ROTTEN TOMATOES: Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" Not a Typo Comments

Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" Not a Typo

by Jen Yamato | October 14, 2008

Summary

Now that filming has begun on Quentin Tarantino's upcoming WWII-spaghetti western remake of Enzo Castellari's Inglorious Bastards, we've got a new synopsis and confirmation that QT's cheekily "misspelled" title is actually official. Mark your calendars for Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds! Back to Article

(1-65 of 65 posts) | Reply

vitajex writes:
on Oct 14 2008 12:09 PM

Reading that script was like reading an 8th grade English project. The title was not even close to being the only misspelled word. There were grammar errors, incomplete thoughts, and so on. It confirmed for me the fact that Tarantino cannot write, little did I know it was figuratively AND literally.

And for all of the fanboys who will no doubt pounce on this anti-Tarantino post, I hate to break it to you, but just about EVERY single thing you think that Tarantino did was cool, was stolen from other movies. From whole plots (Reservoir Dogs vs. Ringo Lam's City of Fire) to characters (Esmeralda Villalobos, the taxi-driver from Pulp Fiction is lifted whole-cloth from Curdled, even played by the same actress.)

I've said it before, and I still believe it: Tarantino is cinema's version of Girl Talk. Not to say there isn't artistic value in mash-ups, but no one will describe their production as 'song-writing'.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Oct 14 2008 12:16 PM

awesome.

(Reply to this)

incredible_hulk writes:
on Oct 14 2008 12:19 PM

can't wait for this.... 2009 is going to be a great movie year

(Reply to this)

powerslayer67 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 12:28 PM

vita is 100% correct. tarantino doesn't have an original bone in his body, yet people think he's the be all, end all of cinema. he did it in for me when he bashed hitchcock's film making.

(Reply to this)

laidtowaste writes:
on Oct 14 2008 12:41 PM

First of all, anyone who uses grammar as criteria for judging a screenplay has no idea what he is reading or how to read it. You have to understand, there's a reason these people aren't novelists. Their job is to convey the action of a story in the proper visual (not textual) terms.

Second, I am no fan-boy - QT has had his missteps (Natural Born Killers, Death Proof). But to dismiss his writing as garbage and forgery is completely ridiculous. The way his characters speak and act is the result of his style (the whole verbal diarrhea thing). I am not denying that he has taken ideas and characters from previous movies (you forgot Pai Mei from the old Shaw Brothers movies), but his intent in doing so isn't forgery or plagiarism, but homage. If you have ever heard him talk about this, he explains that he loves these characters - so much so that they are a part of him. And so to him, it would seem almost sacrilegious to not acknowledge their influence on not only his own personal development as an artist, but on the development of film as a whole.

So, just as a reminder, next time you decide to judge an Academy Award winning screenwriter, make sure you at least have an idea of what you're talking about. (Dropping the names of vaguely relevant films that a lot of people have probably not seen does not count.)

Peace Homie.

(Reply to this)

mssk8erboy writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:02 PM

Well said LaidtoWaste, I think QT is an amazing writer and i love his films as well.

-MIKE

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077380)
So, Tarantino has even said he was a bad writer and that he needs to people to clean up his grammar, even Roger Avary has said so. Plus u gotta remember that the script always changes during a movie, so if the script is messy I'm sure it will be fixed if not then that awesome editor will clean it up. Yeah Tarantino does steal a lot of stuff, but he still has originality in all his movies. This will be epic and awesome, I bet will get part I in the summer, June I bet.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077380)
Who are you again?

(Reply to this)

cjjojay writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:20 PM

Ok, if you think homage is bad than fine, but not a director on earth would discourage it. I go by what works, and what QT is doing works. It isn't like he is makeing mass ups like "Superhero Movie" or something.

"Esmeralda Villalobos, the taxi-driver from Pulp Fiction is lifted whole-cloth from Curdled, even played by the same actress."

Um...when did that become bad? When did using random music become uninspired? Scorsese still uses the same songs! Heck, sometimes he uses the same movie (Casino = Goodfellas 2). Oh, there is no point in getting mad over this, but dislike someone for quality, no if he uses the same actors as other people or some silly beef like that.

