Marvel Still Looking For Captain America 
'Sopranos' Creator To Film Rock Drama 
LIVE-SNARKING THE 82ND OSCARS... 
'ALICE' IS A MONSTER! $116.3M Blows Past … 
Oscar Not-So-Thriller: Diller Mogul Picnic 
'Precious' Sweeps 25th Indie Spirit Awards 
Howard Stern Won't Be Next 'Idol' Judge 
Justin Theroux Readying 'Zoolander 2' For … 
Mickey Rourke Wooed For Two Big Roles, … 
CBS Reups Les Moonves Through 2015 
EXCLUSIVE: Who Will Be Captain America? 
Matt Damon To Star In New RFK Biopic 
Claire Danes Leaves ICM For WME; Also, ICM's … 
EXCLUSIVE: Jennifer Lopez And Sony Music … 
TAYLOR LAUTNER UPDATE: Universal Pays Him … 
SUNDAY AM: Now that official numbers are in, controversial Inglourious Basterds opened with $14.3M Friday, but then dropped -10% Saturday to $12.9M from 3,165 theaters. So, with a Sunday estimate of $10.3M, that's a bigger than expected $37.6M first weekend for director Quentin Tarantino. (The most moolah anybody projected for Friday-Sunday had been $30M.) "The Weinsteins live to fight another day," quipped one rival studio exec about the World War II film on which beleaguered The Weinstein Company had hung its financial future (along with next weekend's reboot sequel, Halloween 2). But the producers aren't out of the weeds, even though Basterds scored Tarantino his best North American opening since the $25.1 million earned by Kill Bill Vol 2. And eased Harvey Weinstein's fears of another Grindhouse-like flop. Expected to dominate on both coasts, the "Hard R"-rated pic was predicted to play much softer in the middle of the country. Still, after all that buzz -- a lot of it awful -- at the Cannes Film Festival in May, it's a miracle the movie didn't tank. Especially since Tarantino changed up the film but didn't cut its 2-hour, 32-minute, running time, which is now a minute longer. Universal has both foreign theatrical distribution, and international and domestic home video, while Weinstein is self-distributing in North America and also has pay TV. There's a single-pot worldwide deal split 50/50.
But there was stiff competition for male moviegoers from the Peter Jackson indieprod District 9, a Sony pick-up, which was down a larger-than-expected 60% from its No. 1 debut last Friday. The alien apartheid pic made $5.5M Friday and $7.3M Saturday (+31%) from 3,050 venues and $18.9M for its 2nd weekend. That's a very respectable -49% drop from last weekend, and new $73.4 cume, based on the good watercooler/Twitter word-of-mouth that kept weekday numbers averaging a strong $4M. (Rest of Top 10 below...)
So it was Nazis vs Aliens at the box office. In terms of negative cost, the two pics are $72M vs $30M. But I've learned that while District 9 only has a small gross participation for Peter Jackson and nobody else associated with the film, Inglourious Basterds has a big gross participation for both Tarantino and star Brad Pitt. Film financing circles tell me the film has to make more than $60M, and others say it's $80M, in North America in order to earn out. But they also expect a 70% drop for Inglourious Basterds next weekend because most college campuses around the country will be back in session -- and that's bad for biz. Which is why The Weinstein Company's release of Halloween 2 that weekend is so inexplicable.
Overseas, the two pics are battling, too. Inglorious Basterds is the No. 1 movie overseas. The Weinstein/Universal co-production internationally grossed an estimated $27.5M at 2,630 dates in 22 territories -- making it the biggest international weekend for a Quentin Tarantino film. It broke QT records in several markets including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Hong Kong. And there are still 42 territories to open over the next few months.
Lest we forget amid all the hype and secrecy of yesterday's trailer debut, it's Avatar Day with 20th Century Fox screening 16 minutes from the film in 101 IMAX theaters Friday night in the U.S., and another 238 theaters -- including 28 IMAX screens -- abroad. Free tickets were given out via an online lottery.
Meanwhile, there were a slew of other pics opening this weekend: small, smaller, and arthouse:
Fox Atomic leftover Post Grad, a little comedy starring Alexis Bledel in a seeming reprisal of her Gilmore Girl role (what happened to the Sin City vixen?),opened in 1,958 theaters. Warner Bros sent family fare Shorts from Robert Rodriguez into 3,105 dates with little fanfare even though the kids needed something fresh. Disney debuted the documentary X Games 3D The Movie in 1,399 runs. Foreign pic Casi Divas from Maya Entertainment had 22 runs. IFC sent the crime drama Five Minutes Of Heaven starring Taken's Liam Neeson into a single theater. Still another Paramount Vantage leftover, The Marc Pease Experience, is a laffer starring Jason Schwartzman and Ben Stiller dumped with 10 plays and no publicity. And Magnolia took World's Greatest Dad, a comedy starring Robin Williams, into 12 theaters.
Period piece My One And Only scored an average $15,000 per screen if Sunday holds up in 4 NY/LA dates. But how did one-time Oscar-winner Renee Zellweger end up in a pic that couldn't receive a decent release -- even though reviews were 70% positive according to Rotten Tomatoes, especially among top critics? I'm told the movie was made and financed independently by businessman/investor Norton Herrick, whose Hair on Broadway won a Tony but was new to the film biz.
Herrick took My One And Only to the Berlin film festival, where it received positive trade reviews as well as a special mention from the independent jury. But no American studio stepped up to acquire the picture. (Not so surprising considering how loathe studios are to spend $30+M marketing money on pickups, especially considering that Zellweger has been in a slew of loser pics of late and lost her mojo with audiences.)
