So we all agree that this is his masterpiece, right?

youtube.com/watch?v=gS1IG8hw73A

If Tarantino only ever wrote and directed this scene, people would still recognize him as a good artist. Filmmakers are rarely this confident anymore. And the ones that are aren't good enough at their craft to be able to pull it off. It's a perfect scene.

his worst movie by far
not even joking

It's literally his only good movie

you're a total pleb

Inglourious Basterds was literally the only good American movie released in 2009, and I saw most of them

and what so good about it?

they kill a bunch of nazis

Based fellow Cozy 8 patrician

brain

l
e
t

A lot of stuff. The acting, directing, the intertextual idea of film being used for moral purposes

Waltz and the pub scene are the only good parts of this movie.

>they kill a bunch of nazis

Attached: 1566018778304.png (454x520, 11K)

yeah that wasn't necessary.

and what's wrong with killing fascists during ww2

Kill Bill Vol 1 and Rezzie Dogs are his 2 best

Dumbasses on this board only dislike it cause they're killin nazis

The scene where they pretend to be Italian is great

please stop being so reddit
nothing he did is a masterpiece, this one is merely better than his usual shit

The revisionism works better in Basterds because the entire movie is about the use of cinema as a weapon of war

>areyviderchi

lolno

>and what's wrong with killing fascists during ww2

Attached: 1565418379279.jpg (1280x1500, 269K)

>killing nazis is bad, fascism is an ideology of peace

Attached: 1563034071489.jpg (378x378, 31K)

>GORLAAAAMI

>Dumbasses on this board only dislike it cause they're killin nazis

Attached: 1565875184749.png (805x851, 89K)

>The acting
meh, I don't see whats the deal with people praising Walz but that just might be me, aside from him the rest of the characters are just stupid one dimensional not very charismatic line delivering dolls.
> directing
This movie only showed that Tarantino should stick to domestic american themes and that actual serious stuff goes way over his head.
>intertextual idea of film being used for moral purposes
so a shtick.
nothing wrong just that it's not a guarantee for a good movie.

>about the use of cinema as a weapon of war
so fucking what when it's done in the most stupid and shallow way possible. you're fucking retarded and you should maybe try going to some sort of a school.

You just have terrible taste, my man. SAG recognized the performances as great, and the central theme of cinema functioning as the moral center in a monoculture STILL resonates, given that the rise of neo-nazism coincides with the death of American monoculture

Why did his soldiers owe him foreskins? WTF?

>some sort of a school

Attached: 1566769395715.jpg (680x583, 46K)

Well that and because it's too popular (need that contrarian cred)

you know it's true, stay salty

>Well that and because it's too popular (need that contrarian cred)

>you know it's true, stay salty

Attached: 1566019050779.png (454x520, 11K)

Not that good. Felt more like pandering to the "kill nazis" wet dream popular in current culture. But it did it so in a mostly uninteresting way, with pointless gore and a disappointing ending.

Waltz's character was interesting by the end because he appeared as a sleazy asshole who just cared about his well-being and not his job, he didn't hate jews, he just wanted fame and money within the Nazi government. But then Brad Pitt just kills me and carves a svastika in his head because "he was an evil nazi all along". Such a lame copout from what could have been a thought-provoking ending.

>shallow
>the most intertextual American film of the last decade, with references to every great pre-war German director and even a literary reference to medieval French poet François Villon
we don't deserve good movies

> central theme of cinema functioning as the moral center in a monoculture
you have no idea what you're talking about. you're just blabbering points you read in an article you obviously only vaguely remember. Learn to make your own opinions instead of replicating some other that you didn't even fully grasp, you fucking tryhard pleb.

>Felt more like pandering to the "kill nazis" wet dream popular in current culture.
The movie was released in 2009. The "punch nazis" shit you see on social media today wasn't a thing back then

>Not that good. Felt more like pandering to the "kill nazis" wet dream popular in current culture
And people wonder why movies are dumbed down these days when OBVIOUS SUBTEXT is lost on retards like with this movie

So enlighten me, what's the obvious subtext?

>we don't deserve good movies
well you're obviously not getting them. Also normative mentioning of things doesn't make it deep or meaningful, no matter the references.

The climax of the movie is where they kill Hitler in a movie theater playing a propaganda film. It doesn't get more on the nose than that.

meant for

Nice projection, but I'm capable of forming my own opinions. Basterds, like OUATIH, is nostalgic for a period where cinema functioned as the primary source of our collective morality. The internet was killing that function when Basterds came out

what about pulp fiction? reservoir dogs?

