MAW Posted January 1, 2009 Share #1 Posted January 1, 2009 ....I'll have lowered expectations for this one, but you never know. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081231/film_nm/us_tarantino August date for Quentin Tarantino World War II movie Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print 23 mins ago Reuters – Quentin Tarantino gives a cinema master class at the 61st Cannes Film Festival May 22, 2008. (Christian … LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Controversial director Quentin Tarantino's take on World War II will hit movie theaters on August 21 2009, the studios behind the highly-anticipated film called "Inglourious Basterds" said on Wednesday. Tarantino often takes a long time between projects. His last movie was a 2007 combined feature called "Grindhouse" made with director Robert Rodriguez, but he has not single-handedly directed a film since the 2004 "Kill Bill: Vol. 2." The director's oddly spelled World War II epic "Inglourious Basterds" stars actor Brad Pitt, and production began in Europe in October. Pitt plays a U.S. army lieutenant leading a group of soldiers operating behind Nazi lines, terrorizing the enemy. "Inglourious Basterds" reportedly borrows from Spaghetti Westerns, the mostly Italian-made films of the 1960s and '70s that combine brutal violence and lyrical, fairytale-like qualities in a different take on Hollywood cowboy movies. The film was inspired by the 1978 World War II movie "Quel maledetto treno blindato," also called "The Inglorious Bastards," from Italian director Enzo Castellari. The August 21 release date of "Inglourious Basterds" is for the U.S. and Canada, and dates remain undetermined for its international release, said The Weinstein Company and Universal Pictures, which are jointly presenting the film. Tarantino, who won an Oscar for his 1994 "Pulp Fiction" movie script, made the martial arts epics "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" (2003) and "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" (2004). The first film made $181 million worldwide and the sequel grossed $152 million, according to tracking firm Box Office Mojo. Critics say Tarantino's films trivialize and stylize violence, but the director has a devoted fan base and has received numerous awards, including the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival for "Pulp Fiction." (Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis: Editing by Jill Serjeant) Related Searches:pulp fiction inglorious bastards controversial director quentin tarantino Recommend No users recommend Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted January 1, 2009 Share #2 Posted January 1, 2009 "Pitt plays a U.S. army lieutenant leading a group of soldiers operating behind Nazi lines, terrorizing the enemy." What? Other than the French underground, the OSS and British SOE, just who exactly is Mr. Pitt portraying? I can see why your expectations are lowered. Besides, this plot was already covered by Hogan's Heroes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason G Posted January 1, 2009 Share #3 Posted January 1, 2009 Hmmmmm......I have zero expectations on this one. Pitt is a bit long in the tooth to be believable as a Lt, much less someone doing something 'behind enemy lines'. One wonders who actually reads the scripts and greenlights these things......then again, considering most of Hollywood hasn't a clue about the military, I expect to see all of Pitt's outfit wearing green berets with camo smocks and MP-40's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atb Posted January 3, 2009 Share #4 Posted January 3, 2009 Hmmmmm......I have zero expectations on this one. Pitt is a bit long in the tooth to be believable as a Lt, much less someone doing something 'behind enemy lines'. One wonders who actually reads the scripts and greenlights these things......then again, considering most of Hollywood hasn't a clue about the military, I expect to see all of Pitt's outfit wearing green berets with camo smocks and MP-40's. Expectations? Who cares? It's a movie! It's made for entertainment and hopefully a profit for somebody. Some movies are more accurate and better made than others. Even those made with the best intentions have inaccuracies and things done for the sole purpose of the viewpont of the moviemakers. I hope nobody here relies on movies for their information on history or militaria collecting and study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherokee tj Posted January 4, 2009 Share #5 Posted January 4, 2009 If Tarantino makes it, it will probaly have vampires in it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake_E Posted January 4, 2009 Share #6 Posted January 4, 2009 Expectations? Who cares? It's a movie! It's made for entertainment and hopefully a profit for somebody. Some movies are more accurate and better made than others. Even those made with the best intentions have inaccuracies and things done for the sole purpose of the viewpont of the moviemakers. I hope nobody here relies on movies for their information on history or militaria collecting and