Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike V

Inglorious Bastards

Recommended Posts

Even though I'm gonna watch this movie, the idea of its conception worries me.

 

I feel Quentin and Robert Rodriguez (much like Singer and Superman Returns) are indulging their childhood nostalgia wayyyy too much.

 

They're not even doing anything original anymore.

 

Everything is a fuckin throwback now.

 

I like throwbacks, but if throwbacks are gonna get in the way of more Pulp Fictions and more El Mariachis - I say STOP.

 

Barbarella, Inglorious Bastards, Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!...

 

There's no end to this obsession with reviving the exploitation films of the 60s and 70s.

 

Deathproof was not Quentin's shining moment and Robert Rodriguez began a great SIN CITY franchise that he's basically abandoned for all this other bullshit (Planet Terror, Barbarella).

 

These two need a fuckin babysitter that lets them know when they're getting too carried away.

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inglorious Bastards only really has the title in common with the original movie. World War II men on a mission movies have been around for a long time. And the thought of Tarantino doing a war movie is a pretty new thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it truly had NOTHING to do with the original - it woulda been called something else.

 

Quentin is clearly on a nostalgia trip that's taking him further and further away from where he was in 1994.

 

Rodriguez is just being an idiot financially. SIN CITY made alot of money for an "R" rated film and with The Spirit coming out SIN CITY 2 woulda been big in 2009.

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He likes the title. This movie about a group of Jewish American soldiers sent into Nazi occupied France to kill as many Nazi as they can. There's more to it but, I would have to read the script, which I don't want to do. It has nothing really to do with the Enzo G. Castellari film, except the title.

 

Thing is you seem to be all about nostalgia regarding action movies, and you deriding Tartantino for being nostalgic for something he loves is kinda funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss

Yeah, it really annoys me when directors make the films they want to make and have fun doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX
These two need a fuckin babysitter that lets them know when they're getting too carried away.

 

Ahem.

 

:huh:

 

OK, now that I have a second, I'm going to add a bit more than sarcastic emoticoning.

 

I agree that QT and RR are both becoming victims of their own choices, and thier own hype. RR maybe more so right now.

 

QT has always been about nostalgia though, he was never more than the sum of his influences. Doubt he'll ever be anything else. But, I still hate hearing shit like "This is a Quentin Tarantino type film." because well, it's NOT. People just don't know any better.

 

He borrowed the title, the genre, etc. for this one, which is all he knows how to do. Borrow. Just ask Roger Avery.

 

I haven't started the script yet, because I know that I'll get halfway through it and get very angry that it's just like Guns of Navarone in this scene, or Dirty Dozen in this scene, etc. I'm expecting mostly dirty dozen type storytelling here.

 

OK, back to work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 90s Quentin had something.

 

Something that had been missing from Cinema for decades.

 

Humor in homicide, coolness in armed robbers, subtleness in drug abuse.

 

Those were the things Quentin could really operate with when adapting something by Elmore Leonard.

 

Fast forward 10 years ---> Kill Bill is an undefinable throwback/martial arts film to a time that doesn't even exist in American culture. It was only prominent overseas.

 

Next up is Deathproof, the REAL plea of insanity.

 

A throwback that actually mentions (fuck its ridiculous) the films its trying to emulate.

 

Ok, so Quentin's having a little fun. No biggie.

 

WRONG.

 

Here we are again, WWII remake or indirect remake or remake by title only remake that is most definetely gonna follow the formula of "Borrowing."

 

So away with anything original, away with a fresh concept and in with yet ANOTHER throwback.

 

As much as I enjoy throwbacks, I don't feel a director as talented as Quentin [once was] should sell himself short by becoming a full time nostalgia factory manager.

 

Hell, that's part of the reason Mickey Rourke has turned down 4 of Tarantino's films over the years.

 

I wish Quentin would just get over this middle age crisis and start putting some FRESH ideas on paper.

 

-TL

 

*Fred, Hollywood isn't all flashy lights and smiles. Those are the words of Stanley Kubrick.

 

Sometimes you gotta put aside having fun and get serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss

I disagree heavily. Tarantino pushed a film "Grindhouse" that be BELIEVED in as a filmmaker that did NOT make bank at the box office. I respect that.

