The Quentin Tarantino Thread

No. I don't think Christoph Waltz's Landa steals the show. Chigger and Joker were almost all that was talked about when those movies came out. Landa is probably the best performance of the three, but he just isn't as much of a show-stealer. I mean, Pitt's Aldo Raine was just as much of a show-stealer as Landa.

Tarantino's face is so annoying, I just want to punch it.
 
Last edited:
Langsta said:
No. I don't think Christoph Waltz's Landa steals the show. Chigger and Joker were almost all that was talked about when those movies came out. Landa is probably the best performance of the three, but he just isn't as much of a show-stealer. I mean, Pitt's Aldo Raine was just as much of a show-stealer as Landa.

Tarantino's face is so annoying, I just want to punch it.
Click to expand...

Your last two avatars (HAL and now Kubrick) are two that I have and were going to use.

And you don't have to be a show-stealer to be a great villain.
 
Last edited:
ProjectX2 said:
Your last two avatars (HAL and now Kubrick) are two that I have and were going to use.

And you don't have to be a show-stealer to be a great villain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what I'm saying is, he's not going to be as remembered, or won't be remembered by as many people, as Chigurh and Joker. Maybe it's because he wasn't really shown in any of the promotional material, which focused mainly on the Basterds (even though they're not in the movie as much as Landa).
 
There is no doubt in my mind that Landa is a better villain than either of those two. Better written, scripted, utilized and certainly a better performance. Waltz is the first of the three I actively believe is Oscar-worthy.

And Langsta, all the stuff you say up there.... that's the entire point of the film. I mean, look at the title!

It's hard to choose between this and Kill Bill, because they're equally good in different ways and I'd say both are among the best movies of this decade. KB is probably a little better overall, but both are my favourite Tarantino film. Brilliance.
 
Planet-man said:
There is no doubt in my mind that Landa is a better villain than either of those two. Better written, scripted, utilized and certainly a better performance. Waltz is the first of the three I actively believe is Oscar-worthy.

And Langsta, all the stuff you say up there.... that's the entire point of the film. I mean, look at the title!

It's hard to choose between this and Kill Bill, because they're equally good in different ways and I'd say both are among the best movies of this decade. KB is probably a little better overall, but both are my favourite Tarantino film. Brilliance.
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree that Landa is the best villain out of those three. The first scene is pure Tarantino; he makes you tense and traps you in the scene like no other writer/director. That scene is basically this movie's version of the Sicilian scene from True Romance or the divine intervention scene(s) from Pulp Fiction.

About what you said about what I said when you say "Look at the title." I realize that the Basterds are supposed to be rough hardasses and whatnot, but .... Well, I think this sums it up: In Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino indulges this taste for vengeful violence by—well, by turning Jews into Nazis." Nazis carved the Star of David into Jewish victims, and in the movie, the Basterds carve the Swastika into Nazi victims. But I'm not going to talk about this subject any longer.
 
In the recent Quentin Tarantino/Charlie Rose interview about Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino muses that Landa doesn't actually smoke a pipe - he gets the pipe out because he knows the farmer smokes a pipe. The pipe also represents two things - the "my pipe is bigger than your pipe" subtext and also because it's the same type of pipe Sherlock Holmes had, it's showing Landa as the detective and how he knows the farmer is hiding the family in his house.
 
ProjectX2 said:
In the recent Quentin Tarantino/Charlie Rose interview about Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino muses that Landa doesn't actually smoke a pipe - he gets the pipe out because he knows the farmer smokes a pipe. The pipe also represents two things - the "my pipe is bigger than your pipe" subtext and also because it's the same type of pipe Sherlock Holmes had, it's showing Landa as the detective and how he knows the farmer is hiding the family in his house.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

The whole audience laughed when he pulled that thing out.
 
I just watched Natural Born Killers.

:shock:
 
Langsta said:
About what you said about what I said when you say "Look at the title." I realize that the Basterds are supposed to be rough hardasses and whatnot, but ....
Click to expand...

That's not what I mean. What I mean is....

Well, I think this sums it up: In Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino indulges this taste for vengeful violence by—well, by turning Jews into Nazis." Nazis carved the Star of David into Jewish victims, and in the movie, the Basterds carve the Swastika into Nazi victims.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Inglorious bastards. He didn't just turn the Jews into Nazis, he also turned the blacks, the french, and the movie starletts!

War is hell. Underscored with stuff like having a theater of Nazi's cheering on an Allied bloodbath, followed by a theater full of US cheering on a Nazi one. Everybody is the bad guy to somebody else. The concept of glory in war is brutally fascistic either way. That's what Tarantino's saying.

