This is topic Inglourious Basterds (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001569
Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 07-22-2009, 07:00 PM:
 
What a cerebral mind f..k this is! My god it is wonderful. Why have we waited so long for such a piece of genius. All involved deserve a good pint of (warm British) beer. Thanks Quentin, you've set a new standard.
Well done to West End Odeon for a nearly faultless presentation (masking opening for the trailers?)
4.999999/5....Loved it!

[ 07-24-2009, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2009, 07:13 PM:
 
What would have made it .000001 better? No, wait... let me guess: If they had called it Inglorious Bastards instead?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-22-2009, 09:00 PM:
 
Yeah, especially since the title is really spelled "Inglourious Basterds"

I doubt that I'd like this movie because I don't generally go for cerebral mind f..ks.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-22-2009, 10:46 PM:
 
Me, neither. But hey, I don't go for Quentin Tarantino, either.

[Razz]
 
Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 07-23-2009, 01:27 AM:
 
Quentin Tarantino is attending a screening of this down here for the Melbourne International Film Festival next weekend.
The ticket price for this screening is $55 and he is only doing an intro. No Q & A afterwards or party, just the film!
Oh and the screening sold out in 5 mins according to the festival website. Theatre seats somewhere between 500-600.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-23-2009, 03:57 PM:
 
Hasn't he pulled that from the festival yet? [Wink]
 
Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 07-23-2009, 06:16 PM:
 
Yeah Ken Loach should have a word with him in regards to that [eyes]
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-24-2009, 06:14 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
the title is really spelled "Inglourious Basterds"
Any chance a moderator can fix the topic title to reflect the proper spelling?
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-26-2009, 03:55 PM:
 
I don't suppose anybody's seen the (apparent) original, have they?
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-26-2009, 04:15 PM:
 
I did. It's good but I think it's overrated...
 
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-26-2009, 07:07 PM:
 
The title of the Tarantino film IS spelled correctly. Maybe the creative spelling is to skirt copyright issues.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-26-2009, 11:48 PM:
 
It is now...but it wasn't.
 
Posted by Frank Bruno (Member # 1871) on 07-27-2009, 11:43 AM:
 
I don't know if Mike was referring to the "original," but I'd agree with him on it.

Decent bit of macaroni combat; has a couple neat plot twists I won't spoile here. it may not be worth what the new dvds are going for just to check it out as a curio. It has also been released on VHS as Deadly Mission, GI Bro, and Hell's Heroes, and can be found cheaply on vhs.

Looking forward to QTs, and hoping it's not awful.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2009, 01:26 PM:
 
quote: Frank Bruno
macaroni combat
WTF???
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-27-2009, 04:47 PM:
 
You know, Joe, like a "Spaghetti Western," only it's a war movie.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2009, 05:30 PM:
 
I figured. Though I must confess that I always thought the term "spaghetti western" was pretty retarded as well. Does this involve some sort of racism against Italians?
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-27-2009, 08:47 PM:
 
Thinking about it, maybe it's not so PC, but not nearly as bad as an old American Bandstand interview with ABBA in which Dick Clark calls their genre "Kraut Music." [Eek!] [Big Grin] Wrong on several levels. [uhoh]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-27-2009, 11:56 PM:
 
Oh man. There has to be a YouTube clip of that somewhere. Funny.
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-28-2009, 05:56 AM:
 
LOL Bobby, I'll have to look for it. I have it on VHS somewhere, recorded back when VH1 was running it. That exchange is hilarious, very awkward, like something from "The Office." Dick Clark backtracks very quickly and tries to explain himself! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 07-29-2009, 03:34 PM:
 
Absolutely great reviews............................... NOT!
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-20-2009, 05:18 AM:
 
Just watched the Basterds. My favorite Tarantino film by a long shot. Of course I'm not generally a huge QT fan.

The opening scene sets the stage for the whole movie with delicious scene of dialogue that takes a good 10 minutes to unwind. The whole scene is dripping with impending violence. And the rest of the movie follows in much the same way. Much of the violence is very real and very graphic, but at the same time you can't help laughing at some of it.

I would give it 4.5 out of 5, just because it was very long and at times the pace is pretty slow.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-20-2009, 06:45 AM:
 
More superb work from Quentin. My favorite is still Reservoir Dogs, followed closely by Pulp Fiction, but this is right up there with the best of his work.

Christoph Waltz (Col. Hans Landa) gave a particularly great performance, and the last couple of reels are edge-of-your-seat goodness. It goes without saying, excellent dialogue throughout that can only come from Quentin as well.

