Fourthcoming: Inglourious Basterds

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released from Arrow and the films on them.

Moderator: MichaelB

Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#501 Post by MichaelB » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:44 am

A good example of how Hollywood lawyers play this sort of thing - when György Ligeti contacted MGM after being understandably miffed that 2001: A Space Odyssey featured over half an hour of his music (it seemed Kubrick had cleared the performance and recording rights but not the composition rights), a lawyer cheerfully told him that MGM didn't have a leg to stand on, and that if Ligeti took them to court, he'd definitely win.

He then spelled out exactly how long the process would take, how much longer the lawyers would spin it out for, and the likely cost to a private individual who wasn't exactly rolling in cash (Ligeti earned more from his teaching than his music, and that wasn't a lot). So Ligeti gave up and basked in the fairly colossal extra recognition that the film had given him - he genuinely liked 2001, which helped.

The reason I'm bringing up this story is that it's hard to imagine anyone with a stronger case than Ligeti - there was no doubt he'd written the music, as there was plenty of evidence in the form of published scores, performances and recordings going back nearly a decade, as MGM's lawyer conceded. And even that wasn't enough.

It's also worth noting that a judge will demand a standard of proof broadly equivalent to that because Hollywood studios get hit with "plagiarism" lawsuits all the time. It's very very rare that they even get as far as a court hearing - and in order to get to that stage you'll need proof that the script existed in 2004 (not 'scientific' proof, actual proof) and that Tarantino actually read it. If you can't match both of those conditions absolutely unambiguously, this discussion is a waste of time.

mario gauci
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Naxxar, Malta.

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#502 Post by mario gauci » Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:03 am

MichaelB wrote:It's very very rare that they even get as far as a court hearing - and in order to get to that stage you'll need proof that the script existed in 2004 (not 'scientific' proof, actual proof) and that Tarantino actually read it. If you can't match both of those conditions absolutely unambiguously, this discussion is a waste of time.
This was a cordial and eye-opening discussion, Michael but, since I cannot prove conclusively that Mr. T has in fact read my script, I'm afraid it has to sensibly stop here.

Consequently, the first 2 chapters of my review have been removed and that literal structure jettisoned entirely (since it won't make sense with just 3 chapters).

But, as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this one...

Bloody Benten
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#503 Post by Bloody Benten » Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:11 pm

mario gauci wrote:
MichaelB wrote:It's very very rare that they even get as far as a court hearing - and in order to get to that stage you'll need proof that the script existed in 2004 (not 'scientific' proof, actual proof) and that Tarantino actually read it. If you can't match both of those conditions absolutely unambiguously, this discussion is a waste of time.
This was a cordial and eye-opening discussion, Michael but, since I cannot prove conclusively that Mr. T has in fact read my script, I'm afraid it has to sensibly stop here.

Consequently, the first 2 chapters of my review have been removed and that literal structure jettisoned entirely (since it won't make sense with just 3 chapters).

But, as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this one...
Wait, the script part of your review was true? I thought you were just making fun of Tarantino generally stealing ideas by saying that. Anyways, that sucks but honestly why did you even include it in your review in the first place? Did you expect anyone to care because now that I know it's true I still don't.

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#504 Post by R0lf » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:18 am

StevenJ0001 wrote:
Grand Illusion wrote:We get a close-up designed to make us squirm, to show the grotesquerie of the act.
I'm not so sure Tarantino uses violence and gore in that way. He loves violence on film and revels in his own use of it just the way he enjoys violence in the exploitation cinema he admires. I think he presumes most of his his fans enjoy it as much as he does, which is probably correct. What was so different about this particular graphic scene? It seemed to me as "joyous" (from Tarantino's perspective) as any of his other graphically violent/gory moments. Nothing gave me the impression he was trying to rub our faces in it to generate the more layered reaction you suggest.
I would say most of the violence in Reservoir Dogs would make people squirm and is not specifically celebratory. I think that the specific violence you are talking about is mostly found in Kill Bill.

