serious movies are for old, grumpy people.
[quote=“Yasmin”]
The last lines of the script are surely Quentin’s own opinion LOL!
[/quote]
???
POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS BUT NOTHING SERIOUS haha
I have to rant. This movie has a lot more to with Shosanna and not the Bastards! We are only briefly introduced to them and we spend little time with them in the beginning. I thought we would follow them on a wonderful journey, instead we suddenly leave them and pick it up later? I wanted a men on a mission movie, not a following a female orpahn in WWII. There’s only one scene in the entire script which shows the Bastards doing what they came to do!
The entire thing reads like Kill Bill set in WWII…I don’t think it’ll be much of a masterpiece.
Please don’t listen to this member or be disheartened by his words. I read plenty of male action. Plenty, plenty, plenty.
[quote=“Kinick”]
POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS BUT NOTHING SERIOUS haha
I have to rant. This movie has a lot more to with Shosanna and not the Bastards! We are only briefly introduced to them and we spend little time with them in the beginning. I thought we would follow them on a wonderful journey, instead we suddenly leave them and pick it up later? I wanted a men on a mission movie, not a following a female orpahn in WWII. There’s only one scene in the entire script which shows the Bastards doing what they came to do!
The entire thing reads like Kill Bill set in WWII…I don’t think it’ll be much of a masterpiece.
[/quote]
You seem to have shown up here simply to berate the fans about the IB script. Do you not ever have anything good to say?
[quote=“Yasmin”]
Please don’t listen to this member or be disheartened by his words. I read plenty of male action. Plenty, plenty, plenty.
[/quote]
I’m not telling menbers not to listen to your opinions, am I?
It’s not as it’ll make a difference anyway, most will lllllaaaaap anything by QT up.
But for those like to, who have great expectations and have been anticipating this for years - read the script, you’ll see what I mean!
[quote]You seem to have shown up here simply to berate the fans about the IB script. Do you not ever have anything good to say?[/quote]
I have shown up here because I’m a massive QT fan. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m going to speak my mind, if there’s something i don’t like, I’ll state my opinion. I’m not rolling, I’m not bashing fans (becaue I AM one)…simply anticipating this long-awaited masterpiece by my idol and favourite director in the world, haha. I am very critical however, so if have offended anyone or dampened spirits I am sorry…but sit tight, we are in for one hell of a ride one way or another! >:D
Ignore my bad spelling…it’s early.
Slight Spoilers
Not so much a review, more of a comment:
In the script there are certain things done to certain Austrian nazis (excluding A.H.) that is gonna make certain Slavic and Hungarian nations cheer in the theater.
Smrt fašizmu! Svoboda narodu!
OMG! This script is A-MAZ-ING! So happy! I SO want Nick Frost to play the first character mentioned!
s***'s father?
J****'s father.
Dude, why does he spell it “BastErds”?
Basically Kinick’s review isn’t about what the script is and if it works as it is but about his expectations. And breaking people’s expectations is what Jackie Brown or Volume 1 did. They were movies going opposite people’s expectations: Jackie Brown was a quiet movie with mature characters rather than an exercise in cool violence and Volume 1 was a visually focused movie without QT’s famous pop culture talk. So some reproached Jackie for not being Pulp Fiction II and other reproached Volume 1 for not being Scorsese or Coppola. Basically Kinick is disappointed about the script not being Apocalypse Now but honestly, even if I’d love to see QT make a movie like this, I know he’s not the man for this. People like Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino… managed to do movies with a BIG vision because they were people with political awareness, people who cared about American history and Tarantino has always been more let’s say “movie culture aware”. Tarantino doesn’t seem to be doing The Big Epic but doing what he’s able to do the same way John Woo didn’t deliver a big vision of Viet Nam in Bullet in the head but a film about male friendship. Maybe if QT were to do a movie with a big vision of America or History he’d better use non-QT material the same way Elmore Leonard’s material brought some elements that weren’t present in original screenplays such as Reservoir and Pulp.
Plus Kinick mentions directors either from older generations than Tarantino -Kubrick, Coppola- or who have really lived the war -Oliver Stone-.