4.5 out of 5

Did anyone notice in reel 2 there was about a 2 second video-type glitch in the 35mm film print? I am curious if it affected everyone's copy, or perhaps just the interneg my print was struck from.
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 08-20-2009, 06:32 PM:
 
Brad, our print had that glitch too.

I definitely liked the movie ... and the poorly done subtitles. Performances were quite good too. [thumbsup]
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-20-2009, 09:33 PM:
 
So so the DCinema "prints" also have the glitch?
 
Posted by Andy Bajew (Member # 5330) on 08-20-2009, 11:40 PM:
 
I hate watching long films, but I managed to sit through it. This was a very good movie. I don't see it lasting as long in theaters as other hits as big. Defintely a movie to see.

I also like the fact that like 1/3 of the movie involves cinema in some fashion. I even got to show a new projectionist how changeover worked! I had basically everyone in the theater yelling my name when the projection parts were going, plus a text from the projectionist on duty.

4.5/5 for me
 
Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 08-21-2009, 06:59 AM:
 
I really really enjoyed this. That first 15 minutes are the best for me, and Christoph Waltz is superb.
My favourite line..."Blow up the basket"
Not as good as Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, but one of the few films that I know I want to watch again even as I'm watching it the first time.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-21-2009, 07:42 PM:
 
Where those Ernemann's and if so, what model were they?
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-22-2009, 08:08 PM:
 
^ Haha, you're such a geek monte! [Wink]

Being a logical (and much improved) successor to his segment in the Grindhouse double feature, Quentin Tarantino brings his trademark exploitation schtick to the WWII genre in a movie which is apparently two and a half hours long but feels like 90mins. The result stands proudly amongst the best in his filmography in terms of dialogue, visual style, music, homage and the ever-present threat of blinding violence. And it's nice to see another picture where the art of projection features so prominently (is Cinema Paradiso the only other one?)

Christoph Waltz is fantastically insidious as über villain, Col. Hans "The Jew Hunter" Landa, nicely offsetting Brad Pitt's deliciously hammy Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Raine. In many ways, the two characters are very much alike in the way they toy with their prisoners and in their propensity for a letting a victim go so that they might spread the fear for their captors. The only thing which makes Raine less evil than Waltz is the fact that he's on our side! That and Pitt's performance is plainly hilarious. Raine, in the guise of an Italian stunt man, blurting out Eye-talian interjections ("bon jorno", "grattzy", "a river dertchy" etc) in his thick southern hillbilly accent represents one of the more uproarious moments in the movie. Great stuff!

Diane Kruger continues to impress as the charming, psuedo-Dietrich double agent, Bridget von Hammersmark. Like Pitt, her acting talents trump her not insignificant good looks. Not so Eli Roth, however, whose dark handsomeness easily outshines his limited acting abilities; a point not lost on Tarantino who wisely keeps his lines to a minimum. Not that it matters, Roth's dodgy thespian skills further add to the films exploitation cred. Similarly, German cinematic favourite, Til Schweiger, clearly does not speak much English. Given very few lines by QT, Schweiger makes the most of his limited part but he is, frankly, a little wasted in the role of Gestapo killer, Hugo Stiglitz. Mélanie Laurent conspicuously stands out as the only major player delivering a subtle, beguiling performance and represents the heart of the film as displaced Jewish orphan, Shosanna Dreyfus.

Inglourious Basterds probably won't be the best film of the year but it is solid Tarantino and that's enough.

8.5 out of 10.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-22-2009, 11:02 PM:
 
Liked it. Love how Tarantino carefully "modulates" the tension in lengthy wordy scenes without allowing them to drag. Maybe not the best Tarantino ever, but a good film. I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

Today at Cinemark 17 in Springfield, #4, 35mm, SR●D. Excellent image quality, rock steady, clean, etc. [beer] [thumbsup] The booth staff is still able to put on a good show there despite evidence of lack of $$ being spent on things like maintenance to the exterior of the building (all poster cases with half the lights burned out for example).
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-22-2009, 11:23 PM:
 
CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14 (from the balcony)
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

quote: Stu Jamieson
And it's nice to see another picture where the art of projection features so prominently (is Cinema Paradiso the only other one?)
"Targets", Peter Bogdanovich's debut film, features some great 1960's projectionist footage at Pacific's Reseda Drive-In...starring their actual projectionist. The footage includes a changeover before the poor guy gets killed.

THE PLOT: Killing Nazis. Wackiness ensues.

I caught up on Enzo Castellari's 1978 low-rent Italian-made Quel maledetto treno blindato ("The Inglorious Bastards"). One of the extras is a conversation between Castellari and Tarantino about the film and the "remake" (they actually called it that) Tarantino was writing at the time. While Tarantino may have lifted the title and thrown some nuggets into the character names (specifically the fake names of the "Italian film makers" in the cinema), these movies have nothing to do with each other.