Attached: LittleGrimyChickadee-small.gif (435x250, 1.16M)

I’m very right wing and think the wrong side won WW2 and I still love this movie.

I don't see what the thematic relevance is that, seems more like dark irony to me, as a nazi is killing enemies (russians or americans? i don't remember) in the movie the allies are exterminating nazies while they burn. I don't see subtext.

Why are you on Yea Forums if you literally can't see past the first layer in films ?

Don't blame the movie because you're too dense to understand a point that's being beaten into your head.

>Basterds is nostalgic for a period where cinema functioned as the primary source of our collective morality.
are you insane? do you know how people globally were fucking poor prior to ww2? Do you know how many of them, even in the fucking US, watched movies on a even semi regular basis? You're a deluded little sheltered man who has no real life experience.

It's not that simply referencing something makes a work interesting, it's the purpose for which those things are referenced that can deepen a work. Basterds is a movie about cinema, its function and its moral power, which means that referring to the greats of the past (particularly the German pre-war past) serves as a way of reminding the audience of how that power can be wielded, and for what nefarious purposes.

Inglourious basterds... 99% of the movie is not about them

If you tell me what point you're talking about then maybe I can rewatch the movie and appreciate it more.

I like it because it triggers the rightards.

>big black dingus

?

A french jew fucking a black guy is par for course and doesn't trigger me

Attached: download.jpg (500x581, 90K)

His only mistake was to cast Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna, absolutely SOULLESS acting, she's on par with Marion Cotillard, they are dead inside, their eyes don't shine

I'm quoting Hateful Eight. And literally everything triggers you, rightard.

The majority of Americans and a large percentage of Europeans were watching movies pre-WWII. Gone with the Wind and All Quiet on the Western Front were giant events that shaped the cultures of the places they played in. Cinema was the primary art of the proletarian of that era because it was capable of playing to the illiterate. It was the most accessible narrative medium by far.

This movie was fucking garbage
>Jew fantasy where they are tough guys and kill Nazis
>unlike other "group of guy" movie I couldn't tell the Basterds apart. They all had zero personality or characteristics asides from the one with the baseball bat and Ryan from the Office.
>both Basterds and the blonde woman have the exact same plan to blow up the theater and both plans are a success with little to no crossover, conflict, or consequences
>for some everyone was allowed to roam around the theater freely when it was well known that Hitler was paranoid and travelled with his own private SS security army. There's a reason why he was never assassinated in real life. In this film he travels with 3 bros and 2 soldiers and gets killed.

T R I G G E R E D

If you're not picking up on it from this description , you're either too dumb to understand or you're just pretending to not get it so you can have an argument. Do you really not see any correlation between a German audience watching a movie, applauding the slaughter of Americans, and the film itself which features stylized violence against nazi soldiers and hitler himself? This shit isn't even subtext, it's text.

you're ignoring what I'm trying to say. I'm not deputing that Bastards is about all those things, but how it goes on to interpret and comment on them is shallow and superficial. It's like some highschool play, it's about deep and meaningful things, but the themes that it's tackling are out of it's league.

The movie was about the use of cinema as a weapon of war. The film itself functioned like one of Goebbels' propaganda movies, but from the allied perspective. So ending a propaganda film with Hitler being murdered in a propaganda film as he's watching a propaganda film creates a multi-layered postmodern thing that Tarantino likes. The theme is actually pretty straightforward, it's just done in a showy way.

No. Just call em as I see him. I'm not some alt-right tard, but Basterds was a stupid fucking film and Brad Pitt hamming it up as usual didn't help. Waltz was phenomenal as always and the scene where the German officer holds up 3 fingers like a German is really great.
The movie would have been 1000% better without the Basterds. It could have just been the Nazis and the blonde woman.

>>for some everyone was allowed to roam around the theater freely when it was well known that Hitler was paranoid and travelled with his own private SS security army. There's a reason why he was never assassinated in real life. In this film he travels with 3 bros and 2 soldiers and gets killed.
It's self-consciously a movie dude. Its aesthetic is 70s exploitation cinema and 1940s war propaganda. It's not supposed to be realistic

Why the fuck do people like Reservoir dogs so much? It's one of the shittiest movies I've ever seen. It's pure garbage.

For some reason it's always Americans hating on this film.

I didn't watch that one, too boring

i laughed so hard at the first scene where that old guy shoot all the ppl HAHAHAH is this a comedy or osmething???? HAHAHAHHAHA BAM BAM BA BAM!!!! I laughd so hard at that part so funny HAHAH and then she the girl she runs away?? HAHAHAHHA OREWA SHUSARNER!

