You're nuts. The acting in the last 15 minutes of Res Dogs is Entourage bad.

Using this "expression" is amusing. Doesn't mean your taste in movies is redeemable, however.

Part of why Res dogs is so good is when it came out. Seeing it now is kind of dated, and so many films have come out after it that have been influenced by it (or QT's style in general) but when it came out, it was like a jolt of lightening, it terms of it's freshness. I don't think the acting is exactly bad in the movie, exactly. After watching all of QT's movies, I'm forced to conclude that the way he has actors act in his movies is a stylistic choice, an allusion to B-movies of yester year. However, I don't think Res. Dogs is better than Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction is his masterpiece, and I doubt he'll ever match it.


And now, on with my thoughts about IB. I'll slap spoilers on it..


1) I liked it a lot. It's an extremely strange war movie, like many of the 60's war movies, but of course unlike them and hyper violent. The strangest part about the movie is I'm thinking the whole time " okay.. how are they going to **** it up." By ****ing it up, I mean the assassination. Because, of course we know, that Hitler doesn't die, and Gobbels and the rest of them don't die.. so some where, some how they have to **** it up. So like the **** up in the bar.. the way they catch and kill the german movie actress, the way the Jewish girl dies.. all of that is alluding to a great big **** up... and then, instead.... all of them get murdered in an incredibly brutal way. It was like a weird triple level, because they tell you the plan, the plan is no secret... but you assume the plan is going to fail, so when it succeeds, it's an extremely WTF moment.

2) The jewish girl, Soshana ( or what ever her name is) looks like, the whole time, like a small busted Scarlet Johannson. Why not have a large busted Scarlet Johannson, and cast Scarlet Johannson.. she's half jewish anyway, so it's not like she would be mis-cast.

3) I loved the jew hunter, and every scene with him in it. Stole the movie, imo.

4) The movie was too long, I thought. When a movie is over 2 hours long, I really think it NEEDS to be more than 2 hours long.. like you better pack every moment of the extra time over 2 hours with entertainment. I have this critique with many movies, that they are just a little too long, and QT is, among many things, a very indulgent director. This movie feels like a 2 hour movie that got stretched out.

5) There weren't quite the iconic scenes and dialog that a movie like Pulp Fiction has. QT's movies always are compared to PF, fair or not, and they never quite live up to the Iconicism of PF. Part of it, I'm sure, is that so much of the film is in foreign languages.

6) It was beautifully shot.

7) Brad Pitt was a little disarming in the movie. I'm sure he was intentionally supposed to be jarring, but he didn't quite pull it off for me. Too much ham or something. It was like his role in Burn After Reading.. there's so much... baggage that comes with being brad pitt in a movie, so much " oh look, it's brad pitt doing something" factor, that I am not really that comfortable with him. He gets Kudos for taking roles like BAR and IB, but I don't quite buy him in them. Maybe someone like Billy Bob Thorton would have been better, I dunno.

8) I offically have a crush on Diane Kruger.

9) 4.5 of 5.

Um...

Also, I preferred your previous response about someone liking Dogs over Fiction. Something like, "Your mom prefers anal to oral."

So your going to go back and watch the National Treasure movies repeatedly?

oops

That movie was amusingly bad. If she got naked in the movie, that would be an affirmative, however.

God I should have taken this bet, though it's only a 69 ATM, I would have thought it was a littler higher.

It's a little too late for that!

Actually, I only read your first non-spoilered spoiler and then I realized that you had, in fact, not put spoiler tags on anything, but luckily it didn't spoil anything for me because I already suspected that was the case based on interviews with QT.

Yeah cause $5 and your throat slit are really worth it ...

Whoa Whoa there fella ... take it easy. Do as BigD says and imagine the time and place of the movie. Then realize it is awesome ... not PF awesome ... but awesome nonetheless.

I guess part of my "problem" with PF (which I did love) is that I read the screenplay for it before it came out. Probably "spoiled" it a bit for me. But I just loved RD so much. As you say, because of when it came out also because it came out before PF it took a little of the thunder away from PF. Loved how RD was shot, how the story was told, the characters & actors (except Chris Penn who should never get another role again), and the dialogue (even the QT "delivery"). It really does seem like he over-directs his actors and they wind up sounding like QT himself delivering the lines. Much like how most ain characters in Woody Allen directed movies sound like Woody Allen. This is also true for Mamet.