The original was about a group of escaped American military prisoners who accidentally kill everybody in a specially trained unit sent on a secret mission that they end up taking on themselves. The Blu-ray release is a great example of how good a cheap old film can look in high def.

The new one is a completely ridiculous tribute to similar movies...cheap war exploitation flicks. Everything is trademark Tarantino. Well shot, good action, and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of dialogue. It's absurdly long, but you hardly notice the time go by.

It won't be my favorite Tarantino flick by a long shot, but the guy has yet to make a movie I didn't like.

Excellent use of the old "Universal" logo.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-23-2009, 01:53 AM:
 
One of the things that struck me when I watched Inglourious Basterds was the quality of the image. I thought the steadiness of the image and the overall quality was far superior to the average wide release. I can't help wonder if QT had more exacting standards than normal for print production.

I'm curious if anyone else felt the same.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-23-2009, 10:26 AM:
 
Hmm let's see, someone did say this:

quote: David Stambaugh
Today at Cinemark 17 in Springfield, #4, 35mm, SR●D. Excellent image quality, rock steady, clean, etc.

 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 08-23-2009, 12:50 PM:
 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Where those Ernemann's and if so, what model were they?
Ernemann VII b - the Potsdam Filmmuseum near Berlin leased two machines to Tarantino. In their own exhibition, they regularly show films on VIIb machines.

Potsdam Filmmuseum (english site)

-

If you want to see more detail, there is an original manual available:

Ernemann VIIb Manual
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-23-2009, 01:05 PM:
 
Justin, it was printed at the Technicolor lab. All of their high speed prints are amazingly steady.
 
Posted by Luke Anderson (Member # 5316) on 08-23-2009, 06:17 PM:
 
I loved the film as I do all QT movies. He is such a stickler for deatail and always puts together a great sound track. I loved all the theatre stuff as I'm sure we all did, and I could not help feeling bad for the girl having to do the MARQUEE, I always hated that. I then laughed outloud when the explosions blew it up, I was thinking well that solves that problem.

4.5 / 5

-Luke
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-23-2009, 09:02 PM:
 
I was noticing on ours just how unsteady it is. Lots of up/down movement. [thumbsdown]

Oh, and Luke...

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

 
Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 08-23-2009, 10:34 PM:
 
John, the show print that was used for the premiere here in Melbourne at the Forum Theatre was excellent and was done by Technicolor.
Must have been from the same lab Brad mentioned as it had all that FBI warning stuff on the outside of the box.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-23-2009, 11:36 PM:
 
quote: John Koutsoumis
Must have been from the same lab Brad mentioned as it had all that FBI warning stuff on the outside of the box.
Don't be so sure. I seem to remember a manager calling someone at Technicolor for replacement reels for spiderman 3 to be told it wasn't printed by them, which was strange since all 3 prints we received were in boxes that said "Technicolor" on them.
 
Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 08-24-2009, 12:25 AM:
 
Fair enough but wherever it was struck they did a good job.
Our local prints are from Deluxe.
 
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 08-24-2009, 12:30 AM:
 
CINEMA: Terrace Hippodrome Wide screen

AUDITORIUM: Single Screen

PRESENTATION: 35mm/DTS

PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: One visible lab splice

RATING 9/10

I just got back from seeing this movie. It blows away my mind and the best part was the trailer doesn't give anything away.This film truly amazed me, It made laugh and my jaw drop. It was good enough that I will definitely have to see it again, and thats something I rarely do!!
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-24-2009, 02:55 AM:
 
So I've seen it twice now and I have to say that this is #2 on my QT list. The dialogue is brilliant, the opening scene which last for a reel and half was excellent. This is one of the best movies of the summer, top 5 for the year probably so far. Really can't say anything more then what everyone else has said. Also much like QT's other movies it is very quotable.

4.75/5 [thumbsup]
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-24-2009, 03:52 AM:
 
quote: David Stambaugh
Hmm let's see, someone did say this:

quote: David Stambaugh Today at Cinemark 17 in Springfield, #4, 35mm, SR●D. Excellent image quality, rock steady, clean, etc.
Nope...nothing...can you give us a hint? [Razz]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-25-2009, 02:59 AM:
 
CINEMA: Regal Entertainment Group Riverpoint Stadium 14, Sheridan, Colorado
AUDITORIUM: The evil #7
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: The print was scratched. How long has this movie been out? 4 days? Wow, the Regal Riverpoint 14 sure doesn't waste any time being incompetent. Movie started late and out of frame. Volume was also incredibly loud and the sound quality was bad. Tons of lab splices. There wasn't anyone to complain to since they were all closing when the movie let out, the lobby was completely abandoned of all employees. I hate this theater. I am never returning. Nobody should.

