Inglorious Bastards

[Taylor]

ALCON,

The wife and I went to see this movie last weekend and I tell you what, it's everything you think it is and more. It is classic Tarrantino. Tons of old school action, old school music, whimsical character development and a lot of unexplained details that leaves you wanting more.

The action is great and gory, exactly what you expect from him. The chicks are hot and the characters funny. It kinda reminded me of a WWII flick with a splash of Kill Bill.

I highly recommend this movie. Don't go into it expecting historical accuracy, you will find exactly none. But I DO recommend going into it for a good time. "SSSOOUUNNNDDD GOOD?!"
V/r

[jeepinva]

"More like chewed out...and I've been chewed out before."

Pretty daggon good movie.

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

The movie is Inglourious Basterds and "terd" is about what I thought of it.

I saw it this evening and I did not like it.

Far too many impossible Hollywood scenarios. A completely unbelievable tale. Watching a movie about 1944 Nazi Occupied France but listening to a soundtrack with music like David Bowie tunes from a cheesy early 1980's erotic flick did not work for me either.

The majority of the over 2.5 hour "action" movie consists of primarily dialog. Just a bunch of talking; much of it in inconsistently translated subtitles that you need to read. In the little action that there is, it is the American 'good guys' who are sadist and continually violate the laws of war, quickly committing more attrocities than the Nazi SS 'bad guys'. (scalping, torture, mutilation, murder, etc...)

Being fully aware of Tarantino's legendary foot fetish, the 'Cinderella scene' (shoe fits) reminded me of a late night TV talk show interview where Tarantino unexpectedly began sucking on the toes of another guest. It made me think about how much he must have 'enjoyed' filming that scene for the movie and wondering if the choking death was a hint at Tarantino's rumored practice of autoerotic asphyxiation (ala 'Kill Bill' star David Carradine).

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

We all know Hollywood takes certain "artistic license" with history but this movie is not a "what if" tale of possibilities, it is a "no F'n way" alternate reality of the QT universe that he has been concocting for the past decade.... Its more a revenge fantasy with a chapter or two where jews get to act like Gestapo with teenage bravado. There were a few sporatic chuckles here and there, but no real laughs from the audience for most of the movie.

[Da-Chief]

This is "EXACTLY" why I won't see this movie..

Who wants to see violence to get off?

Sorry there's enough in this world, I don't want to go pay money to sit for 2.5 hours and watch it..

D/C

[IFD Medic]

Its got some good, quotable lines. But other than that I would have rather waited until It was on video.

[e.johns]

I honestly enjoyed the snot outta this movie. But, I'm 19, young and love seein' stuff get blow'd up. But, other than that, I liked the chapters in the story, and how it (obviously) tied in all together. Really, it had some twists that I didn't see turning out the way they did. It wasn't Resevoir Dogs by any means... It was better.

[Taylor]

Well, I personally didn't watch it for any historical accuracy, as I knew this was a Tarantino movie and was going to be more about great dialog and over-the-top action.

It was portrayed as a "revenge film," in a critic that I read, you know, an alternate reality that is not all together credable or plausable, but good old fashion violence.

I took the movie at face value, and as one that that doesn't really get into too much fiction, it was a good for what it was, and that's classic Tarantino.


V/r

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

Blowing stuff up is one thing....

Bludgeoning an unarmed prisoner of war to death with a baseball bat is quite another. The German soldier was protected under the Geneva Conventions and acted both bravely and honorably in accordance with the laws of war and code of conduct. The same could not be said of the basTERDS. I was further disgusted by the groups reveling and celebration of the torture and murder of prisoners.

What was enjoyable about the mutilation and scalping of the dead and dying?

The glorification of gratuitous violence, the reprehensible conduct of the "heroes" and the dishonorable portrayal of the American fighting man are only part of my problem with this flick.