So Herrick decided to finance the distribution of the film himself. He hired Freestyle Releasing, which had distributed The Illusionist and Bottle Shock, among other pics, and assembled a marketing team. Their advice was to start exclusive through a limited opening, then widen over Labor Day weekend to 15 markets. So my One And Only opened as Inglourious Basterds counter-programming in upscale (but not arthouse) venues. Still, I'm shocked that Zellweger's career has come to this.
Here's the TOP 10:
1. Inglourious Basterds (TWC/Uni) NEW [3,165], $37.6M Wkd
2. District 9 (Sony) Week 2 [3,050], $18.9M Wkd, Cume $73.4M
3. GI Joe (Paramount) Week 3 [3,953], $12.5M Wkd, Cume $120.5M
4. Time Traveler's Wife (NL/WB) Week 2 [2,988], $10M Wkd, Cume $37.4M
5. Julie & Julia (Sony) Week 3 [2,463], $9M Wkd, Cume $59.2M
6. Shorts (WB) NEW [3,105], $6.6M Wkd
7. G-Force (Disney) Week 5 [2,561], $4.2M Wkd
8. Harry Potter/Half Prince (WB) Week 6 [1,971], $3.5M Wkd, Cume $290.2M
9. Ugly Truth (Sony) Week 5 [1,936], $2.8M Wkd, Cume $82.6M
10. Post Grad (Fox) NEW [1,959], $2.8M Wkd
Loading ...
I hope “Inglorious” is a big hit. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and thought it was great fun. After reading Kenneth Turran’s poor review of the film, I’ve decided not to read his reviews ever again. He just didn’t get this film, and it’s a shame that he has to lambast such a daring and bold film on the front of the LA Times. Screw him.
My predictions:
1. Inglourious Basterds – 27.0 ($8,531 PTA)
2. District 9 – 17.5 (-53.2%)
3. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra – 10.7 (-52.1%)
4. The Time Traveler’s Wife – 8.5 (-54.4%)
5. Julie & Julia – 8.3 (-31.2%)
6. Short – 6.0 ($1,932 PTA)
7. Post Grad – 5.2 ($2,656 PTA)
8. G-Force – 4.1 (-40.7%)
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince – 2.8 (-45.5%)
10. The Ugly Truth – 2.7 (-39.3%)
-. The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard – 2.4 (-57.5%)
-. X Games 3D The Movie – 1.4 ($1,001 PTA)
District 9 is not just overrated, it is terrible. Not original, doesn’t look good, poorly acted. Dumb. There is some kind of serious payola happening to get these stellar reviews. I predict it falls off a cliff now that people have seen it. People are lying to your face if they tell you this is even a good movie.
Yeah b-b-but what about Bandslam? Wahhh.
Except the mere fact of the matter is that Americans don’t become Jews or any eurasians and don’t integrate, except all in a spy capacity, and they didn’t enter WW2 until after Pearl Harbor, Americas trans-oceanic descended citizen minority is mainly a tool for Americas inevitable dominance and America is a republic, not a democracy, so a president is a moot and powerless publicity performance in a military intelligence superstate environment. It’s all American espionage and intrigue smoke and mirrors.
Inglorious Basterds is one great film. It never lets go so that the run time feels more like 90 minutes than two-hours +. Basterds works on every level. All the fun of Tarantino at his best, plus a new maturity. One of the greatest casts ever assembled. Brad Pitt is wonderful, but the rest of the cast, OMG, knocked me out.
Went to the first showing at the Grove this morning. Big turnout. Lots of older folks.
You are right, Mr. Right. Kenneth Turran thought ‘The Wrestler’ was contrived too. I read the script for ‘Inglorious Basterds’ and it’s brilliant… cannot wait to see it this weekend.
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] Saw it at midnight last night. Going again tomorrow. It was awesome. The only thing wrong with it is Eli Roth. He really sucked. He gets a great reveal, but after that it goes down hill. He keeps going in and out of his Boston accent and is so annoying. Jimmy Fallon used to do a better, less annoying Boston accent on SNL. And that blows my mind. I would have preferred Ben Affleck as the Bear Jew. That sounds like joke and normally it would be, but after seeing Roth, it’s not so funny.
Til Schweiger was great though. QT should have just combined his character with Roth’s. Especially since he cut the Bear Jew’s back story, no doubt because Roth’s performance in the flashback with the old lady was wretched.
Eli Roth is a hack. But thank god QT is a genius. That’s the only reason this movie is so great.
frodo
you’re so insecure about your OPINION about a movie that you think ppl are lying if they say they enjoyed the movie? art is subjective. some ppl liked district 9, some didnt. you know, just like EVERY OTHER MOVIE IN HISTORY. damn you’re stupid.
these are good numbers? maybe i’m just crazy cause I thought it would be bigger. I thought it was gonna be huge and bigger than District 9 cause of QT and Brad Pitt. district 9 did the same numbers last week and it didn’t even need to pimp Brad Pitt as the star. I liked the movie though.
Incredible film. Really loved it. Waltz was totally brillant as the german officer.
Wow. I just saw it and I hated Eli Roth. He does suck. Bad choice, QT. So many good actors out there… Why QT? Why?
