Inglorious Bastards Pre-Release

Jesus. So do we all have to pretend we like Mike Myers again? How's this going to work?

Wtf? Mike Myers?
What role?

i just went there, ok, it's a small role. And could share a scene with Pegg if he's cast for the role i think he's being sought after.

AICN dropped the bomb? Jesus Christ. This shit appeared on a Tarantino fansite before Variety got it, and AICN is linking to Variety? On what planet is that 'dropping the bomb?'

Myers...wow...talk about coming outta left field. I have a feeling he's gonna try and sneak in that damned Scottish Accent.

Well, if Ed French is the character I'm thinking of, he's not in the film very much. Really weird casting all around, though. It seems that Tarantino is doing the opposite of his typical writing-characters-for-certain-actors thing; I wouldn't be surprised if he just cut the names out of an Entertainment Weekly, threw them in a hat, and started pulling them out.

I'm now convinced Tarantino is sitting around smoking blunts with his casting director...they probably came from a screening of Tropic Thunder and decided to flip the idea of casting a serious star in a bit part in a comedy (Cruise), with casting a comedy star in a bit part in a serious movie (Myers).

"So how 'bout it Quentin...?"

-puffpuffcoughcough-

"Sheeeeeeiiiiiit"

-side splitting laughter-

Man...I'm still anticipating the hell out of this movie, but so far the casting has just been leaving me a little skeptical. I mean Brad Pitt and Simon Pegg have me giddy, and I'm cool with BJ Novak. But Eli Roth and Mike Myers? I'm less than impressed by those two. Still...keeping my fingers crossed that this is great. Come on, QT...you haven't let me down yet (yeah, I like Death Proof...want to make something of it?). Don't start now!

Though the fact that Myers supposedly appears in only one scene mitigates some of the disappointment.

The random casting is appropriate for a film that traces its inspiration back to 70s Euro-action. That there's an actor coming directly off a hugely embarrassing flop is even more appropriate. And Tarantino probably is going to insist on an actual performance instead of the usual Mike Meyers bullshit. Maybe what Meyers has been missing all this time is a director he couldn't push around quite as easily?

For me, the worst casting news isn't about someone who has been cast, but someone who hasn't. According to this site Quentin approached Adam Sandler to be in the movie, for what I'm sure was the role of Donnie, and Sandler had to turn it down because he's doing Funny People.

Sure, Funny People should be great, but Donnie was the one role in the script that felt like there was only one actor who could play it to its fullest and that actor was Sandler. And the fact that we now get Eli Roth instead just compounds the shittiness.

Oh well. I've still got full faith in Tarantino, so no worries.

Myers is truly God awful, but I'm going to hope for the best. It's not the first time Tarantino has made casting choices that were head scratchers at the time only to turn out brilliant. He's one director who always manages to get the best out of his cast.

Except in Grindhouse(or Death Proof, do we have to refer to them as separate films?), but I'm still not sure if some of that was intentional. Like someone on these boards said, if there had been a random shower scene, Death Proof would have been a perfect Grindhouse movie, occasional bad acting and all.

I'm kind of hoping this becomes Tarantino's twisted The Thin Red Line. I know a ton of actors/actresses want to be in one of his films, and having a ton of random small roles with famous people in a Tarantino flick will be far less distracting than it was in Malick's (fantastic)film.


*edit- added thoughts

I imagine someone here's already working on this story, but Ain't it Cool by way of Variety says Tarantino has cast Christopher Waltz as Hans Landa the Jew Hunter and Diane Kruger as the german movie star Bridget Von Hammersmark. Wasn't sure if this was scoopable or not.

send this as scoop fella. later post it here.

cheers

Gotta admire his Spielbergian speed here, but I still can't shake that feeling he's rushing this too quickly.

Just read the script, and I am officially anticipating the hell out of this, I think Waltz is perfect casting, and the usual Tarantino touches are thankfully not overdone as in Death Proof. More curious to see what some of the Germans that frequent this site think of the script...

I do think Rod Taylor as Churchill is a stroke of genius on Tarantino's part.

Just remember that he was doing 15-20 setups a day on the Kill Bill movies. Quentin works fast on set, and then labors over it in editing. I'm pretty sure to him that as long as he has a few good takes to work off of, he can craft the performances to his liking.

AICN drops the bomb on everything, I <3 AICN.turn this into an AICN appreciation thread.

