NOW WATCHING

I finally watched Inglourious Basterds yesterday with my lady, and we both agreed that it's a mediocre -if not bad- film.

One of the highlights was Christoph Waltz's performance which was outstanding and really amusing.
The second highlight was that
some good characters were killed -though I would have preferred a Nazi victory at the end for a change  :D

There were a few scenes really nice -like the scene in the French tavern-
but in general it was a boring watch with a small number of Tarantino signatures.

The scenario, I found it not tight at all, some solutions were given out of the blue to the point of ridicule.
The music which normally is a high feature in his films, now it was an epic failure.
Brad Pitt's role it was amusing at times, like a caricature of old American films, but too much predicted, so it failed to amuse me.
In overall, that was easy my worst Tarantino, even worst that Death Proof.
At the end me and my lady came to the conclusion that Tarantino shoots whatever, then put his name on it and sells it.

Though I really enjoyed Kill Bill (vol 2) I think that the last really good film of Tarantino was Jackie Brown.
 
How odd. Inglourious Basterds is the only Tarantino film I like, which is probably because it is so untypical for him. Oh well.
 
Will-I-Am said:
At the end me and my lady came to the conclusion that Tarantino shoots whatever, then put his name on it and sells it.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds yet, but I think that's an unfair accusation. Tarantino worked on the script for more than a decade. It was obviously a project he cared about a lot.
 
??? You mean that you prefer Inglourious Basterds to Pulp Fiction ??  :blink:

Shadow said:
I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds yet, but I think that's an unfair accusation. Tarantino worked on the script for more than a decade. It was obviously a project he cared about a lot.
Click to expand...

I knew that... Ok watch it and tell me what you think, I found it terribly weak, really!
 
Yes it is, one of the best and most tight scripts ever  :)

Something else I did enjoy in IB was that everything was spoken in the original language, the Germans were speaking German, the French French etc...
 
Shadow said:
I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds yet...
Click to expand...

Having finally seen the film, I'll give you my verdict: the opening scene and the basement tavern scene are great, while the rest is forgettable. It tries to be everything at once (war film, suspense story, black comedy etc) and succeeds occasionally, but as a whole it ends up being unfocused and rather pointless.

(Some people have told me that it's not supposed to have a "point", but it's an incoherent mess anyway.)
 
Saw Alice in Wonderland last night... personally a big disappointment. Too much Johnny Depp, since when is the mad hatter central to the freaking story? Not enough word play as in the animated original, too many pointless "action" scenes... and what the hell is it anyway? A remake? a sequel? a remake/sequel? it was an all around let down.
 
Yes, it makes no sense. Don't call it "Alice in Wonderland" if it really is "Through the Looking Glass' and it is not because
she still goes down a rabbit hole, not a mirror, Burton assumes people know of the Jaberwakee or however you spell it when it was never even mentioned in the animated original... also by Disney, so what is up with the continuity? Alice had been there once, presumably the original, but does not remember shit... seriously... no sense and not in a good way (like the original movie)
 
My point is that maybe you should compare the film to the original book, not the cartoon movie.
 
That would be like comparing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to the book rather than the 1970s "original" movie... even so did you read my first post? Where I do mention both books at least in title? Alice in Wonderland is her FIRST adventure and Through the Looking Glass is when she RETURNS, yet the movie is called Alice in Wonderland even though every character says, "she's back."

Point being, no matter what point of comparison I choose, I was unhappy with it. All is left is for you guys to watch it and judge it yourselves.
 
Onhell said:
That would be like comparing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to the book rather than the 1970s "original" movie...
Click to expand...

Given I have only read the book and never seen the 1970s movie, that is precisely what I would do. Maybe if the new film is so different from the "original" one, it could or should be regarded as an adaption of the book. Look at The Jungle Book... everybody criticised the 1994 live-action movie (starring Jason Scott Lee as Mowgli in case I'm the only one here with a memory) because it was so different from the 1967 Disney cartoon... but tell you what, it was actually closer to the book.

----

Anyway, I watched Global Metal last night. It's one of the metal documentaries by Sam Dunn (the guy who also made Flight 666) and I would recommend it to anyone. The director visits places like Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, India, China, Dubai and Israel and explores the metal scenes in these countries, particularly how metal got there, what it means to the people and how they turned it into their own thing. Great film, very informative, very entertaining and also very enlightening (who would have thought that Metallica got their place in the history of Indonesia?).
 
Perun said:
Given I have only read the book and never seen the 1970s movie, that is precisely what I would do.
Click to expand...
Then you do that, I've seen both Alice films, so I can compare both, while i did mention the books, my argument is based on film to film.

Maybe if the new film is so different from the "original" one, it could or should be regarded as an adaption of the book. Look at The Jungle Book... everybody criticised the 1994 live-action movie (starring Jason Scott Lee as Mowgli in case I'm the only one here with a memory) because it was so different from the 1967 Disney cartoon... but tell you what, it was actually closer to the book.
Click to expand...

I loved both Jungle books, they made sense each in their own way. However, Tim Burton is on this remake craze (Wonka, Alice, what's next? Oz?) supposedly more faithful to the source material, but he failed doing that with Alice. Why name the movie just like the original, but the character goes BACK to "underland?" When was she there before? presumably in the first film, so again, what is this? a sequel or a remake or both?
the most blatant continuity gaff is the caterpillar, how the hell can he turn into a butterfly twice! He did that the first time around...

Again, just go watch it.... no, no, wait to rent it, in fact just download it, it's not even worth the $3 to rent it.
 
Onhell said:
Then you do that, I've seen both Alice films, so I can compare both, while i did mention the books, my argument is based on film to film.
Click to expand...

If you want to do that, I wish you good luck! :)

There are so many Alice in Wonderland adaptations.

click

 :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top