I loved ‘Inglorious,’ but I don’t think it will do well especially in Middle America. My conservative dad who loves war movies wants to see it and I think he will be disappointed. And I think this was another falsely marketed Weinstein production to appeal to him. (Surprise!) What was the CinemaScore rating? My audience applauded at the end and that is rare outside of free advanced screenings.
Also, I am surprised about the steep drop for ‘District 9′ because its the movie everyone is talking about at work and on facebook. Thats gonna be a cult classic.
From a business standpoint, yeah great, IB will make some money due to deceptive/clever marketing. But, people are coming out of this thing HATING IT. QT’s brand was damaged with Death Proof, now its irrevocably gone, we’re not falling for it again Weinstein…
“Film financing circles tell me the film has to make more than $60M in North America in order to earn out. They also expect a 70% drop for Inglourious Basterds next weekend because most college campuses around the country will be back in session — and that’s bad for biz.”
Dumb question. If that’s true, why did they release the movie this weekend?
I saw MY ONE AND ONLY earlier this year at a Filmfest and enjoyed it very much. Nothing wrong with Zellweger or the movie.
Director Christian Alvart ought to kiss her feet and thank his stars that he has her in his upcoming horror/thriller CASE 39 (Bradley Cooper has little more than a cameo, one of the film’s biggest mistakes). Zellweger sells her char in the brilliant set-up perfectly. Not her fault that CASE 39 has a sucky 3rd act, not enough disposable chars and lacks subplots. Mainstream reviewers ought to rate 39 high, if the reviews for the similarly disappointing THINNER-inspired DRAG ME TO HELL are any indication. Oh wait, Raimi-Bonus, I forgot. Sorry, Mr. Alvart…
That Zellweger might appear once again as Bridget Jones, now that’s the real bummer. After suckfest The Edge of Reason, who’s going to pay to see a sequel? I wouldn’t. But I’d watch MY ONE AND ONLY again.
I saw it with about 100 other men yesterday. Apparently, women aren’t that into this film as I counted a total of five women in the theater. Overall, it would say it’s a brilliant work of art. It is slow at times. And it’s alot longer than it needed to be. There are times when conversations about absolutely nothing are taking place and I’m slumped over in my seat thinking could we just move it along. I wish studios, filmmakers, writers, etc. would consider that people have busy lives and sitting in a theater for nearly 3 hours is a huge time committment issue for movie fans. Sometimes it makes or breaks the decision as to whether people will go see the movie or not. Again though, this is truly a piece of art, and I hope the guy who plays the German officer/Jewish refugee hunter is remembered at Oscar time but man is it boring at times. I think that will be its overall early box office death just like District 9’s fall off the cliff.
I thought Roth was amazing and stole every scene. Everyone was great but Eli Roth blew me away!
Been thinking about the whole Avatar thing. As its longer than any 3D film released and from all accounts is far more of a sensory overload, aren’t theatre owners going to have a few slight problems with kids?
I mean 8 yr olds + headache/eye-strain + coke + three hours = barf city.
Yikes.
favorite movies this year so far:
1.) Hangover
2.) Inglorius Basterds
3.)Hurt Locker
4.0 Bandslam
5.0 UP
not clear to me how these numbers are a miracle. Not a complete disaster, but by no means enough to resurrect the rotting corpse that is TWC, given the countless other problems they suffer from (bad movies, bad reputation, bad management, no staff…oh and no money). Did Harvey bribe you Nikki? Not sure how good PR or a 30+ opening weekend can save this sinking ship. I will say it’s better than expected, given the ineptitude we’ve come to expect from them.
Sounds like “steve” has a personal interest in District 9. All you fellas and your constant dick fights are pretty funny.
Hey Frodo, guess I’m a liar because I loved District 9 and have recommended it to plenty of people.
Liked Basterds but I join the chorus of saying Eli Roth is a travesty. I also wish the movie were more about the Basterds themselves – their’s were certainly the most compelling scenes. I also think the movie really could have used some more time in the editing room as some transitions were absent or unclear, and some ideas were only partially realized. Did QT shoot flashbacks for all the Basterds? I’d have loved to see them.
Recession, yep. Taratino’s big, yep. It’s like the first half of 90’s all over again!
Talk about missed opportunities. Tarantino’s film had some great scenes and tremendous performance (Christophe Waltz could be up for an Oscar) but the film was a brain dead B-movie revenge fantasy that went for being cool over cohesive.
It was two movies thrown together with the character development and depth removed and the violence left in. So many opportunities for a truly great film in there but it just ended up being a big, dump, self-indulgent homage.
I’m not a Quentin fanboy by any means but I absolutely loved Basterds. He succeeded admirably at turning the war picture on its head. For the first time since Pulp Fiction, his extended dialogue scenes have that tractor beam-like quality where you get pulled in by the linguistic tapestry he weaves. There’s so many memorable characters and the casting for every part feels pitch-perfect. The film is a reaffirmation of how talented its director is. It’s almost sickening how good he is as methodically constructing verbality. Some of the younger people in my showing seemed restless at times whenever Pitt or Walz weren’t onscreen but at the end we literally all applauded. Talk about a crowd-pleasing finale.
Also, I TOLDJA!!! last week that D-9 would have a bare-minimum dropoff of 60% and my foresight has been vindicated. I realized immediately after seeing it that the word on the street among mainstream audiences would be unenthusiastic, and the only way for box office legs to be sustained would be if the nerds and bloggers who raved went L. Ron Hubbard on the bit by paying for hundreds of tickets individually. It was a neat little movie with a great marketing campaign, but if you start to think even a little about some of the logic gaffes or plotholes within the story, it makes the aura of superlative praise surrounding it seem like a lot of hot air.