>both plans are a success with little to no crossover, conflict, or consequences
Half the basterds die, the german spy dies, the jewish theater owner dies.
>There's a reason why he was never assassinated in real life.
You're mad it's not historically accurate? Really?

Is it true that French and Germans love it?

You're 100% right, but the challenges of real life can lead to more interesting cinema. Watch they Dirty Dozen. They couldn't just walk in and kill the Nazis, they had this complex plan with lots of moving part that was fun to watch. Just walking into the theater and killing Hilter that easily was lazy and boring to me.

Ok you made me giggle at the end

Attached: 1559938705290.jpg (345x336, 214K)

I see what you're talking about. I don't think it's particularly deep, just Tarantino eyeing the audience and saying "they liked the stuff you like". Still that doesn't change the fact the movie is mostly about Nazis being killed without much going on, except for the Pub scene and Waltz's character, who gets ruined by the end.

Yes but fuck jews and fuck niggers.

>I see what you're talking about.
So you finally acknowledge it exists. Fucking dumbass, can't believe you needed it spelled out to you.

>implying having a German SS officer comment on the anglo slave trade by referencing American cinema isn't fucking genius

>Half the basterds die, the german spy dies, the jewish theater owner dies.
You misunderstand. Read it again. I said both the blonde woman and the basterds have the same "blow up the theater" plan but there's never a conflict of interest between these 2 factions. Both plans just succeed. It was a missed opportunity to have the good guys get in each others way.
>You're mad it's not historically accurate? Really?
See Stop being a stupid faggot.

brad pitt's performance made this movie a disgrace.

Why do people ask these stupid questions? How will it benefit you if someone told you what THEY liked about a movie that YOU hated? You fucking retard.

the truth is that prior to ww2 cinema was mostly still a carnival side show attraction with no artistic weight or profoundness. The more complex cinema was just consumed by the middle class, and I paled in comparison to the relevance of literature, music, and theater at that time.

>waaaaa it's not like other moobie

>>waaaaa it's not like other moobie
??
You: "waaahh! Leave my simplistic movies alone! I like tiktok vids and movies that go bang bang!"

Too masturbatory, even by Tarantino standards. The narrative is incomprehensible and none of the characters feel as important as they should. It's definitely interesting in the themes of the movie, but it's not nearly as enjoyable as a movie like Reservoir Dogs which is just as experimental, but a much easier and fun watch because the actual plot is still easy to follow and the stylistic choices he makes don't get in the way of your enjoyment of the movie.

Also the chapter structure is completely arbitrary.

Most modern germans like the movie because of le evil nazi pigs getting gunned down and the normal germans I've talked to mostly enjoy the movie for its action scenes in general and badass characters like Hans Landa.

All of them are fucking garbage
taratino is a literal cuck faggot
only tolerable one is resevoir dogs

>the truth is that prior to ww2 cinema was mostly still a carnival side show attraction with no artistic weight or profoundness.
Why is it people on a television and film board routinely know little about television or film?

>when the chapter is called "Operation Kino" and it lives up to the name
Nazi larpers will never understand.

Attached: Inglourious_Basterds_Chapter_Four.jpg (1920x800, 96K)

>the truth is that prior to ww2 cinema was mostly still a carnival side show attraction with no artistic weight or profoundness.
Holy fuck, this might be the most historically wrong opinion on film that I've ever read.

>>implying having a German SS officer comment on the anglo slave trade by referencing American cinema isn't fucking genius
it really isn't genius, you're derogating the weight of that word by saying that such clever gimmickry can be deemed as genius.

Not every movie has to be realistic, the ahistorical approach in basterds serves a purpose.

Probably if I had watched the movie more recently I'd have remembered that editing detail better, still don't understand what it has to do with my criticism of the movie.

>what's wrong with killing fascists during ww2
That's exactly what the movie criticises

Except the creators of King Kong openly stated that there was no deliberate parallelism between the slave trade and their simple monster movie but Tarantino doesn't like that idea and used that scene to promote his own view.

name 3 movies prior to ww2 that had a global impact and are/were in the collective consciousness of the western world.

>Not every movie has to be realistic,
True, but in this case it ended up being very, very boring. Killing Hitler that easily makes the rest of the film seem like a waste as it was so easy to do in the end. It 's just bad storytelling.
In Star Wars if the rebels blew up the Death Star on the first shot without Luke you would be wondering what the all build up was about.

