. Pitt was terrible, and Fassbender's character annoyed the shite out of me.
How good is Inglorious Basterds?
quote:He really was atrocious, and I like Pitt. Very good in 12 Monkeys and Fight Club. He was hilarious in Burn After Reading.
what did you expect
quote:His British gentleman act was awful to me. I'm not sure if it was his acting or the character.
come on!! he was the shite
quote:I really didn't like how he played the character.
Fassbender was tremendous imo.
The casting for Django was exceptional, and I wouldn't replace anyone except maybe Kerry Washington.
Inglorious Basterds is a far more interesting, smart, and uncompromising movie than the ones that inspired it. Go watch The Dirty Dozen or Where Eagles Dare or Kelly's Heroes or The Great Escape or They Were Expendable and you'll find movies that don't even struggle to rise to the level of meta-commentary on either film as a medium or war or violence; despite comic flourishes, they are earnest and plodding and utterly cliched in their war-is-hell-ain't-it perspective. Even as loopy and uneven a comedy as Kelly's Heroes expects to be taken seriously despite its threadbare messaging and utterly conventional morality. As does Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan, the ending of which is so maudlin and contemptible—Matt Damon's title character demands his family and the audience certify that he'd led a good life—as to erase the power of the film's recreation of the Normandy invasion. Indeed, one of the best ways to view Inglorious Basterds is as a sort of answer movie to the gauzy "Greatest Generation" nostalgia that ultimately undermines Saving Private Ryan.
Tarantino's movies typically pull double duty like the best art always does. Which is to say, they're both interesting in and of themselves while adding on a level of meta-commentary and criticism about how the best art operates. They thus incorporate a faithful evocation of an original while allowing—or forcing—the viewer to think about the generic conventions and cliches we use to convey supposedly unique moments of meaning. Call it the Madame Bovary effect, for Flaubert's masterpiece is ultimately a novel about the effects of novels on people. Or maybe call it The Colbert Report Perplex. Especially at the show's launch, Stephen Colbert's blowhard character was such a perfect distillation of the energy and dynamism and self-importance of Bill O'Reilly that you didn't need to watch The O'Reilly Factor anymore. You could get everything that was truly engaging about O'Reilly—and a comic critique of it—simply by watching Colbert (and note that Colbert pulled this off in large part because his character regularly reduced liberal guests to incoherence by challenging them on their beliefs). Tarantino does something similar in movies such as Django Unchained: He channels past movies but makes something that incorporates their essence while easily surpassing them (if you don't believe that, check out the movie that inspired Tarantino).
Word is Django Unchained could have been 2 movies.
They cut out about 1hr and 20 mins of the story to make it a 2hr 45 minute movie.
So it could have been a couple 2 hr movies of Django..
And the timing would have been "just right" for everybody. Which is why it would lessen some of the people's problems with the movie (movie length)
Too bad. You should check it out...but yea....it could have been an awesome 2 parter..
I saw the Kill Bills and really did not like Tarentino after that. It just wasn't my thing.