Here’s my next dropoff prediction: Basterds will only dip by 35% in week 2, half of what’s projected above. If I’m right, I’ll gloat again next week using my real name. If I’m wrong, I’ll conveniently forget I ever posted this.
Why the hell is B.J. Novak in this movie? He’s terrible. Aside from that, brilliant movie.
SHORTS IS MRC’S SECOND BOMB THIS YEAR. THE BOX AND INVENTION OF LYING WILL FLOP TOO. ANY FILMMAKER WHO MAKES A MOVIE THERE IS DOOMED TO FAIL MISERABLY.
District 9 is awesome. District 9 is the future. Tarantino is the past.
Have to say that I agree with “Kevin” above. It was a disappointment, and no one applauded today at the half full AMC on 42nd St.
the film is so indulgent, there is a real innate talent in Tarrantino but he wastes far too much of it. He is the cinematic equivalent of a grinning jerk holding his weenie and wagging it in front of everybody. Thanks but no thanks. Lots of interesting set ups and set pieces but no real thread and it is far too long for a movie with little on its mind but revisionist fantasy.
It really is too bad because he knows were to put a camera and it is very nice visually. If he ever matures emotionally and intellectually he might surprise me but at this rate it doesn’t look to be anytime soon.
Saw it in Burbank last night. Theater we nearly full. Audience was about half men/half women. Lots of laughter, lots of applause. Cheers at the end.
As for casting: Roth didn’t bug me. But MIKE MYERS? WTF? Again, Myers is just an annoying combo of cartoonish make-up, fake teeth and moronic expressions as he tongued the scenery. That scene COMPLETELY took me out of the this nearly perfect movie. Other than that misstep, it was a great ride.
Im sorry folks… I thought the movie was a big disappointment. Nothing like Kill Bill… those movies were awesome.. this one is lame.
Inglorious Basterds is an outstanding Tarantino film. More than half the film is in German subtitles and the dialogue is riveting i.e. The Frenchman’s farmhouse, the basement of the Parisian niteclub, etc. The film is nearly perfect. I give it Four Stars. Brad Pitt is outstanding. The Gestapo agent is superb. I do think the “basterds” characters could have been fleshed out a little bit more. The “Jewish Bear” scene is something to behold.
Basterds was a lot of fun. No Pulp Fiction, but then what movie is… Any reviewer that panned it loses a lot of cred with me. At the least, QT is out there taking chances, doing something different.
YAY!!! Another movie where we get to see Brad Pitt fall out of character!!! What’s in the box?!?!
I’m sure Basterds is good–although Death Proof was the
most self-stroking POS I’ve ever seen. But one question: history proves there are plenty of great (and real) Nazi hunting stories so why make up a Jewish superhero tale?
YES! Another film where we get to see Pitt fall out of character! What’s in the box?!?!
Very cool that at least it’s got some discussion going. Most films lately are just “It was fun” and off to another subject. It’s great to have an entertaining film that gets people talking too.
It will be interesting to see if Quentin Tarantino saves Harvey’s butt one more time.
Redux and correction:
WWII has been over for two-thirds of a century. Give us a break and stop with the “Nazzi” films.
Of course Hollywood need villains but give us a break. There have been plenty of potential bad guys over the past century.
I wouldn’t pay to see one of those passe flicks for free.
Could someone explain the point of “Inglorious Bastards”? It looks to me to be just another ultral violent gore fest for teenage boys combined with wishful thinking. It would have been great if this really happened and the world was saved from the horrors of WWII, but it didn’t.
So, is it just a well done fantasy romp? What is it?
I’m sure Basterds is good–although Death Proof was the
most self-stroking POS I’ve ever seen. But one question: history proves there are plenty of great (and real) Nazi hunting stories during and after WWII, so why make up a Jewish superhero tale?
Hollywood tradition always puts a Jewish grunt in the middle of the action in nearly every WWII movie (despite a dearth of Jewish fighting men and women as compared to other ethnic groups). It’s not PC to say that, I realize, just accurate. Just wondering why QT turned it into what Eli Roth has called Kosher Porn. Just curious.
The flim rocks. It’s does seem to be the thing to do to bash TWC, but I hope them well with this. I had my doubts, but QT nailed it. IMDB does not have Christophe Waltz lined up for anything else…hope that does not last long!
I thought the movie was overly long… I enjoyed my two beers and pizza just as much as I did the flick. It was so heavily subtitled that it made for a tiring read after the novelty wore off. I don’t think that the director struck the right balance between action and dialog-plot; the latter was far more encumbering than the former. When a movie gets too “wordy” the overall project suffers.