 

And aren't you advocating for War Zone now based on it being a "throeback" to 80s action? Do you have multiple personalities? :P

 

And Rourke has worked with RODRIGUEZ TWICE now and signing up for a third run and if you ask me Rodriguez is WAY more out in left field than Quentin. I don't think that shows good judgment on his part in the way you seem to think it does.

 

And KILL BILL was fucking fabulous. If you don't have anything nice to say about it I will definitely begin to seriously question your taste in films. It's pure filmmaking genius and DARING in that Tarantino "fuck the critics" kind of way.

 

Him and Rodriguez make movies that THEY want to make. They defy the studios inputs in a way that Lexi couldn't on War Zone (which you have criticized the studios for).

 

Did I enjoy "Grindhouse"? Not nearly as much as "Kill Bill", but I RESPECT both Rodriguez and Tarantino as rebel filmmakers who have been successful while flipping off the corporate film industry. Tarantino has ALWAYS been a genre guy. ALWAYS. I guess you just prefer his crime dramas to his slasher drive-in horror. Me too. But you should at least respect his choices and his ability.

 

Now we get something COMPLETELY different, a WAR flick from TARANTINO. Holy shit?! I mean this could be a gold mine...AND nostalgic of the films YOU beat me up for not appreciating...and all you have to say is negative about that choice.

 

Seems awfully schizophrenic.

 

Fred

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred you're just being dissagreeable and you're obviously not familiar with Stanley Kubrick.

 

You're also very naive.

 

You think these two guys are "REBEL" Film-makers?

 

Quentin either ran out of NEW material or just gave into his weirdness so much that it's consumed him artistically.

 

Mickey Rourke (despite many poor choices in the 90s) always gets approached by Quentin when he's taking acting seriously.

 

This was the case in 1992 with Pulp Fiction, the case in 2002 with Kill Bill and the case in 2005 with Deathproof.

 

I agree with Pulp Fiction it was a mistake turning it down, but I completely understand the other two.

 

Rodriguez on the other hand STILL has some creativity left - so he offers Mickey SIN CITY and Mickey owns it.

 

This is simply a case of two buddies getting high off their own supply.

 

Quentin is making himself out to be a "strange" director and has lost a great deal of respect from the A.M.P.A.S.

 

Well the guy did spit on someone during a red carpet moment and acts like a freak at the Scream Awards every time.

 

He's a little nuts and if I were Rodriguez I'd stick to NEWER more dramatic pieces and away from crazy Quentin.

 

Fred - if this is your plan in the business, to completely renounce all common sense in film choices - its gonna be a rocky road amigo.

 

As a director, a man's gotta take that in mind even more seriously because all the blame is bestowed upon him once the film goes public.

 

An actor can say "It seemed cool, so why not?"

 

A director can't.

 

-TL

 

*I don't endorse Warzone, but I do support Lexi's decision to direct a terrible script by making it an 80s throwback.

 

Its like choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

And I seriously doubt Lexi is gonna DEDICATE her career to making 80s throwbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mickey said no to Pulp Fiction not because he didn't agree with the subject matter or the script, which he said he liked very much, he didn't do it because he told Hollywood to go fuck themselves and he left to pursue boxing. It had nothing to do with QT. And he didn't do Death Proof not because he didn't like it but because he was interested in another project at the time, much like how he was supposed to be in Ritchie's film Revolver but couldn't because he was filming Dominio. Mickey has said he likes QT and would like to work with him. It has nothing to do with QT as a person or filmmaker.

 

JO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about his involvement with REVOLVER, but Rourke told Michael Madsen he did not like the role he was offered in Kill Bill which Madsen then took like a heartbeat.

 

With Deathproof it was a plain and simple "I'm not doing it." to Tarantino.

 

As I said earlier, Pulp Fiction he shoulda have taken but perhaps the lifestyle he had at the time fucked with his judgment.

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX

I was going to post pretty much what James posted. I'd never heard of the stuff you posted TL, but admittedly I don't follow Rourke's career that closely.

 

My understanding is that he's always wanted to work with QT, but it just never happened because QT will recast to move a project forward with very little hesitation. I was actually wondering if Rourke would be in this war movie.

 

But anyway, why does it matter if Mickey Rourke hasn't worked with him? I'm not following that logic at all. So what? It's not a litmus test for great filmmakers whether or not Rourke has worked with them.

 

And QT has always been a strange guy. That's not any sort of recent development. Watch him in interviews, he comes off like a coked up 5 year old talking about his favorite toys.

