OT - Inglorious Bastards
Jackel
worried that this film might try to put a smile under the funny
mustache, if you know what I mean, but it was great! For all you guys
that love the WWII German Uniforms, you will love this.
Anyway, I don't want to give anything away, but really, go see it!
Jackel, ITFC 00018
Joe 90
This movie strikes me as being a bit of an anachronism, that being it
has WWII period characters possessing modern sensibilities. That can
be really good, or not so good. Some of the War Movies from the
1960/1970's were anachronistic: M.A.S.H., The Great Escape, Kelly's
Heroes, Anzio, The Dirty Dozen, and Cross of Iron. Some were better
than others. It's interesting that er're still going back to WWII for
movies. I guess because the good guys, and the bad guys were easy to
spot. I will see this movie.
I'm sure that I'll like it better than Legends of the Fall. Now that
was a badly done anachronistic movie! The thing reeked of ChicFlic,
too!
Joe90
Jackel
No chick flick here, although there is a very tragic female lead.
Here the good guys are good, but cruel and the bad guys are bad and
cruel.
It's a great movie, you will enjoy it.
Jackel, ITFC 00018
Sean Huxter
including the sensibilities of the characters. Stay to the end and you'll
certainly see that.
While I liked it, I didn't love it, and the reason is pretty simple. Sold
and marketed as ONE movie, it really is TWO that Tarantino tries to
seamlessly blend together and fails miserably in the process. You might even
say he blends the slapstick of the Basterds with the deadly-serious story of
the cinema-owner.
Either of the two major movies he's trying to create here would have been
oustanding on its own. However the twain did NOT meet well.
Some parts of it were just brilliant. And if he had stuck with the initial
vision of either of the two movies, he would have made something great, I
think.
But he diluted it by the forcing together of two disparate plots that
blended about as well as water and oil.
Bravo for effort, but sadly, it failed in its execution.
Sean.
"Joe 90" <addl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ec7b86d-9648-47a4...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Tanker
Anachronism
1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening
in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a
person or practice that belongs to an earlier time.
Now I had to dig those out because I wanted to make sure I was reading
your comment right...that being said I do not understand your comment
and the movies listed...especially The Great Escape which was based on
facts...
Tanker
Sean Huxter
>"Tanker" <m1a1t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:e2d46bf2-f6b8-45aa...@e12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>UHM.....WHAT??
>
>Anachronism
>1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening
>in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
>2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a
>person or practice that belongs to an earlier time.
>
>Now I had to dig those out because I wanted to make sure I was reading
>your comment right...that being said I do not understand your comment
>and the movies listed...especially The Great Escape which was based on
>facts...
>
>
>Tanker
I don't get the confusion, Tanker.
An anachronism is the appearance of something that should not exist in the
time shown.
Joe clearly stated:
> This movie strikes me as being a bit of an anachronism, that being it
> has WWII period characters possessing modern sensibilities.
The movie has WWII period characters possessing MODERN sensibilities.
When it came to Brad Pitt's character, I totally agree.
Sean.
Jackel
> >"Tanker" <m1a1tan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
What sensibilities did the characters exhibit that you would not
expect to find in people of that era? The anti-Nazi sensibility? The
willingness to sacrafice oneself for revenge and to defeat the tyrants
that attempted to dominate the world? The sick sense of humor that
would lead a guy to carve a swastika into his enemies forehead? The
willingness to scalp one's enemy?
Let me ask it this way, what MODERN sensibilities do you think these
period characters exhibited?
Anyone that thinks that the WWII soldier was some Norman Rockwell
version of what a soldier ought to be when he has his picture painted
for the Saturday Evening Post, needs to get a clue. The guys that
fought over there back then are no different than the guys fighting in
the Middle East right now. They were tough muthers, and God bless
them. That's what war does to people from the days of the Spartans to
right now. There is nothing new under the sun.
I think Tarantino hit it out of the park with this one.
Jackel, ITFC 00018
.iLYa
"Jackel" <smerdo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aba4a149-f10a-4421...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Do you really think IB accurately reflects the average American GI and the
war he fought during WWII?
> The guys that
> fought over there back then are no different than the guys fighting in
> the Middle East right now. They were tough muthers, and God bless
> them. That's what war does to people from the days of the Spartans to
> right now. There is nothing new under the sun.
Do you really think IB accurately depicts the average American GI and the
war he fights today?
iLYa
Rudy Panucci
> UHM.....WHAT??