(Reply to this)

Eat.Before.We.Eat.You writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:39 PM

God, I'm so sick of intentional misspellings in today's society. From substituting z's for s's at the end of words to omitting the e's at the beginning of words that start "ex", intentional misspelling is everywhere. All I can say is, "et tu, Tarantino?"

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:40 PM

I guess the spelling is so that it wont be edited out like this.. B******s. Everytime it is put on sites/news/and posters maybe. As Basterds is a word that is not technically swearing, how could it be censored?

Anyways, cant wait for this. We need more Dirty Dozen style films. I miss em.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Oct 14 2008 01:48 PM

I dunno. I love Girl Talk!

(Reply to this)

Spermian Jones writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:08 PM

My **** is huge and veiny

(Reply to this)

bastard_guy180 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077380)
shatap

(Reply to this)

charlieahinds writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:14 PM

oh no bad spelling?! what on earth shall we do? are the actors going to misspeak the lines then? who the hell cares, that's what editors are for. tarantino IS overrated BUT he brought several of peoples favorite movies (Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill) to the screen.

if yoo say thiss out loud whill it mayk a diferince? shut up.

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:15 PM

I knew that comment was going to draw fire, and I don't/can't argue against, "I don't know. I like what he does." That's a matter of subjectivity. There will ALWAYS be subjectivity when it comes to art.

Another great comparison would be Tarantino vs. Shepard Fairey, the main difference being that Tarantino at least acknowledges his sources.

Reapproriation of pop culture, or cultural bricolage is not new and is unavoidable.

Tarantino can be admired as a master of bricolage, but he is not a master creator. Dr. Frankenstein did not actually create life, he created a mirror image (and we all know how that turned out).

I do have to disagree with the statement that it is the writer's job to "convey the action of a story in the proper visual (not textual) terms". That is the director's job. In fact, as someone who has studied screenplay writing, one of the rules most writers will tell you is NOT to be trying to do the director's job for them.

Granted, Tarantino directs his own scripts, so he can afford to do that more, but a "real" writer writes so that his meaning is understood. If you have to backtrack and read things multiple times just for them to make sense, it's not good writing. The reason Tarantino doesn't write novels is because novels take depth of emotion and thought. Novels require things like theme (which is severely lacking in Tarantino's works) and character development, which is also usually lacking.

(Reply to this)

dalonoman writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077482)
Natural Born Killers is a Oliver Stone movie- not Tarantino.... Oh! And Death Proof (in my book) not a misstep

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:42 PM

Spermian Jones made me cry to my Mom.

(Reply to this)

blinkybrown writes:
on Oct 14 2008 02:51 PM

Tarantino never claimed to be original. He readily admits he's making homages to older genres/films. That's the entire point of what he does. It's the exact same thing Lucas used to do. Star Wars/THX-1138/American Graffiti were ALL homages (unoriginal stories/plots/concepts/characters). They never strayed from what they were supposed to be. Same as Tarantino. As long as he doesn't pretend he's being original, he can keep doing what he's doing. He's doing a great job at what he does.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 03:12 PM

To say nothing good or bad or subjective of Tarantino as a person and filmmaker, seriously, this one particular script was totally awful.

Not talking about Death Proof, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Reservoir, Pulp. This, Inglourious Basterds, was a total disaster of a screenplay. The Basterds are in it for maybe fifteen pages tops, an inane subplot about a Jewish girl hiding out in a movie theater takes over the script and is nothing more than an excuse for Quentin to rattle off some little-known films. There's no "there" there. It was like reading a parody of Quentin Tarantino, except the satirist clearly got bored twenty minutes in.

Now: Back to not talking about how QT does or doesn't rip off other movies, and not even caring about whether he does.

(Reply to this)

javier2000 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 03:14 PM

@ dalonman but Tarantino did write the script

(Reply to this)

AntonChigurh writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:01 PM

If what I hear about Basterds is true then Tarantino has lost it. I wont deny it Pulp fiction is my favorite film of all time and I have nothing but admiration for QT work, but his movie's are getting boring. And I think QT is much more origanal than people give him credit for, how much does he lift from other movie's hmm? 10-15 minutes of material? The rest is all him.

