Inglorious B's........ [Archive]

View Full Version : Inglorious B's........

redriver6

March 6th, 2010, 20:38

it comes on Directv in about 25 minutes....should i or should i not???????
i like war movies
ain't too crazy about Brad Pitt tho...
Tarantino is kinda strange....
decisions
decisions

djscoo

March 6th, 2010, 20:43

Should!
It's a great movie. And don't worry about Brad Pitt, there are multiple storylines, so he isn't present in the whole film.
:ernae:

Lionheart

March 6th, 2010, 20:47

I wanted to see it for the comedy aspect as Pitt is a great comedian, but that movie looks like it gets a bit gross for my standards.

I'm curious to know how you like it.

Bill

djscoo

March 6th, 2010, 20:51

I wanted to see it for the comedy aspect as Pitt is a great comedian, but that movie looks like it gets a bit gross for my standards.

I'm curious to know how you like it.

Bill
It is certainly trademark Tarantino. It isn't terribly graphic or gory (according to today's standards), but there is a lot of killing and violence.

Bjoern

March 7th, 2010, 04:11

If it hadn't been for that awesomely played SS guy I would call IB one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen.

I really appreciate that it's all native languages but no way it's as good as it's said to be.

Cazzie

March 7th, 2010, 04:31

QT to the tee. Entertainment, everybody dies, well almost everybody. I loved the movie, I hate romance, schmaltz, etc., I want a movie to capture me from beginning to end; IB did.

Caz

jmig

March 7th, 2010, 04:43

I couldn't handle the revisionist history.
I hated to see the girl die.
But, I thought the guy who played the SS Col. did a brilliant piece of acting.

Bjoern

March 7th, 2010, 05:19

I hated to see the girl die.

The girl and the sniper. I like Daniel Brühl too much for that to happen.

cheezyflier

March 7th, 2010, 05:26

djscoo

March 7th, 2010, 07:52

it's funny (in a way) because i am the opposite. i think pitt is a great actor, but i think tarantino is a hack. inglorious bastards was entertaining, i suppose, but the revision of history kinda blew it for me.

***side note

initially i didn't want to like brad pitt, because he seems like a pretty boy. a redford wanna-be.
but his work in 12 monkees, fight club, and snatch were impossible to ignore.

tarantino, on the otherhand is a plagarist hack. kill bill vol1 is a total rip-off of an old japanese film called "lady snowblood. even much of the soundtrack is a direct rip off. he also did sukiyaki western django, which totally sucked.
he has done a few good films, resevoir dogs and from dusk till dawn, nat born killers, for example, but he's mostly a one trick pony. over the top violence and gore.

This surprises me, I would have painted you a Tarantino fan...

He's pretty open about reusing plot devices and characters from Japanese films, although he calls it tribute rather than rip-off. Even Pulp Fiction when Bruce Willis grabs the katana over the other weapons from movies in the pawn shop. I looked up "Lady Snowblood", and the cover of the manga is too much like the film poster for it not to be on purpose...I guess one man's ripp-off is another man's remake.
15541555

jim

March 7th, 2010, 08:02

Dumb, dumb, dumb, how many times must it be said?

Ken Stallings

March 7th, 2010, 19:06

I love Tarantino films. I realize that may surprise some, but psychologically his movies are apparently simple, but actually carry profound investigations into the human psyche, especially those who deal with death situations.

I think the dialog in a Tarantino film is often well crafted. In Inglorius Basterds, the scene that most strikes that mark for me was the one in the bar, where the Brit masquerading as a Nazi officer, makes his fatal mistake of motioning for three drinks with a Anglo method. When he realizes his time might be up, the way he tilts back the aged Scotch is marvelous, then made classic by his line delivered with the stiff upper lip, "Well, old boy, if this reallize is it, then I hope you won't mind me going out speaking the King's!"

Tarantino films are loaded with these delicious character roles and dialogue.

That's why I love his films.

Ken

Ken Stallings

March 7th, 2010, 19:10

It's called an homage. I guess it could be said to be a "rip off," and it's hard to argue against that. I guess the prime difference is a positive versus negative interpretation.

However, for my money, the essential difference is that an homage is meant to pay tribute to a previous work. In Inglorius Basterds, the homages start early with Pittl's character's name -- 1Lt Aldo Ranes.

That's a deliberate effort to pay tribute to a classic Hollywood actor from generations past.