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

There were far too many unrealistic and ridiculous Hollywood scenario's that were impossible to swallow and got in the way of things. I can accept SOME artistic license and make a FEW leaps of faith in furthering the storyline but at some point it is simply too much to ask

For instance:
I can buy the Brit & SS officer pointing pistols at each others' testicles in their covert "Mexican stand-off" but why did the American stick his pistol in the SS officer's crotch to join the stand-off? Once their cover was blown and the basTERDS all knew they had to shoot their way out of the basement why would a highly trained combat veteran stick his hand in the direct line of fire of the Brit to make a completely worthless shot? Why kill yourself and your friend by wasting most your ammunition and time to repeatedly shoot one enemy in the groin? How about simply shooting the SS officer through the head with one bullet so the Brit lives and he can help you take out the other Nazi's around the bar and you've both got plenty of ammunition to do it?

In less than 4 years, the little jewish country girl that runs off in Chapter 1 is a full grown sophisicated woman of about 25 living in Paris running the cinema she inherited from her family. Okay so she aged around 10 years within the span of 4 years; life was rough during WWII and she grew up fast (sarcasm). I'll let that one go; Hollywood has done worse. But it is pretty hard to shallow that a jewish girl in hiding is going to take over the family business of running the jewish owned cinema in the middle of Nazi-occupied Paris and nobody figures it out. Or that an "Undesirable" (black man) is going to work so openly and be able to move about Paris so freely, let alone carry on an affair with an white jewish woman incognito running her inherited jewish family business. One might think that behavior just might attract the unwanted attention of the local authorities and result in two free train tickets to a local camp.

An important Nazi premier in Paris instead of Berlin? An "Undesirable" present for such an event? An "Undesirable" having unfettered access and free roam during such an event? No security sweep of the venue hosting such an event? The private security and personal aides for the entire Nazi leadership are not present for such an event? A notorious SS detective (Jew Hunter) is selected to head security for the event? Aside from 2 guards outside Hilter's balcony, the event has zero security or access control? Guns and dynamite are easily smuggled into the event? The "highly trained commandos" elect to serve as suicide bombers with dynamite strapped to their legs? The bombs use a sophisticated timer instead of a simple triggering device so the commandos have no real control of when the bomb detonates? The commandos continue with their suicide blasts even after the mission objective is complete and all the Nazi leaders are dead? The French jewish woman gives her defiant speech in English to the audience full of Germans? The Lt (Brad Pitt) leads his basTERDs for how long but never gets promoted to Capt?

[Taylor]

Well Chief, you took this to a higher plane then I did, lol.

I will wait until after my military service to expound on my feelings about the Geneva Convention as it pretains to our handling of various wars, but I like the direction he was going with this movie. Terror can be a great asset when fighting a brutal enemy.


V/r

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

You fail to realize that "terror" is always controlled by your audience; not you. If your brutality does not inspire fear in your enemy then where is the terror? In fact your brutal atrocities, intended to terrorize, may have the exact opposite effect and embolded your enemy to to fight against you - to fight harder and to fight longer. "Terror" is a double edge sword at best that you may be able to swing freely but it is a weapon you can never really control.

Four examples:
(1) At the start of the Korean War many American soldiers readily surrendered without a fight. Reportedly many were unwilling to risk their life to defend South Korea and simply believed it was not their fight so they freely laid down there arms expecting to be taken prisoner. This all changed when the bodies of those who surrendered or were captured were found tortured and executed with their hands bound behind their backs. American forces universally realized that there was no easy way out. Soldiers now had more reason to fight than surrender. They had to fight to survive and surrender or capture meant certain death so they might as well fight harder and take out as many of the enemy as possible. A Congressional report after the war concluded that North Korea's actions were a deliberate tactic of psychological warfare but it is also widely acknowledged that the North Korean terror tactic backfired badly.

(2) During the Gulf War of 1991, Coalition forces greeted surrendering Iraqis with food, water, and medical treatment. We provided a glimpse of complete annihilation for all who stood to fight against us but we bombarded the airwaves with videos of humane treatment of all who surrendered. We treated the prisoners better than their own army treated them and in some rare cases, prisoners were treated better than some of our own troops. The result was that enemy resistance disappeared nearly instantly. The enemy had more reason to surrender than fight.