(Reply to this)

laidtowaste writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077570)
Is it not the writer's job to inspire the director?

(Reply to this)

laidtowaste writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077580)
Vitajex - Is it not the writer's job to inspire the director? Also - Dalonoman - Tarantino wrote NBK. We're talking about writing here, not directing.

(Reply to this)

smartmoviekid writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:20 PM

its all a matter of taste. i personally enjoy Tarantino's form of filmmaking, as unoriginal as it sometimes may be, but his style of writing is quite unique. some people cannot stand his verbal dirrerhea, while others can sit and take it. im part of the latter. his films are crazy, fun, and sophisticated at the same time, and i also adored Death Proof.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077580)
Yeah Olive Stone did Natural Born Killers, which I think is great. I thought Death Proof was pretty good, even though it dragged at times.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077580)
Actually he took his name off as a writer for NBK, because Stone basically really just stripped it down so he only has a story by credit, still a great movie though.

(Reply to this)

kodie131 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 05:35 PM

Tarantino isn't a swagger jacker, lil wayne is.

(Reply to this)

gfy321 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 07:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077570)
It's called vernacular... Of course he misspelled some dialogue...

(Reply to this)

grandmasterbleach writes:
on Oct 14 2008 07:45 PM

whatever, i'm still gonna see the movie unless it turns out to suck horribly

(Reply to this)

Dr.No886 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 07:55 PM

Vitajex
I don't care whether people like Tarantino or think he's an unoriginal thief or whatever, but any person who cannot find theme, and character development in his previous works really must be blind.

(Reply to this)

The Bastard writes:
on Oct 14 2008 08:08 PM

I think QT has always been hit or miss, especially with his dialogue. it never sounds realistic, it sounds like someone sat down and tried to write a conversation to make all the paricipants sound cool. sometimes this works like in reservoir dogs and pulp fiction, and sometimes it doesnt like in the dreadful death proof. jules winfield was badass. those girls in the restaurant in death proof were really lame. like i said, hit or miss.

(Reply to this)

Kokushi writes:
on Oct 14 2008 08:36 PM

The funny thing is that QT movies except Jackie Brown are better than MOST of what people claim that he ''copied''.

(Reply to this)

ironmanstarks writes:
on Oct 14 2008 09:53 PM

I can't believe someone actually said QT has no character development. That is just completely ignorant. Watch Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, or Kill Bill and then shut the f.uck up. Also, Brad Pitt Quentin Tarantino = Dream come true. Although I would have preferred Pitt be in one of his crime movies. Imagine if Pitt had played Keaton's character in Jackie Brown.

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Oct 14 2008 10:02 PM

i have to be honest... i have not seen an amazing Taratino entry since Jackie Brown.... Kill bill and death proof were "good" but at the same time a bit mediocre, but i appreciated both for what they were, and enjoyed the two completely different and provacative films!

but i have lots of hope for Inglourious Basterds.... the storyline is simple, but Taratino adds such a twisted style to his movies, that when it comes to plot, it barely even matters by the time the movie is over. All you gotta focus on in his movies is style and dialogue! well that's my opinion anyway.

i have one question though.... Mike Meyers being in a movie like this sounds excellent.... what is he potraying in the movie though?

(Reply to this)

AllmightyKeim writes:
on Oct 14 2008 11:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077580)
Director:Oliver Stone

Writers (WGA):Quentin Tarantino (story)

That is Natural Born Killers

(Reply to this)

chasetinnell writes:
on Oct 14 2008 11:42 PM

Havent read the script, but the casting is very interesting to say the least, and QT is not a terrible director, hes one that takes chances, granted most of those chances are ripoff's of other movies (said with kindness) so really hes actually pretty smart about it. Loved resovoir dogs and Hero.

(Reply to this)

whiskeyriver writes:
on Oct 15 2008 06:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#2077516)
Who are YOU, "BruceCampbell", to ask who HE is? What, do you own Rotten Tomatoes or something? In this Bruce Campbell theocracy, does he not have a right to express his opinions regarding Quentin Tarantino?

