[Richard]

So against my better judgement I went to see the latest Quenton movie. Now dont get me wrong I'm a fan of his work but I had a bad feeling about this one. It may be that Hollywood has produced some great based on true events WW2 flicks lately that I now have issues with ones that are fictional. That being said I still love sitting down to watch the Dirty Dozen or Kellys Heros, but with this film he takes "artistic licence" way too far! Without giving away any of the movie for those of you still wanting to see it I cant understand how you make a WW2 movie and totally change how the real war ended! So I guess I was wondering if this is just me or does it bother anyone else?

[Tonus]

Tarantino tends to take creative license as far as he can.  Sometimes it works (and works beautifully, as in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill) and sometimes it flops.  That's the risk.  I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds and probably won't until it's out on blu-ray.

[Lingster]

Without giving away any of the movie for those of you still wanting to see it I cant understand how you make a WW2 movie and totally change how the real war ended! So I guess I was wondering if this is just me or does it bother anyone else?

I haven't seen it yet, but my understanding is that the movie is part homage to movies like The Dirty Dozen, but also part parody.  So he may be saying that even those movies took such a big step away from reality that they might as well have changed the ending of the war?  Dunno – will probably see it this week.

[Fett]

I'm not a Tarantino fan, but I loved this film enough to see it twice.

Complaining that INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS isn't historically accurate is like complaining 300 isn't historically accurate. Or that WATCHMEN doesn't portray 1985 correctly. Or that there was no Dr Evil in 1960-blah and therefore AUSTIN POWERS is somehow 'wrong'.

Utter nonsense.

At no point in BASTERDS does it even pretend that it's a war documentary, nor a World War II drama showcasing World War II as it was. From the start to the very end, the movie is quite clearly a glorified romanticism of the love of World War II stories.

The ending makes perfect sense for the movie as written.

[BlackKusanagi]

Hugo Stiglitz ftw.

[Richard]

Actually Fett thanks for mentioning the movie 300 its one of my favorites. The movie writen buy Frank Miller is a totally ficticious account of the real event! Except for the most important facts! The spartant went, fought and died at thermopylae! Miller took artistic lisence in all other aspects but he honoured the historical fundementals!

[stevexyz]

What I liked about Inglourious Basterds is the fact that there were no fancy camera moves that take you right out of the movie thinking, "Oh, the director and editor are just playing with their digital tricks again." You always knew what was going on and the camera stayed back enough so you could see what the actors were doing.

Unfortunately, I also thought the movie was very slow going, although the cinematography looked very nice, and although I like Brad Pitt, I did not like his acting in this movie.

And I think this movie was not intended as historical fact! It is just a movie, made for entertainment and to deliver whatever message the writer and/or director had in mind, and not a documentary. Most movies are made like this, you can't take them seriously in this regard.

Tarantino at least tried to do something different here, but it just didn't work for me. I also didn't like Death Proof from Grindhouse, although the first half of it wasn't so bad. I hope he goes to work on the prequel to the Kill Bills next!

[Fett]

Actually Fett thanks for mentioning the movie 300 its one of my favorites. The movie writen buy Frank Miller is a totally ficticious account of the real event! Except for the most important facts! The spartant went, fought and died at thermopylae! Miller took artistic lisence in all other aspects but he honoured the historical fundementals!

So did Tarantino: the Nazis went to war, conquered most of Europe, hunted Jews, and lost.

There's your historical fundamentals, all honoured.

But I ask again: why should he honour historical fundamentals? The movie isn't meant to be a serious portrayal of World War II nor a historical drama. When the ending happened, I laughed because it made SENSE. In this movie, with these characters, these events would happen. And it's funny precisely because it's NOT what really happened. The idea that it would make more sense for the events to happen as historically accurate is just not sensible. Imagine a 'historically' accurate ending and tell me it would be as good. It wouldn't. Because if the Basterds were real, things wouldn't continue as history intended. If it was historically accurate, it would feel like a LIE.

[Solarian, aka LordDaroth]

Damn, I have to see this movie, because I have no idea what you are talking about…

[Mr. Schmoe]

I saw "Bastards" and loved it. Tarantino's best film since "Pulp Fiction."
The genre is actually a popular, widely recognized style of fiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history

[Author]

Posts