 

And seriously Fred, TL, we can't devolve/derail every single thread like this into you guys arguing about basically the same things. It's annoying at best.

 

Lets stay focused on Inglorious Bastards and not get sidetracked with the continued personal sparring.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noeland, there's no "Personal sparring" here.

 

I'm making a point.

 

Fred dissagrees. Because he hasn't seen Vanishing Point and alotta the shit Quentin "Borrows" from.

 

Instead of pointing that out - just agree with Fred or agree with me.

 

I mean, why do you bring up the Rourke/Litmus test bit instead of just saying "I think Thomas is wrong about Quentin and Rodriguez getting ridiculous" or "I think Thomas is right about Quentin and Rodriguez getting ridiculous" ???

 

I'm getting tired of you using Fred as a tool to dismiss valid points I'm trying to make.

 

Fred's posts are just counters to mine. He barely even replies to my FULL posts.

 

The whole "Stop fighting you two" shit is getting old Noeland. You did that same thing in The Warzone thread too and bailed your way out of that argument with "Fred can advocate Steve Carell as Frank Castle and I'll respect that." Instead of just saying "I did the same thing by supporting an unknown when the thread was started so I can't say I dissagree with Fred."

 

I brought up Rourke to point out how he of all people is more than willing to say no to Quentin when fuckin "A" listers like Brad Pitt RUN to the man for work.

 

Its so sad to see people beg to be part of a flame that died out a while back.

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a huge Tarantino fan, just about everything QT has done is a "throwback". Quentin grew up on films and they have leaked permanatly into his mind. The man himself has even said so. Pulp Fiction is a compleat throwback to the old pulp books, using three common pulp stories. The hitman who has an "experience", the gangster's wife, and the guy who won't throw the fight. Even in the stories, there are several nods to other films. Granted, since Kill Bill, QT has been more outspoken about the "swipes" if you want to call them that, but over all, that's QT's thing. The man has said before that he likes to take ideas that are cool and use them in his film. He's not shy about "stealing" from other works.

 

As for Inglorious Bastards, everything I've heard is that is a "men on a mission" movie, but other than that, it's good and more or less original. I guess there is supposed to be a lot of reflection on film in general, as this is also supposed to be his love letter to early cinema. I just might have to read the script myself this weekend and find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing Rourke passed on Death Proof, because Russell was great as Stuntman Mike.

 

Besides Tarantino has been borrowing from other films since Reservoir Dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, are you saying Avary is the reason Quentin struck gold with Pulp Fiction?

 

I think Quentin was gold and now he's gone to shit.

 

The problem is people seem to think there's still some golden eggs left to cut out of that dead chicken.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like his films and will definitely see this one, but I hate to see he can't top himself.

 

Eastwood surprised the shit outta me with Million Dollar Baby, Scorsese blew me away with The Departed, P.T. Anderson left me in awe with There Will Be Blood.

 

Quentin needs to get serious again, Avary or no Avary.

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX
It's a good thing Rourke passed on Death Proof, because Russell was great as Stuntman Mike.

 

YES, Kurt Russell kicked ass in that role. No Question. I wish he'd play more hardcase types because he brings a lot to them.

 

Mickey Rourke would have been great too though.

 

I still didn't like the movie, but you're right about Russell in the role.

 

Noeland, there's no "Personal sparring" here.

 

I'm making a point.

 

Shit, call it what you want to TL, I just want to talk about this movie, not Fred's career path is all I mean. But, don't think I didn't chuckle.

 

I think you might have taken my "personal sparring" comment the wrong way, or taken it personally. It wasn't just you. Hell, even I do it, and am right now even. You didn't think I actually expected you to stop, did you?

 

;)

 

I enjoy our arguements most of the time, because I have the benfit of knowing you guys a little. But really man, you guys are kind of arguing about the same stuff.

 

Fred dissagrees. Because he hasn't seen Vanishing Point and alotta the shit Quentin "Borrows" from.

 

Fred likes newer films. I really try not to hold that against him because I like him. He's got folks like us to school him so he's not walking around out in the world without some cinematic armor, and munition to keep him safe.

 

I mean, why do you bring up the Rourke/Litmus test bit instead of just saying "I think Thomas is wrong about Quentin and Rodriguez getting ridiculous" or "I think Thomas is right about Quentin and Rodriguez getting ridiculous" ???