[quote=“Sunday”]
Basically Kinick’s review isn’t about what the script is and if it works as it is but about his expectations. And breaking people’s expectations is what Jackie Brown or Volume 1 did. They were movies going opposite people’s expectations: Jackie Brown was a quiet movie with mature characters rather than an exercise in cool violence and Volume 1 was a visually focused movie without QT’s famous pop culture talk. So some reproached Jackie for not being Pulp Fiction II and other reproached Volume 1 for not being Scorsese or Coppola. Basically Kinick is disappointed about the script not being Apocalypse Now but honestly, even if I’d love to see QT make a movie like this, I know he’s not the man for this. People like Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino… managed to do movies with a BIG vision because they were people with political awareness, people who cared about American history and Tarantino has always been more let’s say “movie culture aware”. Tarantino doesn’t seem to be doing The Big Epic but doing what he’s able to do the same way John Woo didn’t deliver a big vision of Viet Nam in Bullet in the head but a film about male friendship. Maybe if QT were to do a movie with a big vision of America or History he’d better use non-QT material the same way Elmore Leonard’s material brought some elements that weren’t present in original screenplays such as Reservoir and Pulp.
Plus Kinick mentions directors either from older generations than Tarantino -Kubrick, Coppola- or who have really lived the war -Oliver Stone-.
[/quote]
I gotta give you props on this one. It wasn’t directly about the script, it was my after-thoughts after I read it. And thanks for not flying off the handle - people here seem to once you say a bad word about QT, haha.
I do want an Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan from QT - in his own whacy style mixing elements fomr all!
But for people (and I know there are!) like me whoe wanted a serious, no-bullshit, non-hokey, mature WWII epic - it’s not going to happen, look at the script, you’ll see. It’s going to be as big as Kill Bill Vol 1. If that’s what you want then fine, but I want more. And I don’t QT has to have been alive during those generations, he borrowed before, he can do it again. It doesn’t even have to historically accurate (which IB wont be) but I wanted my men on a mission movie. Crazy missions. I don’t want to read for half the movie too coz half of it is subtitled.
[quote=“Kinick”]
But for people (and I know there are!) like me whoe wanted a serious, no-bullshit, non-hokey, mature WWII epic - it’s not going to happen, look at the script, you’ll see.
[/quote]
First: I read the script. Second: I knew that if QT were to do a war movie it wouldn’t try to compete with Apocalypse Now before I read the script.
[quote=“Kinick”]
And I don’t QT has to have been alive during those generations, he borrowed before, he can do it again.
[/quote]
I wasn’t just talking about the generational issue. Oliver Stone is for instance famous for having a certain awareness about political issues and that’s why his movies are the way they are. On the other hand, I’m not sure politics are something important for someone like Tarantino for whom movies matter more. Stone has been to Viet Nam, he’s been very active against the Reagan foregin policy whereas Tarantino has spent most of his life watching movies rather than caring about politics and that does explain why their cinemas are different. I’m just saying that political issues may be less important for directors from the generation of Tarantino, Fincher… than they were for hollywood directors of the seventies like Scorsese, Cimino, Coppola or De Palma. One can regret it but that’s a fact. For me, Tarantino could have done an Apocalypse Now if he had adapted a novel about WWII. It wouldn’t have been his vision of the war but there would have been the book’s vision. You say you’d expect a mature war movie but the only “mature” movie Tarantino ever did was Jackie Brown, a non-original screenplay.
[quote=“Kinick”]
I don’t want to read for half the movie too coz half of it is subtitled.
[/quote]
You not used watching lots of foreign movies with subs?
[quote=“Sunday”]You say you’d expect a mature war movie but the only “mature” movie Tarantino ever did was Jackie Brown, a non-original screenplay.
Very true.
You not used watching lots of foreign movies with subs?
[/quote]
Sure. Many movies on TV over the years. Late nights and what have you. But for a Tarantino masterpiece, I’d rather not. Certainly to the extent present in the screenplay.
Wow, I’m getting mixed feelings about these revelations of IB being a version of Kill Bill: Volume 1. On the one hand, I wanted a serious film from QT for once. A piece not too dissimilar from Full Metal Jacket, where there is room for humour but it also has the hardcore serious scenes. Also the humour should be in the tone of the Pai Mei scene in Volume 2 as opposed to the fun/jokey humour of say Death Proof.
