Wow.
Just wow.
I really loved this movie, just got back from seeing it an hour or 2 ago. Ebert gave it 4 stars. Rotten Tomatoes ranking is in the 80's % range.
I don't want to post a lot of spoilers, but my favorite little bits are definitely
the part where Hitler's face is literally being shredded apart by submachine gun fire,
and the last scene of the movie. Also any part with Landa is pure, excrutiatingly delicious genius. Basically, if you have not seen this movie, go watch it. Right now.
As far as villainous monologues go, the one at the end of this film was pretty awesome, even though the scheme was to kill hitler, which is not traditionally a villainous thing to do. Also, out of Apprx. 20 characters with speaking parts,
4
of them live at the end, which is one of the things that let me know this was a Tarantino film. Not as much blood as I might expect from a Tarantino, but there was enough.
Cristoph Waltz got Best Actor at Cannes for playing Colonel Landa. Here's hoping he does as well at the Oscars - he deserves it.
What a movie! It twists your sympathies and preconceptions through a wringer even as it delivers a tremendous feeling of catharsis. And you're busting your gut the whole way through. Go see it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Loved the movie. Love everything Quentin Tarantino, except I refuse to believe he made Death Proof, anyway.
BUT:
Was it me, or did they lock the audience in the theater and THEN the people left the theater to go kill Hitler? (it looked like you had to leave the theater to get to the balcony area)
Did the Jewish girls lover burn himself? If so, why? Could he not have just left? It looked like the girl was planning on leaving.
I did not like the SS guy's actions at the end. I think Hilter would probably have been nice to him if he saved his life. I don't know why he wanted to defect so badly he was willing to give the Americas his gun.
Wow.
Just wow.
I really loved this movie, just got back from seeing it an hour or 2 ago. Ebert gave it 4 stars. Rotten Tomatoes ranking is in the 80's % range.
I don't want to post a lot of spoilers, but my favorite little bits are definitely
the part where Hitler's face is literally being shredded apart by submachine gun fire,
and the last scene of the movie. Also any part with Landa is pure, excrutiatingly delicious genius. Basically, if you have not seen this movie, go watch it. Right now.
Discuss.
Why was that a favorite bit though? That was personally a bit unsettling to me. But ueah, totally kudos to Cristoph Waltz.
I also loved the entire basement scene. This is a must watch and def in the running for movie of the year.
Why is that my favorite bit of the movie, you ask? Because I'm a bloody-minded, metalheaded caffeine junkie gamer who likes extreme violence, flying body parts, arterial bloodspray, etc. That's why.
In response to Taylor's question,
I'm not entirely sure why Landa betrayed Hitler when he was already at the top level of Hitler's scheme. I think it's one of those things that one might not catch the first time they watch this movie. My own possible explanation is that he didn't truly believe in Hitler's 'master race', or his hatred of the Jews, etc. In retrospect I think it's very likely that (this movie takes place after D-Day, so the war is nearing its end) Landa realized that the Americans and the Allied forces would ultimately win the war, and that he and all the Nazi top brass would be put through the ringer afterwards. He saw the opportunity to make good with the winning side and ensure his safety and comfort after the war was over.
It's even possible that he didn't necessarily think the Allies would win, but he saw the opportunity to deliver victory to them, and knew he could get from them whatever he wanted in exchange for allowing Hitler to die. I hope that clears things up a bit for you.
I did not like the SS guy's actions at the end. I think Hilter would probably have been nice to him if he saved his life. I don't know why he wanted to defect so badly he was willing to give the Americas his gun.
The movie is completely divorced of historical context. It exists only as a movie. Anything can happen. I think that's made abundantly clear.
The movie was a bit too cavalier for its subject matter. Ultimately enjoyable, but cringe-worthy enough that I wasn't able to sit back and relax.
I think it was clear from the dialogue that Landa no longer had anything to fear from Hitler. Either Landa keeps his mouth shut and Hitler is dead by morning, or he makes the call and becomes a national hero.
BUT, if you'll remember, Landa said he was not interested in having all of his actions during the war played out in front of a "Jew war crimes tribunal." This was his opportunity to be remembered as a hero to his people (who would likely not know of the deal he had made) and (at least he thought) to live out the rest of his life in private.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
I am not really sure I by that he did not like his job. He seemed to take joy in finding Jews, and he really seemed to be quite the racist.
I guess if he thought that they were going to lose the war anyway, but it seemed like all of the Nazis thought things were going well.(I guess they could have been delusional?) The big map Hitler had showed almost all of Europe under Nazis sway.