 

Well, you know I really like Rourke as an actor. We both do. I just meant to use him as an arguement in this context seemed odd to me.

 

The whole "Stop fighting you two" shit is getting old Noeland.

 

Then stop fighting, and stay ON TOPIC.

 

I brought up Rourke to point out how he of all people is more than willing to say no to Quentin when fuckin "A" listers like Brad Pitt RUN to the man for work.

 

Well, unless what I've read is wrong, QT called the meeting, not Pitt, and Rourke WANTS to work with QT as well. They just haven't yet.

 

BUT, I know what you mean about A-listers and QT, that true. Some of them have sought him out.

 

Its so sad to see people beg to be part of a flame that died out a while back.

 

that's the thing though, I don't think a lot of people see it that way, in the industry, or in the audience. Quentin still seems to be relevent for lots of folks. He has been very successful.

 

I don't think I could ever work with him. Hell, I don't think I could sit in the same room with him for 10 minutes. He's like an unfunny Robin Williams on speed.

 

You did that same thing in The Warzone thread too and bailed your way out of that argument with "Fred can advocate Steve Carell as Frank Castle and I'll respect that." Instead of just saying "I did the same thing by supporting an unknown when the thread was started so I can't say I dissagree with Fred."

 

Considering you're the only one in that whole thread who reversed their opinion about the film, you should just shut the fuck up my friend.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim, are you saying Avary is the reason Quentin struck gold with Pulp Fiction?

 

I think Quentin was gold and now he's gone to shit.

 

The problem is people seem to think there's still some golden eggs left to cut out of that dead chicken.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like his films and will definitely see this one, but I hate to see he can't top himself.

 

Eastwood surprised the shit outta me with Million Dollar Baby, Scorsese blew me away with The Departed, P.T. Anderson left me in awe with There Will Be Blood.

 

Quentin needs to get serious again, Avary or no Avary.

 

-TL

No, I'm saying that he has stolen lines from several Avary flicks many of which were used in Kill Bill. I am just saying that QT has borrowed from the beginning. He takes from everything, I'm saying his ideas are all cut from the same stone which is his movie library.

 

JO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss

TL, when I need your advice on my career I'll ask for it, otherwise fuck off. I'm doing just fine.

 

As for being naive...ignorance is curable.

 

And thanks to everyone else who PATRONIZED my opinion on film.

 

Fuck all of ya. It's insulting, it's condescending and it's idiotic, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO EXPECT ME TO WORK WITH THEM ON UPCOMING PROJECTS FOR FREE. Fucking assholes.

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TL, when I need your advice on my career I'll ask for it, otherwise fuck off. I'm doing just fine.

 

As for being naive...ignorance is curable.

 

And thanks to everyone else who PATRONIZED my opinion on film.

 

Fuck all of ya. It's insulting, it's condescending and it's idiotic, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO EXPECT ME TO WORK WITH THEM ON UPCOMING PROJECTS FOR FREE. Fucking assholes.

 

Fred

 

LOL, that's priceless.

Fred, if that rant was an act then I have gained mucho respect.

 

If it wasn't, and you are seriously pissed off by these (sorry) hooligans then cripes, pal. Cool off mate.

If you are going to go on record and let your thoughts and feelings be known on the subject of film and your personal tastes then you gotta expect to take a little heat from people who won't see eye to eye. It seems obvious that there are a lot of cats here that have seen deep pockets of film, past and present. Two examples - one extreme, TL, the master bully ;) , and James O'Brien, who for one so young, has splendid taste (vid store working bastard).

 

Not that you necessarily aimed that at me but . . .

The issue I have is that you talk and talk about your being an actor, someone who is ready to jump in the fire and hopefully learn some things along the way.

Yet it seems to me like you still have a long way to go and walls to break down before you can really become a student of the game (which I do respect).

Sometimes when you speak of film (not including your thoughts on Kill Bill which I agree with), you come in as very opinionated on stuff without having opened your mind to this subject on a whole. You have shown you dig the popcorn stuff which I find hard to respect, but I'm very encouraged when you've been open to checking out other things you may not have, had you not bothered to stop in here. I see the wheels spinning; the Nicholson rent-a-thon, finding something to grab on to with There Will Be Blood, etc . . .

For an actor who wants to work in film I would think you would embrace film from the ground up, but you seem to have holes in your lexicon of film digestion (only my opinion).

