Current Events > Inglorious Basterds is so good

(+) Yeah! (+)

Masterpiece
---

Ah ah ah... La creme
---

A river der chi.

I feel it has a ton of absolutely great scenes, but as a movie, it has pacing problems. Many Tarantino films have those parts where the movie comes to almost a screeching halt, and the bar scene where they play that game was one of those parts.

Other than that, it's awesome.
---

Southernfatman posted...

A river der chi.

I feel it has a ton of absolutely great scenes, but as a movie, it has pacing problems. Many Tarantino films have those parts where the movie comes to almost a screeching halt, and the bar scene where they play that game was one of those parts.

Other than that, it's awesome.

That part was good
---

Au revoir Soshana!
---

Top 3 Tarantino
---

Bar scene is one of the best in the movie though
---

One of the best opening scenes of all time.

---

Token "Quentin Tarantino is a fucking asshole" post.

Anyone who legit chokes out an actress for "a good shot" is a fucking degenerate. To mention nothing if the other shit he's done.
---

Not just the best Tarantino film, but arguably the best film of the 2000s.

---

Tupacrulez posted...

Token "Quentin Tarantino is a fucking asshole" post.

Anyone who legit chokes out an actress for "a good shot" is a fucking degenerate. To mention nothing if the other shit he's done.

Wait really?
---

I put it above Django tbh
---

It's one of those movies that gets better the more you watch it and the closer you pay attention

---

The titular basterds turned out to be kind of irrelevant though. If they were removed from the movie the end result would've barely changed. Made their scenes seem pointless on retrospect other than that memorable bar scene.
---

Its long boring and christopher waltz ruins every project hes in

---

GoodOlJr posted...

Its long boring and christopher waltz ruins every project hes in

GoodOlJr posted...

christopher waltz ruins every project hes in

how in the world can one person be so wrong

---

Prestoff posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Token "Quentin Tarantino is a fucking asshole" post.

Anyone who legit chokes out an actress for "a good shot" is a fucking degenerate. To mention nothing if the other shit he's done.

Wait really?

Yep. He even quipped on Conan that he did it for sexual gratification. As time has gone on, I'm starting to get the impression that he wasn't joking about that.
---

GoodOlJr posted...

Its long boring and christopher waltz ruins every project hes in

hey, buddy. enough of that


---

Southernfatman posted...

A river der chi.

I feel it has a ton of absolutely great scenes, but as a movie, it has pacing problems. Many Tarantino films have those parts where the movie comes to almost a screeching halt, and the bar scene where they play that game was one of those parts.

Other than that, it's awesome.

You should rewatch that scene because its phenomenal imo.

Movie took a few watches for me to really appreciate it. Christoph Waltz had an amazing performance throughout.
---

*Inglourious
---

GiftedACIII posted...

The titular basterds turned out to be kind of irrelevant though. If they were removed from the movie the end result would've barely changed. Made their scenes seem pointless on retrospect other than that memorable bar scene.

Nah, I don't agree with that

If it weren't for the Basterds, Landa would have foiled the cinema plot. He immediately knew who Shoshana was and had already decided by the night of the event that he was going to defect. Without that option, he would have stopped the terrorist plot.

---

I didnt think tarintino would do good without winesteen, but everybody loves this once upon a Hollywood movie... go figure
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

You should rewatch that scene because its phenomenal imo.

Movie took a few watches for me to really appreciate it. Christoph Waltz had an amazing performance throughout.

Maybe. I've only seen it once. Maybe I was just so anxious to see where the story went that I was impatient. Maybe on a rewatch it will be better. I've wanted to rewatch it, but never have the time or never think about it when I do. I still have to catch up with Tarantino's more recent movies. Still haven't see Hateful 8 or Once Upon a Time In Hollywood...yet.
---

The Admiral posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

The titular basterds turned out to be kind of irrelevant though. If they were removed from the movie the end result would've barely changed. Made their scenes seem pointless on retrospect other than that memorable bar scene.

Nah, I don't agree with that

If it weren't for the Basterds, Landa would have foiled the cinema plot. He immediately knew who Shoshana was and had already decided by the night of the event that he was going to defect. Without that option, he would have stopped the terrorist plot.