(3) When the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993 or 2001, did you pee your pants cowering in fear or did you get pissed off and go kick some @$$?

(4) Did the video beheadings of captured Americans motivate you to drop your weapon and desert the military or did it motivate you to go get the guys that did it?


Would I likely pick up a weapon if I believe you tortured or murdered my family or friends?
Would I likely fight harder & fiercer if I found the multiated bodies of my friends and allies?
Would I likely continue fighting to the end if I believe I will be killed or treated badly if I surrendered?

My answer to all those questions is "yes" so I always wonder why people believe more brutality towards prisoners would motivate the enemy to say "no" or give up the fight.

I think you need to re-exam your history and personal beliefs towards torture and brutalizing prisoners. At what point do you merely transform into the brutal monster you once claimed the enemy to be? I assume you realize that there are no winners in a race to the bottom? Each side merely becomes more brutal, more savage, more inhumane. Furthermore, regimes that utilize terror against "the enemy" also employs terror against its own people or "the enemy within". Do you really want to live in a country or society like that? What about for your family?

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

Many experts argue that the use of terror and atrocities by our current enemies is to anger us and to bait us into an inappropriate response.

The enemy knows they cannot defeat us outright, but the enemy also knows we can defeat ourselves if they can motivate us to start making mistakes.

Do we give our enemies more reason to fight or more reason to surrender???

Do we make new enemies out of our nonhostile opponents or the innocent people caught in the cross-fire???

[Taylor]

Copy that, Chief.

Again, as I am a ward of the Geneva Convention while a man in uniform, I will not speak against it. But look me up in 2.3 years :) :rooster:

V/r

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

(Excerpts from page 11 of the CRS report.)
Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis
August 13, 2009, Congressional Research Service (CRS), 7-5700, R40764
www.crs.gov


"According to the Army Field Manual on counterinsurgency, one of the fundamental strategies in counterinsurgency operations – such as those undertaken by DOD in Iraq and Afghanistan – is to retain legitimacy by winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Conversely, the field manual argues that abusing or mistreating the population undermines counterinsurgency efforts, stating:

Though firmness by security forces is often necessary to establish a secure environment, a government that exceeds accepted local norms and abuses its people... generates resistance to its rule. People who have been maltreated or have had close friends or relatives killed... may strike back at their attackers. Security force abuses... can be major escalating factors for insurgencies. (DoD, Counterinsurgency, FM 3-24, December 2006)

In accordance with the manual’s assertion that the local population will ultimately determine the winner of the conflict, abuses and crimes committed by armed private security contractors and interrogators against local nationals may have undermined U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There have been published reports of local nationals being abused and mistreated by some DOD contractors in such incidents as the shooting at Iraqi civilians by private security contractors and the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Local nationals may not draw a distinction between government contractors and the U.S. military, and the abuses committed by contractors may strengthen anti-American insurgents, as evidenced by the public outcry following such incidents."

[HMC-FMF-PJ]

Watch the Disc 3 bonus material for "The Battle Of Algiers". Three sides of the argument are presented. You might enjoy watching the shadowy French official.


http://www.moviefreak.com/dvd/b/battleofalgiers.htm
La bataille d’Alger / The Battle Of Algiers (Criterion Collection) 1966 (re-release 2004)
Disc Three: The Film and History

Remembering History: an exclusive documentary that reconstructs the Algerian experience of the battle for independence, featuring interviews with historians and revolutionaries. including rebel leader Saadi Yacef (69:00) 2004

“États d’armes”: French officers recall the use of torture and execution to combat the rebellion. (28:00) 2002

The Battle of Algiers: A Case Study: former national counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke discusses the film’s relevance with a former State Department counterterrorism coordinator, Michael A. Sheehan, and the chief of investigative projects for ABC News, Christopher E. Isham. (25:00) 2004

Gillo Pontecorvo’s Return to Algiers: the director revisits the Algerian people after three decades of independence. (58:00) 1992