However, on the other hand, Kill Bill remains my favourite Quentin Tarantino film. What he did with Volume 1 especiallly, I thought was absolutely mind-blowing. So to think that it’s going to be as big as Volume 1, well that excites me a lot. I guess this is what the reviewer of IB meant when he said it’s epic in ambition. KB was epic in ambition, so if it’s like that I won’t be complaining.
Also, although there isn’t as much dialogue in Volume 1, I believe the dialogue was some of his best ever. It was an evolved Tarantino - very articulate. The word play was simply outstanding.
[quote=“Ify”]
Wow, I’m getting mixed feelings about these revelations of IB being a version of Kill Bill: Volume 1. On the one hand, I wanted a serious film from QT for once. A piece not too dissimilar from Full Metal Jacket, where there is room for humour but it also has the hardcore serious scenes. Also the humour should be in the tone of the Pai Mei scene in Volume 2 as opposed to the fun/jokey humour of say Death Proof.
[/quote]
I’d say the humour is around to the tone of that. And a lot of it reminds me or the tone of the Tanaka clan sequence of Vol. 1. However that wouldn’t really be to my taste in WWI masterpiece. It like him to take it back to the fun, smart humour of Pulp Fiction and even Jackie Brown - I think that would work well. After reading the screenplay I’m quite surprised about what it’s all about. I really hope he makes it work in the journey - coz that’s what QT films are about to me. And I stand by my rant on the previous page regarding the Batards. I think you know how big a QT fan I am, I want it to be a masterpiece in the making just as much as anyone else here. I hope he leaves behind everything he evolved to with Death Proof and gets an excitable cast round up for interesting journey one way or another. If he can’t take it 100% seriously (and I don’t just mean in tone) then I can’t even begin to…
I guess if Inglorious Bastards isn’t predominatly serious in tone, we’ll never get a serious picture from him. The thing with KB was that there was all sorts of humour in there. Let’s just see what happens with IB. I was under the impression that it would be a serious version of Pulp, a storyline akin to the genius of Pulp Fiction but with the ambition of something far greater mixed in with the breathtaking action of Kill Bill and Death Proof - only better. ;D
[quote=“Ify”]I was under the impression that it would be a serious version of Pulp, a storyline akin to the genius of Pulp Fiction but with the ambition of something far greater mixed in with the breathtaking action of Kill Bill and Death Proof - only better. ;D
[/quote]
You see, that’s exactly what I wanted too, man. That is exactly what I expected…well except for the breathtakingness of DP. 
I did not feel anything near this when reading IB…I was bored by it by Chapter 3, as opposed to KB in '02 when I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I read evey word of that religiously. What a script!
[quote]I guess if Inglorious Bastards isn’t predominatly serious in tone, we’ll never get a serious picture from him.[/quote]
In all honesty, I think Jackie Brown was as mature as we got and are going to get from the Q man. I believe he’s evolved into something too wild and un-grounded.
[quote=“Kinick”]
You see, that’s exactly what I wanted too, man. That is exactly what I expected…well except for the breathtakingness of DP.
[/quote]
Look me in my ey… avatar… and tell me you didn’t think that first crash scene in DP (starting from Pam and Stuntman Mike getting into the car, and ending with the crash) was one of the most cinematic things you have ever scene.
[quote=“Ify”]
Look me in my ey… avatar… and tell me you didn’t think that first crash scene in DP (starting from Pam and Stuntman Mike getting into the car, and ending with the crash) was one of the most cinematic things you have ever scene.
[/quote]
That is the only scene in the movie I liked! When the first Grindhouse trailer hit, I was marvelling at that little clip, “Well Pam which way are you going?” I was sitting here with a friend (another QT fan) and we were like, definitely first in line to see this!
But when I did see it, it was like, “So what?” There was no tension, the girls were annoying (they just look as if they’re happy to be in a QT film) The crash was good, but what’s it all about? fun, popcorn, cheer? No, I want susbstance. It really felt as he gave about 50% in this picture and expected it to be received 100%. We’ve seen these movies in the 70’s and 80’s, they were hokey for a reason - they couldn’t do better - you can do better!