I’ll get to Quentin Tarantino’s latest misfire in due time, but for now, this David Poland video review of the film is its own special kind of brilliance, even if it provides no insight at all as to why Poland liked the film:
I’ll get to Quentin Tarantino’s latest misfire in due time, but for now, this David Poland video review of the film is its own special kind of brilliance, even if it provides no insight at all as to why Poland liked the film:
Comments
20 responses to “Draw it out, you ‘Basterd’”
Is he okay?
This is the ultimate parody.
Oh and this will be a huge commercial failure, the movie doesn’t stand a chance.
I knew I hated David Poland for a reason. My god, what a d-bag. That is the most pretentious b.s. I have ever seen.
Well I am looking forward to your review, but I enjoyed Death Proof and am still really looking forward to Basterds, can’t wait.
Wow this review is a huge waste of time minus like 1 minute of it…
very clever and funny….felt like William Shatner was reviewing the movie at times…dramatic pauses and all….
It’s a great parody idea, perhaps a little bit too long. But then I guess that’s part of the parody. Maybe it’s just because the pitches of their voices are similar, but I kept expecting Poland to say “You don’t need to tell me how fucking good my coffee is!”
DP, douche that he is, should’ve released this video after the movie had come out, so, well, like, you know, the vast majority of people could UNDERSTAND the parody. What good is it do parody a movie that hasn’t been released for 99.9% of the general public? the guy is a putz…
Kris characterizing this film as “Quentin Tarantino’s LATEST misfire” should pretty much tell you all you need to know about the attitude with which he approached the film. Most people drew their line in the sand with regards to the director long ago, and plenty of critics have a kneejerk-reactionary attitude towards him based on the extreme praise given his first two films, thus causing them to irrationally (in many cases) rate his later films a bit lower than they deserve, simply to try to knock his (admittedly big) ego down a notch. And, yes, it’s possible to find the man annoying, but still enjoy most of what he puts on the screen.
So, if you enjoyed most, or all, of QT’s films up to this point, Kris’s eventual review will likely in no way represent your opinion of it. Heck, he already seemed to have made up his mind after reading the script, even though, by all reports, the finished film deviated from it a great deal.
At the very least, I highly doubt that it’s anything less than an interesting mess, which would still make it more enjoyable to watch than 90% of what’s out there in multiplexes at any given time.
And yes, of course, I haven’t seen the film, but the whole “latest misfire” b.s. is the sort of nonsense I’ve heard numerous times before, and it never really represented what I personally saw in the finished product, so I take it with a heaping mound of salt.
Reservoir Dogs is solid, Pulp Fiction is excellent, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill are very good. Death Proof is uneven (prefer the first group of women to the second group, but Russell’s terrific in it), but still pretty good, overall…it’s got a nice groove to it, for the most part.
And I’m cautiously optimistic about IB, expecting a self-indulgent, but reasonably unique, three-star (out of four) film.
My issues with the script were their own thing entirely. My issues with the film are their own thing entirely. I didn’t make up my mind on anything before I saw it. I’ve gone into plenty of films expecting to hate them (though, FTR, I didn’t hate Basterds) and ended up loving them.
I know this is a difficult concept for some of you to grasp but I hope you grasp it soon.
And no, my opinion of this film in no way represents the opinion of others. I never said it would or did. Such is subjectivity.
Another concept I should think would be easy to grasp. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the film, Clayton, without calling them “b.s.” or “nonsense.”
And as to why did Poland like it…
He stated it pretty bluntly. It’s an art film masquerading (in the ads) as an action spectacular. Given that the moviegoing masses tend to prefer action to dialogue, it’s commercial prospects are limited. This does become a problem (for the studios producing his films) as the budgets on his movies increase. But for a cinephile like Poland, it’s got strong acting across the board, clever dialogue, and doesn’t necessarily subscribe to a familiar action-movie formula. If it doesn’t make its money back, expect QT to get a smaller budget for his next picture, which isn’t that big of a deal, given than his flicks are dialogue-driven. At any rate, it sounds as though he’s close to retiring from filmmaking, so his place in cinematic history is secure, regardless. Like him (and/or his films), don’t like him…he’s always going to be there.
OK, I read your response, Kris. And obviously it’s all about subjectivity. But I just wish you’d try to avoid beginning your articles with blanket statements like “latest misfire”, as though it’s some kind of set-in-stone assessment of a filmmaker’s work by the culture at large. It doesn’t encourage thoughtful, genial discussion, but rather sets itself up as a condescending position from which to diminish the supporters of his films.