Ken

redriver6

March 7th, 2010, 19:34

well i liked it....but i wasn't ready for Bowie in the middle of the movie:icon_lol:

Hals und Bein Bruch

March 7th, 2010, 20:13

it's the first post-ww2 movie...to remind us of what we lost when we let Otto Skorzeny and his ilk school us in Right -wing Extremism...I refer only to the last scene, of course...

txnetcop

March 8th, 2010, 01:33

Rotten Tomato Award-Brad Pitt sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I walked out! I was hoping for something at least as good as Troy
Ted
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Quixoticish

March 8th, 2010, 02:24

cheezyflier

March 8th, 2010, 05:17

chris, that made me laugh pretty good, because you are sooo right.

but i think what he was saying is, that bassturds wasn't even that good.

MudMarine

March 8th, 2010, 05:31

The nazi's were socialist...National Socialist Workers Party. Which is LEFT wing, not right. Politically, there wasn't much diffrence between Stalin and Hitler.

The move is a waste of time if you ask me. Brad Pitt was funny, that's about it for me.

Trans_23

March 8th, 2010, 06:16

I watched IB at home. I am glad I rented it for 5 bucks instead of shelling out money for theater tickets and treats. I didn't hate the movie but I won't watch it again. I didn't understand all the attention it got at the Oscars last night, except for the gentleman that won portraying the German officer.

redriver6

March 8th, 2010, 06:19

well i see Christoph Waltz. (the ss col.) won an oscar...he was exceptionally evil in the movie..

djscoo

March 8th, 2010, 09:33

The nazi's were socialist...National Socialist Workers Party. Which is LEFT wing, not right. Politically, there wasn't much diffrence between Stalin and Hitler.

There is a difference between Socialism and National Socialism, National Socialism being a form of Fascism (i.e. far right-wing).

HighGround22

March 8th, 2010, 10:06

s . . . initially i didn't want to like brad pitt, because he seems like a pretty boy. a redford wanna-be.
but his work in . . . and Snatch were impossible to ignore . . . . Now THAT (Snatch) was one hysterical movie! Changed my entire view of Pitt.

Ken Stallings

March 8th, 2010, 17:25

There is a difference between Socialism and National Socialism, National Socialism being a form of Fascism (i.e. far right-wing).

Not true.

Facism is a political system where people's rights are wholly subordinated to the state. It is neither restricted to conservative nor liberal. It can also even be moderate. The key is whether individuals have any freedom from the state, or is wholly subordinated to the state.

If you think the National Socialist Party was right-wing you need to read more about it. I suggest you read more about the leader of the Brown Shirts, (SA), Ernst Rohm. He was angry with Hitler once and that was over Hitler cozying up with the industrialists. Rohm wanted the SA to replace the German Army and lead a socialist overthrow of German establishments, including the military and private industries.

Instead, Hitler hung Rohm out to dry so that he could win total allegiance of the Germany military and also used the wealthy industrialists to help him paint a picture of a moderate German. It was merely a charade for Hitler to gain the supreme power he lusted for.

Ken

djscoo

March 8th, 2010, 18:55

National Socialism:
totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism , mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk...

dunno, sounds like fascism to me.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.

From this explanation, economically, I suppose the Nazi party was socialist. Looking at other indicators however, ultra-nationalism, embracing Roman culture and symbols, social stratification,suppression of social progressivism, suppression of counter-culture, I still see right-wing ideologies.

The point is, Hitler and Stalin were not politically similar.

Ken Stallings

March 8th, 2010, 20:23

Actually, I would argue they were very similar. And their mutual antagonism was entirely due to their similarity.

Remember, prior to the invasion of Poland, there was a real possibility that the British and French may have allied with Germany to run the Soviets out of Finland. Further, despite the writings in Mein Kamph, Stalin and Hitler brokered a treaty to divide Poland. Both dictators sized up the situation and determined they could play the peace angle for a period of time before readying their respective militaries to go after each other. Hitler flinched first and the alliance to defeat him was born.

From a practical consideration, Stalin and Hitler employed precisely the same agenda -- a craven quest for totality of personal power and development of a cult of personality.

Additionally, both employed brutal methods against segments of their local populace. Stalin embarked upon a purely genocidal campaign of forced industrialization which resulted in the sale of grain for capital to the point where millions were starved to death from induced famines.

Hitler's efforts against Jews is of course well documented.

Both employed ruthless purges. Both employed state police units to develop a power base built upon fear.

Both used state control of private business. Even in Italy the Fascist government did the same by nationalizing basic industries.

As I said, fascism is total submission of individual liberty to the government. Your first quote supported that.

