the movie proved). Tolkien was not trying to be cool when he included him in the book, though; he was a part of the whole mythology behind MiddleEarth, that he created.

Last edited by GoSpeedGo! on Feb-01-2010 at 11:28

Wait, a German guy didn't like a movie about nazis? Shit, that's very odd.

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews Edit: I guess I know how you meant it. Yes, the story could very well exist without him, Hitler would still be killed, the theater would still burn etc. When you're looking at it from a purely narrative standpoint, it wouldn't make a difference if he wasn't in the movie. However, he is part of the whole "subverting stereotypes" subtext I was talking about before; he is a badass blaxpoitation guy that is played by a white, German actor. So yes, it makes sense. That's like the Tom Bombadil character in Lord of the Rings is completely disposable, because Frodo would successfully travel to the Mount of Doom anyway (as the movie proved). Tolkien was not trying to be cool when he included him in the book, though; he was a part of the whole mythology behind MiddleEarth, that he created.

The point where this comparison fails massively (apart from the different genre and Tom Bombadil actually being interesting and entertaining) is that you're comparing literature and movies. There's a massive difference between them regarding pacing, storytelling and structure. Ever wondered why there are loads of action movies but hardly any (pure) action books?
The background explanation you gave shows why Tarantino failed the way he did, but doesn't make any of it better or more adequate.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!