No. Of course not. So knock it off.

(Reply to this)

evanset6 writes:
on Oct 15 2008 06:41 AM

Anyone that thinks QT is anything short of genious is a f***ing idiot. Kill Bill... Pulf Fiction... Resevoir... the last scene in Four Rooms... even Jackie Brown... Friggin great.

Hell, even Death Proof was great for half the movie. I could have done without that scene in the diner though.

(Reply to this)

heyallright writes:
on Oct 15 2008 06:45 AM

You're all insane. It's his DIRECTING that's immaculate, not his writing. He couldn't serve both masters, and with Kill Bill he made his choice. Kill Bill is a gigantic flawless filmmaking jewel... with some bad writing. You want great writing, read a Faulkner novel. Quentin makes movies. Hats off to him.

(Reply to this)

evanset6 writes:
on Oct 15 2008 06:45 AM

Oh... and Yes, Oliver Stone did Natural Born Killers, but QT wrote the screenplay... even though he claimed Stone butchered it so much that he really doesn't want credit for it.... but I thought it was a great flick... anyway....

(Reply to this)

CFM writes:
on Oct 15 2008 08:32 AM

I hate it when dudes got speling an grammical errors.

All Hail vitajex, Queen of Screenplays!

*raises middle finger*

(Reply to this)

Spurple writes:
on Oct 15 2008 09:40 AM

I never understand people like vitajex. He obviously doesn't like Tarantino, so what does he do? He sees every one of his movies and even reads the man's screenplays. How does that make sense to you? I hated the first Saw movie, so I haven't seen a single one since, and past the first week of it's release I stopped talking about. I'm not going to spend my time arguing about a movie I don't really care for when I can talk about the thousands of movies that I LOVE.

"Man, I hate Pepsi. It's a total rip off of coke and doesn't even taste that good. Now, I am going to Meijer so I can fill my fridge with Pepsi, then go to a Pepsi rally where I can talk for hours about Pepsi."

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Oct 15 2008 10:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#2078247)
Now this I agree with, almost. I wouldn't use immaculate, but more than solid.

I am not talking about his directing, which has style, energy and is noteworthy. In fact, I wish Tarantino would do more movies like Jackie Brown. Take somebody elses source material, punch up the dialogue and then direct it. That could make him earn the accolades he receives.

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Oct 15 2008 12:48 PM

This movie seems like a ripoff of 'To Be or Not to Be' with Mel Brooks, 'Top Secret' with Val Kilmer, mixed with 'The Dirty Dozen' for action and 'The Matrix' for super slow-mo killing scenes.

All we need now is Uma Thurman playing Frau Blucher from Young Frankenstein and the cast will be complete.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Oct 15 2008 01:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#2078047)
um dude, you spelled almighty wrong in your name. just wanted to let you know in case your mightiness powers didn't detect it for some reason.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Oct 15 2008 01:30 PM

In reply to this comment (#2078407)
ok, quentin never went to college. he just watched about 20,000 movies while "working" in a video store and started trying to write his own. is his grammar going to be good? no. does it have be? not really. here's why:

most hollywood actors only have 4th grade educations anyway. most hollywood agents only skim through scripts enough to pitch the movies to their elementary-level clients. and tarantino only uses the script as a means to getting the movie he already has planned out in his head on film. so really, the only people who good grammar would be relevant to are jerk-offs who took a screenwriting class and feel that qualifies them to poop on famous people's scripts. ya know, you.

well, since i don't think they'll be rushing production on "Vitajex the Corrector and his Trusty Dog Wiggle-Pup,' or whatever insignificant script you wrote for that screenwriting class was, I think tarantino the lousy speller still has a leg up on you in the biz.

until you do something better, how about you shut your hole, know your role and crawl back down into your mom's basement to continue work on your flawlessly-edited masterpiece. k?

(Reply to this)

StonetheCrow writes:
on Oct 15 2008 03:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077570)
Wow. Looks like somebody HADN'T watched his films after all.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Oct 15 2008 05:06 PM

This. Script. Is. Fundamentally. Bad.