I’m Jewish and I hate everything about this movie. I love World War II movies but this movie is disgusting in its sadistic graphic brutality. Quentin and Eli Roth are sadists they love bloody violence they get off on it. There’s no reason for any of that shit in this movie and I simply won’t see it I won’t waste my money or my time with the obnoxious Tarantino. Nobody asked him to make a Jewish revenge porn movie. He has made Jews look like Zionazis in this movie. Disgraceful. I’m not alone either here’s article from Showbiz Date:
JEWISH CRITICS CHIME IN ON INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
Quentin Tarrantino’s Inglourious Basterds may be getting mixed reviews from leading U.S. critics; it is getting scathing reviews from the Jewish press. The national Jewish Daily Forward calls it “Jewish revenge porn.” In Connecticut’s Jewish Ledger, Michael Fox writes that since the film doesn’t pretend to be historically accurate, “there’s no percentage in railing against [it] as blathering, self-indulgent drivel.” Nevertheless, he writes, Tarantino’s plot amounts to “pages and pages and pages of amusingly pointless dialogue.” He concludes, “Tarantino’s riff on Nazis and Jews may amuse and satisfy less mature audiences. For those with a deeper and fuller understanding of the Third Reich and the Holocaust, particularly one gleaned from sources other than action movies, it is shockingly superficial.” The movie features scenes in which the “good guys” scalp German soldiers, beat them to death with baseball bats for refusing to reveal the location of comrades, carve swastikas into the foreheads of those who do cooperate, and commit suicide bombings. Jonathan Foreman in Britain’s Jewish Chronicle comments, “There is something about the idea of inspiring holy terror by mutilation, decapitations, etc. that inevitably evokes today’s real-life masters of cruelty and demoralization by atrocity, al-Qaeda.”
Inglorious was such a let down. What happened QT? You almost had a classic on your hands.
: (
I think Brad Pitt is, as per usual, the worst part of the film. His reading lines as himself (and getting a crapload of money for it) mode gets really old.
I saw this movie today. I was dissapointed. I expected more from Mr. Tarantino. The plot is ridiculous beyond measure. The Nazi themes tried too hard to jump the shark and the dialogue was frequently muddled and disorganized. To their credit, most of the actors made lemonade out of this lemon. The acting was excellent. And the sets, costumes and scenery were immaculate. The trademark Tarantino shootout scenes were spectacular as always. But you have to muddle through the rest of the movie to get to them. Over all. A waste of time and money. I couldn’t wait till it was over. Do yourself a favor and wait till it hits blockbuster on DVD.
I always hear this comment that the US didn’t get into the war until ‘after Pearl Harbor.’ And? Your point is? Maybe there should be a movie called ‘Ungrateful Basterds.’
I thought the Mike Myers scene was really well done, and really well written. That scene had to be in there. That scene is in every “man on a mission” film and it’s always the most boring or the first to be forgotten. But not with Myers. TCM played “A Bridge Too Far” last night and Dirk Bogarde (one of my favorite actors) did the same scene, except he showed the map to Sean Connery, Gene Hackman, and Ryan O’Neal. Even with all that talent, it’s the most boring and easily forgotten scene in the film. Having Myers do what he does best made this scene memorable and even has some here talking about it.
If you want to complain about performances, look no further than the hack Eli Roth. Great movie, so great, it makes up for having Roth play second to Pitt in the titular gang.
And Pitt was great. That “Sling Blade” face he makes through half the film is brilliant. He should get an Oscar nod.
I saw an early show at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Light applause at the end. I enjoyed the movie; you can’t dissect the story too much. Acting by all were great. Christoph Walz’s performance was pivotal and well deserving of the Cannes best actor award. Also effective were Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Hugo Stigliz character, Denis Menochet (farmer), Joseph Goebels actor, and smaller but effective role BJ Novak.
The cinematography and sets were beautiful.
Tarantino’s lamest saga to date …
Everything in this movie is wasted. You feel that this movie is a cheap attempt at being Tarantino, except the problem is — it is Tarantino. It’s too long, you never give us any full character development, we know you like the Uma Thurman lookalikes, and none of your screen animation or regression scene tricks work, or were really even needed, in this movie.
Tarantino doesn’t come anywhere close to reaching his earlier great films in this wasted attempt. It’s like even Tarantino wasn’t trying with this one. After he came up with the brilliant title, he had to backfill in the rest of the story, but he only used filler instead of substance. And we get to see each piece on the screen. Pity.
And … we all already know the story of the rat and the squirrel, giving nods to the squirrel simply because of the tail. Come on, Tarantino, is this what you resort to now in telling your stories?! Waste.
Sorry, but, Tarantino has jumped the shark. A cheap and shallow comic book script, not that good, and at times boring. And, never mind that it cheapens history.
If I was Jewish I would be insulted. The Holocaust isn’t material for shallow Hollywood comic book antics.
I saw it today and gave it a C-. It’s so unmemorable. It was erased menatally on the drive home.
Hollywood sucks.
IB has got to be looking at a drop for Saturday and 65+% next weekend. Only those who remember the Pulp Fiction glory days and the Aint It Cool geeks are sitting in on this one.
One summary of IB quality heard today: It’s like Watchmen with Eli Roth playing the blue penis.
incredible movie…..not what i expected but still incredible…..top 3 in my life time
A bunch of 20-minute scenes in single room, between a handful of characters, often just two — loved it, and knew when to look away from the screen.
America loves it’s torture porn and QT is a master of violence… sleep tight torture porn lovers.
Americans WERE in the war prior to WW2 – just not officially plus countless American joined the Brits via Canada before official U.S. entry into the War. We got suckered on WW1…didn’t want to repeat that mistake at the time.
I saw the movie today and thoroughly enjoyed it.
What surprised me is that Pitt and the Americans only have supporting roles. The real stars — and the ones who have most of the screen time — are Diane Kruger, Melanie Laurent, and the excellent Christoph Waltz who is the main star of the movie.
What ALSO surprised me is that the filmmakers allowed 80% of the dialogue to be in either French or German. American movie-goers are notorious for hating sub-titles and success of a movie is often dependent upon dialogue being conducted in English…and American English, preferrably. Recall Texas governor Ma Ferguson’s observation back in the ’20s that “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ it’s good enough for me.”