User avatar
Svevan
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#505 Post by Svevan » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:16 am

StevenJ0001 wrote:
Grand Illusion wrote:We get a close-up designed to make us squirm, to show the grotesquerie of the act.
I'm not so sure Tarantino uses violence and gore in that way. He loves violence on film and revels in his own use of it just the way he enjoys violence in the exploitation cinema he admires. I think he presumes most of his his fans enjoy it as much as he does, which is probably correct. What was so different about this particular graphic scene? It seemed to me as "joyous" (from Tarantino's perspective) as any of his other graphically violent/gory moments. Nothing gave me the impression he was trying to rub our faces in it to generate the more layered reaction you suggest.
Piggy-backing on R0lf's disagreement with StevenJ: I'm tired of posters here trying to prove/disprove their points using Tarantino's personality as their argument. He certainly makes himself the center of his marketing scheme, and his comments alternate between illuminating and self-serving (and sometimes they are both), but very often these comments contradict each other and provide multiple ways of viewing the same material, depending on his audience. For instance, Tarantino said to an audience at the Museum of Jewish Heritage, in reference to the penultimate scene of the film:
SpoilerShow
Quentin Tarantino wrote:At some point those Nazi uniforms went away and they were people being burned alive. I think that’s part of the thing that fucks with the catharsis. And that’s a good thing.
That's more "layering" than StevenJ has allowed Tarantino to be capable of, but the quote doesn't mean much to me. Other times Tarantino has spoken of this scene as pure vengeance, revenge-porn for Jewish audiences.

I laughed at much of the film's violence, when it was implausible and cartoonish a la Kill Bill. At other times, however, the violence seemed to have extra weight, perhaps only from the subject matter, but perhaps because there was something inherently different. The opening scene's violent climax is over-the-top, but my reaction was one of horror as well as amazement; definitely not relish or pure orgiastic pleasure. One poster here or a critic remarked that his or her audience laughed at this scene, and that's a Barmy-level of criticism: can one audience stand in for all audiences? Does any audience's reaction determine the value of a film? Saying, as some here have, that because an audience or the majority of all audiences (an impossible idea to quantify) will confuse this film with real history, or will react vapidly or destructively to the violence, that therefore the film is amoral, dishonest, poorly made, etc. etc. is more of an attack on modern culture or teenage audiences than it is on Tarantino's filmmaking. Using his quotes to bolster this attack is like shooting fish in a barrel - you can find a Tarantino quote to support many contradictory arguments regarding his films.

In contrast to the opening scene, during the climactic scene in the theatre I felt a mixture of go-get-'em revenge and disgusted horror, just as Tarantino anticipated in his quote. If I had not felt that, reading his quote today would have merely informed me of his unrealized intentions (unrealized in myself only) or his dishonest appraisal of his own work in front of that audience. Reading his quote now, and reading many other quotes being tossed around, I find that he has a firm grip on me, at least, as an audience member, though at times he expects of me a bit more enthusiasm than I can generate, often for violence that I find no pleasure in. So be it. I'd much rather watch the film and use the elements therein to argue its qualities than his quotes, as that's not a firm foundation.

All this to say that the scene in question in StevenJ's quote, the very final scene of the film,
SpoilerShow
was to me both gruesome and symbolic, not inspiring any joy, but not without its own satisfaction. As a resolution to the film's skewed morality (as represented by the Basterds), it satisfied the desire to punish someone like Landa, or any Nazi, for his crimes, while at the same time repelling me by its plain awfulness. I responded similarly to Grand Illusion, questioning if any punishment was too awful for the Nazis, or if vengeance of any sort is morally right, but these thoughts don't add much to a film that uses revenge more as a motivator (for both characters and audience) than as a subject worth pondering. I viewed it more for its emotional resolution and plot significance than for its relationship to reality.
All questions about morality in this film seem to me secondary to the movie's main conceit of "what if...?" and the self-aware, suspenseful, humorous, thrilling, and disgusting ride that got us to those moments. It's completely contrary to how we've been trained to view World War II movies, where the Nazis can be either hated villains or sympathetic pawns, and the soldiers are either heroes worth venerating, or pawns themselves. In these films, every characters' actions are weighed morally, as in Saving Private Ryan's final epic battle. Since Inglourious Basterds isn't really about World War II and does not moralize, viewing it through that same lens is inappropriate.

Or perhaps my main point is that the violence of an exploitation film doesn't have to be either cheered or denounced, as if those are the only two reactions one can have to an element of a film.