(Reply to this)

mEn@Ce! writes:
on Oct 15 2008 07:13 PM

Just a couple of things here,

First:

To begin, unlike what this article states, this movie IS NOT a remake of Enzo Castellari's 'Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato'. It is closer in the vein of Peckinpah's 'Cross of Iron', Brian G. Hutton's 'Where Eagles Dare' and various spaghetti westerns and french new wave films (the latter two being typical of Tarantino films).

Secondly:

How come I never hear the copycat argument with other modern film makers (Why doesn't 'The Matrix' ever get attacked for it's influences or Guy Ritchie's films for taking from QT or the various sources 'Oldboy' is derived or 'Brokeback Mountain's obvious connection with 'Romeo and Juliet', even the almighty Kurosawa and the ever-omniscient Kubrick have 'borrowed' or 'copied' from various sources)

Yes, Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire do have the same fundamental storyline, but there is plenty original material in the Tarantino film to warrant its existence (and the revere its garnered). This goes with each of his 'stolen' movies. Seriously, I don't get this argument against Tarantino-Since when was City on Fire such an original in and of itself? And with its humor and irreverence, I'd say RD is the more enjoyable movie in any case...So, whats the big f'g deal? Dont like QT's pastische style? Don't watch.

Lastly:

The 'Inglorious Basterds' script is no where near as terrible as the detractors have made it out to be. True, it is no masterpiece but of all the scripts that I read over the summer, 'Basterds' was one of the funniest and most outrageous of the bunch. That's not so bad considering that Tarantino's raucous directorial style lends itself to this type of exploitation. The script is fragmented in true Tarantino style with some great DePalma/Hitchcockian moments of suspense, some great Godard/Traffaut/new wave style scenes and best of all, Tarantino's quasi-stand up comedian monologues and dialogues for which he is known. To those looking for a more mature Tarantino, look elsewhere-this is pure exploitation a kind of pumped-up Pulp Fiction with a more heightened, Greek drama feel. (That last paragraph was for your reply 'knowingtoast85', because this script was better than some of the mediocre movies on your DVD list i.e. Commando, Three Kings, Truman Show-not that these are bad movies and your list has some great stuff but saying the script is fundamentally bad without an argument for such a claim is, frankly, retarded).

(Reply to this)

mEn@Ce! writes:
on Oct 15 2008 07:14 PM

Just a couple of things here,

First:

To begin, unlike what this article states, this movie IS NOT a remake of Enzo Castellari's 'Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato'. It is closer in the vein of Peckinpah's 'Cross of Iron', Brian G. Hutton's 'Where Eagles Dare' and various spaghetti westerns and french new wave films (the latter two being typical of Tarantino films).

Secondly:

How come I never hear the copycat argument with other modern film makers (Why doesn't 'The Matrix' ever get attacked for it's influences or Guy Ritchie's films for taking from QT or the various sources 'Oldboy' is derived or 'Brokeback Mountain's obvious connection with 'Romeo and Juliet', even the almighty Kurosawa and the ever-omniscient Kubrick have 'borrowed' or 'copied' from various sources)

Yes, Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire do have the same fundamental storyline, but there is plenty original material in the Tarantino film to warrant its existence (and the revere its garnered). This goes with each of his 'stolen' movies. Seriously, I don't get this argument against Tarantino-Since when was City on Fire such an original in and of itself? And with its humor and irreverence, I'd say RD is the more enjoyable movie in any case...So, whats the big f'g deal? Dont like QT's pastische style? Don't watch.

Lastly:

The 'Inglorious Basterds' script is no where near as terrible as the detractors have made it out to be. True, it is no masterpiece but of all the scripts that I read over the summer, 'Basterds' was one of the funniest and most outrageous of the bunch. That's not so bad considering that Tarantino's raucous directorial style lends itself to this type of exploitation. The script is fragmented in true Tarantino style with some great DePalma/Hitchcockian moments of suspense, some great Godard/Traffaut/new wave style scenes and best of all, Tarantino's quasi-stand up comedian monologues and dialogues for which he is known. To those looking for a more mature Tarantino, look elsewhere-this is pure exploitation a kind of pumped-up Pulp Fiction with a more heightened, Greek drama feel. (That last paragraph was for your reply 'knowingtoast85', because this script was better than some of the mediocre movies on your DVD list i.e. Commando, Three Kings, Truman Show-not that these are bad movies and your list has some great stuff but saying the script is fundamentally bad without an argument for such a claim is, frankly, retarded).

