Inglorious Basterds

[vulcan2074]

Man I just saw it and I gotta say i thought it sucked ***! The only thing that was good was Pitt

No Way, Really? I was gonna go tomorrow to see it but umm, maybe I'll wait
Sammy

[toys2cool]

No Way, Really? I was gonna go tomorrow to see it but umm, maybe I'll wait
Sammy

lol! naw go see it, you might like it. It's just that I found it pretty boring

[vulcan2074]

Maybe LOL
Sammy

[Brown Bear]

Maybe I'm going soft or something, but when did the word "*******" become acceptable for a movie title. When I was a kid, that was considered swearing. I wouldn't want my 9 year old nephew saying "Hey, did you see Inglorious *******s?"

[shyndman]

Love Tarantino but not sure on this one (haven't seen it yet). Seems like an unapologetic revenge movie from what I've read . . .

[ctc]

>when did the word "*******" become acceptable for a movie title.

There was a LOT of concern over this, which I think is the reason it's spelled funny. And if you check my first post; apparently it was okay back in the 70's....

>When I was a kid, that was considered swearing

Maybe. When I was a kid it was one of them nebulous words that wasn't polite; but could occasionally see use if circumstanes required.

Don C.

[Goblin19]

I thought the movie was very good, almost great. Tarantino's dialogue was sharp, a definite step back in the right direction after Death Proof. Christoph Waltz steals the movie, though all the acting is great. The opening and closing of the movie are both very well done, both suspenseful and funny.

[huedell]

I gave up on Tarantino right after seeing JACKIE BROWN.

The only reason I gave this movie a chance is because my brother urged
me to go see it.

I saw it last night and easily think this flick is one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Why?

Well, the story was engaging and the script was TIGHT right up
'til the last frame.

[Gorn Captain]

I liked it a lot.
Sure, it was slow, but there was constant tension.
The guy who played Landa was fantastic, a real lunatic!

And Pitt was definitely in the mood to ham it up.

When there was violence, it was short and brutal. The way real violence is.

Having grown up with movies like Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, etc, I can't help it: I loved it.

[Hector]

It's an alternate reality revenge movie...so to called it historically inaccurate will be missing this point.

[Hector]

Christoph Waltz...as Standartenführer Hans Landa...will win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor...mark my words...he was fantastic...and easily steals the movie.

[Hector]

Who cares about the title (it's misspelled on purpose anyway)...I personally love it...it's R-rated anyway.

It's a movie for ADULTS not for kids.

There are FAR worse things in this world for kids than some bloody movie title.

[Hector]

lol! naw go see it, you might like it. It's just that I found it pretty boring

That's because you like video game-type movies like Transformers and G.I. Blow.

[huedell]

It's an alternate reality revenge movie...so to called it historically inaccurate will be missing this point.

Is "revenge" an established genre?

I've seen critics use this term and I think it really unnecessarily pigeonholes
this movie....as if you have to believe in hating the Nazis or enjoy hating
the Nazis to like this movie.

I dunno..it just raises my eyebrow, this use of "revenge" kinda like it was
part of the genre description.

[huedell]

Christoph Waltz...as Standartenführer Hans Landa...will win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor...mark my words...he was fantastic...and easily steals the movie.

Pitt's performance was fun and fun to watch...but Waltz's musta been
a real challenge to pull off comparably.

If Pitt won anything and Waltz DIDN'T, it would be an outrage....nothing against Pitt---I mean after reading the wikipedia page on IB, I'm
sure Tarantino AND PItt would agree with me.

I agree Waltz was great---I'm surprised that part isn't considered a "lead"--
but then again, I guess all "villains" are a "Supporting Actor" role.