The actual movie:
I haven't seen Jackie Brown yet, but this is my 2nd least favorite QT movie. My least favorite is Death Proof. I'd rather watch Freddy Got Fingered than that. But this movie is trying to be Kill Bill. It used the same "chapter" stuff and even the same font. Hell, it even uses a lot of the exact same music as Kill Bill. Lame. The movie is OK and it is worth seeing once. The ending is good. Everyone keeps talking about how great the first 15 minutes of the movie are. NOTHING HAPPENS!!!

This movie doesn't have a lot of Brad Pitt or the Basterds in it and as a result is a lot less fun than it could have been. If anyone other than QT had made this movie, people would be ripping it a new one, guaranteed.
 
Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 08-25-2009, 08:28 AM:
 
Joe, you gotta see JACKIE BROWN. It's more fun than throwing a projector head in the trash.
 
Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-25-2009, 11:44 AM:
 
Come on Joe, Regal believes "starting in frame is not important, thats what the framing knob is for." Quote from one of their regional trainers. No kidding.
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-25-2009, 03:37 PM:
 
I liked the movie though the title is misleading and will give people the wrong expectations for the kind of entertainment they are in for. The Basterds themselves are just supporting characters including Pitt. In fact, some of the Basterds are hardly noticable. Eli Roth and Omar were good sidekicks, but I wish the other Americans had more personality. The Europeans clearly take over this movie.

I too agree that Waltz was so good he makes Ralph Feinnes in Schindler's look one note by comparison. Kruger seem to relish acting in her native tongue. Loved the tavern scene. Is it a rule for Christian Berkel to act in every Nazi themed movie?? Heh.

<NOT REALLY SPOILERS, BUT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS MINI SPOILERS>
It was a change of pace to see a David Bowie song(especially the Cat People arrangement they used) in a QT movie. My only quibble about the soundtrack was when some of the musical cues were too close to Kill Bill's inspired borrowed cues from Morricone. Also they pretty much reused the same exact musical segment from the House of Blue Leaves during the scene where the two Germans ask Melanie Laurent to accompany them.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-25-2009, 04:10 PM:
 
quote: Joe Elliott
Regal believes "starting in frame is not important, thats what the framing knob is for." Quote from one of their regional trainers. No kidding.
How sad is that? [Frown] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Andy Bajew (Member # 5330) on 08-26-2009, 10:48 AM:
 
More pathetic than it is sad. I got the idea from this forum and it has been working ever since--remove the framing knobs from every projector and train without them. I forgot who proposed the idea, otherwise I would give them credit for it.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2009, 02:10 PM:
 
The chicky-poo in the movie did the changeover incorrectly. The whore. There were clearly images on the film long before she opened the hand douser. And how did she manage to open than and close the hand douser on the other projector simultaneously? At least it looked to me like she was using the hand dousers.
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-26-2009, 02:34 PM:
 
If you notice when shes threading it shes threading on image as well.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-26-2009, 04:14 PM:
 
At least she threaded it in frame. [thumbsup]

I watched this last night. I'd already seen probably far too much of it from the booth. I'd never seen the Mike Myers bit and could only wonder why QT used him. It took me out of the movie for a bit which was annoying.

While not as good as Pulp Fiction, it's pretty darn good. I loved the long scenes...knowing from the outset the scene would end badly but not knowing how long that would take. QT seems to know just how long he can go. It's a talent for sure. I do think he may have pushed it too far with the bar scene though. When the German Officer decides he'd like to play the game with the cards I thought to myself "Oh, no."

It is extremely graphic in its violence.
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
In days gone by, even QT wouldn't have shown them in such detail. My memory of Reservoir Dogs is a little hazy, but even though you knew he was cutting the guys ear off, you didn't actually see it (did you) until he held the severed ear up for the camera. How times have moved on.

All in all another fine film from QT.
[thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup] out of [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2009, 05:57 PM:
 
I thought it was less violent than most QT films.
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-26-2009, 06:28 PM:
 
While overall its less violent then the others, when the violence does happen I would say its the most violent of his films.
 
Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 08-27-2009, 01:55 AM:
 
I thought the film was OK, but was much too long - you could easily cut an hour out of it without compromising the story too much. For example, you could probably remove almost the whole 'card game' scene.

Couple of problems in the print I saw; they'd left on 1 second of black leader at most of the reel-changes. Result? The picture goes to black and the sound mutes, there's a beep and then the sound and picture restart.

Perhaps the film before the changeover was scrap film, used instead of a countdown leader. I've seen this used in IMAX and other cinemas, so they can thread in frame before it gets to the main countdown. I've never seen bells on a projector before, either!

