Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of quentin tarantino
Inglourious basterds analysis
Analysis of quentin tarantino
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of quentin tarantino
Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds Another movie by the famous producer “Quentin Tarantino”. Inglourious Basterds set in France in the time of Hitler’s takeover and the Nazis introducing a group of Americans called “The Basterds” Sent in to destroy the Nazi’s from the inside. The movie starts off at a cabin/farm owned by a man named Perrier LaPadite. Who is harboring Jewish people when a group of Nazis show up with Hans Landa AKA “The Jew Hunter”. For a random visit after a family of Jews appear to still be in France. But Hans eventually finds out from Perrier he’s harboring jews so he has them killed through the floorboards. But one of them escapes a girl by the name of Shosanna Dreyfus. The scene ends and cuts to a few years later. Showing the very first look of the group called the ‘Basterds”. Being recruited by Lt. Aldo Raine explaining their plan for the Nazis. The very next scene shows Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) talking to a group of soldiers explaining that he is starting the group “The Basterds”. And that each of them owe him 100 Nazi Scalps each. The scene then skips to a more grown up Shosanna Dreyfus living in France. When a Nazi soldier walks up to her and begins to talk to her. The next day he sees her and tries to talk her again and she lets him know she doesn't want to talk to him due to what he is (A Nazi). And …show more content…
As every movie it has its flaws and its strengths. The movie at times had too much dialogue which isn’t always bad. But the movie sometimes begins to drag on and become boring. But it excels in good action. And great storytelling and that’s what is interesting and fun to watch. Yet a “Historical” story it’s very great to watch. And doesn’t seem to get boring despite historic plot with great action, adventure. Maybe a minor the flaw in the movie can be it’s play time how long the movie but it makes up for it in the end with great storyline and
After that hannah and others survive and go to a concentration camp where there are given food and some shelter. Hannah meets this girl who tells her to try not to get picked for the extermination they live their life being cushions and not getting caught or in other words taken.
The introductory moments are somewhat confusing, and it takes about fifteen or twenty minutes to get the characters and situations straight. Madeleine Stowe's British accent is of the "now-you-hear-it, now-you-don't" variety, although her performance pretty much makes up for this inconsistency. Finally, the photography surrounding the waterfall is unconvincing. Other than those few things the film was great. From beginning to end, there isn't a weak performance. Finally, there's the story, which, while not all that complex, is of epic nature. At first I wasn’t expecting this movie to be good but by the end of the last battle I knew that The Last of the Mohicans is a memorable motion picture adventure, and one of the best films I’ve ever seen.
As an exile from Communist Cuba, ….Montana…wha you say? You say wrong Scarface? Maybe I say you wrong, man. Maybe I say you in wrong place at wrong time chico. Maybe I no even speak to you, maybe I let someone else talk. I got someone you should meet. Say hello to my lil’ frie…. I’m sorry, let me start over.
The movie is Flyboys it was released in 2006. The specific aspect of the movie that it reflects is the invention of airplanes during the war. The invention of the airplane was revolutionary because now the soldiers were able to fight in the air. After the U.S betrayed France some of the American soldiers went to France and fought for France. The soldiers became pilots. They were known as Flyboys. They were trained by French soldiers. Men from America and France enlisted in the war because they wanted to learn how to fly airplanes. Quickly airplanes became a war machine . They were used from both parties.
