Friday
20Jun2008
Tarantino's 'Inglorious Bastards' to be Two Movies?
Friday, June 20, 2008 at 12:12AM 
I interviewed
Quentin Tarantino once, three days after
Kill Bill Vol. 1 was released. He was very excited, naturally, because the
film debuted very well. We talked about a few things (for instance, he'd pick
karaoke over Carrie Fisher, which I thought was surprising), and among the
topics of discussion lo those many years ago was his war movie,
Inglorious Bastards.
QT said at that time that it would be his next film (Kill
Bill Vol. 2 was already filmed, because they were originally one mammoth
production, later cut in two). Well, his next film, as it turned out, was the
extremely bad Death Proof, a film apologists tried to defend with shots
like, "It'll become a classic on DVD" and "It suffers because it's at the end of
a double feature."
Well, the DVD has been out for a while and I'm not sure
it's become more legendary and the film suffers more from having very little
story and 20 minutes of Zoe Bell hood surfing than being at the end of a double
feature.
But that's neither here nor there. Or is it?
Because Tarantino, who is prone to fits of self-indulgence
because critics have lionized him for years, is finally getting around to making
Bastards. Two of them.
Harry Knowles at
Ain't It Cool News came across an interview
between QT and Enzo Castellari, who directed the original Inglorious Bastards,
and in that interview Quentin revealed quite a bit about his upcoming flick,
which will focus on hardened criminals are caught between the Nazis and Allied
forces and have to fight both of them on their way to neutral territory.
For example, he's been working on the script for six years.
You know what, though? Seriously, highways take six years. Scripts shouldn't get
into the "better part of a decade" realm. Ever. Just look at Kingdom of the
Crystal Skull.
Harry says that QT has done so much research into WWII and
its cinema, "that the story kept growing and growing. It became too big for one
film - so he's turned it into 2. That's right, Inglorious Bastards will
be two movies... not unlike Kill Bill."
And I don't really know how to take that. Because Kill
Bill was great. I'd like to see it compiled back into one film, although
both installments were unique on their own. On the other hand, the original
Inglorious Bastards was an exploitation film of sorts, and that didn't
exactly work out too well the last time QT wanted to pay a little tribute, now
did it?
I'm a stickler about efficient filmmaking, as it reflects
good, effective storytelling. That's really what it's all about. And if you
can't wrap up a war movie in two-and-a-half hours (and even then, that's pushing
it), the solution is not to make two movies but to make one movie better.
Colin Boyd | Permalink | in Inglorious Bastards, QT, War Movies | Print Article | Email Article | 13 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
Wonder who would win in a fight between Clint Eastwood and QT?
My guess is QT's pretty scrappy but the smart money is still on Eastwood...
I respectfully disagree with the author's opinion on Death Proof. I thought it was a wonderful film, and one of Kurt Russell's greatest performances.
And I thought it was a tremendously pointless film. I liked Kurt Russell's performance, to the point that it was a performance. I don't think you can argue that anything after the car crash counts as acting, not from him or from anyone else. And the ending is probably the silliest waste of time in QT's catalog.
The author sounds a bit pretentious, to be perfectly honest.
Oh, I'm totally pretentious. And thanks for noticing. Of course, in a discussion about Quentin Tarantino, I'm more than overshadowed, but I appreciate it all the same.
Many people misunderstood Death Proof. The reason, I think, is because it is made by fans for fans. I really enjoyed it.
I also agree that Death proof was a great film. However, I can see why people didn't enjoy it so much, it is not the classic everybody-loves-hollywood kind of movie.
Reading a couple of your statements, I couldn't agree more.
Deathproof was a disappointment to me. Way to much talking at the beginning. Complete character shift of the Russell character at the end. What was presented of Stuntman Mike didn't show any indication he would cave in at pressure. There was no hero to cheer for at the end. The women turned into a pack of murderous dogs at the end. Every QT movie to that point had a hero to cheer for. All the others were a success. Hmmmmmm. Plus beating a man to death is a) not entertainment and b) a poor excuse for a fight scene.
QT is a fine filmmaker but a lazy one. 6 years is a long time for a script. World War II didn't take that long. 2 films for this idea? Coppola did it in one. Spielberg did it in one. Lotta classics did it in one.
"the solution isn't to make 2 movies- but make 1 better movie?"
Come on buddy.
What I like about Quentin Tarantino is that his movies aren't all about exagerrated high speed wannabe crap that keeps people in the movie theater today.
In other words; Tarantino makes GOOD movies with substance.
And substance counts for a lot.
...and don't go bad mouthing Deathproof either. It sounds like you've gotten yourself assimilated by the "dinner and a movie" psyche, and have forgotten how to just 'enjoy' a movie for what it is.
Either that or you've got a pretty damn shameful attention span ;)
But...
It's safe to say that there aren't going to be anymore 'classic' movies like Once upon a time in America made probably ever again. All the movies do these days is recycle movies- and they do it badly.
At least with Tarantino, you can say his stuff has originality- and substantialy so.
peace x
I disagree that the Stuntman Mike character shift was wrong. Because, you see, he's in his Deathproof car, he expects to crash in it, he's prepared for that. But what he isn't prepared for - is to be fired at, stabbed and chased after. So that wasn't a problem for me. I had problems with the overal "grindhouse style" switching to good quality film. I don't like that, it's distracting. I had problems with these long dialogue sequences, because on one hand they all added something to the characters, but on the other hand - it's a slasher movie and the characters are still left underdeveloped and although on some level the dialogue made the story more interesting, it wasn't worth it, cause I'd gladly watch this film without all this "character derdevelopment". I don't know what to think about QT now, I only know that he can make his Inglorious Bastards interesting to look at.
Rich Kuklsinky,
Are you positive you want to stand by your statement that what you "like about Quentin Tarantino is that his movies aren't all about exagerrated high speed wannabe crap," when he so obviously stole the Sad Hill shootout scene from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and sped it up for Reservoir Dogs? Leone purposefully kept that scene long to build suspense, and QT just exaggerated it by pushing it to high speed. It was a wannabe's attempt at being Leone, but it just came out like crap. Quentin Tarentino is the BIGGEST perpetrator of stealing things other filmmakers have worked hard on and calling it "homage". If anything, his films are just parts of other films put together like a collage. People seem to forget that he worked at a video store before he became a director, and now he just steals everything he has seen.
You're wrong, sir. Quentin Tarentino just gets lucky while stealing. He's far from god's gift to film.
I agree with David M. I cannot see how Rich Kuklsinky can say that Tarantino's films are 'original'! Most of the content of his films can all be found in other films elsewhere. What is worse, whilst he calls it homage, he deliberately 'borrows' from obscure films that most people have never seen or heard of, probably hoping that most 'average-cinema goers' won't notice. If he was a musician, and was 'borrowing' in the same way that he is in film, he would have been taken to court and sued 100 times over. That's not to say i don't like some of his films - Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are both excellent - but 2 good films in a catalogue of poor films does not a great director make!