How could a hand-held camera produce such a steady picture on the screen? (penultimate scene of the movie, won't spoil it any more).
 
Posted by Mike B. Smith (Member # 2829) on 08-27-2009, 06:23 PM:
 
Many changeover houses had bells or some type of system that alerted the projectionist that the reel was getting close to the end. Did you see the scissors on the front wall between the projectors? I recall when I was trained on changeovers many many years ago, the projectionist told me they would place scissors nearby in case the nitrate-film caught fire, theoretically you would cut the film which would contain the fire in the lower magazine and prevent it from spreading to the rest of the reel. Overall I liked the film but one thing that bothered me which goes along with how steady the image was from a hand held camera, was when the whole front end of the theater was burning you could still hear the soundtrack of her laughing. Not sure where the mono speaker was placed but it should have been toast by that time.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-28-2009, 07:20 PM:
 
Good picture...a bit talky at first but it really moves at the end.

Good things:
Great performance by Christoph Waltz as Landa
Good performances by the ethereal Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger
Always great Tarantino dialogue.
No one uses music better than Quentin.
Good script that kept you guessing until the end.

No So Good Things:
Brad Pitt was too cartoony...too much John Wayne and protruding jaw.
A bit too long...first section could have been trimmed.

Rating: B+

Nice projection job by the AMC Lennox crew. No scratches or other problems. In a few weeks, this room (#12) will become a digIMAX location.
 
Posted by Rick Hunter (Member # 1606) on 08-29-2009, 03:17 AM:
 
quote: Mike B. Smith
theoretically you would cut the film which would contain the fire in the lower magazine and prevent it from spreading to the rest of the reel
Yet not a spool box in sight...?
 
Posted by Marin Zorica (Member # 1716) on 09-03-2009, 04:25 AM:
 
I also like movie very much!

Yea, no spool boxes, but Ernemann VII and VIIB was made with spool boxes because of fire protection, this should be Ernemann VII, not VIIB, because VII was produced from 1933, and B sterted after WW2 [Smile]
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-03-2009, 04:14 PM:
 
Those red plastic clip-on marquee letters seemed to be out of period. While plastic was invented in the 1920's, it did not get into wide use until the 1950's. Before that, Bakelite ruled the day, and they didn't look like Bakelite.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-07-2009, 06:28 PM:
 
My one pop movie of the summer.

Inglorious Boredumb.

Flame away;>
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-07-2009, 10:15 PM:
 
quote: Martin McCaffery - Quentin Tarantino Hater

Flame away;>
-
........ -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-12-2009, 08:01 PM:
 
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #7
Format: 35mm 'scope, Smart optical stereo
Rating: 3 stars out of 4

The presentation quality was good, but with the drawback: it wasn't shown with DTS audio. The theater hasn't shown any movies on film in nearly a year. Apparently the distributor had the stipulation any movie theater that had any film projection capability at all had to show the movie on 35mm. That's all fine and good as long as the theater's film equipment is still working great and there is enough staff members on site who remember how to operate it properly.

One thing I don't understand with the "film purist" distribution angle: this movie was post produced via digital intermediate. Chances are good it was the usual, de facto 2K resolution digital intermediate. To this day not very many movies get a 4K DI. If the 35mm release prints were sourced from a 2K DI what's the damned point in making an all D-cinema equipped movie theater run the movie on film?
[Roll Eyes]

Inglorius Basterds was definitely a pretty big improvement over QT's last effort, Death Proof. Nevertheless, I still grew tired at times of the extended passages of dialog. We're watching a 2.5 hour long movie, not reading a 1000 page novel where dialog works more as a driving element. Yes, the dialog was well written (as usual in any QT movie), but we need only so much of that. Get to the damned point of the scene already and allow the movie to move on to some action.

Christoph Waltz was impressive as Col. Hans Landa. How many languages does this guy speak? According to his IMDB profile, Christop Waltz really is fluent in German, English, French and Italian. I laughed when he pulled out that huge Sherlock Holmes looking pipe early in the movie. It made the other guy's pipe puny in comparison. That's not a pipe! Action movies are always more fun when the bad guy is very intelligent and very capable. Christoph Waltz certainly made his character seem capable of just about any evil deed.

The character name, Hans Landa threw me for a second. Here in Lawton the History and Government Dept. Chairman at Cameron University is Dr. Lance Janda. So I had to fight it a little bit to get that local name out of my head whenever Hans Landa was chewing the scenery.

I think Christoph Waltz has a slight resemblance to Geoffrey Rush. I also think Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz) has a slight resemblance to John Savage. I almost mistook the guy for John Savage even though Savage is 14 years older.

