Inglorious Basterds is not very good at all.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by duovamp

See and you were questioning your actions earlier.

well in matters of artistic taste i am completely infallible, but in matters of personal affairs I feel like a bumbling nitwit

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Banana

You're in the midst of a mental breakdown which you have been having on these boards for at least a month now.

i think this is possibly true and i'm not being ironic or anything

[Order 66]

i think the horse left the barn years and years ago with most of us 'oldskoolers' as far as mental breakdowns go

[Trotskilicious]

permanent status of "mental breakdown" i wonder if its endemic among generation y men

[FlyinLo_DyinSlo]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

It's just awful, garish, low brow garbage.

i take it this was your first tarantino movie

[Trotskilicious]

nah man i mean see

i shouldn't come off like that because i do like lo brau for what it's worth it's just i dunno it's bad lo brau inglorious bastards is like low alternative

even if i may rewatch pulp fiction and think it's kind of racist and shitty or whatever i think, i'll still like its criminal, pulpy trashiness

[Trotskilicious]

i think i could get over the pulpy aspect of inglorious basterds if it wasn't so awful at its core

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by StuckInVain

Did you make it to the Mike Myers scene? I'm surprised that hasn't come up yet.

goodness no there's a mike myers scene? good god, i was hoping it was a different guy with an unfortunate name

also i have to mention that nobody does the intro title card anymore for good reason

[Trotskilicious]

man i love how children of men just LAUNCHES you into the movie and then theo is walking down the street and there's an explosion and BAM

CHILDREN OF MEN

OH SHITTTTT YOOOOO

[Order 66]

it's arguably the best movie of the last decade. but it is a real downer to watch sometimes though

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

basically it's a big stupid movie about jews getting vengeance against nazis, but they're commanded by a white man from the 50s south who is a fascist as much as the ludicrously effeminate nazi. they do things that the germans do by rounding up germans and murdering them. if there is a wink and a nod by the end i can barely understand how it's worth it because it's a cartoonish mess. the characters are hyper exaggerated, the dialogue is muddy and overlong. There are great moments in the first episode (It's hard to talk of tarantino movies in acts) but the getting to takes forever and there's nothing but BLABBER the entire time, it's not witty or interesting it's just BLABBER and the guy thinks he can still write a script. I think right when Brad Pitt says "I didn't come down here from the smokey mountains" I was like "Ok this dialogue is fucking horrendous," and the last few takes of Brad Pitt saying Nahzys in some space dialect never before heard on American soil, all I could think of was ham. Then there was Hitler and subtitles in front of a bugs bunny map and I was like holy fucking christ this is awful. And American v. Nazi execution scene with the 70s intros for the "hilarious" jew murder squad that ends with a vicious beating was just too much and I walked it.

I expressed a nearly identical opinion a few months ago and was met with as much intolerance.

WYH YOU DONT UDNERSTANDS TEH MOVIES LOL

[Trotskilicious]

david denby has a very well put negative review of it and i'm pretty sure he understands movies

[redbreegull]

this is what I said in the last thread we had about this movie

Tarantino has often delivered in the past, largely on his ability to make thoughtful, artistic films full of cultural commentary in the skin of lowbrow, violence-heavy, instant gratification action movies... not on his ability to literally make lowbrow action movies.

and interestingly, Trots' criticized me for it... hmmm...

[Trotskilicious]

link

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I had =Luke and the creators of South Park on my side then, and I'm right about this, too.

jumping in late to confirm that

inception was dumb

BUHHHHHHRRRRRRRR

[Luke de Spa]

quite liked inglorious basterds though. it has a few cringey moments but the good stuff is pretty damn good

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

david denby has a very well put negative review of it and i'm pretty sure he understands movies

Ebert gives it 4 stars though.

And Ebert is the fucking man.

[yo soy el mejor]

i liked it. hated inception though. i saw it in theaters with my pal and then tried watching it again on weed. HATED IT.

[Nimrod's Son]

You are wrong again. This was a really great flick.

[teh b0lly!!1]

my problem with all of tarantino's work since pulp fiction is that his movies have become exploitation films of his own narcissistic wankery. his movies no longer focus on actual STORYTELLING, they focus on giving quentin tarantino spot after spot to reference other films and demonstrate his knowledge of the subject, or wank it to some extra weird camera angle, or have the excuse to shoot some scene in out-of-context exotic location (like the battle in the snow with lucy liu on kill bill). when you watch his movies it's never as simple as it should be - fine actors acting great scripts - the acting and storytelling is always secondary to his tendency of always having to shove a CHECK THIS OUT director moment down the viewer's throat.

[mercurial]

that scene with pitt being italian was hilar
bonjourno!
si!

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Ebert gives it 4 stars though.

And Ebert is the fucking man.

ebert's given good reviews to shit and bad reviews to great movies
but i mean that still works against trots whole point
like i'm sure every person who gave inglourious basterds a good review doesn't "understand movies"

[Gossamer]

I think all of Tarantino's films are bonafied classics except for Jackie Brown and Inception is one of the truly great films of the past 5 years.

[Mablak]

The movie was pretty decent, I mean you kind of know exactly what you're getting before it starts. Like most of his movies, there aren't many parts that amaze me, but it's good enough to hold your interest.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Graveflower

ebert's given good reviews to shit and bad reviews to great movies
but i mean that still works against trots whole point
like i'm sure every person who gave inglourious basterds a good review doesn't "understand movies"

yeah but what i love about ebert is no matter what his actual disposition is, i can tell whether or not i would enjoy it. i think he's great.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Ebert gives it 4 stars though.

And Ebert is the fucking man.

is he? he doesn't like blue velvet.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Graveflower

ebert's given good reviews to shit and bad reviews to great movies
but i mean that still works against trots whole point
like i'm sure every person who gave inglourious basterds a good review doesn't "understand movies"

no they're just wrong at this point and when they look back in ten years they'll be like "Shit, Inglorious Bastards is really motherfucking terrible."

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Inception is one of the truly great films of the past 5 years.

Christ, I thought you watched real movies.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

is he? he doesn't like blue velvet.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

yeah but what i love about ebert is no matter what his actual disposition is, i can tell whether or not i would enjoy it. i think he's great.

[Eulogy]

also, i think these are maybe legitimate criticisms:

Instead, director David Lynch chose to interrupt the almost hypnotic pull of that relationship in order to pull back to his jokey, small-town satire. Is he afraid that movie audiences might not be ready for stark S & M unless they're assured it's all really a joke? I was absorbed and convinced by the relationship between Rossellini and MacLachlan, and annoyed because the director kept placing himself between me and the material. After five or 10 minutes in which the screen reality was overwhelming, I didn't need the director prancing on with a top hat and cane, whistling that it was all in fun.

Indeed, the movie is pulled so violently in opposite directions that it pulls itself apart. If the sexual scenes are real, then why do we need the sendup of the "Donna Reed Show"? What are we being told? That beneath the surface of Small Town, U.S.A., passions run dark and dangerous? Don't stop the presses.

The sexual material in "Blue Velvet" is so disturbing, and the performance by Rosellini is so convincing and courageous, that it demands a movie that deserves it. American movies have been using satire for years to take the edge off sex and violence. Occasionally, perhaps sex and violence should be treated with the seriousness they deserve. Given the power of the darker scenes in this movie, we're all the more frustrated that the director is unwilling to follow through to the consequences of his insights.

"Blue Velvet" is like the guy who drives you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying, "Never mind." There's another thing. Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film.