"Jews weren't really portrayed in a positive light.".... to me that's kind of like faulting The Dark Knight for turning Gotham City against Batman.

But I'm not going to talk about this subject any longer.
Click to expand...

Oh, then don't come to a discussion board. If this had been a hostile argument or something, fine, but come on....

Edit:
ProjectX2 said:
In the recent Quentin Tarantino/Charlie Rose interview about Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino muses that Landa doesn't actually smoke a pipe - he gets the pipe out because he knows the farmer smokes a pipe. The pipe also represents two things - the "my pipe is bigger than your pipe" subtext and also because it's the same type of pipe Sherlock Holmes had, it's showing Landa as the detective and how he knows the farmer is hiding the family in his house.
Click to expand...

Genius.
 
Last edited:
E said:
I just watched Natural Born Killers.

:shock:
Click to expand...

Robert Downey JR.

Planet-man said:
That's not what I mean. What I mean is....



Exactly. Inglorious bastards. He didn't just turn the Jews into Nazis, he also turned the blacks, the french, and the movie starletts!

War is hell. Underscored with stuff like having a theater of Nazi's cheering on an Allied bloodbath, followed by a theater full of US cheering on a Nazi one. Everybody is the bad guy to somebody else. The concept of glory in war is brutally fascistic either way. That's what Tarantino's saying.

"Jews weren't really portrayed in a positive light.".... to me that's kind of like faulting The Dark Knight for turning Gotham City against Batman.



Oh, then don't come to a discussion board. If this had been a hostile argument or something, fine, but come on....

Edit:


Genius.
Click to expand...

I know war is hell. The whole thing about war, is that someone on the other side is going down. But what I'm saying is that there's a point to the violence. You can be the "bad guy" to somebody else, but that doesn't necessarily mean you carve swastikas into their heads. Jews weren't portrayed in a positive light, but they weren't portrayed in a negative light either. Batman, you root for him. He doesn't scalp mother****ers. In fact, that's the whole idea behind Batman, is that he doesn't kill; he doesn't stoop to the level of his enemies. When I say I'm not going to talk about this subject any longer, I mean I'm not going to talk about my morals or whatever any longer. Because the nature of the film doesn't affect the quality of the film. These are just my opinions. Just because the Basterds are amoral, that doesn't affect the quality of the film. That goes beyond the film. 'Cause then we'll start talking about what's right and what's wrong, and yadda yadda yadda, and that doesn't concern the film itself. That's what I mean when I say I'm not going to talk about the subject. I'm trying not to cause a big fuss is what I'm saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Langsta said:
I know war is hell. The whole thing about war, is that someone on the other side is going down. But what I'm saying is that there's a point to the violence. You can be the "bad guy" to somebody else, but that doesn't necessarily mean you carve swastikas into their heads. Jews weren't portrayed in a positive light, but they weren't portrayed in a negative light either. Batman, you root for him. He doesn't scalp mother****ers. In fact, that's the whole idea behind Batman, is that he doesn't kill; he doesn't stoop to the level of his enemies.
Click to expand...

I meant the Jews to be more like Gotham City in that particular analogy(essentially good people who end up being something of the bad guy), but again, you weren't necessarily supposed to "root" for the Basterds, or any character in the film(although I did, because it's still open enough for a choice, another reason I love it).

A better character analog would probably be another ironically semi-fascistic Jewish anithero: Rorschach. There are a lot of parallels between the two stories, really, and I'm sure I've seen you root for him.

When I say I'm not going to talk about this subject any longer, I mean I'm not going to talk about my morals or whatever any longer.
Click to expand...

Okay, I thought you meant the issues in the film itself. My mistake.
 
Planet-man said:
I meant the Jews to be more like Gotham City in that particular analogy(essentially good people who end up being something of the bad guy), but again, you weren't necessarily supposed to "root" for the Basterds, or any character in the film(although I did, because it's still open enough for a choice, another reason I love it).

A better character analog would probably be another ironically semi-fascistic Jewish anithero: Rorschach. There are a lot of parallels between the two stories, really, and I'm sure I've seen you root for him.
Click to expand...

The Basterds are soldiers. I'm naturally going to want to root for them. They're the closest thing to superheroes that we actually have in the real world. Rorshach, he's a vigilante....he's not supposed to do everything the right way. You know right away that he does questionable stuff. But that's why you root for him.
 
Last edited:
Bass said:
That's a bingo!

Except, Chigurh was 2008 as was Daniel Plainview. Both of whom were awesome villains.
Click to expand...

I go by when the movie was first released. Hence why I would count most of the movies you saw this year as 2008 movies. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top