Also, how did you know D-day happening in this alternate history? If they mentioned D-day I must have missed it. Did they?
I am not really sure I by that he did not like his job. He seemed to take joy in finding Jews, and he really seemed to be quite the racist.
I think he loved his job; he was just now realizing that the war was probably lost and he was going to have to answer to the Allies (or more specifically the "Jew war crimes tribunal" for his actions.
I guess if he thought that they were going to lose the war anyway, but it seemed like all of the Nazis thought things were going well.(I guess they could have been delusional?) The big map Hitler had showed almost all of Europe under Nazis sway.
Landa seemed substantially more... pragmatic than the Nazi high command.
Also, how did you know D-day happening in this alternate history? If they mentioned D-day I must have missed it. Did they?
There were a couple of oblique references to "the Americans landing in France" or something to that effect. I don't remember the exact wording but I distinctly remember these characters knowing that a major invasion had happened... whether it was the D-Day we know or something similar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Hitler says something along the lines of "The Americans are on the beaches, my reich needs to see me at this premiere."
And I heard Tarrantino had another ending planned but changed it for some reason. Someone was talking about it on the IMDB forums.
During the last scene of the movie, when Landa gets out of the car, instead of letting out Lt. Raine and (BJ Novak... forget the character's name), he instead shoots both of them and torches the car. He goes to the rendeavous and the movie ends with him recieveing a congressional medal infront of his white picket fence Nantucket home. I like that ending.
Well, that makes me feel much better. I missed all of the D-day references, and he was quite pragmatic.
But, I still don't know why the BF was willing to burn himself to dead (or why it was even necessary that he do so)
And it still looked to me like you needed to go outside of the audience area to get to the balcony.
Yeah, that sounds like a much better ending, and more true to the characters.
I think I read something on wiki about him changing the ending because the script was leaked or something.
And I heard Tarrantino had another ending planned but changed it for some reason. Someone was talking about it on the IMDB forums.
During the last scene of the movie, when Landa gets out of the car, instead of letting out Lt. Raine and (BJ Novak... forget the character's name), he instead shoots both of them and torches the car. He goes to the rendeavous and the movie ends with him recieveing a congressional medal infront of his white picket fence Nantucket home. I like that ending.
Are you sure about this? Raine's treatment of Landa is clearly set up. When he says, "I bet you're gonna take off that Nazi uniform", the audience immediately knows - and greatly enjoys knowing - what's going to happen next. Landa receiving everything he wants wouldn't get nearly the same payoff from the rest of the movie.
As for being true to Landa's character, it strikes me that the man is far more accustomed to playing the system than stepping outside of it. His complete shock when Raine shoots the radioman betrays his blind spot here; he expects Raine to be killed for it, while Raine knows that he's only going to get chewed out. It follows that Landa would expect himself to be killed if he backstabbed Rayne. And even if he didn't, he wouldn't want to endanger the deal he made in any way.
So if this alternate ending really came from Tarantino, I'd imagine he was using it a decoy in case of leaks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Raine's treatment of Landa is clearly set up. When he says, "I bet you're gonna take off that Nazi uniform", the audience immediately knows - and greatly enjoys knowing - what's going to happen next. Landa receiving everything he wants wouldn't get nearly the same payoff from the rest of the movie.
What payoff from the rest of the movie? There is no payoff! You feel nothing but visceral sickness at the Nazis' deaths. Without a few strained attempts at humor, Tarantino would have completely lost the audience at most than a few moments. How is this last killing, scalping, and branding supposed to be any different?
As for being true to Landa's character, it strikes me that the man is far more accustomed to playing the system than stepping outside of it. His complete shock when Raine shoots the radioman betrays his blind spot here; he expects Raine to be killed for it, while Raine knows that he's only going to get chewed out. It follows that Landa would expect himself to be killed if he backstabbed Rayne. And even if he didn't, he wouldn't want to endanger the deal he made in any way.
First of all, it's a mere radioman that is killed by Raine and Little Man? I guess I didn't catch that detail.
Besides, all these aspects of Landa's character are revealed within the scene in question. It's really an easy swap, and one that would have strengthened the film. The moralizing by Lt. Raine is simply grotesque and unbelievable and betrays the moral complexity and ambiguity that makes both the Nazi and Allied deaths and mishaps and foibles in the rest of the movie fun.