Not so here. And I fully expected it to happen because in the opening scene the German and French protagonists “switch” to English because, as it was explained by the character, it was a language they could both understand, causing me to think that this would set the stage for the entire movie to be spoken in English, which didn’t happen.
You’ll recall that in “Scarface” by Brian DePalma such a “trick” was employed when early on in the film the Al Pacino character says “Hey, we must practise our English so from now on, no more Spanish”. And then the whole movie — of which 90% involved interactions between Latinos — was implausably conducted entirely in English.
Bravo to Tarantino et al for not falling into this trap.
Hey Frodo Fanon,
District 9 was awesome, your just an idiot, that’s all.
I haven’t seen the movie and won’t. The whole premise sounds like typical Hollywood crap. It’s insulting to the Jews and Americans who fought and died in WWII. God knows why anyone would want to revisit that in such a dellusional way. It’s the worst of taste. And it sends totally the wrong message – that violence and revenge against your dellusional enemy is good. Even better than facing up to who your real one is . . .
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!]I sat through this mildly diverting crap yesterday lunchtime in a metro Atlanta multi-screen – opting to miss the final hour or so of glorious Aussie humiliation at the Oval.
Thankfully some moderately pretentious fawning liberal critic somewhere on line had seen fit to inform me this was a “gory revenge on the Nazis fantasy”. So I didn’t expect too much and thus was not greatly disappointed.
The first “chapter” is surprisingly very good and very effectively contrived. The rest of “Basterds” largely has all the heft of a Die Hard or a Dirty Harry flick – albeit with some occasionally amusing twist or lets make stereotypical fun of the English characterisation. The story is unsurprisingly completely full of holes – especially the point of just how and why do the tiny band of the “Dirty Eight” Jewish GI’s and their decidedly wooden talking southern hologram Lootenant Brangelina Pitt manage to end up supposedly racking up so many brutal killings of smallish numbers of Germans (in rural wooded settings). Yet in the plot they have virtually NO serious, let alone systematic attempt ever made by the Germans to hunt them down … which beggars belief. Given the film’s first chapter’s meticulous “accounting” by the extremely convincing SS Colonel of just one rural Jewish family in a tiny French town … and of course the evil genocidal German “efficiency” in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere.
Even more pathetic is the plot’s unbelievable ‘ruse’ of giving Hitler just two armed guards outside his private box – and NOT ONE armed guard in the cinema’s foyer during the actual screening in the film of Goebbels’ latest propaganda effort – allowing who ever needs to (plot wise) to come and go at will, in NAZI OCCUPIED PARIS with a visiting Adolf, Goering, Borman etc for Christ sake!! Yeah – its a “fantasy” … but its a joke of a plot.
Tarantino is too clever by half in some places and woefully flip, – more like smugly contrived – in so many other places. You know with growing certainty what’s going to happen at the end, long before it happens. With few real surprises. Hope that Austrian SS colonel bloke gets an acting gong of some kind – he was quite excellent. Unlike Pitt who yet again was the pits (clever pun intended)
…Glorious FLOP…. !!!! Ranks up there with “Myra Breckridge” …. and the David Niven “Casino Royale”.. Brad was embarassing…. but the GERMAN guy could act…. and MIKE MYERS!!… I was dieing at his warn out BRITISH “DO I MAKE YOU HORNY” accent….. They had to all be stoned …. even when they wrote this… because it was so BAD / Sophmoric …. and such a slap at history ..
THE FILM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED in that final scene along with the theatre!!!!
…NOW DIstrict 9…. THey had me…. Great action… suspense… until the lead turns into a transformer!!!!
Does ANYONE have an originAl thought anymore????
THANK GOD the NFL is back… That’s a fantasy action presentation I can live thru for the next 4 months!!!
Mediocre movie. Self-indulgently takly (as is typical with Tarantino) but also sickeningly PC in its shoehorning of not only a black character, but one that also has an unlikely and pointless relationship with another character. It’s like Tarantino didn’t have the backbone to withhold from such shenanigans since he has the Nazis bad-mouthing “negroes” throughout.
Inglorious Bastards is now one of my favorite films of all time, my wife who is Thai loved it too and got the humor. Great film and hope it does well, I would recomend it to anyone. The script is fantastic and the acting awsome. I’ll buy the DVD for sure. Go see it!
The moral equivalency argument is valid when these Jewish soldiers are portrayed to be every bit as barbaric as the Nazis that looked to kill them, as well as these modern day terrorists of religious extremism. However, that point is irrelevant in this context. The film is one man’s fanciful spin of actual events with some less than subtle resentment of these monsters who probably wouldn’t have thought twice about murdering some of the people Quentin now calls his friends. I don’t think the act of filming a well-rounded summation on the horror of WWII is what he had in mind (and if that’s even possible.) If you want that, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Downfall come close …And well, you know, I’m not Jewish, but it’s certainly undeniable that they are a people indelibly ensconsced in the annals of those who have been persecuted. Ancient Egyptians, Nazis, radical Muslims, whatever. I was happy to see these characters have their moment, fictional though it all may be.
And Christopher Waltz: what a riveting and haunting performance.
Extremely disappointed. An undisciplined effort from QT – as all have been since Jackie Brown.