There's no reason he needs the basterds to defect. He could've found many other people to defect to. If anything, going to the basterds to defect screwed him over a bit because the basterds were the kind who were willing to break part of the deal with him even after the negotiation. Basically, the only reason the basterds exist was so that Landa could get some comeuppance as otherwise he'd just have manipulated everything and gotten everything to go his way.
---

DrizztLink posted...

how in the world can one person be so wrong

If a 60 year old guy making cute Faces is your schtick more power to you

I dont enjoy terrible shit, its an affliction I guess

---

just how

---

You are sheltering enemies of the state, are you not?
---

GoodOlJr posted...

If a 60 year old guy making cute Faces is your schtick more power to you

I dont enjoy terrible shit, its an affliction I guess

Dude won an Oscar and nearly every other industry award for acting that year. You're objectively wrong on this one.

---

GoodOlJr posted...

christopher waltz ruins every project hes in

---

Did he really know it was her when they met at breakfast? Ordering the milk made me think he knew but they kind of left it open to interpretation
---

littlebro07 posted...

Did he really know it was her when they met at breakfast? Ordering the milk made me think he knew but they kind of left it open to interpretation

Yeah, he was already starting to plan his defection scheme by then. Both the milk and the "one more question... oh I forget" to fuck with her were giveaways.

---

Easily one of his worse movies. Really compounds a lot of the problems he's known for. Christoph Waltz is a lot of fun though.

GiftedACIII posted...

The Admiral posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

The titular basterds turned out to be kind of irrelevant though. If they were removed from the movie the end result would've barely changed. Made their scenes seem pointless on retrospect other than that memorable bar scene.

Nah, I don't agree with that

If it weren't for the Basterds, Landa would have foiled the cinema plot. He immediately knew who Shoshana was and had already decided by the night of the event that he was going to defect. Without that option, he would have stopped the terrorist plot.

There's no reason he needs the basterds to defect. He could've found many other people to defect to. If anything, going to the basterds to defect screwed him over a bit because the basterds were the kind who were willing to break part of the deal with him even after the negotiation. Basically, the only reason the basterds exist was so that Landa could get some comeuppance as otherwise he'd just have manipulated everything and gotten everything to go his way. Also now that you bring him up, him killing Hammersmark came out of the blue and made absolutely no logical sense too. Landa had no reason to kill her and never showed that he was the type to act on emotion before then.

He did it so that Tarantino could be an asshole and choke out the actress.

If you think this shit he writes isn't a big old wankfest for him, you're nuts.
---

Didn't Tarantino get Uma Thurman hurt during Kill Bill? Something like a driving stunt gone wrong and Tarantino was insistent that Thurman drove and not a stunt person?

Dude is a freak. I don't usually kink shame, bit if you're publicly drinking out of actress's shoes and choking them on camera you got issues.

Then there's all the n word stuff. Great director, but a piece of shit.
---

I don't really know how I feel about the film. It has two of the greatest scenes in film history, but I've never much cared for the basterds themselves or their antics.
---

Southernfatman posted...

Didn't Tarantino get Uma Thurman hurt during Kill Bill? Something like a driving stunt gone wrong and Tarantino was insistent that Thurman drove and not a stunt person?

Dude is a freak. I don't usually kink shame, bit if you're publicly drinking out of actress's shoes and choking them on camera you got issues.

Then there's all the n word stuff. Great director, but a piece of shit.

Yeah her knees are fucked.
---

You don't mind if I light my pipe as well?

*pulls out a big dick energy pipe *
---

Watched it a couple weeks ago. Third time I think I've seen it.

I think he killed Hammersmark because he planning some fantastic "catch the terrorists in the act" plot and she threw a wrench in those plans and forced his hand to defect. But based off the details, it's also clear that he HAD considered it and that's how he had the communication guy on board with the plan and why he negotiated for the guy's life.

Either way, the ending is glorious.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Watched it a couple weeks ago. Third time I think I've seen it.

I think he killed Hammersmark because he planning some fantastic "catch the terrorists in the act" plot and she threw a wrench in those plans and forced his hand to defect. But based off the details, it's also clear that he HAD considered it and that's how he had the communication guy on board with the plan and why he negotiated for the guy's life.