>
> Anachronism
> 1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening
> in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
> 2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a
> person or practice that belongs to an earlier time.
>
> Now I had to dig those out because I wanted to make sure I was reading
> your comment right...that being said I do not understand your comment
> and the movies listed...especially The Great Escape which was based on
> facts...
>
I think he meant the attitudes and characterizations, like the hippie
tanker in "Kelly's Heroes." I don't know that I would apply it to all
the films he listed, though.
Jackel
> "Jackel" <smerdonmob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, of course not. IB is meant to be an over the top comic book style
characterization of events and attitudes. My point is that the
attitudes, the dark sense of humor, etc. were no different now then
they were then. My point is that if you rounded up a bunch of G. I.’s
in 1942 and screened IB for them, but for the sound track, they would
have loved it. They would have cheered and howled at the ending like
many in the theater did when I saw it in 2009.
I do not mean to imply that our soldiers then or now engage in
atrocities, torture and war crimes. I guess my point is best
illustrated by something that happened last night. I spoke to the
sergeant at the Police Department where I volunteer as a reserve last
night. He told me has been searching for a suspect in a child abuse
case. The suspect is accused of repeatedly burning his one year old
son with the end of a hot lighter. We discussed how when the Sergeant
found the guy that it would be too bad if he hit his head getting into
the backseat of the patrol unit, repeatedly. But that isn’t going to
happen. Just like our troops don’t commit atrocities on the
battlefield now or then (as a rule, crimes occur we can’t be blind).
Anyway, that is my point the guys in the 40’s might not like the sound
track of IB but I bet they would have loved the movie and identified
with the sensibilities portrayed therein.
Jackel, ITFC 00018
.iLYa
OK, just checking.
>My point is that the
>attitudes, the dark sense of humor, etc. were no different now then
>they were then. My point is that if you rounded up a bunch of G. I.'s
>in 1942 and screened IB for them, but for the sound track, they would
>have loved it. They would have cheered and howled at the ending like
>many in the theater did when I saw it in 2009.
I'm going to have to think on that one a while. On the one hand I can see
it, but on the other hand I'm faced with the realization that IB could have
never been made in 1942... or anytime before 1972 for that matter.
Prevailing cultural and social sensibilities would preclude it ever being
made. At least it worked that way in art - the 30s & 40s was after all in
reality, that period of history that yielded the most horrific world war and
genocidal holocaust at the hands of some truly sick puppies.
>I do not mean to imply that our soldiers then or now engage in
>atrocities, torture and war crimes. I guess my point is best
>illustrated by something that happened last night. I spoke to the
>sergeant at the Police Department where I volunteer as a reserve last
>night. He told me has been searching for a suspect in a child abuse
>case. The suspect is accused of repeatedly burning his one year old
>son with the end of a hot lighter. We discussed how when the Sergeant
>found the guy that it would be too bad if he hit his head getting into
>the backseat of the patrol unit, repeatedly. But that isn't going to
>happen. Just like our troops don't commit atrocities on the
>battlefield now or then (as a rule, crimes occur we can't be blind).
A lot of what ails us these days never saw the light of day years ago
because the cops took care if it before it ever reached the jailhouse.
Course men prepared to do rough work in the dead of
night.
I could never be a contemporary cop or soldier. I could never answer for my
actions to authorities not prepared to do everything and anything to protect
and defend the people they have sworn to defend. Bomber Harris would never
need to explain himself to me. Harry Truman in August of 1945 need never
explain himself to me.
>
>Anyway, that is my point the guys in the 40's might not like the sound
>track of IB but I bet they would have loved the movie and identified
>with the sensibilities portrayed therein.
>
>Jackel, ITFC 00018
I imagine you're right, the WWII GIs would have enjoyed watching IB in as
much as they would have enjoyed watching a Jenna Jameson porn flick. The
shock would probably be about the same. And I'm sure in either case, they
would not want to be caught watching it and would disavow any knowledge of
its existence. Just like those unpleasantries that we all know happen on
battlefields...and behind jail houses in another place and time.
I could rant on about other problems I have with IB and modern media, but...
ah, what the hell it's lunch and my fingers aren't even limber yet...