There were a lot of very thought-provoking questions raised by this movie, including
Why did they spell it "Basterds" instead of "Bastards"?
as well as "inglourious" instead of "inglorious"
My biggest nitpick was the subtitles that were not translations like a rayne said "merci" and the subtitle was "merci" or oui and oui which was happened like 12 times...being a speaker of french it just bugged me alot...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I will play what wins, not what is convenient. Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters. I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity. Style points do not appear on tournament reports. A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win. I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him. Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
What payoff from the rest of the movie? There is no payoff! You feel nothing but visceral sickness at the Nazis' deaths. Without a few strained attempts at humor, Tarantino would have completely lost the audience at most than a few moments. How is this last killing, scalping, and branding supposed to be any different?
Speak for yourself. Audiences like knowing more than characters. By having Raine echo the conversation he had with the German private early in the movie, Tarantino is telling the audience what to expect next, eliciting a sense of anticipation. And this anticipation is gleeful because up until that point, it looked like a thorough and unapologetic monster was going to get away with everything. It's cathartic eucatastrophe: a change for the better that creates drama through its suddenness and restores the audience's sense that all is right with the world. And, most importantly, makes sense.
Besides, all these aspects of Landa's character are revealed within the scene in question. It's really an easy swap, and one that would have strengthened the film.
Would it have made any sense at all for Landa to endanger his deal? What would he gain by killing Raine and the Little Man? Even without the characterization that goes on in the scene, once Landa has betrayed the Third Reich, his only sensible course of action is to play very nice with the Allies.
The moralizing by Lt. Raine is simply grotesque and unbelievable and betrays the moral complexity and ambiguity that makes both the Nazi and Allied deaths and mishaps and foibles in the rest of the movie fun.
What moralizing? Raine hates Nazis. This hate, and the hate of the rest of the protagonists, drives the film. And it's well established what Raine does to the Nazis he's going to "free".
My biggest nitpick was the subtitles that were not translations like a rayne said "merci" and the subtitle was "merci" or oui and oui which was happened like 12 times...being a speaker of french it just bugged me alot...
Why? Tarantino was simply assuming the average American viewer could handle that much French. As a French speaker, I'd think you'd be happy about this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Speak for yourself. Audiences like knowing more than characters. By having Raine echo the conversation he had with the German private early in the movie, Tarantino is telling the audience what to expect next, eliciting a sense of anticipation. And this anticipation is gleeful because up until that point, it looked like a thorough and unapologetic monster was going to get away with everything. It's cathartic eucatastrophe: a change for the better that creates drama through its suddenness and restores the audience's sense that all is right with the world. And, most importantly, makes sense.
A monster that, had not the woman in red been butchered by, guess who--wait for it...--SS man Hans Landa, would have been directly responsible for the deaths of the four major German figures of WWII!
And, like I just said, ultimately, he was (indirectly) responsible.
There is no sense of right in this movie. There is no moral compass; many critics have pounded that home in review after review. There is only a sense of fun (which is present in spades) and of cleverness. And Tarantino kind of spoils it by his ending.
Would it have made any sense at all for Landa to endanger his deal? What would he gain by killing Raine and the Little Man? Even without the characterization that goes on in the scene, once Landa has betrayed the Third Reich, his only sensible course of action is to play very nice with the Allies.
The removal of an uncertain element: a rat-like Jew and his Apache chief, avenger Lieutenant.
What moralizing? Raine hates Nazis. This hate, and the hate of the rest of the protagonists, drives the film. And it's well established what Raine does to the Nazis he's going to "free".
What I mean is the whole uniform crap. That's fine where it's initially uttered, back in the middle in the movie. Then, it's a fine diversion (and it makes a pretty valid point). But putting it at the end of the movie focuses all of our attention upon it, making it seem more important than it really is. And when all of that attention is put upon something so flimsy and stupid and obvious and grotesque (the visuals, man), the rest of the movie suffers.
Here is some of the moralizing:
1) Nazi officer receives his medal for not Jew-killing, but bravery
2) Nazi sergeant is shot; little kid in Austria is orphaned. (Kind of a cop-out that the actress shot her. It would have made far more sense for Lt. Raine to scalp the dude himself.)
3) Nazi war-hero torn by his guilt over killing the Allied forces that gave him his fame.
4) Obvious inverting of Nazi war crimes: brutality, marking (of the Jews, in the Nazi's case), etc.
A monster that, had not the woman in red been butchered by, guess who--wait for it...--SS man Hans Landa, would have been directly responsible for the deaths of the four major German figures of WWII!
And, like I just said, ultimately, he was (indirectly) responsible.
