April 24, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
1. Reservoir Dogs
2 = Jackie Brown Inglourious Basterds
3 Kill Bill 2
4 Pulp Fiction
5 Kill Bill 1
6 Death Proof
7 Four Rooms
8 Best Friends Wedding
An absolutely pleasant surprise after the misfire of DP. A sterling (both audacious and thoroughly entertaining) script supported by a committed cast. Not the film we were led to believe. At times I thought this could have been a milestone in his career. Just not sure some of the decisions regarding its structure were the smartest ones to make. For me it verges on greatness.
Holy shit. The latest dumbass Brooks Barnes piece rehashes the “Movie stars are dead ’cause of Duplicity and Land of the Lost” argument while once again going back to the “Twitter effect” well.
David’s head is going to explode.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/movies/21stars.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
I’m just curious. I haven’t seen IG, so I don’t have an opinion. But, considering that it received a general response of mediocrity at Cannes, why is it now getting across the board raves?
Is the new cut much better? Did people not get it the first time? Or is America just geeked-out about QT?
Last night, I saw a vintage poster for The Maltese Falcon that noted the film was based on a book by Dashiell Hammett, the author of The Thin Man. And I thought: “Wow! Chucky is right! Name checking always hurts a movie!”
Inglourious Basterds is a great time at the movies. It’s like an episode of ‘Allo ‘Allo! as directed by Quentin Tarantino. There’s some great vintage QT dialogue and there are individual scenes of true marvel. Great performances from most of the cast, best in show being Waltz, Kruger, Laurant and Fassbender. Even Eli Roth isn’t bad! Who is bad though is Brad Pitt. Yikes. Although his “italian accent” quite a riot. And the film does feel like it is 2.5 hours. Not necessarily bad, but it could’ve used a trim. The bar sequence where we first meet Diane Kruger (a good long while into the flick mind you) should have been cut down, despite it being one of the strongest in the film.
I gotta say that using David Bowie’s “Cat People” was a bit bizarre, even for QT. Overall though it was a really a good ol’ time. Still, that doesn’t mean it’s better than Jackie Brown or Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction or Death Proof. Maybe on par with Resevoir Dogs for me.
I think IB could break out to a certain degree at box office; my full analysis: http://piaofang.blogspot.com/2009/08/weekend-box-office-predictions-aug-21.html.
I hit up the midnight screening of “Inglorious Basterds” and unfortunately, it’s just not very good. I certainly didn’t hate it and it had it’s moments, but overall a big disappointment. I expect more from QT in terms of character development, pastiche, FUN and workable storylines. Basterds lacks in all those areas. And I love QT’s films but this one misses.
Not sure if this is a spoiler thread so I’ll stop but I was let down…and it wasn’t because I was tired or anything. It’s just not put together well.
Not seeing it till Sunday but am excited…weird bizarre set of releases at the box office this weekend…which 3 are wide releases and which are limited?
*Shorts-A Robert Rodriguez kiddie comedy with a cast of no-names.
*X-Games-A Documentary about the x-games in 3D
*PostGrad- A lighthearted female comedy starring Alexis Bledel
or…
*The Mark Pease Experience-Dark comedy with Ben Stiller and Jason Schwartzman
*World’s Greatest Dad-Situational comedy with Robin Williams
*The One and Only-Period biopic with Renee Zellweger and Kevin Bacon
The sad thing is the best film of the week other than Basterds, “Fifty Dead Men Walking,” a breathrough for Jim Sturgiss…with likely be ignored because of this.
With “Shorts” and “Inglorious Basterds” opening this weekend, one can have their own “Grindhouse 2” double feature….maybe not.
“World’s Greatest Dad” is actually pretty good, which is surprising considering it’s written and directed by ‘Bobcat’ Goldwaith and starring Robin Williams.
“Shutter Island” being bumped to February 2010? Say it ain’t so. š
In advance, my apologies for re-sending what I posted on the other SUPER MOVIE FRIENDS thread.
I find it interesting that someone as evidently intelligence as Kim Morgan had to ask the why was it important that Tarantino has chosen to change historical fact. Especially given that this film is WW2 and the central mission is Jewish vengeance.
I think that Tarantino chose to do it because (sorry for saying this yet again), he is a thoroughly amoral filmmaker. His characters claim to operate by some moral code, but the only moral code that Tarantino imbues in them is a cinematic code and that code demands everything to be cool. And so long as the violence, misogyny, racism and amorality is cool, then it is acceptable.
