BF2S Forums Inglourious Basterds overrated.

It was fantastic, and the fact that someone as retarded as Macbeth hates it proves just how good it was.

"Gnat zees" i thought Pitt made a good Alabamian, he nailed it.

ghettoperson wrote:

It was fantastic, and the fact that someone as retarded as Macbeth hates it proves just how good it was.

9th Company, now that's a good subtitle film

Quentin Tarrentino is overrated. Don't get me wrong, I was totally into Pulp fiction and loved True Romance (wrote no directed by). Beyond Jackie Brown all his flicks were meh; dialog that tries to hard, violence so intense its not credible.

Good comedy though

DesertFox- wrote:

It's a great movie if you love (read: love) movies, which apparently you don't. You'd expect the film to focus on Pitt because he's the big name attached to it, but he's not even the most interesting character in it, and the Basterds seem to be a sort of comic relief. You can't look at it like you're expecting a Hollywood war movie or drama, because it's wholly neither of those. It was amazing how much of it was in German and French as well, which is something you don't see at-fucking-all in Hollywood these days because most actors won't put in the effort to learn the languages (Waltz spoke fucking French, English, German and Italian ffs).

Why do you have to LOVE movies to enjoy Inglorious Basterds? Really, I'd like to hear your reasoning and logic behind this one... Isn't a personal opinion just that? Something personal? You either love it or you hate it. Basterds, however, ONLY did well because Tarantino and Pitt were all over it. Why? Because those are the names that bring in the cash. Tarantino is considered this almighty independent, fuck-off Hollywood god when he hasn't done anything truly original in a long time. His early 90s movies were gritty at a time when there were no gritty movies like those. It was different. Nowadays? Tarantino is just churning out gore-filled movies with no real sense beyond them other than the gore.

Finray wrote:

I thought the foreign languages and accents were bloody well done, they spoke unfaulted with perfect accents. Made for really entertaining dialogue.

Newsflash Finny: Christoph Waltz? He's Austrian. German is kinda his native language, and it's the same story with the entire cast that was speaking German and/or French. OMG! Tarantino hired NATIVE actors!!! What a concept?! That's so edgy!!! HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS!!! /sarcasm Waltz is also fluent in French. Til Schweiger? German. Diane Kruger? German. Nicolas Cage even remarks on her German-sounding accent in the first National Treasure movie. Jacky Ido, the black Frenchman? He's from Africa, a place where French is very widely spoken and from my short scanning of Wikipedia, his home country (Burkina Faso) was a French colony.

So here we have all these actors who speak these languages natively and fluently... that's like giving someone a pat on the shoulder for walking in a straight line. Kinda comes naturally and I'd be willing to bet hardly 5% of the people who saw the movie in the US spoke ANY of those languages fluently enough to pick out bad acting, so at the end of the day, it didn't even fucking matter since everyone was reading the subtitles anyway.

Bevo wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Quentin Tarrentino is overrated ... violence so intense its not credible.

I think you're missing the point. It's so over-the-top it's not meant to be "credible".

Yaaa... you could certainly make that point (cuz you know, Tarantino is SOOOO edgy and indie it's like omigod)... except there's a difference to funny violence (Hot Shots Part Deux) and the violence in the movie which wasn't even entertaining. If anything, I found it absolutely tasteless. It wasn't trying to be funny. It was gory for the sake of gore. Wow - real original... as if so many movies nowadays aren't just that: gory because that's what people want to see...

CapnNismo wrote:

Yaaa... you could certainly make that point (cuz you know, Tarantino is SOOOO edgy and indie it's like omigod)... except there's a difference to funny violence (Hot Shots Part Deux) and the violence in the movie which wasn't even entertaining. If anything, I found it absolutely tasteless. It wasn't trying to be funny. It was gory for the sake of gore. Wow - real original... as if so many movies nowadays aren't just that: gory because that's what people want to see...

At least attempt to be critical, I won't read this drivel.

Defiance wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Blade4509 wrote:

Best movie of 2009, disagree and I'll shoot off your testicles with my Walther.

Actually Avatar was the best. Even if it was an exact copy of The Fast and Furious and Dances with Wolves.

Dances with Wolves? Maybe, although it's whiny tripe of absolutely no consequence.

The Fast and the Furious? Shut the fuck up. That is some ridiculous stretch of logic by some douche who tried to make a funny out of the Dances with Wolves idea and gloriously ruined it. No art is 100% original, and none ever will be. Do you have any idea how many stories are based off of the heroic cycle? Maybe we should shun all literature post-dating the Roman empire because their writers took care of that one for us.

I see your point

I have to say though, Dances with Wolves was great.

CapnNismo wrote:

Newsflash Finny: Christoph Waltz? He's Austrian. German is kinda his native language

Really? Is French, English and Italian also his native language?

CapnNismo wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

It's a great movie if you love (read: love) movies, which apparently you don't. You'd expect the film to focus on Pitt because he's the big name attached to it, but he's not even the most interesting character in it, and the Basterds seem to be a sort of comic relief. You can't look at it like you're expecting a Hollywood war movie or drama, because it's wholly neither of those. It was amazing how much of it was in German and French as well, which is something you don't see at-fucking-all in Hollywood these days because most actors won't put in the effort to learn the languages (Waltz spoke fucking French, English, German and Italian ffs).

Why do you have to LOVE movies to enjoy Inglorious Basterds? Really, I'd like to hear your reasoning and logic behind this one... Isn't a personal opinion just that? Something personal? You either love it or you hate it. Basterds, however, ONLY did well because Tarantino and Pitt were all over it. Why? Because those are the names that bring in the cash. Tarantino is considered this almighty independent, fuck-off Hollywood god when he hasn't done anything truly original in a long time. His early 90s movies were gritty at a time when there were no gritty movies like those. It was different. Nowadays? Tarantino is just churning out gore-filled movies with no real sense beyond them other than the gore.

You have to love movies because that's who Tarantino makes movies for. How can you say it only did well because of Tarantino and Pitt, though? In the reviews I heard/read, the most named person was alwas Waltz. Sure, the others are big names in Hollywood and you're not going to be able to ignore them, though. Pitt is damn good in the role of Aldo, it's not like he is worthless beyond the name. Moving on, it may not be original in your view, but Tarantino did something new with this film. I seem to recall something about it being described as a sort of spaghetti western that is set during WWII, which is split up like his other movies and I found to be more like a play than a film. I personally didn't even find the film gory. It's not fucking Saw or Hostel; there's a method to the madness. The scalping/swastika scenes may have been uncomfortable, but it's realistic, and because it's Tarantino, he's not going to pan the camera offscreen while something like that is happening. The realism is meant to immerse you in the film, which is the opposite effect of the sort of '60s WWII/cowboy films where someone gets shot accompanied by a Wilhelm scream and no blood in sight.

Thats a whole page of posts I'm never going to read. This guy has a point though.

ghettoperson wrote:

It was fantastic, and the fact that someone as retarded as Macbeth hates it proves just how good it was.