I don’t think that either Roth or Tarantino will be making “Jewish Revenge Flicks” about real-life Jews hunting down the people responsible for the Munich Massacre (Speilberg’s “Munich” suggested that it was a waste of time and we should all hold hands with killers and sing kumbayah) or the Buenos Aires 1994 Synagoge and Israeli Embassy bombings.
No, I don’t expect that movie to be made anytime soon.
Re District 9 — Screenwriter Blomkamf has made it clear it’s about displaced WHITE South Africans ethnically cleansed out of South Africa (by crime) and the “Aliens = Zimbabweans without leaders” being pretty explicit. The aliens are “dumb” because without their leaders they are unable to function (a clear allegory to SA without Mandela and Steve Biko). He’s said as much in interview after interview, and that “South Africa is the future.” Such a dystopian view, and the story of displaced people (White Americans are the majority in the US, around 65-70%) just don’t connect to mainstream US audiences. The idea that “leaders are essential for society to function” is of course profoundly un-American. Most of our fiction relies on the gimmick of old-leaders gone, and new ones arising. Which is pretty much every Western ever made.
The lasting legacy of this film is two-fold: one it was made astonishingly cheap, and two it was made outside of Hollywood. Those are serious warning signs for Hollywood to get it’s act together.
One of the best films this decade. Excellent writing (as expected) and thoroughly enjoyable characters.
Tarantino is a nerd. A worthless unimaginitive boy.
His movie, though i haven’t seen it…is just as excuse to perpetuate the idea of violence.
It’s amazing how he could go from being a check out boy in a video store..(thanks to Harvey Keitel) to some kind of icon.
This film, though i haven’t and don’t need to see it …is some kind of perversion where the real message is just the opposite of the message presented….
And that message is….
KILL MUSLIMS and
KILL JEWS and
KILL GERMANS
It’s a MOVIE, Stu….chill out!!
It is funny. It is like 10 bucks to see a movie, and 3 hours. Thats nothing compared to the b.s. stuff that people buy and shorter than most other activities. Just stop the b.s.ing and go see it and find out for yourself if you like it, rather than reading a review from someone that is an exact opposite of yourself. The only opinion one can rely on is that of ones own inquiry. Take that to the bank!
I AM A JEW AND LOVED THIS MOVIE!111111111 DIE NAZIS
Hey Stu Piddy,
I just checked out your link. You’re a nazi. And a nut.
IB should have been called “Inglorius Boredom”, because at times, that is what it felt like. I went into the film, thinking there would be lots of crazy action, featuring Pitt and company killing Nazis. Instead, I got treated to long scenes of Waltz drinking milk, Waltz eating strudel (with cream) with Laurent, and a rather lengthy scene where I thought I was at a pub quiz.
The previews made it feel like this was an updated version of “The Dirty Dozen”, but instead it felt nothing like it.
Overall, the film is decent, but, it could have been better. QT needs to shorten his films of needless crap. There were too many scenes that just dragged and dragged. If he did this, the film could have been better.
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] To anyone bothered by Tarantino’s portrayal of Jews who torture and murder Nazis in revenge for torture and murder, look also at Death Proof: women in that film are rape/murder victims who can gain power and revenge only by shedding their femininity and embracing rape/murder (which Tarantino unquestionably identifies as masculine) themselves. All of his films are spirals of violence, revenge, more violence, and more revenge that go nowhere. The man is emotionally an infant.
Saw it, loved it, but admittedly I’m a Tarantino fan. Was in a full theater in the middle of the day out in the burbs in flyover country and there were applause and cheers at the end.
Not to say it didn’t have faults. It plodded at times, and the Mike Myers thing took me out of story for a moment and had me shaking my head (was shocked to find out my husband enjoyed that part.)
All in all a good effort by QT. Not my favorite of his films, but not his worst either. Pitt surprised me and made me laugh. I don’t begrudge Quentin throwing a bone to Roth any more than I mind him paying homage to Keitel. He may be a whacked out nutter at times, but he seems to be a loyal friend. Admirable quality in a throw-away town like H-Wood.
District 9..possibly the best movie Spielberg/Lucas/Tarantino/Bay/Howard/Cameron/Scott never made.
Dare I say even better than DK?
Tarantino is Hollywood’s biggest loser. His work is utter filth and full of glorification of excessive violence and negative role models.
TWC is releasing Halloween 2 now beause it is desperate to raise cash. IB will do OK because it was kept within a reasonable budget.
Hi there Left Coast. Middle America calling. My 19 year old and 17 year old sons loved “District 9.” My older Star Wars son saw it a couple times. Wants me to see it. Said there was lots of blood, I said no thanks.
“Inglorious Bastards?” No thanks. Other than the lack of much else playing now, no appeal to me. My sons like QT, but to me QT has negative appeal.
What ARE we doing in Middle America? Enjoying summer, vacationing, working on our lawns, playing with our kids, barbecuing, and saving our money.
Good luck in California. Geez you guys are so broke. Time to get real out there.
The US entered after Pearl Harbor, but we had to cross an ocean to save your asses. Before PH, no one was attacking our country, like they were with you Europeans. I’ve had it with anti-Americanism. We’re still better than you. Move on.
I FIND IT COMPLETELY AMAZING THAT NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THE RUNNING TIME OF BASTERDS — LIKE THE OVERKILL THEY DID FOR FUNNY PEOPLE. And don’t give me the excuse of comedy vs drama that dramas are allowed to be longer. Funny people was only 2hrs 17 minutes and it was blasted for being 2 and a half and not one mention about basterds being more than 2 and 1/2 hours. This is insane. Running time should not be an issue for any movie.
heh…. I hear they call it “The Dirty Minyan”.