And several critics said in Cannes that it was showed the triumph of cinema over history. What? Are these people insane? If you believe cinema can triumph over history, you are missing the entire essence of morality and truth.
Tarantino admires Godard, but for all Godard’s anti-capitalists rants, he at least understood the importance of morality and truth.
I found IG to be intermittently funny, and occasionally well plotted, but with the exception of two characters, no one was interesting and the situations were rarely compelling (I was equally impressed by Michael Fassbender as I was by Christoph Waltz).
I agree with David Poland when he says Tarantino is a better writer then a director. Watching the film (even though it was lit by Robert Richardson), it struck me that (with the exception of a few scenes in Kill Bill), Tarantino has a very dull eye. His compositions are flat and he rarely if ever uses depth of field: almost everything happened on the same plain of action. He racks focus but once (in the bar with the scotch being pored) and then (in the same scene) had two plains of action in the same frame. I am not insisting that he does this sort of stuff all the time, but I think a visual variation would go some way to enlivening what I found to be otherwise long and dull scenes.
I didn’t absolutely love “Basterds,” but I certainly really enjoyed it and it does feel like a film I may revisit (and may have a different opinion of). I just kept finding things to like about it – from Myers’ turn that had me laughing to the business with Til Schweiger’s character to all the slow-burn tension in the Landa scenes (kind of a cousin to the Madsen scenes in “Reservoir Dogs” as you don’t see what’s actually under the surface for awhile).
That said, and maybe only because I see him at Crunch all the time and interviewed a couple of times back in the day, but Eli Roth took me right out of it for some reason. But, that’s probably just me.
More importantly, anyone else pick up that great Nicholas Meyer memoir this week? Goddamn, it’s a fun read. I’ve always been a huge, huge, huge Meyer fan and the book is just a hoot to read.
Quickly, I know that my last paragraph implies that a director’s only job is to use the frame in an exciting manner.
But did anyone else notice that the first name up after Tarantino’s is editor, Sally Menke. I have never seen such prominence given to an editor before.
Finally, I think the movie may find it hard to find a sizable audience. I think audiences will find the film to be not as advertised.
Re: The sorta “Grindhouse” double-feature, part two. Not only are the two movies coming out the same weekend, but they’re also both divided into five chapters. Can that be a coincidence?
I caught the first showing of Inglourious Basterds with a small group of probably 25. There were about 10 walkouts. There are too many long stretches of subtitles, and the framing was off, so we couldn’t read some of subtitles because they were cut off at the bottom. Someone would rush out and tell someone to tell the projectionist to adjust the framer, but by the time the projectionist finally made it to the booth, there weren’t any subtitles, so nothing would be done. And then a few minutes later, more subtitles that we couldn’t read. It was a very frustrating experience. And as we were leaving, the only thing I heard from various people was “Too many subtitles” or “Why didn’t they tell us there was gonna be subtitles?”
I’d call this the suspense comedy of the year. Waltz was phenomenal, as was Daniel Bruel. Adored the close up of Rod Taylor and Myers was fun. Coulda had more. I was sorry to lose Cloris Leachman though. Nice Keitel cameo.
Loved it. And the audience applauded at the end.
BTW, fuck every critic who thought it cool to start their early reviews by quoting the last line of the film along with insta-spoilers, so even when I looked away I saw it.
Not only that, christian…but doesn’t the line and the fact critics are incorporating it just smack of Tarantino (or, Weinsteins) kind of leading critics to echo the line?? The film is NOT what the line says, but it makes lazy writers feel good about themselves by saying it is.
Perm. Must be something seeing a subtitled 2.5hr flick at midnight!.. err no thanks. Yes its Tarantino but IG is not a midnight movie.
***SPOILERS***
***SPOILERS***
Liked it more than “Death Proof” and “Kill Bill”. Some really great performances. But I REALLY felt short changed by Shoshana’s fate.
To me one of the film’s major threads was her getting revenge for the opening scene. So the way she goes out was really anti-climactic. Other than that, it was a great slow build, turn of the screw movie.
***SPOILERS***
To elaborate, we needed a final Shosana/Landa scene. It’s like “Kill Bill” without the final Bride/Bill scene or “Once Upon A Time in the West” without the final Bronson/Fonda scene.