What? Shosanna was killed by Fredrick Zoller. What you're trying to say here isn't clear at all.
There is no sense of right in this movie. There is no moral compass; many critics have pounded that home in review after review. There is only a sense of fun (which is present in spades) and of cleverness. And Tarantino kind of spoils it by his ending.
Or restores the moral compass, releasing all the tension built up by spinning it so wildly throughout the movie.
The removal of an uncertain element: a rat-like Jew and his Apache chief, avenger Lieutenant.
Which creates another, far more uncertain element: what the Allies are going to do with him if his first post-defection action is to murder the war heroes he's supposed to have surrendered to. Remember that he turned his coat in the first place because he was afraid of Allied justice. Besides, his demeanor throughout the final act makes it clear that he thinks he's in complete control of the situation. He's hardly the first smug schemer to be tripped up by overconfidence.
What I mean is the whole uniform crap. That's fine where it's initially uttered, back in the middle in the movie. Then, it's a fine diversion (and it makes a pretty valid point). But putting it at the end of the movie focuses all of our attention upon it, making it seem more important than it really is. And when all of that attention is put upon something so flimsy and stupid and obvious and grotesque (the visuals, man), the rest of the movie suffers.
Film is a visual medium. There are very few directors who embrace this more than Quentin Tarantino. And the uniform, as a visual symbol of Nazism, is very important to the movie. At least, by choosing to reprise the theme where he did, Tarantino seems to have thought so.
Here is some of the moralizing:
1) Nazi officer receives his medal for not Jew-killing, but bravery
2) Nazi sergeant is shot; little kid in Austria is orphaned. (Kind of a cop-out that the actress shot her. It would have made far more sense for Lt. Raine to scalp the dude himself.)
3) Nazi war-hero torn by his guilt over killing the Allied forces that gave him his fame.
4) Obvious inverting of Nazi war crimes: brutality, marking (of the Jews, in the Nazi's case), etc.
Okay, the first time around, you referred to "moralizing by Lt Raine". Yes, there are lots of morally relevant things happening in the movie. I think this supports my position that Tarantino is twisting up the moral compass rather than ignoring it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just wow.
I really loved this movie, just got back from seeing it an hour or 2 ago. Ebert gave it 4 stars. Rotten Tomatoes ranking is in the 80's % range.
I don't want to post a lot of spoilers, but my favorite little bits are definitely
Discuss.
Thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the banner!
CLICK THIS LINK
What a movie! It twists your sympathies and preconceptions through a wringer even as it delivers a tremendous feeling of catharsis. And you're busting your gut the whole way through. Go see it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
BUT:
Did the Jewish girls lover burn himself? If so, why? Could he not have just left? It looked like the girl was planning on leaving.
I did not like the SS guy's actions at the end. I think Hilter would probably have been nice to him if he saved his life. I don't know why he wanted to defect so badly he was willing to give the Americas his gun.
Why was that a favorite bit though? That was personally a bit unsettling to me. But ueah, totally kudos to Cristoph Waltz.
I also loved the entire basement scene. This is a must watch and def in the running for movie of the year.
My Sales Post!
But yeah I give this movie a 9/10. It was phenomenal. Probably the best movie I've seen this year.
In response to Taylor's question,
It's even possible that he didn't necessarily think the Allies would win, but he saw the opportunity to deliver victory to them, and knew he could get from them whatever he wanted in exchange for allowing Hitler to die. I hope that clears things up a bit for you.
Thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the banner!
CLICK THIS LINK
The movie is completely divorced of historical context. It exists only as a movie. Anything can happen. I think that's made abundantly clear.
The movie was a bit too cavalier for its subject matter. Ultimately enjoyable, but cringe-worthy enough that I wasn't able to sit back and relax.
BUT, if you'll remember, Landa said he was not interested in having all of his actions during the war played out in front of a "Jew war crimes tribunal." This was his opportunity to be remembered as a hero to his people (who would likely not know of the deal he had made) and (at least he thought) to live out the rest of his life in private.
I guess if he thought that they were going to lose the war anyway, but it seemed like all of the Nazis thought things were going well.(I guess they could have been delusional?) The big map Hitler had showed almost all of Europe under Nazis sway.
Also, how did you know D-day happening in this alternate history? If they mentioned D-day I must have missed it. Did they?
And I heard Tarrantino had another ending planned but changed it for some reason. Someone was talking about it on the IMDB forums.
Thanks to syndarion of Aeternal Studios for the awesome Sig.