Brad Pitt was decent as Aldo Raine. He had plenty of good lines and some good comic moments. Still, even though Pitt was born in Oklahoma and raised in Missouri his southern accent sounded pretty fake.

Aldo Raine had a makeup effects scar across his neck as if his character had survived an attempted hanging or throat slashing. Did I miss some part of the movie that explained that scar on his neck? Or was it just there as a how'd he get that, unexplained character trait? I found it distracting.

quote: Joe Redifer
It used the same "chapter" stuff and even the same font.
QT's font choices in titling kind of drive me up the wall sometimes. It's like he got hold of a copy of CorelDRAW and its collection of 1000 fonts (mostly Bitstream, URW and ITC typefaces) and then went nuts creating title schemes with about as much logic as a ransom note or the kinds of shit you'll get from some tiny "fast sign" shop.

Some of the titles are in Palatino and then a sans like Avant Garde. And then let's throw in some Friz Quadrata Bold! At least he didn't set anything in fucking Arial or Comic Sans! Didn't see any Trajan used either. But you don't get Trajan with CorelDRAW. Gotta buy some Adobe products to get Trajan Pro.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: John Wilson
It is extremely graphic in its violence.
Regarding the level of violence, I didn't find it anymore graphic or disturbing than any of QT's previous films. The movie does have a few bloody, violent scenes. But they're not the most graphic I've seen out of Tarantino's movies. In QT's last movie you see a car tire peel out over some brunette chick's face! The violence of Inglorius Basterds happens in very short bursts in between very long passages of dialog.

When it comes to baseball bat violence, in my opinion Casino arguably has the most grisly baseball bat scene ever shown in movies. It's easily more graphic than anything seen Inglorious Basterds or The Untouchables. I can't think of anything worse. Anyone else, please feel free to offer your opinion of the worst baseball bat violence movie scene.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-12-2009, 11:18 PM:
 
Can't wait for his next film;>
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/next_tarantino_movie_an_homage_to?utm_source=a-section

quote:

Next Tarantino Movie An Homage To Beloved Tarantino Movies Of Director's Youth
SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 | ISSUE 45•37

MADRID—While attending a European press junket Monday for his film Inglourious Basterds, director Quentin Tarantino announced that his next project, Jack Rabbit Slim, will go into production this fall, and will be an homage to his favorite director and screenwriter of all time: Quentin Tarantino.

 
Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 09-12-2009, 11:18 PM:
 
Hi Folks:

I didn't care for the movie. I've seen MUCH better war movies such as "The Pianist" or "Downfall". However, having said that, I did quite enjoy the scalping scenes and the scene where a man gets his throat cut. The audience somewhat gasped during these scenes which is quite rare these days as audiences are so conditioned to violence.

Mike
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-13-2009, 12:50 AM:
 
quote: Mike Croaro
However, having said that, I did quite enjoy the scalping scenes and the scene where a man gets his throat cut.
Duly noted. And the focus group people are listening in earnest.

It may be only a matter of 3 or 4 years from now when Rob Zombie picks up a Best Director Oscar™ for Halloween 9: The Disection of Grandma Edith's Uterus!
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 09-28-2009, 02:12 PM:
 
Marin Zorica wrote:
quote:
Yea, no spool boxes, but Ernemann VII and VIIB was made with spool boxes because of fire protection, this should be Ernemann VII, not VIIB, because VII was produced from 1933, and B sterted after WW2 [Smile]
Actually the VIIB was introduced in the 1930s (I didn't really know that, just looked it up [Wink] ), so it does fit into a WWII movie.

Found that in "Zeiss Ikon Kinotechnisches Handbuch" (Manual of Cinema Technology), published bei Zeiss Ikon/Ernemann in 1937, it has some photos and numbers on early Ernemann models.
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-01-2009, 09:18 PM:
 
Loved it. Absolutely loved it. QT's integration of music is once again fantastic. I love that Bowie tune. If I had to have a beef (and believe me this is getting picky) it was the distraction caused by using B.J. Novak as one of the Basterds. As an Office fan, I just couldn't take him seriously. Fortunately some of his few lines were supposed to be comical, but still...

Anyway, it's my favorite movie this year. Watching a movie with natural, flowing, believable dialogue like this makes it so hard for me to understand why Kevin Smith or George Lucas have such awful dialogue in their own movies. Is Tarantino so good that he makes it look easy or are those other guys just that terrible? I will recommend this to anyone who isn't overly squeamish to violence and patient enough to read 1/2 a movie. Congrats Mr. Tarantino on a return to greatness!
 
