comment #1

btwnproductions says ...

This sounds awful. Looks like another meh Cannes.

comment #2

kyleb says ...

Except, isn't it time we label his career output bubblegum sidedish (or main course) with two astounding exceptions?

comment #3

Fructose says ...

"Like the loyal German bourgeoisie in 1945, trying to keep patriotically cheerful despite the distant ominous rumblings of Russian tanks, we Tarantino fans have kept loyally optimistic on the Croisette this week. We ignored the rumour mongers, the alarmists and defeatists, and insisted that the Master would at the last moment fire a devastating V1 rocket of a movie which would lay waste to his, and our, detractors. But today the full catastrophe of his new film arrived like some colossal armour-plated turkey from hell. The city of our hopes is in flames."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/20/cannes-film-festival-tarantino-inglourious-basterds

comment #4

vansmith says ...

Ehh, it is what it is. Any artist has a limited amount of amazing stuff inside of him and the rest (70%) is just shots in the dark hoping to capture that magic again. He made a few really good films the rest was bullshit but we still got our kicks...

comment #5

btwnproductions says ...

He needs to tackle another adaptation. That's the best cure for a creative cul-de-sac.

comment #6

Krazy Eyes says ...

I had hoped he had gotten this crap out of his system with Death Proof, which derailed that effort despite some good portions, but it seems like Tarantino continues to spiral down the wormhole of self-referential mediocrity.

I'll see it but my expectations are low. Very low.

comment #7

Fructose says ...

"Quentin Tarantino's a great writer of dialogue, and no one's more convinced of the fact than Quentin Tarantino. The ratio of talk to action -- not gun fights or explosions, but just people doing stuff -- in "Inglourious Basterds" is, generously, nine to one. Again and again, characters sit down over drinks (whiskey, champagne, milk), and the stakes may be high, but the conversations are meandering and lengthy, and no matter how clever they may get, they end up defeated by their own pace and their writer's inability to let anything go. Even the opening scene, a confrontation between Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and a French farmer hiding a Jewish family which is supposed to be a slow build of tension and dread, is derailed by digressions about rats and nicknames".

"I wouldn't even call "Inglourious Basterds" minor Tarantino -- it's flat-out tiresome, and from a commercial perspective, incredibly dicey. If this is the pony the Weinstein Company has picked, well, bless 'em, because it's hard to see this one pulling in crowds once word gets around."

http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2009/05/cannes-2009-inglourious-baster.php

comment #8

Alboone says ...

If Tarantino is so in love with monologues then he should just get out of Hollywood and just write a fucking play. Dammit I'm sick and tired of this inversion of the theory of 'show, don't tell' approach to filmmaking. Nowadays it seems like everything is "tell, but don't show because a) we're lazy or b) it'll help trim some of the fat off the budget. The audience doesn't care anyway."

Film is a visual medium mothefuckers. It's an emotional art form. If you luck out and happen to provide a current of intellect as well then that's just icing on the cake.

Character's rambling on and on and on and on may seem cute to him but it's sure as shit not that exciting to most of us.

comment #9

vansmith says ...

creative cul de sac...brilliant..His main problem is that he thinks he's cute.. he writes cute and clever but there's nothing else there, he needs to ahhh whatever.....

comment #10

Gooner says ...

If The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw doesn't like it, you know it must be a stinker. He's a self confessed Tarantino champion

comment #11

kyleb says ...

vansmith, i agree with your original sentiment. anybody good enough to write and direct pf and rd gets an eternal pass. personally i just wish he'd expand his horizons from movies about (bad) movies to movies at least in part about people, but i suppose it's none of my business.

comment #12

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Vansmith, you hit it simply and correctly: Quentin's great problem has always been Quentin's great love of his own gift for gab....and that his total life experience is defined not by
actual experience, but by the thousands of movies he has watched....which is why his films are nothing more than funhouse-mirror reflections of older, better movies. I'll give him this though...
...as a classic-films-copycat, he's managed to extend his career out a hell of a lot longer than, say, Peter Bogdonovich....(Tarantino hasn't met his "At Long Last Love" Waterloo yet...but given time, he will.)

comment #13

Gordie Lachance says ...

Can't wait to see this. So far haven't read anything bad from conventional (ie. real) news sources.

I completely dismiss the above Indiewire review. If you run a film blog and want to increase your daily traffic 5000%, simply write something negative/contrarian about Tarrantino. It's hack already.

comment #14

Gordie Lachance says ...

I should add though, I don't think this film will gross $30M in America no matter how good it is. Retarded Americans don't read subtitles.

comment #15

Gordon27 says ...

"most conventional accomplishment of his career, Jackie Brown included."

If 'Jackie Brown' is how this guy defines Quentin Tarantino being "conventional", then doesn't that make "conventional" a good thing?

comment #16

DeeZee says ...

vansmith: Too bad his limited amount of stuff came from other people's work.

Alboone: "Nowadays it seems like everything is "tell, but don't show because a) we're lazy or b) it'll help trim some of the fat off the budget. The audience doesn't care anyway."'

So you hated the lack of a squid in Watchmen, too? ^_-

kyleb: Too bad he never actually wrote or directed those movies; he just copied and pasted from other films and padded it with lines from Roger's script.

moviemaniac: "his films are nothing more than funhouse-mirror reflections of older, better movies."

But that can't be true, since, according to television tears, those older movies were made by "ghetto-dwellers"!

Gordie: Um, yeah, they do read subs. They even made an NC-17 subbed Ang Lee movie a minor hit here. They just don't watch bloated movies. And Jackie Brown at least had a better talent pool; but IB is basically QT's desperate attempt to be "relevant" by placing the fate of an entire production on Pitt's shoulders.

comment #17

DeeZee says ...

Correction. *Gordon* for third second sentence in the last paragraph, Gordie for the first and second sentence.

comment #18

free games says ...

vansmith, i agree with your sentiment.