I am curious how many people who think PF > RD actually saw PF before RD? I am thinking that many people who saw PF were inspired to then go back and see RD as a result.

Strangely, from the trailers, IB looks like it has a bit of that "Burn After Reading" Coen Brothers quirkyness to it - where some of the characters turn into caricatures. For example, Jon Polito always seems like that to me, a little cartoonish, and it can detract a bit from the story for me. I am a little fearful that IB will stray too far in that direction.

I think that's a given. To me RD still stands the test of time but that's is possibly because I can't help but watch it and remember how awesome it was when it first came out. For most though I can understand Pulp Fiction standing the test of time better,

See, that's interesting. I would have hated to have read PF's screen play before I saw the movie. [art of what I loved about PF was the sheer surprise of it. I saw PF before RD, but like a couple weeks before. Actually, seeing PF was pretty much a water shed moment for me as a movie goer. I knew almost nothing about the movie when I saw it, I just knew that the critics loved it and it was nominated for an oscar. I saw it in the theatre, in an old style theatre with a balcony ( that is no longer a theatre), and it was just fantastic. I walked out of the movie just with my mind blown, and I've expected more from movies ever since. So it's extremely hard for me to objectively judge PF these days, and it's probably impossible for me to like another QT movie as much as it.




Um.. I don't actually think IB has "Coen Quirkiness" to it.. at least, not burn after reading quirkyness. It's actually paced much slower. One of the things it really does well is make the nazi's evil. And what I mean is, often in WW2 movies, if they deal with nazi's as actual characters at all ( and not as nameless badguys a la Saving Private Ryan), often the movie will make "good nazi's" and "bad nazi's", making a moral distinction between say an average solider and an SS officer or something. This movie really doesn't do that. All the nazi's are assumed to be or proven to be evil, and even likable one end up being revealed to be evil bastards. Which makes for a fun movie. Because, really, aren't Nazi's the ultimate 20th century villains? They should be evil bastards.

I saw RD before PF, PF is the superior film. It's really not close, that doesn't mean that RD is not a great film in it's own right though.

i saw reservoir dogs right when it came out

pulp fiction showed what he could do with a little money but think about dogs - he wrote it bare bones so it wouldnt cost a thing and it was just a nuclear bomb going off - it's like the ultimate guerrilla film]

and of course year Chris Penn wont get another role because he's dead - or was that a joke?

I almost put a little spoiler text in my post so people would know I realized Penn wouldn't be having any more roles.

Reservoir Dogs is a great movie. I saw it BEFORE Pulp Fiction.

My boyfriend at the time brought home the video (yes, on VHS) of Reservoir Dogs and I was like... "not another stupid guy violent movie." He was like, "trust me. This got good reviews. You will like it."

So we watched. And I did not want to like it AT ALL. I wanted to watch a chick flick. But I got sucked in.

And I loved it. It was everything that I hated about guy movies but it was also smart, funny, intriguing and a real good exercise of character development.

Pulp Fiction was great too... But I think my weakness is more for RD.

Oh... and someone mentioned True Romance. I haven't seen that in ages but I remember that I really liked that movie as well.



Maybe I will go see Inglorious Basterds tonight. (I skipped all of the spoilers so I have no idea if you all like it or not.)

I thought she looked more like a younger version of Juliet from Lost

the movie was ok. I enjoyed it. it certainly didn't feel as long as it was.

I kept getting the Scarlett vibe.

I agree it didn't feel as long as it was, although some scenes did seem to go on a bit too long. Dialogue isn't as biting as other QT stuff, and in the long run it won't be as rewatchable or quotable as a result of the subtitles, but I still liked it a whole lot. A number of scenes are fantastic, and I don't know if the ending could have been done any better. I also really liked the mixing of the languages, even though I don't know any of them. I really like how QT really builds suspense in different, unconventional ways.

Cant figure why the ss guy killed the girl at the end, if he was gonna turn traitor also.

I think the purpose was character development, to show what a sick and twisted **** he was. There was no "reason" for him to do it, other than he's an evil ****ing nazi

Saw it yesterday. Thought it was great. I wish we could have seen more of the Basterds though...

This is really an excellent point. I would have liked more scenes with the basterds just being basterds.