That need for spy intrigue was mostly fulfilled by that bar scene for me. How often do you see accents being turned into plot points in these movies? Everyone in these types of movies is usually just able to speak English

I agree with this much. If the movie was just about Shoshana it would have been much more interesting. Brad Pitt's character barely has any importance to the story so you can throw his memey ass out and it wouldn't hurt a thing

> (You)
Any movie by Charlie Chaplan or Buster Keaton. Nosferatu, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, All Quiet on the Western Front, Gone with the Wind (1939, so this is borderline timewise), King Kong, James Cagney movies, Universal horror films.

>In Star Wars if the rebels blew up the Death Star on the first shot without Luke you would be wondering what the all build up was about.
If Star Wars had a side plot with Darth Vader playing both sides and eventually getting his comeuppance while also playing up the legacy of cinema then maybe this analogy would work better.

I think Django is his better movie compared to this, but for westerns, Hateful Eight is easily the better one.
Is there any thing like Tarantino’s films? Something easy to watch and you don’t have to have a pen and paper or watch it several times to understand all the plot points because it’s all laid out and payed off. Pls tell me I’m dying for a good fucken movie

He's allowed to do that, it's his movie.

I know film students would never admit it, but not everything Quentin Tarantino writes down is objective truth of all that's ever existed.

>If Star Wars had a side plot with Darth Vader playing both sides and eventually getting his comeuppance while also playing up the legacy of cinema then maybe this analogy would work better.
It still works.
The entire Basterds movie was about killing Hitler and they do it so easily that you wonder what was so difficult about it. That's bad film making.

As a nazi I loved this movie

>The entire Basterds movie was about killing Hitler
No, it was about causing havoc in nazi occupied europe. They didn't even know Hitler was going to be at the movie premier until the bar scene.

The author is dead dumbass. Anyone can interpret something however they want, regardless of artistic intent

you have a very distorted and false view of history and the boundaries of the western world. As I said earlier, you're just a middleclass gated kid who has no context on what real life is, which makes you claim that a german peasant in the 1930s watched king kong after working the fields for 12 hours a day.

>nigger raping white guy scene
epic

And I interpret Tarantino's ways as pettiness.

Gone with the Wind is still the highest grossing film of all time, despite being released to a population less than half our current size. And All Quiet on the Western Front is known for stoking anti-war sentiments among the proletariat. Cinema was hugely important back then. Birth of a Nation literally lead to a resurgence of the klan

>casting Brad Pitt the most goyishe-looking man in Hollywood as a Jew
this is so tiresome

He wasn't a Jew if I recall correctly. He was part Apache

He wasn't jewish, just led a company of jews.

My bad, I thought the point was they were all Jews

I really liked Aldo's Bowie knife.

The unit was composed of jews, save their commanding officer.

Also the German guy who joined after.

The reference to the Wizard of Oz at the end was unbelievably kino

you seem easily impressed

Says the board that thinks that Chernobyl constitutes good filmmaking. It takes a lot more to impress me than you guys

Kill Bill is his magnum opus
youtube.com/watch?v=DAUFrMtInIo

Attached: 41dBu4DkbVL.jpg (365x500, 28K)

>Man the Nazis were so evil, they were laughing at the dead Americans like they were just characters in a movie!
>YAY KILLING THE NAZIS LOL BLOWING UP A THEATER WOMEN AND CHILDREN DYING
This movie went over a lot of people's heads.

I didn't watch that shit past the first episode

Shosanna was a qt

The bravest, smartest, most honorable characters were all Nazis.

Movies from the mid-early 2000s looks so much better than they do now. Digital intermediaries and extreme color grading ruined how movies look

is tarantino secretly a nazi?

>The X film By Quentin Tarantino

what an obnoxious fucking faggot

some of his movie was great though

It was most likely an aesthetic choice. Allies acting like dignified "good guys" goes against the exploitation aesthetic that Tarantino loves so much

If he actually sticks to only 10 movies in his career, which is his goal, then numbering them is actually pretty kino

that was the point, you fucking retards. what do you think the word "inglorious" means?

>criticises
Celebrates.

Didn't he already made more than 10 movies? Kill Bill are two movies but he says it's only one movie.
Then why the fuck did I had to pay for two tickets?

Kill Bill was filmed, written, and initially cut as one movie. It only became two movies late into post-production, which is why he counts it as one thing.

Transphobic

Attached: 1182C3EF-58FB-446A-98D0-1C30C9685B37.png (828x1792, 1.3M)

Sometimes I think I like this movie more than it deserves because of based Hans Landa.

