[quote=“G”]
This topic is a fucking prison!
On Planet Bullshit!
In the galaxy of This Sucks Camel Dicks!
[/quote]
LMAO! ;D
Well said, sir.
I’m going to take a pillowcase and fill it full of bars of soap and beat the shit out of you!
[quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”]
Seriously though, you’re a douche. Just go away and hound someone else with your meaningless bullshit.
[/quote]
May I recommed IMDB…they would love you.
[quote=“me”]
May I recommed IMDB…they would love you.
[/quote]
Me, me?
I was actually expecting more dickheads like Zoggy Stardust here going on about how it isn’t a good portrayal of WWII or how it has no respect for what happened during the Holocaust.
[quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”]
Me, me?
[/quote]
No. I was referring to Zog Media.
[quote=“ZOG MEDIA”]
Isnt it a crime to pose as Sgt or other ranked military offical in the public domain?
I know what weasels like you are, and frankly your ‘fucking professional’ ranking here shows what a pimp and disease carrier you are.
[/quote]
I didn’t realize they let Anne Coulter have internet access.
<LINK_TEXT text=“Cole Smithey - Capsules … terds.html”>Cole Smithey - Capsules: Inglourious Basterds</LINK_TEXT>
Very short and very positive (A+) review by some Cole Smithey, who is allegedly “the smartest film critic in the world”, so I guess we can all relax now…
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/aug … -interview”>Missing in action | Quentin Tarantino | The Guardian</LINK_TEXT>
Not really a review but whoever wrote it said he didn’t like it enough times to be close. The article pissed me off. If you don’t like QT find his movies “empty” (his words), that’s fine. Fuck you, but that’s fine. This asshole was swinging back and forth like a fucking pendulum.
Yeah, the guy’s definitely anti-Tarantino but I thought that was an interesting read, at least Quentin’s bits… On the bright side, two more positive reviews:
<LINK_TEXT text=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost … 54797.html”>Review: <i>Inglourious Basterds</i> | HuffPost Entertainment</LINK_TEXT>
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.ieweekly.com/cms/story/detai … erds/2569/”>http://www.ieweekly.com/cms/story/detail/inglourious_basterds/2569/</LINK_TEXT>
Recently I have been reading, in some critics opinions, that Inglourious Basterds is not a deep movie. I do not like this stance that a movie takes a bad hit for not being deep enough. Also, I do not like when they do not get a main point of a movie they review, and in Inglourious Basterds’ case the power of cinema. The reviewers who say the movie is deep do not mention the power of cinema and to me that is deep.
[quote=“robertdiggs36”]
Recently I have been reading, in some critics opinions, that Inglourious Basterds is not a deep movie. I do not like this stance that a movie takes a bad hit for not being deep enough. Also, I do not like when they do not get a main point of a movie they review, and in Inglourious Basterds’ case the power of cinema. The reviewers who say the movie is deep do not mention the power of cinema and to me that is deep.
[/quote]
If anything that’s the one thing the critics should get around to talking about. How can you call yourself a film critic and not see that as a major part of the film.
I cant understand people that dont like quentin tarantino??? his movies bring excitement to the screen, movies that have thought, imagery, story telling and atmosphere. we just live in a world of high expectations, where uber serious movies that depress the fuck out of you or films like chic flicks or teen movies require no brain functioning prevail
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
If anything that’s the one thing the critics should get around to talking about. How can you call yourself a film critic and not see that as a major part of the film.
[/quote]
This film seems to have short circuited critics’ brains somewhat. I keep reading silly reviews where they miss the point and start going on about what they wanted to see in the movie. Saying things like ‘theres no battle scene’ as a negative is awful critiscism. Professional critics should not be comparing this film to some magical version they have playing in their heads but reviewing whats actually up on screen (which in my opinion was freaking awesome). Most of them haven’t even figured out it was meant to be a black comedy.
It’s strange how common opinion about Tarantino has changed over the last decade or so. I can’t figure out why he was hailed as ‘the saviour of mainstream cinema’ back in the 90s and now regarded by many as an immature hack when his style hasn’t really changed.
I think it may be because he has stopped making gangster flicks. There seems to be some kind of unspoken rule that films that involve organised crime somehow exist on a higher echolon than other films and recieve huge amount of gushing praise for decades on end. I’ve never understood this either.
In the meantime, the rotten tomatoes meter has sky rocketed to 76%. 
<LINK_TEXT text=“BBC Blogs - Kermode Uncut … 00809.html”>BBC - Mark Kermode's film blog: The Tarantino Situation</LINK_TEXT>
This is a good example of what I mean by the turnaround by the critics. Kermode praises Dogs and PF then says Jackie Brown is his best film, then contradicts himself calls his early films ‘fanboy claptrap’ and critiques Kill Bill on that basis. nuts.
I actually like Mark Kermodes film criticism generally, its intelligent and well argued and very entertaining. I dont always agree with his verdicts and in this case I think he’s totally wrong.
[quote=“Tim12345”]
It’s strange how common opinion about Tarantino has changed over the last decade or so. I can’t figure out why he was hailed as ‘the saviour of mainstream cinema’ back in the 90s and now regarded by many as an immature hack when his style hasn’t really changed.
[/quote]
It’s simply because his style has been very quickly copied by other directors all over the world, by mainstream cinema, videoclips, adverts. Not to mention the huge quantity of movies sold under the Tarantino label (written by, produced by…) which rushed on big screens right after the PF success, movies very often not as good as the QT ones. Due to this overexposure, some people got tired of the QT style.
^^^ Good explanation, think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
[quote=“blue_lou_boyle”]
I actually like Mark Kermodes film criticism generally, its intelligent and well argued and very entertaining. I dont always agree with his verdicts and in this case I think he’s totally wrong.
[/quote]
Yeah same but I’ve never agreed with Kermode on this one. I’ve noticed that QT haters always express a lot of love for Jackie Brown, which is his least flamboyant and, although well made and acted, least interesting movie. I wonder if he had continued down that route what kind of film he would be making today?
PF did better at the BO than KB or Death Proof, so… the argument about QT just thinking about dollars is crap, it’s quite the contrary actually. He could have done bankable movies after he got big, but instead he always plays with expectations at every new movie, with more or less success. I like to read interesting negative comments, but the Kermode’s ones just make no sense at all, like he doesn’t really know why he doesn’t like his new movies. I just think the guy doesn’t like the “movie-movie” universe, and that’s fair enough really, but no need to come up with such lame reasons.