Agreed on the Rod Taylor casting. Didn't notice that until now.

There's two reviews out there. One low-key positive, one absolutely dismissive. No new details in either one.

/film collected up a handful of positives. Word of mouth certainly isn't terrible, but people seemed to be expecting something else.

Pretty much what the BBC says here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8059393.stm

Didn't realise it was nearly 3 hours and there is no mention of Soshanna, (or however you spell it) I thought she had as much screen time as Pitt?

Apparently Maggie Cheung's character of Madame Mimieux has been cut from the final film.

I didn't realize she had a part (or what that part was --- I stopped reading the script after the first scene, want to be surprised this time) but I'm going to assume that no Maggie Cheung is a shame. I'd love to see her work with Tarantino.

Hmm, no Madame Mimieux? Are they trimming Shoshanna's screen time a bit to give more to the Basterds?

The more I've seen and thought about it the more trouble I have with the idea of Tarantino's trademark cute/comedic violence being set in a real, horrific historic context. I haven't read a review yet, but from the four recent clips and the trailer it looks very bad.

It isn't set in a real historic context. Nearly every comment from Cannes highlights that point.

Do people really find it hard, 40 years after The Dirty Dozen, to accept a WWII movie that isn't based on a true story? Jesus wept.

It's World War 2 Russ. A real historical context.

So are the Crusades. Do movies about Robin Hood bother you?

Do you not know the difference between "historical context" and "true story" Greg? Bucho wept.

Sure, but not as much as glorification of war violence set in more recent wars because I know much more of the truth about what happened in those wars. I'm more removed from ancient history, but that doesn't mean glorifying violent acts artistically in that conext is something I enjoy either.

Were there Historical Concern Trolls around when "Hogans Heroes" was on, too?

Wait . . . so movies about Robin Hood DO bother you?

Is it 'real historical context' if the war that takes place in the film posits a totally different resolution, and by extension a different reality? This is WWII as a genre convention, not as historical context. As I understand it (having read some, but not seen the film) BASTERDS has no more footing in real historical context than does HELLBOY.

It's got Billy Preston on the soundtrack. I don't think historical context is the priority.

This isn't going to be like people bitching about the historical Civil War inaccuracies in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, is it?

Sadly, I think the answer is "yes."

And for the record, if you're bothered by whatever the film puts forth, fine. Really doesn't matter to me. I'm just arguing the point for the sake of doing so, not because I feel compelled to talk you into accepting the movie.

True Romance was so full of shit. Everybody knows T.J. Hooker was off the air years before that movie came out.

I wonder if Bucho has a problem with Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Ilsa, She Wolf of the S.S. Or Captain America.

ETA: Every time a new Tarantino comes out, there are predictions and talk of disaster from every corner, and for my money he's yet to make a terrible film.

Even more annoying, the criticisms always seem the same, primarily that there's "too much dialogue." Like Russ said in the column:

"I'm Bucho... FUCK YOU IMAGINATION!

BBC compared some of it with the 'Allo allo' tv series.

Keeping in mind this is my prejudice based on trailers, clips and news, and not on the film itself, I can't see this film being on equal footing with Hellboy context-wise. Basterds is obviously a phony and apparently ridiculous story but the fantasy elements of Hellboy are an order of magnitude more blatant. And yet, even saying that, I have to admit I find it harder and harder to like films that make pulp stories from bases in real tragedies, and that includes the origin story parts of Hellboy to some extent.

At the core Basterds posits a group of American soldiers taking on Nazis during World War II. The pieces on the board may be rearranged compared to actual events, but the film appropriates the real horror of that war and uses it to propel the drama. Hellboy posits a group of goofy supernatural beings fighting other supernatural beings and the drama is driven by that completely imaginary conflict.


I've never paid any attention to Captain America. I have no respect for Isla, She Wolf Of The SS. Raiders has a similar problem to Basterds, in that it uses real tragedy to propel the fake drama. It's a shame, because for a long time it was one of my favorite films, and I still love a lot of the way it's made, but that nostalgic pulp story style of film is less and less satisfying to me when it's based in the context of real wars.

What would you feel about Munich if it had taken the same flippant approach to the event that it deals with? The path Spielberg has taken as he's grown is instructive; after he made the three Indy Nazi-era movies he made the much more mature and serious Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich.