study. Personally, i still like to see a well made movie, as a tribute and dedication to the heroes who fought and fell in vain of the world's freedom. To me, Tarantino and WWII are two words that should not be in the same sentence. I'll see it, and having expected nothing, maybe pleasantly suprised, but i have very low hopes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobgee Posted January 4, 2009 Share #7 Posted January 4, 2009 Found on the Internet: "Plot summary for Inglourious Basterds (2009) During World War II a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis. The Basterds soon cross paths with a French-Jewish teenage girl who runs a movie theater in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers. Remember - Tarantino makes comic-book movies. This ain't going to be the next "Saving Private Ryan"!. Do not anticipate a "war drama". One comment seen is that it is like "Kill Bill" meets "The Dirty Dozen" meets "Cinema Paradiso". I suspect that after seeing ths "war movie" we'll want Spike Lee's "Miracle at wherever" to get an Academy Award! My 2-cents! Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teufelhunde.ret Posted January 4, 2009 Share #8 Posted January 4, 2009 Expectations? Who cares? It's a movie! It's made for entertainment and hopefully a profit for somebody. Some movies are more accurate and better made than others. Even those made with the best intentions have inaccuracies and things done for the sole purpose of the viewpont of the moviemakers. I hope nobody here relies on movies for their information on history or militaria collecting and study. Ditto - it is, what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atb Posted January 4, 2009 Share #9 Posted January 4, 2009 Personally, i still like to see a well made movie, as a tribute and dedication to the heroes who fought and fell in vain of the world's freedom.To me, Tarantino and WWII are two words that should not be in the same sentence. I'll see it, and having expected nothing, maybe pleasantly suprised, but i have very low hopes In vain? I do not understand that comment. They are all commercial ventures no matter how much of "a tribute and dedication to the heroes who fought and fell in vain of the world's freedom" they might try or pretend to be. And, this word "hero" is thrown around a bit too much these days (in my own admittedly narrow and too cynical view). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted January 4, 2009 Share #10 Posted January 4, 2009 "During World War II a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Bastards" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis. The Bastards soon cross paths with a French-Jewish teenage girl who runs a movie theater in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers." Really? Wow! Someone has quite an imagination! I think the Star Trek episode where Kirk and Spock landed on a planet that had been transformed into a Nazi state will be closer to reality! First photo from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DN Second photo from http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Spoc...y_the_Nazis.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake_E Posted January 5, 2009 Share #11 Posted January 5, 2009 In vain? I do not understand that comment. They are all commercial ventures no matter how much of "a tribute and dedication to the heroes who fought and fell in vain of the world's freedom" they might try or pretend to be. And, this word "hero" is thrown around a bit too much these days (in my own admittedly narrow and too cynical view). so, you wouldnt call the veterans who fought wwii heroes? If anything, thats the direction it should be thrown in. What i'm saying is that, i dont want to see it make a mockery of serious things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted January 6, 2009 Share #12 Posted January 6, 2009 When I hear that Quentin Tarantino makes war movie of WWII I am afraid that it will have the same "historic value" as the newest Ed Zwick's "Defiance" which is full of manipulation, absurdity and quasi-historic but dramatized lies. What Quentin Tarantino makes in his life it is clearly seen on the screens and he is not the type of mentality as, for instance, Richard Attenborough. I am afraid that Hollywood will generate one more quasi-historic absurdity for big money when these money could be spend for making war movies based in detailed form on real stories. Regards Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted January 7, 2009 Share #13 Posted January 7, 2009 I am afraid that Hollywood will generate one more quasi-historic absurdity for big money when these money could be spend for making war movies based in detailed form on real stories. Regards Greg I am curious if you saw "Pearl Harbor" a couple years back. Touted for the authenticity of the attack and bombing sequence, it was a horribly manipulated story. (Little things, like P-40 fighter pilots being drafted to fly B-25's on the Doolittle Raid, off of an aircraft carrier, no less.) I came close to walking out of the theater, but my wife had the car