Either way, the ending is glorious.

It's just really silly and out of character either way. Tupacrulez's post seems right.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Watched it a couple weeks ago. Third time I think I've seen it.

I think he killed Hammersmark because he planning some fantastic "catch the terrorists in the act" plot and she threw a wrench in those plans and forced his hand to defect. But based off the details, it's also clear that he HAD considered it and that's how he had the communication guy on board with the plan and why he negotiated for the guy's life.

Either way, the ending is glorious.

It's just really silly and out of character either way. Tupacrulez's post seems right.

How about her being a spy as a loose end that would have been the last thing to block Gus negotiating?
---

Yeah, it was more that She was a German civilian and could have called out Landa's war crimes in a way that the U.S. soldiers couldn't have, since they'd be under orders. Landa needed the Basterds to get access to the OSS General, since there was no way he could have gotten that contact otherwise. Hammersmark had no use and was only a potential liability.

---

Dont forget Tarantino also actually bit an actress when he played a zombie in Planet Terror! He was one of a group that did the whole devour the victim zombie mob scene schtick, and he "got too into it" and actually bit her.

Dudes creepy but i dont give a fuck, I love his movies. My favorites are Basterds, Hateful 8, and Deathproof. Jango and Pulp Fiction are a little lower for me. I haven't seen the others.
---

Every body walks around so smug because they got the second misspelling but they never notice the first one
---

Tarantino also made that girl in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood super uncomfortable when he insisted on all these close-ups of her feet

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/margaret-qualley-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-interview-1202161917/

---

The Admiral posted...

Yeah, it was more that She was a German civilian and could have called out Landa's war crimes in a way that the U.S. soldiers couldn't have, since they'd be under orders. Landa needed the Basterds to get access to the OSS General, since there was no way he could have gotten that contact otherwise. Hammersmark had no use and was only a potential liability.

Holy crap, the admiral and I on the same page. The world must be ending soon.
---

The Admiral posted...

Tarantino also made that girl in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood super uncomfortable when he insisted on all these close-ups of her feet

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/margaret-qualley-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-interview-1202161917/

Summary of article

Tarantino: You're an actress. Play your part.
Qualley: I'm insecure.
Tarantino: It's going to be ok. Let me show you around the set/
Qualley: I like tarantino. I hate my feet but because I like the director I will show my feet.

gunplagirl posted...

The Admiral posted...

Yeah, it was more that She was a German civilian and could have called out Landa's war crimes in a way that the U.S. soldiers couldn't have, since they'd be under orders. Landa needed the Basterds to get access to the OSS General, since there was no way he could have gotten that contact otherwise. Hammersmark had no use and was only a potential liability.

Holy crap, the admiral and I on the same page. The world must be ending soon.

Lol why does Admiral have me blocked and not you
---

gunplagirl posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Watched it a couple weeks ago. Third time I think I've seen it.

I think he killed Hammersmark because he planning some fantastic "catch the terrorists in the act" plot and she threw a wrench in those plans and forced his hand to defect. But based off the details, it's also clear that he HAD considered it and that's how he had the communication guy on board with the plan and why he negotiated for the guy's life.

Either way, the ending is glorious.

It's just really silly and out of character either way. Tupacrulez's post seems right.

How about her being a spy as a loose end that would have been the last thing to block Gus negotiating?

The Admiral posted...

Yeah, it was more that She was a German civilian and could have called out Landa's war crimes in a way that the U.S. soldiers couldn't have, since they'd be under orders. Landa needed the Basterds to get access to the OSS General, since there was no way he could have gotten that contact otherwise. Hammersmark had no use and was only a potential liability.

Why would that change anything? He was defecting to her side. If he could trust the basterds who were so intent on destroying Nazis they broke his promise and killed his partner and mutilated him so that he couldn't hide his Nazi origins why would he need to fear her? And I'm sure there are other ways for him to get access to an OSS general other than the basterds. He was in total control at the time having captured both the basterds and knew of the theater plot as well as being a top ranking official. He could organize his defection to a far more stable official than the basterds. It's not like Nazis in real life weren't given full pardons and forgiven for various reasons.
---