Agree with most of what BigD said. Though it didn't feel long to me. Brad Pitt was good, but bad, and it's hard to put into words. I feel like it was on purpose, so I don't mind it, but people in the theater were laughing when he wasn't trying to be funny, just because his voice was funny. That annoyed me a little. But there wasn't a funnier moment than when he started speaking Italian.

Eli Roth was fantastic, especially when beating the guys head in with the bat.

Tarantino has a serious foot fetish. I was told this before I saw the movie, but man, it really comes through in this one.

Can anyone make sense of some of the subtitle nuances though? Sometimes he translated, sometimes he didn't, and sometimes there were no subtitles at all. I think the times they had none at all, was because the other person in the scene didn't know the language, so it wasn't meant to be heard. But there were times the character would say Oui, and the subtitle said Yes, and other times the subtitle just said Oui. Then when the guy in the bar said Wunderbar, it just said Wunderbar. Some odd things like that, which must have a reason, but I can't figure it out.

Agreed that the JewHunter was really good.

One of Tarantino's best films.


Will buy on Blu-Ray.

QT has more than just a foot fetish, but yeah.. the dude has some serious kink-fetish action going on.

I know when the Jew hunter speaks italian, he's not really speaking italian. I heard him on the Adam Carolla show, and says he just takes english-french words with latin roots, and throws an italian flava on it ,but he actually has no actual knowledge of the language. He said he picked up an italian chick one time, talking to her for 2 hours doing this..

I stopped listening to the adam carolla podcast like a month ago. it wasn't a conscious decision. it just happened. it makes me sad but 5 hours a week is quite a bit. i'd listen at work or something but I really can't work and listen or listen and work. plus I'm quite far behind now. oh well.

Did not get a chance to see it yet (got busy with decorating my place.)

I am proud of myself for resisting the urge to read the spoilers.

Hopefully, I will get a chance to see it this weekend.

You're not missing much.. his humor is repetitive, and while I like the pod cast more than his show, it's definately one of the things I cut from my pod cast listening if I can't squeeze it in..

Went to see it twice and both times when I showed up it was sold out. Hope it's worth my time when I finally make it.

Tom.

This movie was really crazy! I think I really liked it. I haven't stopped thinking about it since I saw, so I guess that's the sign of a good movie.

But wow, I was really, really shocked when those two guys burst into the balcony and murdered Hitler.

I thought pretty much everybody was great in this movie, but the "Jew Hunter" stole the movie. What a fantastic performance! I disagree that Brad Pitt felt out of place. I think all the baggage and preconceptions that come along with Brad Pitt were intentional. He's supposed to be the All-American sexy with a swagger, funny, and yet unmerciful hero. He's basically a character out of a western. He's supposed to be John Wayne in this movie, only instead he's in the business of "killing Nazis" (the quotes indicated that it's supposed to be read in his southern accent). He's supposed to stand out among the other characters.

Tarantino was brilliant at building suspense throughout the film. Pretty much every scene is filled with a horrific sense of dread. We know that everything is going to end badly, horribly, violently, but first the characters have to have long, drawn out conversations with one another before they can kill each other. Are they feeling out one another, or are they trying to gain information, or are they just so incredibly loquacious and filled with personality that they can't help but discuss Scotch before meeting certain doom?

Definitely worth seeing.

I completely agree with everything you just said except this part. Was it really that unexpected? Was this supposed to be like a Sixth Sense level secret?

No, I don't think so. I just hadn't read anything about the movie at all. Apparently my friends knew what happens going in. The movie clearly isn't about a plot twist or anything like that, I just was really taken aback when it actually happened.

A agree myself. I never, for a moment, thought their mission was going to be a success, until it was.

Perhaps Scarlett doesn't speak French?

The language interplay was one of my favorite, unexpected aspects of the movie. I've studied French, German, and Italian quite a bit, so I really enjoyed the practice of matching up the speech with the subtitles. Kurt, like you, I noticed there were a few times that they didn't have subtitles, and I believe that was in order to emphasize that the focus character at that moment didn't understand what was being said. From what I caught, it wasn't anything essential to understanding the scene (or at least that wasn't conveyed in other ways). As for the 'oui' and 'wunderbar' subtitles, I hadn't particularly noticed those, but I suppose they're fairly commonly known words.

Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. The characters were interesting and the pacing was engaging. I agree that Landa and the first scene were excellent. I was a little disappointed that the Allied characters died in the basement tavern, because I wanted to see more of them, but that's a personal complaint as opposed to an artistic one. Also, Tarantino drew attention to it, but as soon as the British guy held up his three fingers, I knew he'd made a huge mistake in giving himself away.

Saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it. The opening scene with Landa was great and I loved the Landa character throughout.

Agree with the suspense building and I loved it.


Loved the Samuel L Jackson and Keitel parts also.

Saw this last yesterday. Really enjoyed this movie. I think the only scene that was too long was the opening scene even though it did a good job of making the nazi monster guy a deeper character. Still could have trimmed down 3 mintues off it just by camera shots where they lingered too long.

Seems they lost a couple Basterds on the last mission.

The two that died in the tavern were add ons to the original 8, so they don't count.

Two died in the theater.

The temp and Pitt survived at the end.

That leaves 4 unaccounted for.

I will buy the Dvd and figure out what happened I hope.

But overall this was the best thing Taratino has done..but I'm not a big Taratino fan so take that for what it's worth.

Oh Balloon guy.

*shakes head*































You just don't get it.

but I admit that I don't get it..which is like getting it, only without the self-delusion about it's value.

Well, the getting it part was just a joke, but I thought the first scene was easily the best scene in the whole movie.

And I love Tarantino movies, so I had to shake my head about that too.

See, I liked the scene in the Tavern because of the awkwardness of the situation. The first scene in the had too many French people in it. And what was with the milk? I mean who drinks milk straight out of a cow?

I'll tell you who. Nazis. Evil, heartless Nazis.

See I had mixed emotions about the whole scene.

On the one hand, the french guy lost his wife and was left alone raising 3 hot young girls...and then Tarantino left that whole set up alone.

Then you've got Nazi's driving up and it wasn't necessary for the Jews hiding under the house to do anything. Come on, do you really think that on a farm in the middle of an open field, on top of a hill where you have a clear view all around that the normal place to hang out would be under the house in the mud 24/7? With a forest just a couple hundred yards away where you could at least stretch out?

Then of course the Frence man is chopping...nothing. He's just hitting a stump with an ax so he can build up a sweat to impress his girls?

Here comes little Nazi boy, with his effeminate evil mannerisms, and a pipe that is compensating for something.......

And his effort to get the escaping Jewish girl...pointing his gun at her and saying bang?? That was oddly lame just to get the dramatic shot of the crying girl running from the house covered in dirt and fear while the Ennio Morricone influenced music is turned up to Soderburg levels in Ocean's twelve.

So you have the weak willed frenchman who gave up the Jews in a couple minutes of offhand remarks and twenty seconds of good cop bad cop, the killing of a bunch of Jewish milkmen through a wooden floor, and an escaping girl who is basically let free by the guy who is called the Jew Hunter. And it takes 15 minutes.

Yea, I think the whole thing could have been shot in 10 minutes max, and still been able to get the Morricone score in.

Pulp Fiction is one of the greatest movies of all time. This was good but not close to Pulp.

lol

I think it definitely holds up as rewatchable. In fact, I think I liked it even more the second and third time.

The moment that Landa shows up at the restaurant behind Shoshanna is just a fantastic moment. Because you're not surprised by it, you appreciate it for what it is and it is glorious. Plus, the music at that point is awesome.

I probably rate this one as my 2nd favorite QT movie behind only Pulp Fiction.

I'll agree, my initial opinion was wrong. I thought the subtitles wouldn't be as good/effective on subsequent watchings, but I've watched it a 2nd/3rd time and still love the movie each time through. The acts are all terrific.

My favorite scene is when they arrive at the premiere, from Brad Pitt's attempted 'stern face' to the maniacal cackle after she says she was mountain climbing, the whole thing is amazing.

I think I have to agree.

From IMDB.com

As with all of Quentin Tarantino's films, there are blatant mistakes and errors inserted on purpose. One example of this can be found in the English subtitles of characters speaking in a foreign language. Occasionally, the foreign word is inserted into the subtitle. Example: When Col. Landa is speaking to the French farmer, he says "Oui" which is French for "Yes". Instead of the word "Yes" appearing in the subtitle, the word "Oui" appears despite the fact that the rest of the French dialog is translated to English.