keys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriot Posted January 7, 2009 Share #14 Posted January 7, 2009 Off hand, Hanks and Spielberg are the only people from Hollywood that I would deem "fit" to produce a respectable war movie. I have absolutely NO DESIRE to see a movie where a small band of untrained, unprofessional partisans take on the whole German army, who is always portrayed as imbecilic, blundering, bumbling idiots, who, of course, cannot shoot straight. And, as we know, a band of five of these warriors always kills or captures 30,000 Krauts, who either turn tail and run, or beg for their lives! Woe to the partisans! Are you friggin kidding me? The Resistance movement is a fascinating, and very respectable part of the history of that war, but it did not happen the way most of these idiotic movies claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted January 7, 2009 Share #15 Posted January 7, 2009 Guys...stop feeling that movies are supposed to be tools for teaching History. These films are not touted as teaching aids or as alternatives to history texts, or even as a possible version of facts. They are entertainment, and these films are not meant to deceive or re-interpret history. There is no obligation for a film maker to make documentaries whenever a war film is made. I can spot glaring innacuracies in films from Saving Private Ryan to Das Boot to Kelly's Heroes. But as none of them were supposed to be history lessons, I don't get worked up about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted January 7, 2009 Share #16 Posted January 7, 2009 (Little things, like P-40 fighter pilots being drafted to fly B-25's on the Doolittle Raid, off of an aircraft carrier, no less.) What's so innacurate about the B-25s taking off from an aircraft carrier for the Doolittle raid? I never saw the film, but I expect it wasn't a case of just any and all P-40 pilots being taken to fly B-25s. I'm sure it was one or more main characters. I think the first mistake was expecting 'Pearl Harbor' to let History get in the way of the Story the screen writer wanted to tell Films are a form of art, like it or not, and if one film maker's sense of Art says that a P-40 pilot gets popped into a Mitchell cockpit to drop the A-bomb on Tokyo in 1943, then that's his decision; history does not bind him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugme Posted January 7, 2009 Share #17 Posted January 7, 2009 As a kid I got all worked up watching the likes of Combat, Garrisons Gorillas, Rat Patrol and yes even McHales Navy. I don't think anyone here would be able to point out anything that was accurately done on any of those shows but, here I am collecting and dedicated to the history of the U.S. military! By the way, Kirk and Spock weren't historical portrayals???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted January 7, 2009 Share #18 Posted January 7, 2009 What's so innacurate about the B-25s taking off from an aircraft carrier for the Doolittle raid? I never saw the film, but I expect it wasn't a case of just any and all P-40 pilots being taken to fly B-25s. I'm sure it was one or more main characters. I think the first mistake was expecting 'Pearl Harbor' to let History get in the way of the Story the screen writer wanted to tell Films are a form of art, like it or not, and if one film maker's sense of Art says that a P-40 pilot gets popped into a Mitchell cockpit to drop the A-bomb on Tokyo in 1943, then that's his decision; history does not bind him Allow me to clarify. A couple of the main characters in "Pearl Harbor" are P-40 pilots that were stationed at Hickam during the attack. That included a couple of fantastical episodes in itself, but we'll leave that alone for now. In any case, they get personally drafted by Jimmy Doolittle to fly on the raid. This simply did not happen. Prior qualified B-25 pilots flew on that mission. For a fighter pilot to become rated on a twin engine bomber would have taken time that they did not have in preparation for the mission. And as it was, it took quite a lot of training to enable the B-25 pilots to take off from an aircraft carrier. Besides, our available fighter pilots were quite busy at the time, believe it or not, flying fighters! I am willing to give a film maker a certain amount of license. "Saving Private Ryan" is a good example... a completely fictional story but set in a very realistic environment. We didn't have any nonsense like Tom Hanks taking over a Panzer tank and driving it to save the day. But yet the film told the story while being praised for its portrayal of combat. Getting back to Pearl Harbor, what particularly bothered me about that film is that Disney went on a major campaign to market it as the most accurate portrayal ever made. They even went as far as to air one of those two hour long "documercials" on the History Channel where they had both historians and Pearl Harbor survivors comment on how realistic it was, and how close it was to the historical events. All I can guess is that they showed them part of the footage, and not the entire film. As I said earlier, the portrayal