And, I’d like to note, whatever you write about the film in your review, I won’t characterize it as “b.s.”…we like what we like. But I do believe the tone of the initial post falls into the category of being unnecessarily (passive-aggressively) antagonistic towards those who enjoy his films. I’d rather discuss what works (and doesn’t work) in IB in a thoughtful, mature manner, rather than being forced to take sides in a tedious flame war.
I know it’s hard to separate a new film from a provocative/divisive writer/director from his previous work, but if you establish a prejudice like that so early in the game, any discussion in response to it is likely to be discourse of a shallow, unsatisfying nature.
(I was never mad, by the way.)
Cheers. :)
I particularly like the fact that QT ain’t making 10 mln dollar movies anymore. True comment.
Quentin Tarantino is the Seth Macfarlane of film making. He’s a manatee and must be stopped!
As far as I’m concerned, Clayton, it is set in stone. Maybe not to you (ultimately), but to me.
So no, I’m sorry, but I’m not going to start every post with “in my opinion.” You come here to read what you anticipate are my opinions and you should assume them as such.
And I’ll let my review encourage “thoughtful” discussion when I post it. This was a one-off link to another video review of the film.
And by the way, this post has NOTHING to do with others who like QT’s worth. That you read as much into it says nothing of my intent. And no one’s asking you to take sides. Sorry you got the wrong idea.
AS for the spiel about Poland and why he liked the film — sorry, nothing you wrote there notes anything analytical about Poland’s take. Because, in point of fact, there WAS nothing analytical about his take. After all, as an example, I can call “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” an art film masquerading as a genre installment all day long, but that doesn’t illuminate why it succeeds as a Victorian western with commentary on the end of an era and the impact of celebrity on culture, does it?
Oh, I didn’t mean to suggest that Poland offered anything particularly analytical about the film in that video, only that he noted that the performances were strong, and that the dialogue was mostly good: thus, why he liked it (on a purely superficial level, anyways). If he has something more substantial to offer with regards to the film, I’m sure he’ll put it in his actual print review. The only opinion of him that I have right now (based on some of his articles) is that he’s equally, if not more, focused on the box office potential of films than on their actual artistic quality. About the only thing I got from that video is “this sort of film works for people like me, but probably won’t for the popcorn munching multiplex masses expecting a gung-ho action film.” Anyways, the first sentence of that post of mine was obviously not meant to represent why Poland liked the film, but I got to it a few sentences later.
And, FTR, nobody expects you to begin comments about films with “in my opinion”, etc., but if you offer a flippant, rather snarky dismissal of something right off the bat, you set the tone for what will more than likely follow. You’re better than that, and this site is better than that. These sorts of sites can so easily devolve into places like the AICN talkbacks, where people just try to act above it all, and offer little more than superficial, reductive takedowns on anything that doesn’t cater specifically to their sensibility (which, as with anyone, is going to be a lot of different material).
Protesting too much, Clayton.
Referring to a director’s “latest misfire” is no more flippant or reductive a statement than referring to their “latest masterpiece.” All it implies is that one thinks they’re on a run of bad form — which, in the case of Tarantino, Kris does.
I don’t think he’ll be writing an actual review. He seems to let these video things say his piece as of late.
“Referring to a director’s “latest misfire” is no more flippant or reductive a statement than referring to their “latest masterpiece.””
I sort of hate it when people do that as well (heh); from where I’m standing, you should let a film simmer in the public consciousness for a few years before flat-out declaring it a “masterpiece”. Generally-speaking, to me, 95% of films fall somewhere in the middle section (2-to-3-stars-out-of-4), with only a handful each year hitting the peaks or the valleys (0-1, or 3 1/2-to4 stars). Though, to be fair, I’m not one to indulge flicks in the direct-to-video aisle, which would certainly increase the percentage on the low end.
And Kris, if that’s all Poland is offering these days in the form of film commentary, I have to wonder what Movie City News is actually paying him for. If you didn’t flat out “hate” IB, I’m pretty much expecting a 2 or 2 1/2 star review from you. Mind you, if that’s what you gave either installment of Kill Bill, or Jackie Brown, it’s highly unlikely I’ll consider IB anything less than a 3-star flick. As with most of Quentin’s work (as a director), I expect to get a bit impatient with it at times, but generally enjoy the style and overall atmosphere of it.
With regards to the individual who made the Seth Macfarlane comparison…well, I don’t care for his TV programs whatsoever, nor do most critics. The same cannot be said for QT’s films. That they both sample aspects of popular culture is about the only thing they have in common. I’ve always gotten the impression that QT likes his characters…not so much with Macfarlane.