User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#506 Post by Tom Hagen » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:09 pm

Cheerupemokid wrote: I loved a lot of the long scenes and thought the dialogue was fantastic, but having them end that way just seemed wrong for the movie. It was like here's a great scene, and here's the "Tarantino" twist to end it. I find this to be Tarantino's most frustrating movie to date, as it shows signs of true, matured brilliance, but tosses them aside for the sake of fitting some sort of self-imposed "Tarantino-style" Tarantino seems to be going for.
Spot-on. I was especially chagrined by
SpoilerShow
the scenes with the Samuel L. Jackson narration
for example.

I almost wonder if the fractured nature of the proceedings stems from the fact that the project had been marinating for so long. Perhaps Tarantino came about all of the better parts of the movie as he continued working on it, making the original narrative impetus for the film less and less important as the project developed. It's odd, and oddly satisfying, that the Basterds themselves (as unentertaining as they are ethically reprehensible), to paraphrase Armond White's line, function as little more than cameo performers in their own movie.

Also -- and this may have already been discussed here -- was anyone else especially horrified by
SpoilerShow
the torching of all of those nitrate films? Jesus Christ!

Haggai
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:31 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#507 Post by Haggai » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:33 pm

Tom Hagen wrote:Perhaps Tarantino came about all of the better parts of the movie as he continued working on it, making the original narrative impetus for the film less and less important as the project developed.
I'm not sure it's clear that the original narrative impetus was all that different from what he ended up with. When he was on the Charlie Rose show on the day the film opened, Tarantino said that Shoshana was one of the characters he had in mind from the very beginning. He talked about dropping some of the things he had in mind for her because they ended up in Kill Bill--as originally envisioned, she was going to have a "death list" (of German officers), a la The Bride, and she was going to snipe at them from rooftops, like O-Ren.

So while Tarantino's been talking for a long time about his "bunch of guys on a mission" WWII movie, as opposed to "a bunch of guys on a mission intermingled with the story of a French girl seeking revenge for the death of her family," it seems he really did have that parallel structure in mind since the early stages of developing the script.

Grand Illusion
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#508 Post by Grand Illusion » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:41 pm

And seriously, why did he title the play Julius Caesar if...
Svevan wrote:It's completely contrary to how we've been trained to view World War II movies, where the Nazis can be either hated villains or sympathetic pawns, and the soldiers are either heroes worth venerating, or pawns themselves. In these films, every characters' actions are weighed morally, as in Saving Private Ryan's final epic battle. Since Inglourious Basterds isn't really about World War II and does not moralize, viewing it through that same lens is inappropriate.
You said it better than I did. Especially how the film undercuts how we've been "trained" to view WWII films.

hot_locket
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:39 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#509 Post by hot_locket » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:38 pm

Tom Hagen wrote:Also -- and this may have already been discussed here -- was anyone else especially horrified by
SpoilerShow
the torching of all of those nitrate films? Jesus Christ!
Haha, I really was. At first I thought Tarantino was making some kind of commentary about the worth of art vs. life or something but then absolutely nothing was said of any more depth than "FUCK YEAH MOVIES ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE WOOOOOOO".

I did kind of like the
SpoilerShow
film projected on the smoke
But that can't be an original idea (even if I don't think I've personally seen it done before).

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#510 Post by Cold Bishop » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:14 pm

hot_locket wrote:Haha, I really was. At first I thought Tarantino was making some kind of commentary about the worth of art vs. life or something but then absolutely nothing was said of any more depth than "FUCK YEAH MOVIES ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE WOOOOOOO".
Well, if you watch the Cannes interview, he does mention he was originally going to
SpoilerShow
have Shosanna light up one particular film like a grenade and toss it into the pile setting off the explosion, but he couldn't decide on the film: either Jud Süß - the NAZI machine ultimately destroying itself - or Grand Illusion - Renoir's humanist message overcoming NAZI atrocity (Ironic, considering the anti-humanist tendencies in his own work).