(Reply to this)

BrokenDreamer writes:
on Oct 15 2008 08:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#2078248)
Actually, according to IMDb, Quentin Tarantino did write the story and the initial screenplay for Natural Born Killers, but screenplay rewrite credits went to David Veloz, Richard Rutowski & Oliver Stone. This is probably why Tarantino disowned this film and why he does not deserve full blame for the films faults. The script did receive rewrites and director's have a lot of influence on the final product. Very often, the original script that starts the production is not the same one being filmed and, in this case, even the director is credited for the screenplay. I don't know if I would defend Tarantino as a writer, but in the case of this movie, I thought I would add this information. I also, personally, have little to no respect toward Stone as a director. Don't forget: True Romance was written by Tarantino and Tony Scott managed to maintain the quality of that script (also, Brad Pitt was in that film, so he at least got to work with a Tarantino script before this film).

(Reply to this)

sliknik27 writes:
on Oct 15 2008 08:46 PM

Wow, Vitajex... Try enjoying movies instead of criticizing the taste of others.

(Reply to this)

Bobshivana writes:
on Oct 16 2008 02:07 AM

Great discussion, people. Just want to inject my two paisa (cents) from Kathmandu. QT was the original screenwriter for Natural Born Killers.

Rumble on!...

(Reply to this)

Mr.Wayne writes:
on Oct 16 2008 09:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#2077380)
This is for Vitajex.

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out or not, but CURDLED was released in 1996 by Tarantino's video release label ROLLING THUNDER PICTURES. PULP FICTION was released in 1994. The cab driving character in question in PULP FICTION was not a rip off of CURDLED, she was used in CURDLED after PULP FICTION.

You can have whatever opinion of Tarantino you want, but if you are going to berate him, call him a hack or whatever you want, but at least do a little checking on your information first before you make statements like....."the taxi-driver from Pulp Fiction is lifted whole-cloth from Curdled, even played by the same actress"....because clearly this chicken didn't come before the egg.

It would go a long way in making your statements credible if they were accurate.

Mr.Wayne

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Oct 16 2008 10:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#2080253)
Actually, the 1996 movie was a remake of a 1991 student short film of the same name directed by the same director, starring the same actress. Esmerelda Villalobos first appeared in a film in 1991, three years before Pulp Fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curdled_(film)

"It would go a long way in making your statements credible if they were accurate."

(Reply to this)

Kyokushin writes:
on Oct 16 2008 01:17 PM

QT makes great movies- 'nuff said.

(Reply to this)

martygersa writes:
on Oct 17 2008 05:02 PM

If that script (available on every pirate site on the Internet) is really QT%u2019s work, I%u2019m afraid that Hollywood%u2019s idiot-savant director has surrendered his savantness. To sum it up: it%u2019s a crackerbox full of tiny plastic people, popcorn-like cinematic cliches, caramel-syrupy sentiment, and a crazy-as-nuts-itself Turtledovian alternate-history ending. I pray to God that this is a hoax, because if this is actually the movie, It signals THE END: %u2018Cinema%u2019 will have completely devolved into the self-referential, self-parody that define Art Deco and rap music.

(Reply to this)

mEn@Ce! writes:
on Oct 17 2008 06:43 PM

About 'Natural Born Killers': Tarantino's original script is in print and available through Amazon, if anyone is interested. There are some major differences from the Stone version. Personally, I like both but feel the original script is funnier and more enjoyable. Give it a try and decide.

(Reply to this)

clonedbeef writes:
on Oct 18 2008 05:54 PM

I will always go see a Tarantino flick but he seems like an arrogant SOB, like hi imaginations **** doesn't stink or something.