@EthanG: “Shorts” and “Post Grad” are wide release, “X-Games” is semi-wide (in theaters for 1 week only), “My One and Only” is in NYC, the other 2 are being dumped.
BTW, be thankful you don’t go to the movies in Great Falls, Montana.
“I was sorry to lose Cloris Leachman though.”
I thought of her half way through the movie and then she never came, which was a shame!
My cinema also had some applause which, if you’ve read what I say here about Aussie audiences just not clapping and hootin’ and hollerin’ like mad people, then you’ll know that’s very strange. Bizarre.
BTW, munityco, the movie is the same length as it was at Cannes. Whether he removed some stuff and added more I’m not sure. But they’re both 2.5hrs.
Just got back from a midnight showing. I think I may have a bit of a reputation around these parts as being a negative nancy, especially given my much-stated hatred of Michael Bay etc. so let me get all positive up in here and say that I absolutely LOVE this movie.
OMG THE MOVIE HAS A HIGH TOMATO RATING THAT MEANS IT MUST BE A LOCK FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINATION TOTES OMG 4RILZ
Yeah, this is a really really exhilarating movie. And maybe one of the best ever made about LANGUAGE in general.
I can’t wait to see it again.
That’s a great point to raise, Crow. Karina’s re-review over at Spout touches on it nicely. She basically points out that “Basterds” is a story about stories. Lots of rumor, gossip “what did you hear?” kind of stuff.
I still have serious issues with the film though and cannot believe people love this and despise “Death Proof.” All the flaws in the movie people are embracing them as artistic and cool when they’re just lazy and ill thought out.
Specifically: (**SPOILERS**)
The narrator appearing 2-3 times to explain things. Inconsistent narration is lame and amateurish.
The ONE backstory on the ONE Basterd. WTF? Why start that off and not cover anyone else? Why have that big stylized title over his name and never go back to that? Weak.
Setting up a Landa/Shoshanna showdown and totally, utterly shitting the bed on finishing it.
Introducing the British film critic turned agent in the middle of an already over crowded movie suffering badly from poorly developed characters…then icing him 40 minutes later.
Ugh….it’s not good filmmaking people.
But still, I did like the movie. Am I insane??
See that thing you have about Michael Fassbender’s character is one of the best things about the movie (for me). Life is like that in that people come in for brief periods of time and then they’re gone. I’m sure WWII was just like that.
Yeah but come on – a whole movie full of essentially random plot elements which come together in only the most superficial way (ie. they happen to end up in the same place at the same time). It may be “just like real life” but its hardly competent film making. It certainly didnt help that the climax was, really, incredibly brief. It should have been up to the task of a 2+ hr slow burn set-up, and I’m sorry but it just wasnt. So you never really feel like any of these plot elements come together in a satisfying way.
And call me crazy, or that I dont get it, or whatever, but I think a film called “Inglourious Basterds” that includes a team of “Inglourious Basterds” should primarily be about them, shouldnt it? I mean, other than Brad Pitt, the vast majority of them have what, one scene? If you look at that line up in the opening scene of chapter two, I bet half of those actors dont even show up in a medium length or better shot after that, let alone get a speaking part!
I wanted my fucking 100 nazi scalps! I only got maybe 10,12 scalps at the most!
The first two chapters of the film were as good as anything QT has ever done, but the rest of the film was quite a bit of wankery.
Re: Cloris Leachman
Having read the script, I was disappointed by the excision of her scene, as well. I understand you can’t judge a final film by what was/wasn’t in the script and there are any number of reasons why scenes get cut: length, redundancy, maybe it didn’t play right/mesh with rest of picture, etc.
Nevertheless, the scene was beautifully written, gave you Donnie The Bear Jew’s backstory and would have served to humanize him and make the audience totally root for him, instead of merely seeming savage. Most revealing is QT’s stated reason for cutting the scene: he thought it detracted from the impact of Donnie’s current Morricone-scored entrance and made it less “badass,” which is a good indication of where QT’s priorities lie these days.
I liked the movie, however. Quite a lot, in fact.