Standard: MWLC All-InFect Illusion Control(MTGO)
EDH(MODO): :symg::symu::symb:The Mimeoplasm:symg::symu::symb: 6-2-0 in 4player
But, I still don't know why the BF was willing to burn himself to dead (or why it was even necessary that he do so)
And it still looked to me like you needed to go outside of the audience area to get to the balcony.
I think I read something on wiki about him changing the ending because the script was leaked or something.
As for being true to Landa's character, it strikes me that the man is far more accustomed to playing the system than stepping outside of it. His complete shock when Raine shoots the radioman betrays his blind spot here; he expects Raine to be killed for it, while Raine knows that he's only going to get chewed out. It follows that Landa would expect himself to be killed if he backstabbed Rayne. And even if he didn't, he wouldn't want to endanger the deal he made in any way.
So if this alternate ending really came from Tarantino, I'd imagine he was using it a decoy in case of leaks.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What payoff from the rest of the movie? There is no payoff! You feel nothing but visceral sickness at the Nazis' deaths. Without a few strained attempts at humor, Tarantino would have completely lost the audience at most than a few moments. How is this last killing, scalping, and branding supposed to be any different?
First of all, it's a mere radioman that is killed by Raine and Little Man? I guess I didn't catch that detail.
Besides, all these aspects of Landa's character are revealed within the scene in question. It's really an easy swap, and one that would have strengthened the film. The moralizing by Lt. Raine is simply grotesque and unbelievable and betrays the moral complexity and ambiguity that makes both the Nazi and Allied deaths and mishaps and foibles in the rest of the movie fun.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
My biggest nitpick was the subtitles that were not translations like a rayne said "merci" and the subtitle was "merci" or oui and oui which was happened like 12 times...being a speaker of french it just bugged me alot...
Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters.
I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity.
Style points do not appear on tournament reports.
A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win.
I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him.
Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
The only time it's seen in the movie is engraved on the butt of Raine's rifle, which leads me to believe the answer is "Aldo Raine can't spell".
Why? Tarantino was simply assuming the average American viewer could handle that much French. As a French speaker, I'd think you'd be happy about this.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A monster that, had not the woman in red been butchered by, guess who--wait for it...--SS man Hans Landa, would have been directly responsible for the deaths of the four major German figures of WWII!
And, like I just said, ultimately, he was (indirectly) responsible.
There is no sense of right in this movie. There is no moral compass; many critics have pounded that home in review after review. There is only a sense of fun (which is present in spades) and of cleverness. And Tarantino kind of spoils it by his ending.
The removal of an uncertain element: a rat-like Jew and his Apache chief, avenger Lieutenant.
What I mean is the whole uniform crap. That's fine where it's initially uttered, back in the middle in the movie. Then, it's a fine diversion (and it makes a pretty valid point). But putting it at the end of the movie focuses all of our attention upon it, making it seem more important than it really is. And when all of that attention is put upon something so flimsy and stupid and obvious and grotesque (the visuals, man), the rest of the movie suffers.
Here is some of the moralizing:
1) Nazi officer receives his medal for not Jew-killing, but bravery
2) Nazi sergeant is shot; little kid in Austria is orphaned. (Kind of a cop-out that the actress shot her. It would have made far more sense for Lt. Raine to scalp the dude himself.)
3) Nazi war-hero torn by his guilt over killing the Allied forces that gave him his fame.
4) Obvious inverting of Nazi war crimes: brutality, marking (of the Jews, in the Nazi's case), etc.
What? Shosanna was killed by Fredrick Zoller. What you're trying to say here isn't clear at all.
Or restores the moral compass, releasing all the tension built up by spinning it so wildly throughout the movie.
Which creates another, far more uncertain element: what the Allies are going to do with him if his first post-defection action is to murder the war heroes he's supposed to have surrendered to. Remember that he turned his coat in the first place because he was afraid of Allied justice. Besides, his demeanor throughout the final act makes it clear that he thinks he's in complete control of the situation. He's hardly the first smug schemer to be tripped up by overconfidence.
Film is a visual medium. There are very few directors who embrace this more than Quentin Tarantino. And the uniform, as a visual symbol of Nazism, is very important to the movie. At least, by choosing to reprise the theme where he did, Tarantino seems to have thought so.
Okay, the first time around, you referred to "moralizing by Lt Raine". Yes, there are lots of morally relevant things happening in the movie. I think this supports my position that Tarantino is twisting up the moral compass rather than ignoring it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.