(Reply to this)

Jiryu02 writes:
on Oct 20 2008 09:24 AM

I'll give you all my take on the whole art thing when it comes to any form of expression. First of all, I loved all of tarrantino's films. There is no doubt that he is the best american director. Even though thats my opinion (and I dare someone to argue), it does not relate to what art is. I have two things to say about this: 1. Even a homage, the taking of artistic elements from other works, is art. 2. Even if my first point isn't true, I don't think Tarrantino "rips off" other directors in the way other people mean it.

Now when it comes to art, it is a mistake to beleive that art is composed of original indivsuals. All art is influenced by other peices. There is no such thing as an original peice. This is so because of the definition of the word 'art'. Because there are a million and one aesthetic theories, I will present you with one universal definition, a noticed presentation. Duchamp finds a urine hole puts it upside down, and its art. He probably wanted to show this to people so he makes photographs. As soon as someone acknowledges that the pictures themselves are art, then its art, period.

Tarrantino, I beleive, wishes to induce feelings in his audience through other directors' techniques. I doesn't matter whether they are his own or not. As far as his writing, he may have influences from novels and other films, but the end result is superb. Ths what matters. I do beleive that his films are more effective than some of his influences. I think pulp fiction is better than many of Francis Luc Godard films which makes Tarantino's films more original in essence. Because he doensn't make influences obvious, his movies seem to find their own form which makes certain works stem further out than the resource.

So I do think "stealing" or "ripping off" are the wrong words to use when it comes to art. I think people today are too used to the ownership of ideas and originality. But I argue that there isn't even a single thought in which yo can call your own. And while this egoism goes on, we cleverly trick people out of enjoying a masterpiece. Tarantinno critics are just stubborn.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Oct 21 2008 07:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#2078962)
Hey Menace, I know this thread is old as the hills, but I just got around to checking it.

I'm not going to get petulant and try and argue that The Truman Show is, in any way, less of a movie than this script for Inglourious Basterds. From my perspective it's like quantum physics, I can't even wrap my head around that universe so I won't try and instead chalk it up to personal preference. Everyone's allowed to have that, and hey, if this script really turned your crank then good on Quentin and I'm glad you enjoyed the read.

I'm not a QT hater by any stretch, which means I'm more than willing to hear your side of this screenplay, since you're among the few defenders who actually read it. What did you learn from reading it? How did it move you? And why do you think the Basterds aren't in it very much? My guess is, Tarantino has rewritten this story so much that over time he's grown far fonder of Shosanna and just left the title characters to their own devices.

(Reply to this)

swann433 writes:
on Oct 21 2008 09:38 PM

after reading the script, I am not thrilled about this movie....there is not much action at all, and ALOT of talking....out 167 pages, only about 10 to 20 pages are of what you may call "action sequences." Also, WWII movies should have SOME sense of reality and the ending is just so - absurd that I cannot undertsand what QT is trying do or say....I think he's lost his mind.

(Reply to this)

Marc S. writes:
on Nov 04 2008 07:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#2077380)
Thanks for confirming what I already knew and tried telling friends who think Tarentino is a "genius". They thought he was so original in Reservoir Dogs with Mr. Pink, etc., when that was already used in the films Clue and before that The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3.

The only thing I can say in his favor is his use of dialogue.

Other than that he steals from other films and people think it's so original.

Reminds me of when people thought that the Jim Carey film The Truman Show was so original while it was nothing more than a remake of a Twilight Zone episode. I guess if you successful at stealing ideas from previous films, and get away with the plagiarism, you're considered an artistic genius while you're really just a hack with lots of money behind you.

(Reply to this)

eddiejc1 writes:
on Feb 15 2009 06:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#2077380)
"And for all of the fanboys who will no doubt pounce on this anti-Tarantino post, I hate to break it to you, but just about EVERY single thing you think that Tarantino did was cool, was stolen from other movies."---vitajex

Why do you think a director has to be 100% original to be good? Many of the great directors---Welles, Ford, Hitchcock---borrowed ideas from their predecessors as well as their contemporaries. No less of an artist than Pablo Picasso said, "Good artists copy. Great artists steal."

Edward J. Cunningham
Rockville, MD

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Inglourious Basterds

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links