My concern with films like IB is that it has great potential in misinforming
young, unsophisticated and history challenged movie goers into the misguided
belief that THIS was the American GI of WWII. I can't imagine how we could
muster a greater insult to the farm boys, grocery clerks, soda jerks and
grease monkeys that rose up to save the world, than to project them in the
hellish light of moral equivalency that renders them to be as morally
bankrupt as the Nazis that engulfed the war in unprecedented barbarism and
genocide.
I know it's just a movie, one that will be seen and largely forgotten or at
the very least displaced to make room for the next mindless blockbuster, but
it pains me to know that there are so many good stories from WWII (and
beyond) just begging for a serious and mature screen treatment. Tales that
could serve the Millennial Generation as well as it served the Baby Boomers
in grappling with increasingly abstract if not distant concepts such as
personal responsibility, honor and duty.
And we get Inglorious Basterds instead. War porn.
Oy.
iLYa
.iLYa
"Rudy Panucci" <rud...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4aa7beae$0$23774$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
"M*A*S*H" - Set during the Korean War, has ZERO to do with that war and
everything to do with the counter culture anti-war movement of the
late1960s. The only thing
regulation in that flick was Frank Burns' libido.
"The Great Escape" - Holds up very well for a 60s WWII flick. Unlike the
other action yarns, TGE tells the story (in a fashion) of a remarkable real
life WWII event - right down to its final tragedy. And yet as a product of
its time the anachronisms, parachronisms and anatopisms creep in here and
there. Character diversity - contemporary movie making sensibilities
dictated that one of the leads (heroes) had to be an American. None were
present in the real camp IIRC. If Americans were present, none escaped on a
motorcycle in a mad dash to the Alps. Staying with Steve McQueen for a
minute, McQueen could have stepped off the set of TGE in costume, hopped on
a plane and walked thru downtown 1963 LA and he would not have looked a bit
out of place. Nothing particularly 1940s about his appearance and demeanor
in TGE.
"Kelly's Heroes" - Dear God where to start - deserters on a bank heist.
Every GIs experience in WWII. KH is ripe with Vietnam era unsensibilities.
Love those GI haircuts, especially Oddball. If they had somehow set the
movie in Vietnam, today Kelly's Heroes would have an almost Vietnam era
documentary feel to it.
"The Dirty Dozen" - To start, Jefferson would never have been allowed on the
mission. Nor would his Carl Weathers doppelganger in "Force 10 From
Navarone". In either case, contemporary sensibilities dictated a little
diversity on the team. That's minor compared to what really ails this film.
It is a Hollywood fantasy that certain soldiers (typ. the reluctant hero)
are so indispensable that their superiors will spare no expense, put up with
any insubordination or even criminal behavior in exchange for their
services. Dirty Dozen suffers from an extreme bought of this cliche fantasy.
"Cross of Iron" - That's a strange cookie with Coburn in the lead, but it
essentially boils down to the notion that from Hollywood's POV, what ailed
the US Army in WWII was also plaguing the German Army. On many levels Cross
of Iron is a German equivalent to Dirty Dozen and subject to flights of
fantasy divorced from the reality of actual Eastern front warfare.
Lest anyone think otherwise, apart from M*A*S*H, I like all of these flicks
in there own context of what they are or attempt to be.
I'd toss in a few more odds n ends off the top of my head:
"Bridge Over The River Kwai" - Alec Guiness's demented Colonel - great
performance, utter fantasy. William Holden's character being another case of
casting an American for the benefit of the home team. 50s flick, close
enough to the 60s.
"Devil's Brigade" - The mission into the Italian village where they prove
their mettle - starts off well and then devolves into the entirely absurd
when the captured Germans are paraded before the unsuspecting German CO.
Sheer popcorn fantasy. The whole squeaky clean Canadians versus the
degenerate Americans draws upon the rebellious Hollywood GI cliche yet
again.
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" - Strike out the plot with the Army colonel played by EG
Marshall and his Navy counterpart as the only men on the planet in a
position to thwart the Japanese as the clock winds down to its rendezvous
with destiny on December 7th 1941, and you have a pretty good docudrama.