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#511 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:51 am

I did kind of like the
SpoilerShow
film projected on the smoke
But that can't be an original idea (even if I don't think I've personally seen it done before).
It's not unusual for experimental/instillation pieces. However, it did look neat within the film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#512 Post by domino harvey » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:39 am

Well, finally saw this tonight at a late showing. I was pretty under-enthused by the much-lauded opening chapter, which struck me as indulgent and not particularly compelling. But surprisingly I thought his second go around at the massive set piece, the bar meet-up with the extended game-playing, was a triumph and certainly the best thing in the film. The humor, the tension, the smatterings of wit-- this was the only segment of the film that could have passed through a rewrite mostly unharmed. But what works best is
SpoilerShow
its terrific employment of rapid crosscutting in the violence at the end. Such a welcome and highly effective break from the fetishistic violence that permeates the film!
Oh, and the hugest shock of all: Eli Roth was actually pretty good, I thought.

As for the morality of the film: Christ. The final punchline
SpoilerShow
("Well, I'd have to say this is my masterpiece!"-- WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY QUENTIN TARANTINO)
is clever, I guess, but not in a way that can overcome the prurient status violence holds in the film. Regardless of what we think the director intended, the violence in the film is presented in such a way as to be pleasurable. When one of my companions kept insisting that the film was so deeply ironic in that the audience isn't supposed to enjoy the violent imagery, I kept flashing back to the nausea-inducing violence of a true work of filmic art, Come and See, and how the violence in that film was so successfully employed to criticize, and their argument just became so hollow. That was a film that hated the violence it displayed; this film loves every death, every blow, every giant bullethole and spray of blood it spills, and I do have a problem with that in connection to this material.

User avatar
Mr Pixies
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:03 pm
Location: Fla
Contact:

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#513 Post by Mr Pixies » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:17 am

Prurient is an awesome word, I've never heard it before! Your buddies may just not have been aware of their true fascination, which there may be many that purport this as "important" a film as any...What makes this film important, is it's indention on the fact that history cannot be told without some lying, or stylization, editing, etc. Any film, all films, that aim to tell a story factually, no matter how much, it is lie. Inglourious Basterds is only a movie, violence in movies does something to us, like sex does something for us, for which there are films about sex that make you horny but aim to deliver where that horniness comes from and what kinds of effects it can cause....what I wish to say is you need films like Come and See to make you want to shit blood, but also need films like Inglourious Basterds to remind you it's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie. The map is not the territory. You see a film, you are only seeing a film at this point and time, this films aims to entertain that fact, also reminding the brilliant minds that can go into this kinda cause...beware! Its a hidden message, so the pigs don't sniff you out.

Eli Roth was awesome, and as cool as his movies can be, I would like to just see him act in movies with directors like Tarantino, I just mean like directors of his class, and he has class. heh maybe not? He's the kinda guy that would like these kind of conversations, or would he just want to talk about race cars? No way, I believe I read he is working on a book of movie reviews that never showed anyone?
domino harvey wrote: As for the morality of the film: Christ. The final punchline
SpoilerShow
("Well, I'd have to say this is my masterpiece!"-- WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY QUENTIN TARANTINO)
is clever, I guess, but not in a way that can overcome the prurient status violence holds in the film. Regardless of what we think the director intended, the violence in the film is presented in such a way as to be pleasurable. When one of my companions kept insisting that the film was so deeply ironic in that the audience isn't supposed to enjoy the violent imagery, I kept flashing back to the nausea-inducing violence of a true work of filmic art, Come and See, and how the violence in that film was so successfully employed to criticize, and their argument just became so hollow. That was a film that hated the violence it displayed; this film loves every death, every blow, every giant bullethole and spray of blood it spills, and I do have a problem with that in connection to this material.
I love this review, its good but I see it another way, and this review helped me to see it. While it is only a movie, by how much do we depend on movies/art/etc, to guide our spirits/programs? Art can teach us, wane us away from how we have once acted/reacted towards things. Again, the Holocaust is over with and there are other once going on, they are not that special, move on and hope they don't decide to eat you, or err, you learn how to tame them...huh? No way maybe...This is not a holocaust movie. It is a revenge film, taking on the skin of WWII to suggest that it is all always a story, do not let them tell you how it was, it is all imagination, beware of what the imagination can conjure up. Ugh, I just think though that this film dedicates itself to doing what films do best, (in the context of film aesthetic, and homage) and this is Tarantino's thing, I don't want or expect all artist/filmmaker's doin the same shtick from the same level of perception. Come and See doesn't really hate violence, the boy in the film seemed to, others did too, it really sucks for real. Inglourious Basterds is the perfect mate for Come and See cause it shows how and when it is ok to love violence. AND WHERE IT SHOULD BE LOVED< IE WHERE DO YOU LOVE THE GOD OF WAR IF YOU CANNOT DENY THE GOD OF WAR? Seriously, there are gods (programs) in your brain, and they can not be bypassed, know them and express them in a way that is best for everyone, and be honest with what best for everyone really means, it means back the fuck off, but embrace me. I love art!