“It’s like an episode of ‘Allo ‘Allo! as directed by Quentin Tarantino”
LOL, kam, totally. they should put THAT on the poster: ” ‘allo ‘allo! meets QT”
i thought ‘basterds’ started better than it ended – and i suppose some of the criticism leveled at it is valid – but i dug it, it’s got moxie and style. a bit of a return to form for QT (in my eyes at least)
and while i’m a known disdainer of the pitt in many of his flicks (he was vaguely tolerable in this), his presence if nothing else is a very clever marketing ploy, as his name certainly helps sell a movie to the general public. i don’t know about anywhere else but here the TV adverts for ‘IB’ on every 10 seconds were ‘all pitt all the time’, which i imagine will help bring in the masses for at least the opening weekend, then positive WOM will be crucial after the fact that the movie isn’t quite what’s being sold – complete with subtitles to boot – filters out.
(and i haven’t really heard mike myers’ name mentioned anywhere so a little shout out for him, i enjoyed his turn in ‘IB’ – i’m usually a fan of his accents if i ignore the existence of a few of his recent flicks – and it was nice to see him in something that isn’t a complete embarrassment for a change)
I haven’t read the screenplay, but I’m guessing that a lot of what got trimmed out of the final version of the movie was exactly what people are complaining about not getting enough of: more Basterdery. (Spoilers) Yeah, sticking in a couple of bits of Samuel L. Jackson narration was probably a post-production fix to allow them to include Til Schweiger’s backstory without having another fifteen minutes of scenes and plotting to break him out of jail and so on.
Personally, I’m glad they did what they did. It’s not seamless, but if I want to see a bunch of badasses fighting Nazis I’ll just watch Dirty Dozen or Kelly’s Heroes or When Eagles Dare etc. etc. Those movies exist, this one is its own thing.
There is something ironic about the laziest performance coming from the guy who’s almost certainly making four times as much money as anybody else involved in the film, but whatever. His ‘I-talian’ was at least funny.
bobbob, but it’s not like Crash where two completely different storylines intersect in a completely coincidental way. Fassbender’s character is integral to the plot.
Actually, something that occurred to me today was that the “I-talian” bit was indeed Pitts funniest moment, but it was sort ofidentical to a scene out of The Mexican where he ads to O onto words to make them sound Spanish.
MELANIE LAURENT BOW. Holy shit more like INGLOURIOUS BONER. BOW.
The movie ruled but godDAMN was *Shosanna AWESOME. (*where’s the second H, QT? Am I wrong or did Landa’s list spell it ShosHanna but spell-correct-aphobe Tarantino just bungle it everywhere else?)
Anyway, MELANIE LAURENT. I’ll give her some milk. I have some WHITE CREAM if you know what I mean. She’s like some supernatural awesome cross between Repulsion-era Daneueve and SCARLETT AWESOME JOHANSSON. In other words, GIANT BONER. That RULED when she was PUTTING ON MAKEUP and they were playing that Bowie song from CAT PEOPLE (GOOD MOVIE), but how the fuck does QUENTIN TARANTINO DROP THE BALL on not giving the hottest chick in the movie any good, long LEG OGLING SHOTS? Kruger is cool but that hat SUCKED, but if Fetish Man’s gonna predictably linger on German Helen Sobieski’s feet for nineteen hours, what, we can’t get Shosanna like ROMPING IN A MEADOW or painting her toenails or something awesome?
Everyone needs to acknowledge that the long-take shots of the theater lobby/party were modeled after Tony Montana’s mansion in SCARFACE.
Then they need to acknowledge that even though 90% of this movie is AWESOME AS HELL, ironically any scene with the “Basterds” doing their thing brings it to a SCREECHING HALT, that the movie probably would’ve been just as good (if not better) entirely sans Pitt, Roth and B.J. DOUCHEVAK, who should never be allowed within 500 miles of a movie ever again. And did we ever see or learn why Novak was taken prisoner?
At some point he’s just in a prisoner transport truck with a bag on his head.
Good to see you back Lex.
You’re right, the film would have been better without the basterds. Those scenes were fanboy excess but they’re also the reason why it opened so huge. I dig violence as much as the next person but a part of me wished he cut away from the graphic scalpings. Again it was like check this out, it’s my homies at KNB doing their shit yo! For me the film would have been better served to eliminate the basterds completely, focus more on Shosanna and lengthen the critic/agent subplot and the dual plans colliding.
The basterds were simply bridging material.
Biggest surprise of all? Roth actually delivering a performance without much to work with. The guy does have some chops.
So who wants to see the inevitable prequel now? I’d love him to tackle something fresh and build on the success of IB instead of stepping back into KB territory.