"Bridge at Remagen" - Here the war weary, unruly and rebellious GI has the
ring of truth to it. As the war wore down with the finish line in sight
minds turned more towards acts of self preservation rather than acts of self
sacrifice and heroics. They just were not as vocal and outwardly militant
about it as they are in this film. While it is conceivable that the morale
and command breakdown that plague the combat weary unit focused on in this
movie could have happened, the reality is somewhat different. The GIs that
came upon Remagen went hell for broke and poured everything into taking it -
ASAP. They exhibited the professionalism that had carried them all the way
from the beaches of Normandy - and no Swastikas were carved or branded in
the process. ;-)
In reality, the Vietnamesque malcontents and goldbricks moved to the end of
the line during the Remagen operation. In the movie, they moved to the top
of the credits. Minor problems where the 1960s intrudes into the
cinematography and characterizations is typically visible in hair cuts,
civilian fashions, etc. Bigger problems emerge where Vietnam era attitudes
towards war intrude. It's really tough to find a hero in this flick - and
in the emerging era of the cinematic anti-hero, that was certainly by
design.
Interesting to war buffs because it covers a true and remarkable war time
incident. Strip out the melodrama and politics of self loathing and it might
have found its center and stand out as a greater war flick than it has come
to be regarded. TRIVIA TIME: Shot in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the film crew
had to shut down and flee in advance of the Soviet invasion mounted to
overthrow the reformist Czech government.
iLYa
Jackel
I totally understand your point, war porn is a good way to describe
IB. A historical drama it is not to be sure. Ironically, if they
left out Brad Pitt and his crew and were a lot more faithful to
history the story of the cinema owner in occupied France had the
makings of a fine historical drama.
Many people I speak to about the movie do not like the mix of the
serious story of the cinema in occupied France with the silly, yet
brutal storyline of the "Apache" and his crew. I understand the
criticism, but I don't share the opinion. I thought the two
storylines made the film compelling, but that's me.
It is clear that you see where I am coming from. I agree that the
movie could have never been made in the 40's 50's 60's early 70's, but
that doesn't mean that the dark sense of humor that it takes to
appreciate a movie like IB wasn't present. It was just considered
incredibly taboo to go there when women or children were around.
That's not a bad way to behave in my opinion. I mean, I would not
take my wife to IB. She wouldn't like it. Just like she wouldn't
like Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs.
Jackel, ITFC 00018
.iLYa
> It is clear that you see where I am coming from. I agree that the
> movie could have never been made in the 40's 50's 60's early 70's, but
> that doesn't mean that the dark sense of humor that it takes to
> appreciate a movie like IB wasn't present.
Sure, the existence of the Nazis will attest to that. What they say passed
for entertainment for Goering is particularly disturbing. And those guys had
nothing on the Japanese if Nanking is any indication.
A small percentage of GIs might be curious about captured Nazi snuff and
slaughter films, but that's no indication they enjoyed the experience or saw
some redeeeming value in it. Dracula was probably as horrorific as the
average Joe wanted to go with film in those days.
Here's a certainty - if by some stroke we could go back and screen IB for a
group of WWII dogfaces, I guarantee you it would be as controversial then as
it will be some day when someone "steals" a Miley Cyrus porn tape.
> It was just considered
> incredibly taboo to go there when women or children were around.
> That's not a bad way to behave in my opinion.
Same here. I like to say I'm a firm believer in a person enjoying 100%
freedom, as long as they exhibit 100% responsibility.
> I mean, I would not
> take my wife to IB. She wouldn't like it. Just like she wouldn't
> like Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs.
>
> Jackel, ITFC 00018
Another firm belief of mine is the addage that "boys will be boys" - and I
appreciate the
women in my life that have accepted that and gave me room. I wonder where
they are now? ;-)
iLYa
Je...@aol.com
A lot said here, and I'd like to see the thread continue. You guys
are going on for miles and I could too. I'll try to be brief and
1---- I'm a BIG 1960's War movie fan (Dirty Dozen) was my favorite
film for decades
2--- I think I'm a BIG Quentin Tarrantino fan
3--- DON'T expect any sort of historical accuracy in this film. It
has been described as a "Revenge Fantasy"
4--- That said I'm not sure I liked this film, I will probably have to
see it again on DVD or cable,
5--- I'm not really allright with absolutely fictional characters
mixing directly with historical characters----changing history (may
have been alright w/ "Twilight Zone" or "City on the Edge of
Forever") --eg. I did not like the Corleones involvement with the
assassination of Pope John Paul I in "Godfather III". I almost felt
it had destroyed an absolutely brilliant francise.
