Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds

[Razorwing]

^ cool.

[ew2x4]

I was able to pick out clips from about 5 different movies in that.

[Victor Rambo]

TY for the trailer rappy! :D

[Weld_El_7aj]

no matter what critics say, this well be awesome!!!

[Konstanov]

no matter what critics say, this well be awesome!!!

But the critics love this movie.

[Rappy Veteran]

no matter what critics say, this well be awesome!!!

It's a shame they have let personal hate come out in their reviews, either way I think its going to be cool.

[Konstanov]

This got posted in the wrong thread.

[Rappy Veteran]

Palme d?Or (Golden Palm):

The White Ribbon directed by Michael Haneke

Grand Prize (Runner Up):

Un Proph?te (A Prophet) directed by Jacques Audiard

Special Jury Prize:

Alain Resnais director of Wild Grass (Les Herbes Folles)

Best Director:

Brillante Mendoza for Kinatay

Best Screenplay:

Feng Mei for Lou Ye?s Spring Fever

Jury Prize:

Fish Tank directed by Andrea Arnold

Thirst directed by Park Chan-wook

Camera d?Or (First-Time Filmmaker):

Samson and Delilah directed by Warwick ThoBest Leading Actor:

Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterdsrds

Best Leading Actress:

Charlotte Gainsbourg in Antichrist

Un Certain Regard Prize:

Dogtooth (Kynodntas) directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

Jury Prize:

Police, Adjective (Politist, Adjectiv) directed by Corneliu Porumboiu

Special Jury Prize:

No One Knows About Persian Cats directed by Bahman Ghobadi

Father of My Children (Le P?re de mes Enfants) directed by Mia Hansen-L?ve

--

oh well at least it won something!

[Imran Hussain]

I have to say I was expecting better reviews for the movie, but they ended up in nothing but disappointment. But still, looking forward to it. Critics can be wrong you know :p

[bauhaus]

Hard to compete Haneke Chan-wook Park, those two are among the best directors today.

[Hurmoth]

I have to say I was expecting better reviews for the movie, but they ended up in nothing but disappointment. But still, looking forward to it. Critics can be wrong you know :p

You make it sound like that all of the reviews were negative and that couldn't be further from the truth. The reviews have been mixed, but even so, it still has rating of 57%.

The critics who are giving the film a negative review are basing their opinions on their personal feelings for the Weinsteins brothers, specifically Harvey Weinstein.

I've decided to ignore all reviews except my favorite critic Roger Ebert, who has announced he'll hold off on publishing his review until August when the film is released to the masses.

[Imran Hussain]

You make it sound like that all of the reviews were negative and that couldn't be further from the truth. The reviews have been mixed, but even so, it still has rating of 57%.

The critics who are giving the film a negative review are basing their opinions on their personal feelings for the Weinsteins brothers, specifically Harvey Weinstein.

I've decided to ignore all reviews except my favorite critic Roger Ebert, who has announced he'll hold off on publishing his review until August when the film is released to the masses.

Obviously, 57% is a LOT less than I was hoping. No matter what it sounds to you, the reviews have been below par.

[bauhaus]

Obviously, 57% is a LOT less than I was hoping. No matter what it sounds to you, the reviews have been below par.

Many cinema classics were trashed by the critics only to be elevated to classic status years later.

[Imran Hussain]

Many cinema classics were trashed by the critics only to be elevated to classic status years later.

I've got similar expectations from this movie. Expect it to be a classic. :)

[bauhaus]

I've got similar expectations from this movie. Expect it to be a classic. :)

The important thing is that you enjoy it.

Even Citizen Kane was trashed at first.

[Rappy Veteran]

[Crazysah]

Wow. Any UHQ version of that pic Rappy?

[Rappy Veteran]

Is Harvey Weinstein Asking Tarantino To Cut 40 Minutes From Inglourious Basterds?

Forcing a filmmaker to submit to editorial oversight can be a good thing, but when the Big Brother hanging over your Avid is Harvey Weinstein? Things can get ugly. We knew that Quentin Tarantino was making some cuts and changes to Inglourious Basterds in the wake of the film?s Cannes Premiere, tightening that 2 hour 27 minute cut and even adding a scene or two. But Sharon Waxman at The Wrap claims that The Weinstein Company wants Tarantino to cut a massive 40 minutes. Is this an artistic move to strengthen the film or a desperate bid to squeeze more cash out of the film in August by keeping the running time down? With The Weinstein Company having massive cash problems, what do you think?

What Waxman says is this: Weinstein and co-producer Universal are both trying to convince Tarantino to cut it by 40 minutes. (It?s now 2′40″, and considered too long a sit, especially for American audiences.)

But that?s not quite true. The Cannes cut was 2′27″ (as pointed out by The Playlist) while the longest edit Tarantino could deliver while still retaining final cut (which he still has), is 2′48″. So he doesn?t have to give in to Harvey, and very well might not. Consider what Tarantino told The Hollywood Reporter about the Canne It?s a no-****ing-around kind of pacing. That doesn?t mean it?s a big action movie. It just means there?s a good, steady pacing. I don?t luxuriate in every scene.n every scene.

Regardless, I?m hoping this is the end of the Tarantino/Weinstein partnership, no matter what happens to TWC when all the financial troubles are said and done. This is why, when reporting on that likely baseless rumor of Tarantino and Brad Pitt circling The Millennium Trilogy, I parenthetically wondered if Pitt might only be producing. Because at this point, please, get Tarantino away from the Weinsteins. If Quentin and Harvey ever had a real Hitchcock/Selznick relationship, it is over. Time to move on. Set up shop with Pitt?s Plan B (or anyone, really) and make a picture under the influence of people who actually like movies.

[Konstanov]

The Thin Red Line was over 2 hours and 40 minutes. and the first Lord of the Rings was 2 hours and 58 minutes.

[Razorwing]

Watchmen was around 3 hours aswell.

[Hurmoth]

Watchmen clocked in right at 2 hours, 42 minutes and look at how much it made in the Box Office.

Furthermore, look at both of the Kill Bill films. Volume One came in just under two hours, Volume Two came in 16 minutes over two hours. It isn't really the length of the film, but rather or not the film will appeal to a mass audience. I wonder how many people even look at the runtime of a film. I never do, which of course, I know that's me and others might be different, but as long as the film is good, I've never really cared about the length of the film.

[DomZ]

I always look at films runtimes, although not really when going to the cinema - only when I'm planning on watching a DVD or something. Generally speaking I get a bit tentative if a film is over 2 hours and I haven't seen it before, but as long as it is well paced and the long runtime justified then it doesn't really matter.

Cutting the run time wont effect cinema attendance (although will increase showings). I think if there are issues with the runtime it's because as one of the critics pointed out by the end of the film they didn't care what happened.

I'm going to see this film even if it is 5 hours long! I just hope QT gets left alone to make the final cut he wants.

[Rappy Veteran]

[Razorwing]

can't wait .. it's almost here..!!

[sensurround]

If they did cut 40 minutes from the film you can bet it'd be tacked on to a more expensive Ultimate Director's Cut disc. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the real reason for wanting to make cuts.

Either way, I am crazy excited for this film.