Posted by Robert Crabtree (Member # 4795) on 10-05-2009, 02:42 PM:
 
I've seen this four time now, and would probably see it a 5th if there was an open captioned showing an hour's drive from me. Was a bit distracted that Shoshanna's name is spelled two diff. ways in the movie though. Brilliant casting of many native bilinguals (Fassbender, Waltz, Kruger, and Diehl particularly). I'd be utterly non-plussed if Waltz isn't nominated for the Supporting Actor Oscar.
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 10-15-2009, 10:28 AM:
 
I have but a one word review for this movie:

BORING
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-15-2010, 02:35 AM:
 
Well...I've finally seen it and like many others...it is a 4 out of 5 stars for me. Quite entertaining and my kind of movie. The pacing was fine too.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
If you like QT films, you should like this one too.

Steve
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-18-2012, 08:56 AM:
 

It has been 581 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-18-2012, 08:56 AM:
 
The 35mm print of INGLORIUS BASTERDS I saw yesterday was almost perfect in terms of image quality. This is how anamorphic photography should look in a release print: sharp and detailed, rock-steady and with little or no grain visible.

As for the movie, it certainly didn't feel like 152 minutes. Some fine acting, some not so good. The opening scene at the farm shows that Tarantino is an excellent director, he keeps the camera on the actors, but when he starts moving it in a semicircle, he also moves the audience. Far away from the usual stupid "always keep the camera moving because the audience might fall asleep" style in contemporary filmmaking.

I suppose the film is what QT intended, but here are some things I didn't like:

Sometimes there are reasons for being incorrect in technical matters, if you want to make something easier to understand for the audience. But since part of the story takes place in a cinema and actual work in the booth is shown, I don't see a positive reason NOT do it right.

- When the girl does a reel changeover (it has been mentioned previously here), we see seven or eight seconds of image running on the incoming projector before she switches over. No leader, no "ne jamais couper cet amorce".
Now, if she was doing changeover to her own, newly shot "big face" announcement, then of course it would not matter at what point the feature film is interrupted. No need for watching the c/o cues either.
But since she spliced the "big face" footage into the next reel, there is no point in messing up the preceding reel change because that would rather bring some Nazi watchdog to the booth. It just makes no sense. The cues (scraped circle with a cross) are a joke, I mean, this is supposed to be a premiere with Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and every other Nazi leader in the theatre, but a new print is marked to look like after five years of subrun showing?

- Nice idea, storing 350 feature prints (1.200-1.500 reels) on a shelf. But if you run it from open reels, you are clearly not afraid. I doubt there was an European country where the law did not demand spool boxes. (Maybe open reels look more interesting to the camera, but they could easily have enlarged the wire-mesh ports and put stronger lights in the spool boxes so you could see the reels turning).

- The movie shown, "Stolz der Nation" (Pride of the Nation) is total BS. The Nazi party did use film for propaganda, but after two films about the early days of their "movement", HITLERJUNGE QUEX and HANS WESTMAR, Goebbels never greenlighted another film of that kind. Even in their war newsreels (Deutsche Wochenschau), the propaganda ministery made sure that no dead bodies were shown. Goebbels believed in using historical epics, like he did with KOLBERG directed by Veit Harlan. It told the story of the defence of a besieged fortress town against French troops in 1807 and was full of references to Nazi ideology and actual war situations of 1939-1944. Kolberg came out in 1945 and was termed a "Durchhaltefilm" which could be translated as "Keep fighting movie".

So there is no way a film like STOLZ DER NATION would have been produced or used for propaganda by the Third Reich. When war action came to Germany, Goebbels gave the audiences more light entertainment, even moving production to Vienna and Prague because locations and studios were bombed in Germany. Cinematography, lighting and editing of the scenes shown is completely out of style, I guess QT had seen Pontecorvos's BATTLE OF ALGIERS before from which he also took the great Ennio Morricone music.

- Christopher Waltz is the only actor to speak German that fits the period, maybe being Austrian did help. The younger German actors speak rather contemporary. This is not interesting to English speaking audiences, but it does make a difference. They got it much better in DOWNFALL (Der Untergang, 2004), especially the character of Joseph Goebbels.

It was an OK movie, certainly better than DEATH PROOF although I was disappointed that the Basterds were only secondary characters. And like Bobby, I found QT's title fonts painful to watch.

BTW, the running 35mm projectors didn't sound very Ernemann to me. Is it possible they just used the more familiar Simplex sound?
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-18-2012, 11:34 PM:
 
Loved this movie and have a fun fact to share..and what I believe is a big historical mistake related to the subject of the same fact....

The fun fact:

ALL of the ICC (hexagonal) film cans used in the film are from QT's personal collection. I know this because I have worked on his screening room and have seen his film collection. EVERY can was perfect and painted that same color.