However, fascism is not by any means restricted to right or left politics. Hugo Chavez is morphing to a dictator and his ultimate quest appears to be fascism under a left ideology.

Augusto Pinochet was a dictator seeking fascism under a right ideology.

As I wrote, fascism is a quest for state power over the citizenry with alienation of individual rights over the state.

Cheers,

Ken

tigisfat

March 8th, 2010, 20:35

Though they often run hand in hand, let us not confuse right wing and left wing with being liberal and conservative. I'm a very free-thinking person, some might say some sort of liberal for a number of reasons, but my views are so far to the right that you can't see them from here. :mixedsmi:

IB was an entertaining movie, but it's hard to say it's a really good movie. It was just fun and goofy. The acting of the 'jew hunter' (I hope that doesn't offend anyone, I couldn't remember his name) was INCREDIBLE to watch. You have to look past that it's a fictional and fun remake of WWII. My brother couldn't look past it.

Panther_99FS

March 8th, 2010, 21:00

Okay,
Let me see if I can digest this thread....

It went from "should I watch this movie :ques:"..
To... "socialism, national socialism, facsim, left & right wing".....:isadizzy:

redriver6

March 8th, 2010, 21:01

IB was an entertaining movie, but it's hard to say it's a really good movie. It was just fun and goofy. The acting of the 'jew hunter' (I hope that doesn't offend anyone, I couldn't remember his name) was INCREDIBLE to watch. You have to look past that it's a fictional and fun remake of WWII. My brother couldn't look past it.

i would have to say i agree with that...and check out 6:10 of this video:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

6rr1q__f-vk

Ken Stallings

March 8th, 2010, 21:23

Okay,
Let me see if I can digest this thread....

It went from "should I watch this movie :ques:"..
To... "socialism, national socialism, facsim, left & right wing".....:isadizzy:

Well, Tarantino and Robert Rodriquez are great friends and Rodriquez made a bank robbery movie that turned into a vampire flick!

So can it really be surprising that a Tarantino movie thread turned into a poltiical science discussion? :icon_lol:

Cheers,

Ken

djscoo

March 8th, 2010, 21:28

Though they often run hand in hand, let us not confuse right wing and left wing with being liberal and conservative.
Agreed...

Stalin's enemy was the rich, and the general population suffered as a result.
Hitler's enemy was the foreigner and the foreign influence or anyone who threatened his society. The general population didn't suffer, only those who were deemed "the enemy".

Stalin implemented short-sighted plans with the aims of improving production. The population suffered famines and forced labor.
Hitler implemented well thought out plans to improve Germany's financial situation. The general population saw the effects and were pleased.

Stalin pitted the rich against the poor, he used secret police to purge arbitrary enemies of the state. Anyone was at risk
Hitler pitted the conformists against the non-conformists. He used secret police to purge enemies of the state. It was clear to the population what constituted an arrest. Conformism was encouraged.

Both were evil, evil, evil dudes, no argument about that.

boxcar

March 8th, 2010, 21:32

...and check out 6:10 of this video:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

6rr1q__f-vk

.
.
..... Hilarious! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/verkleidung/costumed-smiley-034.gif Watched the whole video but the Inglorious B's comments starting @ 6:10 were tops!
.

txnetcop

March 9th, 2010, 03:07

chris, that made me laugh pretty good, because you are sooo right.

but i think what he was saying is, that bassturds wasn't even that good.

Yep he was terrible in Troy and should have stayed in his actor's trailer for IB
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

djscoo

March 9th, 2010, 08:16

I'll add "Babel" to the list of great movies featuring Brad Pitt. It's a truly unique film.

vora

March 9th, 2010, 09:06

I liked IB very much. Waltz is acting Pitt into the ground IMHO (although I also like Brad Pitt as an actor).
I generally like Tarantino flicks because it shows how much this man LOVES cinema (and comics). His movies really show what a cinema nerd he is.

cheezyflier

March 9th, 2010, 09:32

i will agree with that about tarantino. he does have quite a knowledge of cinema and comics/animation.

Bjoern

March 9th, 2010, 12:30

Okay,
Let me see if I can digest this thread....

It went from "should I watch this movie :ques:"..
To... "socialism, national socialism, facsim, left & right wing".....:isadizzy:

I don't see any reason for worries (yet), P.

Hitler implemented well thought out plans to improve Germany's financial situation. The general population saw the effects and were pleased.

It was more a shot at economical autarky....with the goal of being able to entirely support a war from within the home country.
Financially, the Third Reich was a massive train wreck.