You have the tendency to get sardonic and defensive when someone calls you out. Sometimes those retorts are warranted but there are times when being stubborn can be detrimental. Some of us only hope to inspire you to open your mind.

I agree that attacking your sensibilities is no way to do that.

I also don't think any actor HAS to have a deep well of appreciation for film history to become a great actor.

Craft and theater work well too.

But if you ARE into film, and you are interested in speaking openly about it then it certainly can't hurt to know and be able to appreciate a film like What Ever Happened To Baby Jane just as much as something like Transformers.

 

 

For my part I'm glad you are here. I disagree with you more than I agree but who really gives a fuck y'know?

It's all relative and Bob's yer Uncle.

 

- tb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss

And that's all well and good Tim...but certain people I think pretend to know a LOT more than they do about things and pass judgment on me and it pisses me off.

 

And I really don't think that I have to learn to like certain films to be a good actor. That's rather elitist. You judge an actor by the quality of their performance, not by what films they like...at least I would hope so.

 

Also, while there are films I don't like I almost ALWAYS take something away from them about the acting. I still think a lot of my comments on Nicholson were misunderstood. Yes, there are a lot of films I haven't seen. I don't think that dampens my acting ability.

 

Also, I think if you look at my posts, for the most part I am arguing in favor of giving folks the benefit of the doubt, not being too judgmental of films and WATCHING something prior to criticizing it. AND even when I don't like a movie like "There Will Be Blood" I don't think others are fucking morons for digging it. It just didn't, for the most part, press my buttons. Daniel Day Lewis did a FABULOUS job as an actor in it though.

 

I would also hope that while you would disagree with things you see me post, that for the most part I'm consistent! I don't swap view points when it's convenient etc. I'm also able to stand the fuck up and admit that I don't know something or that I haven't seen something and ask for help with Peckinpah, even if I spell his name wrong and get lambasted for it later on. I also try to base my arguments around logical statements and conclusions. Sometimes I may be working with incorrect data, but at least "I" believe that I have a fairly good understanding of basic reasoning...and not jumping to bullshit conclusions. I also don't feel the need to LIE about things people have said on the board.

 

TL's comment was particularly nasty because he's asked me to be a part of his film and I said YES from the get-go. So according to his advice, should I work with him?

 

As for Noeland's comments...I overreacted and am prone to being an asshole. I was pretty pissed and felt like you were condescending me. I apologize.

 

And just to air ALL my dirty laundry in a most highly inappropriate place, I moved out to Austin TX where there was supposed to be film work when I SHOULD have moved to Albuquerque where I already had all my ducks in a row. But now I'm here sucking wind and feeling my dreams flushed down the fucking toilet. That and I have a second mortgage that I can't seem to shake, another baby on the way (and all the medical bills that come with it) and a family I feel like I'm disappointing. And I'm too stubborn to just give up! I can't just pack up and leave for LA like some 18 year old kid and I'm actually still beating my head against a wall trying to make it as an actor OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA! Fucking insane and fairly impossible.

 

And I WANT to be an actor because it's the ONLY thing that makes me feel WHOLE. The only thing I have ever or could ever do for a living that makes me feel complete. I LOVE every aspect of it. I'm addicted to it. It's my fucking life...and yet...here I am because there are only a few things in this world more important...my wife, my daughter and my future spawn.

 

So how's that for sharing too much?

 

Anyway,

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fred - if this is your plan in the business, to completely renounce all common sense in film choices - its gonna be a rocky road amigo."

 

Fred, Buddy, what are you getting all upset about?

 

I wasn't trying to patronize you.

 

What I was trying to say is that sometimes you gotta work for progress and not just for amusement.

 

I won't just do ANY film that's offered to me.

 

I turned down a really cool sci-fi flick last year even though the guy directing it is one of my best film school buds.

 

Why?

 

The script was shit. The budget was shit. The other actors were shit.

 

If you feel its cool to do EVERYTHING, that's fine.

 

Take this as advice, or me "just saying."

 

As for the film you're doing with me - you KNOW you like the script.

 

You like it 'cause its a GREAT script. And I plan to give you some great exposure during your shots and a FUCK LOAD of closeups.

 

So if you wanna do it for exposure - great.

 

If you wanna do it for fun - great.

 

If you wanna do it 'cause you like the story - FANTASTIC.

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...