of the ships being attacked is stunning. The rest of it was junk. It is a shame that we could not splice the attack sequence with the remainder of "Tora, Tora, Tora". I can accept the point that several people have made about certain films being entertainment and nothing else. But yet on this same forum we have had postings wondering why the public in general and our young people in particular have a warped understanding of history. Poorly made movies are one of the causes. If they watch this stuff, who can blame them for not understanding how things actually occurred? That said, I think I'll grab some popcorn and watch my copy of SciFi's "SS Doomtrooper". That way when my kids ask me about Nazi experiments to create Hulk like super soldiers that could smash their way through their enemies with just their fists, I'll be ready with all of the details! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted January 7, 2009 Share #19 Posted January 7, 2009 gwb123, thanks for the calrification I understand what you're saying, I even alluded to that earlier, that it wasn't a case of 'drafting' P-40 pilots to fly bombers, it was probably a case of the main characters getting pulled along by a story the screen writer wanted to tell I'm familiar with how aircrew got selected, and I can't think of a single instance of US fighter pilots getting rated for twin engine for any such mission, but it may have happened in isolated cases. I can however think of the opposite, in which the Scouting Force re-trained bomber pilots as P-51 jocks But as far as the films go, there is no obligation to portray History as accurate. I suggest if you want your kids to know history, you let them peruse your library- we should all know by now, as adults, that Cinema is not supposed to be a Learning Tool- it's a money making enterprise If they want film, 'Victory at Sea' may be a good start I gotta go. I just saw where the mice have gotten in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted January 8, 2009 Share #20 Posted January 8, 2009 For mice, let me recommend the M1A1 Anti Rodent Weapon System. Note the active infared sensors. Our current model is seen here providing security prior to the holidays. He may not look like much, but he has 87 kills that we know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhawkdown Posted February 17, 2009 Share #21 Posted February 17, 2009 Take a look at this new movie trailer of Inglorious Basterds. I am not sure if I like what I see here. It kind of looks like a WW2 slasher/revenge movie. I dont have a problem with graphic volence in WW2 movies if it is justified true to life but this seems over the top in brutality. It looks like it is going to paint the Germans with a monolithic brush. "Only good Nazi is a dead Nazi." This idea has been applied to blacks, jews, American Indians, vietcong and the Japanese soldier in WW2. Its not that simple. Yea, I know that is a Tarantino's schtick but I dont know about this one. Dan H http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/artic...s-Basterds.html or just look for it on Youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted February 17, 2009 Share #22 Posted February 17, 2009 We've had a previous discussion on this... http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...mp;hl=Tarantino Opinions ranged from "this is a travisty that will further add to the public distortion of history" to "films are art and not real history, so film makers should be free to make what they want." Or words to that effect. If you want a prediction of what this may be like, check out Sam Peckinpah's 'Cross of Iron', which while realistic on one level, had some truly surrealistic moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FightenIrish35 Posted February 17, 2009 Share #23 Posted February 17, 2009 Well i cant remark on this movie yet but it is one I will be going to see when it comes out. I personally like these types of movie. I will go in to the movie knowing how Tarantino does his movies and take it for what it is...Well see how this one turns out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobrahistorian Posted February 17, 2009 Share #24 Posted February 17, 2009 Saw the trailer the other day and I cringed. This one's gonna be a complete train wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrapneldude Posted February 17, 2009 Share #25 Posted February 17, 2009 Saw the trailer the other day and I cringed. This one's gonna be a complete train wreck. Train wreck how? I'm betting they make a pile of money off this one! I love a good documentary on the History channel as much as the next guy, but this looks like a big over-the-top movie with a lot of violence that just happens to be set during WWII. Military Fiction I believe is what it's called, and there's plenty of other examples. Until I see WWII vets calling for Tarantino's head on a pike, I don't see any reason to be as upset as people are in this and the the other thread about the movie. Ya can't tell me Reservoir Dogs was an accurate portrayal of robbers! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now