It's not about ancient history being difficult to imagine, it's about the tales that take place there being built almost completely from imagination. Tales of the crusades are almost completely fantasy, from the kind of bastardised history written by the victors. They have more in common with Lord Of The Rings than Full Metal Jacket.


The parts that make violence in the crusades look cool, yes. The parts where he prances around in the forrest, no.


The fact priority is not given to respect for historical context is exactly the problem with the story. The historical inaccuracies in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, or any film based in an historical war period, are one weakness of the film.


Apart from the bit where you don't understand what a troll is, I've been wondering the same thing. The era in which the show or film was made seems relevant because it speaks to the culture in which the entertainment is being made. A lot of things were acceptable in the morality of the social dynamic when Hogan's Heroes was made that are much less acceptable today. We continue to strive to grow out of racism, sexism, homophobia etc, and leave some of the weaker values of that time behind. I find myself thinking that it's also time to move on from the kind of nostalgic, morally questionable values Basterds appears to hold to.

(A show like MASH, on the other hand, while it showed us a lighter side of people in wartime, never let us forget that war is indeed hell.)


To be honest, this stance I find myself taking has surprised me a little bit and is still something I'm still wrestling with in my own head. It's been a while since I had much time for glorification of violence in any real kind of context anyway but I'd been ready to embrace this film as a concept. I'm rarely this serious about anything so the more you smarter guys challenge me on it the better I can understand it myself.


But if any of the rest of you are even a little bit offended that I'm putting questions up here that make you have to be aware of your own ethics and morality when it comes to appreciating film then it's time for you to harden the fuck up. I'm not even close to being an angel myself, and as such nor am I holier than thou, and I'm certainly not the most intelligent or eloquent person posting on the CHUD boards. But when it comes to something like this I'm going to tell it like I see it. If you can come back intelligently like Russ always does then more power to you. Otherwise, I have no more time for you.

You know what, I'm personally sick and tired of extreme amounts of reverence for historical events. Do you think people bitched about reverence when Kelly's Heroes, or The Dirty Dozen came out? Those even came out in closer proximity to the actual events themselves!

Do I have respect for the men who put themselves through the hell or world war 2? Yes. Do I understand the full magnitude of what when on during the war? Yes. Does that make take issue with a movie like Inglourious Basterds? Hell no.

I understand exactly what a concern troll is. It's somebody who has a dislike for a certain person/viewpoint/group/subject, but instead of just coming out and saying so, couches criticism in a faux-concerned "oh my, i think person/viewpoint/group/subject would be better off if X." In reality, said concern troll has no interest in helping, but just wants to be antagonistic without being an antagonist. Note also that I never called you a concern troll...you may or may not be one (the fact that you're taking this argument against entertaining fake violence to the degree you have suggests that you aren't one). I have seen obvious Tarantino haters take this tack in regard to Basterds, though.

And, look, smarter people than us have had the debate about the moral dimension of violence for entertainment's sake, and unlike homophobia/racism/sexism, nobody's won that yet. So you're welcome to your opinion, but you can leave the oh-so-enlightened "weaker values" shit at the door.

But I've got to kind of question, if you are unable to enjoy fake violence to the point that you have problems with Raiders, of all films, why you're hanging out here. And I'm honestly not saying that in a "get the fuck out of here" way, just wondering what value you find in the CHUD community.

Dear Bucho,

You haven't seen the movie yet.

Love, Dan.

P.S. You also forgot to give any examples to support your argument!

I don't blame you for not reading that moon-sized post I put up and as such not knowing that I've already answered the point about older war films. But what makes you think you understand the full magnitude of what went on during the war?


To me it's not oh-so-anything except logical. Racism, sexism and homophobia are weaker values to me, in my view they come from base instincts and are processed irrationally into fear. If I base my values on the value of human-life then each of those traits are out of line with the value for human life, and therefore weaker than the opposite view. Having said that, I tried to make it clear I don't consider myself holier-than-anyone by stating that exact thing, and by saying I know I'm not an angel, and I'm not any kind of peacenik or hippy either, I have plenty of my own character flaws.


Completely fair question. The main reasons I come to CHUD are the insight people like Devin, Russ, Alex etc shed on the art of film when they write reviews and articles, and the entertainment that comes out of the CHUDshow guys. But also keep in mind I haven't said that it's fake violence that I have a problem with, it's glorified violence in a story where the drama is driven by a real tragedy. All of QT's other films have comic violence and I like almost all of them quite a bit.