6--- I don't understand the need for a WW II, Jewish-Nazi revenge film
in 2009. The War has been over and Hitler has been dead for over 60
years. Nazi War Criminals went on trial at Nuerenberg and were
executed. It the film had been made in 1944 or Tarrantino attempted
to make it look like a 1944 retro propaganda film (similar to the
retro-comic book style of "Sky Captain") maybe I would have bit.
7--Tarrantino's film is an homage to many different film styles,
including the aforementioned "acronynistic" 1960's WW II action flicks
and teh 60's-70's Spagetti Westerns
footnotes:
Compare the film to the "Dirty Dozen" and realize that a young Roger
Ebert panned DD as violent and cruel, but an older Ebert absolutely
loved IB
Compare the baseball bat scene in IB to the unarmed German soldier
beaten to death in "Defiance"
Compare the "Basterds" perception and treatment of enlisted German
soldiers with the scene in SPR where the American soldier and the
German soldier from the same home town meet on the road and more
starkly the "Steamboat Willie" encounters.
btw-- just a warning to those who are not familiar w/ Tarrantino's
work--- IB is VERY talky
just a warning to those who don't like subtitles-- about 60%
to 70% of this movie is in languages other than English
Hope to read more comments and perhaps join back-- maybe even talk
more Dirty Dozen
Jim
Jackel
Jim:
Way to jump into the fray. It's funny but until I read your post I
had completely forgotten that a huge portion of the film was
subtitled. It never bothers me to watch a movie with subtitles,
unless I am watching on dvd then sometimes they are too small and I
can't read them! Which brings me around to another one of my favorite
WWII movies "Das Boat." I remember taking a date to see that in the
original German with subtitles. I was so engrossed with the movie I
never noticed that the girl I brought fell asleep about two minutes
into the film. I found that the movie was not as good, at least to
me, when it was dubbed over in English. Which goes back to my point
about not taking my wife to see IB, in my middle age I have finally
learned the lesson that most chicks don't dig war flicks.
Jackel, ITFC 00018
William
>
> - Show quoted text -
Das Boot is one of my alltime favorite war films and I agree about it
being better in subtittles. I also agree that war porn is a good way
to describe Tarentino films though I haven't seen IB yet that
describes Kill Bill as well. He treats violence the way porn
directors treat sex except with more cinematic skill but its still
voyeristic at heart. I also consider him the most misogynistic
director since Hitchcock but hey whay do I know from film directors.
William
Je...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny you mention "Das Boot" (the boat). Some time In the early
80's I went to the movies to see " Beach Girls" Staring Jeanna
Tommasina. Well it was playing with a "Sneak Preview" (remember
them ?)-- And that Sneak preview happened to be "Das Boot".--some
strange double feature ..eh ?
Das Boot absolutely blew me away. I had never seen a movie like it.
I remember leaving the theatre thinking I needed a shower (NO not a
cold shower for Beach Girls) I mean I almost felt like I was on that
sub with all that sweat and grime etc.
Anyway I was'nt criticizing the foreign language and subtitles. I
agree with you, in the movies i prefer original language, while I have
a littel trouble reading them on a tv screen.
I just meant to give the heads up to those who don't like that kind
of experience, also those not familiar with Tarrantino's work ( clever
small talk being one of his trademarks) may find some of the scenes
disconcerting when coupled with the foreign language.
Jim
Buzz Mooney
that during the scene where they're being pounded with depth charges,
I desperately wanted them to escape "those bastards on the surface".
It was then, that I remembered that "those bastards" were the
Americans, and this was a U-boat of the Third Reich!
Here's one for the '60s anachronistic film list: Situation Desperate,
But Not Serious. I don't even really remember the film, except that it
involve two Americans who escape from a German camp, and are aided/
thwarted in their escape by a German beatnik girl.
I haven't decided whether to see IB, because I don't like Brad Pitt,
and I CAN"T STAND Tarantino. However, that's just my opinion.
Buzz
.iLYa
"Buzz Mooney" <buzz....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ceec5d6-7c99-427e...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Cheesy 80s Adam Ant song - "Desperate, But Not Serious"
Cheesy 60s war flick - "Situation Hopeless, But Not Serious"
I know them both, but I haven't seen the war flick in a few years. TCM or
ACM ran it a half dozen years back. I didn't recognize the title but the
minute I read a synopsis and saw that Alec Guiness played a crazy German
shopkeeper that kept the two men in a cage in his shop or basement it all
came rushing back to me. I didn't come in on it from the beginning and got
the impression it was set in the postwar period after Germany's surrender,
but I guess I missed the setup.
