BruceH Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Agreed. And his voice...it was the exact sound correlative to his looks: No matter how thick the British accent, it was still Mike Myers voice putting on a British accent. Took me "out" of the film for a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedwork Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 A guy at the bar said this movie is the Jewish Rocky that's maybe the worst analogy i've ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedwork Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) saw it. i was mostly bored. a few excellent scenes and some fine acting here and there, but i just can't get w/ Tarantino's whole schtick. it's wildly uneven to me and just doesn't work for what i watch movies for. i wouldn't wanna get into any kind of definition game about what i want from a movie, but Tarantino ain't it. for my money, he just keeps shooting himself in the foot. and i know there are all kinds of explanations for why the parts of his films that take me right out of the picture and ruin the flow are 'cool' or very 'filmic' or whatever. they simply make me cringe. and IB definitely felt to me like a bunch of shorts pasted together, even though there was a plot. it still felt like "this, ok now this, now this, and here's this, now check this out, and this, etc..." disconnected. and i suspect that's not what was intended. it feels to me like QT had a few of the main violent sequences in his mind first (carving swastikas into foreheads, beating nazis heads w/ a baseball bat, shooting jews through the floorboards, etc...) and then made a story to be able fit around them, instead of having a story 1st. and here's where i say what i'm sure others who don't care for QT and this film are thinking but are afraid to, or can't quite put their finger on: i don't like the way he's using the universal condemnation of nazis as cover for his violent fantasies. under cover of Hitler. it's as if you can't fault him for it for fear of being called anti-semetic. as a jew that makes me very uncomfortable. i know that sounds like a wild over analysis and like i'm stretching but i can't escape feeling that way toward the picture. there were some fine scenes though. the entire opening sequence was terrific. both waltz and the guy who played the milk farmer father were perfect throughout. but did anyone else notice that wierd close-up shot of the farmer lighting his pipe. it was very specific and highlighted and then immediately when they cut away the pipe was out and there was no smoke in the shot. weird. and i didn't particularly like the over-done shot of the girl running away through the front door of the house. cool shot but overdone. i also didn't think it was necessary to re-show us that shot later in the film to spoon feed the audience that it was her only older. Eastwood woulda never done that. he trusts his audience. and of course the bar scene was way cool. i was hoping to like Pitt a bit more but i think he was just a bit miscast. he made it work ok 'cuz he's a very good actor but i don't think he was exactly right for the part. but he did crack me up when he started speaking italian toward the end. "bongiorno." Ha! edit: and the scoring annoyed the hell out of me. absolutely terrible music choices. blech. and what was up w/ all the switching around w/ the typefaces in the opening credits. he went through like 4 different types. to me, that's not 'creative,' it's nonsense. talk about distracted. does QT have adult A.D.D. or what?! last edit: did anyone else think the U.S. officer's voice on the other end of the phone conversation w/ Waltz at the end, where he's working out his deal for immunity and land on Nantucket, sounded like Harvey Keitel? In The Loop tomorrow night... Edited August 26, 2009 by thedwork Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 last edit: did anyone else think the U.S. officer's voice on the other end of the phone conversation w/ Waltz at the end, where he's working out his deal for immunity and land on Nantucket, sounded like Harvey Keitel? In The Loop tomorrow night... That's because it WAS Harvey Keitel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedwork Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 last edit: did anyone else think the U.S. officer's voice on the other end of the phone conversation w/ Waltz at the end, where he's working out his deal for immunity and land on Nantucket, sounded like Harvey Keitel? That's because it WAS Harvey Keitel... cool! i watched the credits (i almost always do..) looking for his name and didn't see it there. did i miss it? or was he 'uncredited' for some bizarro Keitel-like reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeline Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 and here's where i say what i'm sure others who don't care for QT and this film are thinking but are afraid to, or can't quite put their finger on: i don't like the way he's using the universal condemnation of nazis as cover for his violent fantasies. under cover of Hitler. it's as if you can't fault him for it for fear of being called anti-semetic. as a jew that makes me very uncomfortable. i know that sounds like a wild over analysis and like i'm stretching but i can't escape feeling that way toward the picture. Not that I was planning on seeing this, but if I'd ever entertained a single stray thought in that direction, you just talked me out of it. Really appreciate your POV on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Going to see it tonight!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 WOW you gotta see this movie on the big screen brad pitt was funny as hell!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Glad you liked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 WOW you gotta see this movie on the big screen brad pitt was funny as hell!!!!!! Pitt's Italian is classic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILLYQ Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 WOW you gotta see this movie on the big screen brad pitt was funny as hell!!!!!! Pitt's Italian is classic! southern Italian but not Sicilian! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Storer Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 here's where i say what i'm sure others who don't care for QT and this film are thinking but are afraid to, or can't quite put their finger on: i don't like the way he's using the universal condemnation of nazis as cover for his violent fantasies. under cover of Hitler. I totally agree. That's what I was getting at, not as clearly as you did, several posts back when I said "he leads the audience into cheerfully accepting extremely brutal on-screen violence as great fun because it's against the bad guys." You're right, he found just the right scapegoats (universally condemned, symbolic of all that is evil) on whom to unleash his own sadism. "Whose side are you on, me or the Nazis?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 I saw it over the weekend. I'll agree with the "it's good, not great" folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 here's where i say what i'm sure others who don't care for QT and this film are thinking but are afraid to, or can't quite put their finger on: i don't like the way he's using the universal condemnation of nazis as cover for his violent fantasies. under cover of Hitler. I totally agree. That's what I was getting at, not as clearly as you did, several posts back when I said "he leads the audience into cheerfully accepting extremely brutal on-screen violence as great fun because it's against the bad guys." You're right, he found just the right scapegoats (universally condemned, symbolic of all that is evil) on whom to unleash his own sadism. "Whose side are you on, me or the Nazis?" also in agreement found myself enjoying things just fine, but had this uneasy feeling 5 minutes after I walked out ... spent the next two hours trying to make the above points to my friend who attended with me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Just saw this. As a story/movie, abstracted completely from events that have actually transpired in our world, it was very good. Christoph Waltz was absolutely superb as Colonel Landa, as was the girl playing Shoshanna. But since this movie was based, even loosely, on a historical context, I felt extremely uncomfortable watching it. It's a movie that celebrates killing Nazis, but barely acknowledges what the Nazis did. (Aside from the opening scene, there's barely any acknowledgment that thousands of Jews were being murdered every day.) Some events in history should not be cheapened and trivialized in this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 I"m skipping this one, as much as I like Tarantino (I also dislike him!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.