Now what I feel was a mistake:

Those same ICC cans are used in the movie, which was set in the WW2 era, right? I do not believe those ICC cans were even around back then, at least not outside the U.S.

Anyone familiar with the history of those shipping cans to confirm/disprove my observation?

I wouldn't mind being wrong in this case....QT is such a stickler for details it bugs me that he would have made such a mistake...if he did...
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-19-2012, 04:50 AM:
 
quote: Christian Appelt
Sometimes there are reasons for being incorrect in technical matters, if you want to make something easier to understand for the audience. But since part of the story takes place in a cinema and actual work in the booth is shown, I don't see a positive reason NOT do it right.
I guess, like most Tarantino movies, you shouldn't take it all too serious. It was always supposed to have a "spaghetti western" feel. They did a better job of depicting a realistic Adolf Hitler in "Der Untergang" too, but I guess, that wasn't really the point here [Wink] .

quote:
- Christopher Waltz is the only actor to speak German that fits the period, maybe being Austrian did help. The younger German actors speak rather contemporary. This is not interesting to English speaking audiences, but it does make a difference. They got it much better in DOWNFALL (Der Untergang, 2004), especially the character of Joseph Goebbels.
Well, at least it was believable German by (mostly) German actors and believable French by (mostly) French actors, unlike so many other Hollywood productions. I'm "not so fluent" in Chinese, Japanese, Russian, etc. but I guess a lot of locals also have a good laugh at many of the foreing language depictions in many multi-million-dollar Hollywood spectacles [Wink] .

I'm wondering how the German general release version of this movie was handled. Were the English parts dubbed in German or did they use subtitles?

I really really HATE dubbed versions, yet you Germans seem to love them [Wink] . I still remember seeing Sweeney Todd in a German dubbed version. That was really awfull, because the spoken parts were dubbed over in German and the melodic parts were all in their original voices with subtitles. It felt like one of those cheap Russian dubs/voice overs, where they use the same voice for all actors and you can still hear the original voices on the background.
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-19-2012, 08:15 AM:
 
Tony,

I had the same thought about the shipping containers. In France, Germany and many other European countries film prints are traditionally shipped on cores. There are a few exceptions, like the big Italian Cinebox which contains two 6000 ft reels. Only in East Germany (German Democratic Republic) they had hexagonal shipping boxes similiar to the U.S. type, but made from green plastic, and not for reels but for prints on cores.

I'm not sure about the U.K., how were prints shipped back then?

Marcel,

yes, it just a movie! [Wink] It's not really that important, but I wonder why almost every time film projection is depicted in films, they get it messed up. Have you ever seen the Columbo episode MAKE ME A PERFECT MURDER? They explain the changeover process, and it is actually important for Columbo to solve the case - and when they show the c/o, it's wrong!

Luckily I didn't see the dubbed version of INGLORIOUS BASTERDS but an OV with subtitles. All the French and English lines were subtitled in German.

Wikipedia says that for the dubbed version all English dialogue was dubbed to German, but not how they handled the French language. It became necessary to change some scenes like the interrogation of Corporal Butz by the basterds where Wicki translates Aldo Raine's questions to German and Butz's answers back to English.

Yeah, the dubbing...not all of us like it. Actually, it was a byproduct of re-education and WW2. Around 1946/47, there was a competetive fight for the German cinema market. National film industries of the four Allied nations created new dubbing facilities in record time to get their own product into German theatres. During the Third Reich, audiences had not seen but very few foreign films and were not used to original versions. To this day, most German people grow up with dubbed movies and TV, regarding subtitles and OV as something arty. This has changed a bit with DVD and - at least in some cities - more theatres that play the original versions of new movies.
 
Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-19-2012, 09:57 AM:
 
Re the shape of shipping cases: My earliest experience with 35mm film was in the late 1940s, and the hexagonal cases were the standard for theatrical shipping. Many of these went back many years, probably to the point when the 2000 reel became standard in 1937.
Many were of pretty heavy gauge steel, and weighed almost as much as the film they contained. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are still around today.
There were some 5-reel cases occasionally in use, although not by the major distributors. These things were so heavy I heard of film transportation drivers purposely destroying them to prevent their use.
As to their use in the above movie, it's probably inaccurate for Europe for reasons others have mentioned.
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-19-2012, 06:39 PM:
 
Christian and Richard, thank you for the replies and info. So we now know that such cans existed in that era, but there may be some doubts as to their usage in Europe at that time....Hey it's clear as mud now. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 03-19-2012, 09:27 PM:
 
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-19-2012, 10:26 PM:
 
As I recall,you cant see a speaker when they pile the film behind the screen?
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2