The thing played out like a stage play, I wondered at the time if it had
been one at one time. It was an interesting look at Mike Connors in Mannix
trim, more or less, and a very young Robert Redford. Alec Guiness was a
whack job who unlike his character in "Bridge...Kwai", had more than just
the one foot firmly in the nut house.
If you want hardcore 60s WWII psychodelic weird, look up a strange one with
Burt Lancaster playing a one-eyed American officer guarding a castle against
not only Germans, but every form of paranoia and social disorder he and his
men can muster in a two hour time frame. Patrick O'Neal and Peter Falk
starred in this drek too. I don't recall the title, so hitting the IMDB I
find that the smoldering pile of shit was called - "Castle Keep" from 1969.
Watch this one and you'll have a fair command of the type of horseshit that
commonly passed for art during the 60s. As war flicks go, Burt's a long way
from the beach here.
The cinematic marriage of WWII and castles doesn't seem to have gone off too
well historically - but I do think that properly, done a flick based on the
"Return to Castle Wolfenstein" VG has the potential for being a good flick.
Unless they make it like "Doom" - which they almost certainly would.
iLYa
.iLYa
news:fKidnVd6j8n1jTDX...@earthlink.com...
Must be my morning for total recall of psychodelic 60s war flicks. Cornel
Wilde's "Beach Red" pacific war romp just intruded into my unhappy
conscious. If you've never seen it, imagine the 90s "Thin Red Line", hold
that thought. Now imagine slapping yourself in the head with a ballpeen
hammer. Note the groggy disoriented feeling, blurred vision and inability to
focus or form coherent thoughts for any length of time. You now have a firm
grip on two hours spent with "Beach Red"... or, "Thin Red Line" for that
matter.
Surfing around I came across some lengthy commentary comparing "Beach Red"
with "Saving Private Ryan". Someone is either smoking some serious crack or
had to polish a mirror finish shine to some left-over-hippie film school
professor's ass to come up with that pairing. The difference between the two
is not immense - one was set in WWII and told a compelling story with plot
and characers. The other one was nominally set in WWII. ;-)
1967's "Beach Red" should have been set in Vietnam - it would have been so
much more relevant to that era's mode of thinking and as such, would be a
more striking film 40 years later. Vietnam was understandably on Cornel
Wilde's mind when he produced/directed/narrated/wrote/scored/starred in his
signature war commentary.
iLYa
Buzz Mooney
Plot Line...erm, Thin RED Line might have been at least a bit
bearable, had it been made either ABOUT Viet Nam, or DURING it. The
only part I liked was the sequence with
John Cusack.
The most idiotic part, in my opinion, was the scene with Woody
Harrelson, as the guy who hung his grenades to his belt by the spoons.
He then accidentally throws a spoon, leaving the grenade attached to
his belt. If it was attached by the spoon, how could that be possible?
Did I miss something?
Buzz
.iLYa
I only sat thru it once, all I could stand. And that's with me owning the
DVD. All I recall is Woody was up to his premature bald spot portraying a
one dimensional Hollywood redneck who was dumb as a stump and proved the
point by jumping up, grabbing for a grenade and standing there looking at
the spoon in his hand like Wyle E Coyote waiting on the blast. Yeah, it only
makes sense if he palmed the grenade and the spoon stayed behind or snapped
off. Terrence Malick - hell we're lucky Jesus Christ Superstar and the
Partridge Family bus didn't appear after the blast.
Agreed, the Cusack subplot had some semblance of reality. They weren't
supermen with guns, but they weren't wallowing around counting blades of
grass or dreaming of Mary Jane rotten crotch either. For me the absolute
stupidest part of that movie was John Savage. He obviously spent his time
aboard the transport smoking the dirty laundry. Nick Nolte and John Travolta
weren't any great shakes either. Nick look and acted like he needed a fix
and Travolta looked like he was channeling Vinnie Barbarino in a James
Buchanan High School production of "South Pacific". Sean Penn in TRL just
reinforces my belief that his idea of intensity consists entirely of
settling into a scowl that is a cross between the look a little boy makes
when he loses his lollie and the one that comes just moments before he's
about to get the shit beat out of him by a soldier that took exception to
being belittled.
I still regard "Fast Time At Ridgemont High" as Penn's best work. But it
still isn't as good as Cusack's worst flick. An
iLYa