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#514 Post by R0lf » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:56 am

Amazon UK list the extras included on their DVD/Blu. No Maggie Cheung deleted scenes.

User avatar
Antares
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Richmond, Rhode Island

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#515 Post by Antares » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:07 pm

Just found this...

Image

Pretty funny and pretty true. =D>

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#516 Post by bearcuborg » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:51 pm

That's pretty fun, but I got lost when, (1) things didn't match up for me; and (2) I found the movie pretty forgettable.

royalton
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#517 Post by royalton » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:49 pm

That trite little art project reeks of the most odious sophomore year self-righteousness, a fragrance of under-deodorized adolescent rage the likes of which only angry LiveJournal shrikes on a soapbox can produce! Am I right or am I right?

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#518 Post by bearcuborg » Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:19 pm

Well, it sounds good coming from you regardless!

User avatar
Antares
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Richmond, Rhode Island

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#519 Post by Antares » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:06 pm

royalton wrote:under-deodorized adolescent
Isn't that Quentin's target demographic? :D

Slothrop
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:43 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#520 Post by Slothrop » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:45 am

My main problem with the film is the bifurcated narrative. I don't think it works dramatically.
SpoilerShow
Instead of braiding the two stories (Shosanna's very personal quest for the revenge owed her family, the Basterds' more "idealistic" and abstract pursuit of revenge for the Jewish people) together during the climax at the premiere, Tarantino just runs both strands parallel to the end. The Basterds never catch wind of Shosanna's plot and vice versa. By the time Shosanna's lover lights the nitrate stock and the two trapped Basterds start blasting away at the scuttling Nazis, the whole thing has devolved into the emotional equivalent of a schoolyard lark, at which point my reaction was stuck somewhere between obligatory applause and a shrug of the shoulders.
I'm all for confounding audience expectations if it serves a point, but here it just seems like an excuse to tell two stories at the same time. Or maybe Tarantino lacked confidence that either story was good enough to stand on its own. Obviously the two stories are not completely unrelated--Shosanna and the Basterds are pursuing the same villains to same place--but they don't seem to connect beyond this superficial level to some deeper narrative or thematic core. Which is strange considering how unusually deft Tarantino has proven himself in being able to forge a complex, satisfying unity out of disparate particulars.

Unless I'm just missing it, which very well might be the case. Perhaps someone here can help me connect the dots a little better?

stwrt
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#521 Post by stwrt » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:18 am

Is it just me or are some of the backgrounds based on paintings ? In the conversation scene between the French Farmer and Waalz, the scenery outside the window looks like a Cezanne.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#522 Post by domino harvey » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:39 pm

Tom O'Neil predicts Inglorious Basterds will net eleven Oscar noms-- He is approaching Armond White-levels with this article

User avatar
Napier
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:48 am
Location: The Shire

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#523 Post by Napier » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:05 pm

After having two or three spins with the BD since I saw it in the theater, once. I'm inclined to think that it's not really that bad of a picture at all. In fact, I think it's Tarantino's second best film next to Jackie Brown. And I wouldn't be surprised at all, if this does receive several nominations. Christoph Waltz is nothing short of brilliant. His performance is pitch perfect. It's like a missing bad guy from Casablanca.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#524 Post by domino harvey » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:28 pm

I think it'll be in there for Best Pic, Director, Screenplay, and Supporting Actor and maybe a technical nom or two. Nowhere near eleven and the defensive tone of the article is O'Neil's Last Stand after a few years of just totally wrong predix

royalton
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#525 Post by royalton » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:15 am

I'm more interested in seeing Melanie Laurent nominated.

Post Reply