Very progressive

Attached: 70ACB26D-EF4B-4539-BC1E-4FEDF7C86DA0.jpg (828x1436, 728K)

>nazis now use faux film analysis to purposely misinterpret Basterds into being pro fash through subtext
Funniest shit I've seen here in a while desu. No really, it's rather smart too in comparison to yelling nigger or cuck all the time. Good shit.

no

>based Hans Landa
Simply divine

Attached: 1520201246440.jpg (1203x1077, 596K)

>Kill Bill Vol 1
literally unwatchable

>you're just a middleclass gated kid who has no context on what real life is
unlike yourself right?

they are interesting creatures aren't they?

>muh funny accent

Point to the comments of people claiming that the film is pro nazi. I don't see them

I doubt it.

Not exactly saying it is pro-Nazi but: counter-currents.com/2010/07/inglourious-basterds/

I personally don't like it. Here are my reasons. I find the pacing really weird and disjointed, we spend very little time with the Basterds themselves, too much time is spent developing Michael Fassbender's character only for him to die his first day on the job because nobody in realized he spoke German with an obvious English accent, it's never explained how Shoshana came into posession of the theater (she's living under an alias so presumably her story about inheriting the place from her aunt is bullshit), apmost no action scenes to speak of and weirdly sympathetic portrayal of Nazis. On that last point I really am confused why the film goes to such lengths to brutalize Nazis it takes time to humanize, such as the new father who is murdered after surrendering, the sergeant who grimly accepts death rather than betray his brothers in arms or the soldier turned film star who clearly suffers from PTSD. All this being said there are amazing scenes like the opening and the bar scene just wish the stuff in between was better plotted.

> Yea Forums is for serious film discussion

Dis nigga . . .

The thing is, if this particular reviewer feels turned off by Tarantino articulating how Jews use cinema to destroy and dehumanize the people who killed and oppressed them, then that says more about that reviewer's particular disposition than it does about Tarantino himself. Tarantino does not have a single moral qualm about using cinema for propagandistic purposes; if Hollywood Jews revenged themselves on the Nazis via movies, that's perfectly acceptable in his eyes.

Did you miss the part where Waltz deliberately lets them carry out their plan even though he knows that they are American soldiers? They never would have made it past security if the head of security wasn’t actively aiding them in their plot.

But he is saying the opposite. He is saying that this movie humanizes Germans and dehumanizes Jews and the Allies. So this movie isn't a "Jewish fantasy" per se - unless Jews are the type of people who want to see themselves as brutal animals and mutilators who execute honorable POWs -, but rather an example of Tarantino's own nihilism.

>it's never explained how Shoshana came into posession of the theater
I watched this movie long time ago so I may be wrong, but I'm sure that it was implied that Shoshana and her boyfriend killed the previous owner and took over.

>unless Jews are the type of people who want to see themselves as brutal animals and mutilators who execute honorable POWs
This is my point. Tarantino loves exploitation cinema, so the concept of violent, vengeful Jews isn't a negative one in his eyes. The Bride in Kill Bill isn't a bad person in his eyes despite murdering literally dozens of people.

There's an interview online of Tarantino talking about the miniseries Roots, and how at the end the former black slave chooses to be the "bigger person" and not whip his former master. Tarantino said that had he written that particular scene he would've had that former slave whip the former master as a dramatically-satisfying act of revenge. So he clearly views violent cinematic revenge as a form of fantasy separate from real world violence, and as something that's morally justifiable within the confines of cinema.

Where in the movie does he say he's jewish? He's a descendant of Jim Bridger, who had three Indian wives, and it's implied he's part Indian.

>>it's never explained how Shoshana came into posession of the theater
But she literally did explain it.

Just realized at the end of the film when Brad Pitt says "this just might be my masterpiece", its a double entendre. It can also be interpreted as Tarantino taking to the audience through Pitt's character. Ok now that is epic

This movie is extremely comfy, wish I could see it again for the first time. It’s basically like a ww2 comic book come to life

>OREWA SHUSARNER!

You motherfucker

Attached: 28379207_10157126310888294_6004436279054402438_n.jpg (479x527, 18K)

Remember when Brad Pitt said it was the end all be all of WW2 movies and Hollywood has no need to ever make another one, then five years later he was in Fury.

>black french guy killed all the nazis even though they did literally nothing wrong to him

seemed a bit harsh

Yes, we are. And that anyone who disagrees with you is a Reddit Tourist.

Attached: 1528792749929.jpg (1995x5184, 3.4M)

Wtf even is this list lol

Thats some russian roulette shit