Comments on: Inglourious Basterds – Revenge, Evil, and Humanity

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:43:25 +0000

I just wanted to thank Brett Clair for the accurate and insightful analysis of this fine contribution to cinema.

By: Josh Lipovetsky

Josh Lipovetsky — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:43 +0000

Spongebob-Pedanticpants, I like your name! I do believe that some things are more unique than others, though. Every filmmaker is unique in their own way, but Tarantino deviates from the norm of filmmaking in so many aspects; hence the ‘very unique’. I used the absolute term in a relative context. It may be grammatically wrong, but I stand by it.

Thanks for the comment!
Josh Lipovetsky.

By: Spongebob-Pedanticpants

Spongebob-Pedanticpants — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:05:10 +0000

Interesting stuff, thanks. I just breezed by because I wanted to find out a little more about this movie, which I’ve not seen. It was useful.

Can I make a really pedantic comment? It is not possible for something to be “very unique” nor is it possible for something to be “unique from” something else.

Unique is an absolute term, something is either unique, or it isn’t. It cannot be a little unique or very unique, and it certainly can’t be unique from something else.

By: Incubus

Incubus — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:44:50 +0000

To No Sir:
Are YOU kidding me???
you wrote “evident you have KNOW movie knowledge”???
First: you used the incorrect word; it should read “.. you have NO movie…”
You should surely be able to type a correct sentence before you criticize others’ writing.
On another point: technically, he DOES have ‘movie knowledge’ -the summarized the movie correctly, which is what knowledge of the movie is.
What may be a bit off is his ANALYSIS of the movie, but not his “knowledge”.
In reading your last sentence, I am not sure, but it may, in fact, be a fragment.

By: Josh Lipovetsky

Josh Lipovetsky — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:17:12 +0000

Joseph,

Thank you so much for stopping by, man!! I appreciate you taking the time to read such a long article . Tarantino breaks the norms of filmmaking. He’s a love/hate type of filmmaker.

Please let me know if you would like me to analyze any film! Chezzy621@gmail.com!

By: Joseph Salfi

Joseph Salfi — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:22:04 +0000

Excellently written. Nothing I could say hasn’t already been said in regards to the comments discussions, but it must be said that Tarantino is a filmmaker like no other!

By: Blake

Blake — Sun, 02 May 2010 18:00:07 +0000

Very well done. You gave me some good ideas.

By: Josh Lipovetsky

Josh Lipovetsky — Sun, 02 May 2010 15:45:47 +0000

Perhaps I am too idealistic? I am such an optimist, and I like to see all the positives of every person. My mind usually blocks out the negatives, and it’s something that I have to deal with in my life.

It also applies to this article. I guess I tried too hard, to see the good in such a horrible and merciless villain.

By: Howard S.

Howard S. — Sun, 02 May 2010 14:47:49 +0000

I finally saw IB and am catching up with the commentary. Yours is very interesting. I do agree that the ultra-brutality visited upon the Germans does not ‘help’ us. But – I agree with previous responders – Landa was evil – I don’t know where you see this I agree in general with your more gracious view of human beings.
“He wanted to end the war, because he was through with the destruction. After he forced himself to kill Bridget von Hammersmark, he had a change in heart. He realized that the war affected not only the Jews and Germans, but everyone else. ”
I see his surrender to Raines as pure pragmatism, nothing more. Where the swastika-carving is ugly is that it brutalizes everything around him. All will be horrified to see this monstrous carving and will recoil. The act is ugly and perpetuates ugliness. But to have any feelings for Landa (or Mengele) who lived similarly peacefully, I’m sorry – that’s going too far. There needed to have been some reckoning, some punishment for the sake of justice, society. The carving is an act of harsh ‘art’ but the idea of this evil man living and enjoying his life with no remorse (as I saw it) is wrong, too
Thank you

By: Teh Moose

Teh Moose — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:10:01 +0000

I agree with advisone.
I had to read, re-read and grab a bacon sandwich to make sense of the Col. Hans Landa paragraph.
Change of heart? To me, and if I may say, a lot of people who have seen the movie, would also agree that no point in the movie did such a brilliant villain have a ‘change of heart’… May I ask if you also thought the Joker suddenly started doing voluntary work at a local animal shelter? Cause The Joker, just like Hans Landa made it in my book as one of the top movie villains.

Cheers,
Moose