Brilliant.
Tarantino is an expert at one thing — Hype.
It’s been the foundation of his career and has served him very well.
The question for each movie goer is whether you accept hype as talent or not.
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] Although pleasing to the sadistic crowd, it’s repulsive because the main point is to glorify suicide bombers and the concept of brutal acts on occupying forces. This film is not about killing our enemies from 70 years ago. It is about tipping a hat to Al Qaeda today.
I love this film and I encourage everyone to go and see it. There is some great dialogue in this film like only Tarantino. To the rest of you: Quit trying to sound so intelligent in your criticism of the film. You are failing miserably. Being of Jewish descent doesn’t give you any additional authority, either. And, hey, thanks to those of you who felt compelled to point out the historical inaccuracies. Brilliant!! Feel better now?
Funny, I don’t remember any Muslims in “Inglourious Basterds”. Your trolling, PC-thuggish comment is one bore out of stupidity (or is that stu piddity?).
If you’re going to accuse a movie of something, why don’t you actually sit down and watch it first.
Waltz stole the movie as the German officer. He makes NAZIs sooo seductive and exciting. Love the film!
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!]I saw the movie the first day it opened (Friday) and it was great!
It showed Brad Pitt in an awesome role as a tough as nails Sergeant from Tennessee and his troops were hard cored Jewish soldiers who joined the fight hard against Hitler’s Nazis.
Had the Jewish population during the 2nd World War would of had civil unrest and fought back against the Nazis and Hitler, using urban warfare, Hitler would of had lost in the beginning, but by the Jewish population letting theirselves be herded cause their downfall!
I doubt, if that would ever happen again, as even here in the United States we are getting near an era of civil unrest with hussein Obama pushing Socialism/Nazism on the people, and we will revolt as well!
gloirius shite, QT made me wanna start watching Bollywood movies, this is more of his ‘b’ movie arthouse crap that is easier then Paris Hilton on e to predict and re-writes parts of history that should not be re-written
Stu pity your comments are baffling, see the movie first before you judge.
Wasn’t the Hollywood left up in arms over supposed torture at Guantanamo Bay? But now they’r getting off on the torture of white Germans?
Sick sick Hollywood. Shame on you. Shame shame shame.
Youre hatred of whites knows no bounds. I wont’ hold my breath for a movie fantasizing about torturing another race of people.
Watched both the ‘Avatar’ preview and ‘Inglorious Basterds’ on Friday. I was impressed by what I saw in ‘Avatar’. The movie’s completely in 3D. Add the high resolution of IMAX on top of that, and I think James Cameron’s going to achieve what he seeks–To set a new standard for CGI imagery and the movie-going experience; to outdo what Spielberg did with ‘Jurassic Park’. Many folks are calling the online teaser lame, but they’re failing to grasp the movie must be watched in IMAX 3D. I’ll be there for ‘Avatar’ in December.
As for Tarantino’s ‘Basterds’, I was pleased, but the movie definetely needs some cutting: about a good 15 minutes. His dialogue scenes are getting longer and longer, and in some cases here, they go nowhere. The movie ultimate delivers in suddent explosions of violence and drama. But, it’s definetely going to try out your patience. A friend of mine fell asleep during the seemingly interminable basement bar scene. You got an inexplicable voice-over narration by Samuel L Jackson that’s never explained. Yet, all is well that ends well. Won’t ruin the ending, but it’s explosively and violently appropriate.
Glad to hear the movie opened well. The Weinsteins were starved for a hit. So did Tarantino. Now.. if ‘Halloween 2′ performs next week..
HuH: If you made a film where hard core Al-Qaeda were tortured (especially after also showing how bad they are), I’m sure you would make a lot of money. Go for it.
“Had the Jewish population during the 2nd World War would of had civil unrest and fought back against the Nazis and Hitler, using urban warfare, Hitler would of had lost in the beginning, but by the Jewish population letting theirselves be herded cause their downfall!”
well, your history is almost right, except that it’s not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bialystok_Ghetto_Uprising
Q’S BIGGEST OPENING IS…HIS MOUTH!
I loved this movie! Can’t wait to buy the dvd. While Pitt was good, the guy that played Hans was outstanding. If he doesn’t win a best supporting award, I’ll be suprised.
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] OK, I am no Tarantino fan. I wasn’t big on Pulp Fiction, or Res Dogs, though I did dig Jackie Brown. But I LOVED Inglourious Basterds. It was terrific. And I am a WWII buff who would normally find such deviation from history annoying, but here it worked. I loved the way he had the Nazis all laughing at a film of Americans being slaughtered en masse as we all sat in the theater laughing at a film of Germans being slaughtered en masse. I loved the way he incorporated his incredible knowledge of cinema as both a thematic and plot-device within the confines of a flick that could very well be a piece of cinematic history. Christoph Waltz was outstanding. I do think Leo DiCaprio would have been a better choice than the rangeless Brad Pitt. Actually, even Ben Affleck would have been a better choice. But it was still a great flick. Diane Kruger and the actress who played Shoshanna were superb–especially Shoshanna.
“This film is not about killing our enemies from 70 years ago. It is about tipping a hat to Al Qaeda today.”
“I doubt, if that would ever happen again, as even here in the United States we are getting near an era of civil unrest with hussein Obama pushing Socialism/Nazism on the people, and we will revolt as well!”
Seriously?