It is an amazing movie that deals with hard topics very well. I can only think of a few gripes I have with it. The Confederate’s were just viewed as the bad guys because their bad guys, whenever they are on screen they look like a bunch of hill billies with guns. Also there isn't much character development outside of Robert and Trip. Other than that I can't really say much bad about it. If you are a fan of war movie, you'll love it. If you are a fan of civil rights movies, you'll love it. If you are a fan historical movies, you will love it. If you love movies in general, watch this movie! It is amazingly acted, the score drives each scene, and the emotion presented is very powerful. It's a definite yes from me! I loved almost every moment of the two hour run time. I give it a 4.5 out of 5 stars, it was truly a glorious
There are quite a few advantages and disadvantages when considering using film as a depicter of the past. One of the biggest advantages of film is its ability to provide visual representation for any situation. Especially when it comes to history, sometimes words do not do the situation justice. For example, the treatment of slaves is widely recognized as being cruel. However, movie possess the ability to show you the cruelty and make you understand as it did in this movie. They also allow you to understand the harshness of conditions. The words “a rough river” would not measure up to seeing the viciousness and depth of the real thing in this movie. The movies allow it to be more real. Due to the nature of movies, there are some large disadvantages to using film as a medium for historical portrayal. Movies tend to play up certain character traits or moments in time to further the plotline. The destructiveness and greed of certain characters in this movie, like Aguirre, was certainly exaggerated. These exaggerations often over dramatize the situation, which as a filmmaker is not necessarily a bad thing. In a historical drama, as opposed to a documentary, you have the unsung responsibility to keep the audience interested and entertained. Therefore, any character trait must be consistent and explicit throughout the entire film, it cannot be a one scene encounter. The over-dramatization of moments is prevalent in movies, as well. In real life, the main character is not the only one who lives in the end. The odds of Aguirre being the only one alive by the end of the movie are slim to none, when the rest of the group was being killed off one by one. It’s a plot convenience and a message to the audience if he stays alive, but it’s not reality. This is something only movies can get away
One could say that they too heavily relied on making fun of its low budget and limited resources, perhaps distracting the veiewing from the absense of a plot that entices the viewer with an elaborate plot. The most frustrating part of the movie was the abrupt ending which left the viewer with the sense of confusion. One might say that this is just part of the Monty Python spirit of slapstick humor, but many can see it for how it really is, a filler for when they couldn't come up with a good ending. Perhaps if produced today, the directors would make better use of their female characters, rather than only bringing them in when they wanted to make crude, hyper sexualized jokes. Hopefully this improvement will be made out of increased respect and value for actresses. Despite these complaints, I would definitely recommend this film to another student that only because of it's entertaining yet accurate showing of the Middle Ages, but because of its dry humor and original content, something that feels rare in today's comedy focused
The gangsters dress alike and acted the same to keep their image in the 1920’s because the gangsters had a protocol to follow to fit in.
To begin with, a general examination of the film and some of its qualities, particularly in regards to the war: One of the opening scenes is of the chaos in the Moroccan streets, which immediately sets the mood of chaos in the world at large. The feeling of... Who can you trust? The sense of danger lurking around the corner. It lends the viewer a sense of unsettlement as it paints the feeling of world war II. The rest of the film was definetly a distraction from the current events at the time, WWII was themed and chanalled through the characters but never directly.
I feel that the movie has no weaknesses. This is because even though I had a few things I didn’t like such as the anonymity given, I realised that there was a reason for this which I explained in my strengths of the movie below.
This film is extremely good, if the audience were three–year–olds. It has an extraordinarily shallow and predictable plot and the gags and jokes are simply not funny. The actions of the characters are overtly exaggerated and very unrealistic. And the depth of the characters is about that of paper cuttings. This movie is designed to be viewed by people with the IQ of under fifty points. And frankly, I feel insulted at being made to watch this poor excuse of a study subject.
Mob mentality is created from the establishment of authority and power over another being or thing. This then causes others to look up to that person then fall in line beside him. Mob mentality is dangerous and yet it is one of the more common things in the world starting as soon as one is born, slowly learning to be like their parents, learning their tongue and behaviors. It is cultivated through years of school how one should act and be and what is not acceptable and what one should do to achive success. Ray Bradbury takes mob mentality and shows amazing examples, yet depressing scenarios, of it in Fahrenheit 451, “All Summer in a Day”, as well as in “The Pedestrian” with his favored idea for explanation of others wishing for complete and utter equality for the whole, with hatred of those who step out of that bubble of normality.
Overall, the film isn’t half as epic as Emmerich’s previous. blockbusters or half as entertaining. The dialogues are about as interesting as watching paint dry and the bland characters have about as much depth as a puddle in the street! The storyline isn’t exactly. deep, introspective stuff, either.
Crimes are considered unlawful acts that can be punished by authorities. Crimes can be done individually or groups known as gangs. “A gang is a group of recurrently associating individuals or close friends or family with identifiable leadership and internal organization, identifying with or claiming control over territory in a community, and engaging either individually or collectively in violent or illegal behavior (Wikipedia). Prior to watching World 's Most Dangerous Gangs, the only gangs I ever heard of were the Bloods, Crips, Yakuza, and Russian Mafia. Gangs in general are considered a nuisance and dangerous. Hollywood depicts gangs like the Yakuza and Russian Mafia to be brutal,
...director did not limit the film to its historical context but extended the same to romance and fantasy. From a different angle of view, the director made use of the theme to communicate with the viewers and the fictional characters can be considered as his tools. Besides, ample importance is given to historical and fictional characters. In short, the amalgamation of history, fantasy and romance constituted much to the film’s importance as a historical/fictional masterpiece.