# Brad Pitt puts foot in mouth



## diddyriddick (Aug 21, 2009)

In an interview, Brad Pitt has said that Quentin Tarantino's film Inglorious Basterds "put a cover on that pot" referring to the genre of WW2 films. Maybe it is just me, but it is hard to take any moviemaker seriously whose main goal is to have the highest body count in every film.

Pitt calls Cruise?s Nazi film ?ridiculous?- msnbc.com


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 21, 2009)

Pitt is a joke. I saw a few promo's of his new movie, didnt like it. There will always be WW2 movies, as there are way to many stories yet to be told.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 21, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> Pitt is a joke. I saw a few promo's of his new movie, didnt like it. There will always be WW2 movies,* as there are way too many stories yet to be told*.




Exactly.....

Charles


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 21, 2009)

Pitt is a moron, plain and simple!

TO


----------



## 109ROAMING (Aug 21, 2009)

With all here

looks like a total load of sh**


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Aug 21, 2009)

I was looking fowards to this movie, basically an action movie with a WW2 twist, but Pitt was just stupid.

EDIT: forgot this was on youtube. Brad Pitt getting shot in burn after reading. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92rBRuaBEaY_


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2009)

First I want to state that I can't STAND Brad Pitt!

That said, he may have been commenting on Tarantino's take on WWII movies. Most of Tarantinos movies are based on old genres of movies from the 70's such as blacksploytation films and such. "Pulp Fiction" was based on the pulp fictions books of that time. As such, this new Tarantino film is an upgrade of the 60s and 70s war 'B' movies - hence the over-the-top action and blood and guts and goofy storyline.

That may have been what Pitt was commenting on, not so much that its the last great war movie.

Pitt is still an idiot, though.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 22, 2009)

He may be an idiot, but I still think he's a better actor and overall human being than Tom Cruise. I'm wanting to see this movie just as a mindless blood-letting action flick, with no relationship whatsoever to actual history except for the names "Hitler" and "World War Two".


----------



## trackend (Aug 22, 2009)

He was just trying to promo a rather duff film and this was the best he could come up with. I for one wont be going out of my way to watch what appears to be total crap


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Pitt has only had a few decent films, this doesn't look like it'll be one of them. This is just another "splat" flick...

Anymore, "actors" like Pitt, Cruise and the like are just a bunch of prima donna douchebags competing for the spotlight.

I sure miss the days of real actors...


----------



## trackend (Aug 22, 2009)

I watched Henry V with Laurence Olivier yesterday now that guy could act. but for action I sure miss guys like 
Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster if you want your Swash Buckling these are the blokes to do it even as old men in Tough Guys they were great character actors


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

I agree...and you notice that the vast majority of the great actors were also combat vets?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 22, 2009)

Johnny Depp is an halfdecent actor....


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Aug 22, 2009)

brad pitt sucks..never liked him. 

did anybody see that achilles or troy movie.. man..here we are supposed to have one of the great worriors of all time and they present us with a mommyboy that hasent learn to whipe his own ass yet as a great worrior.. after that i swore i would never see a movie with him again..


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Junkers88A1 said:


> brad pitt sucks..never liked him.
> 
> did anybody see that achilles or troy movie.. man..here we are supposed to have one of the great worriors of all time and they present us with a mommyboy that hasent learn to whipe his own ass yet as a great worrior.. after that i swore i would never see a movie with him again..


I agree, "Troy" was a real disappointment...however, just before that movie came out, another came out and was lost to the media blitz of "Troy".

See if you can find "Helen of Troy" (2003)...it follows the historical epic much much closer, has far more credible battle sequences and there's actually a lead-in with the storyline, as well as the movie following historical events at the end. And most importantly: Good acting!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 22, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I agree, "Troy" was a real disappointment...however, just before that movie came out, another came out and was lost to the media blitz of "Troy".
> 
> See if you can find "Helen of Troy" (2003)...it follows the historical epic much much closer, has far more credible battle sequences and there's actually a lead-in with the storyline, as well as the movie following historical events at the end. And most importantly: Good acting!


It all depends on what you're looking for. Troy was a great action movie but historically incorrect.

I haven't seen this new movie but the first thing I've heard is that it is a comedy and not meant to be historically correct in any way. A bit Kelly's heroes I also read. So if you want to see a good WW2 movie this is probably not it. Just like Pearl Harbor wasn't. But I enjoyed it. 

Then again, I'm the guy who things Al Pacino is the most overrated actor in Hollywood. So what would I know? 8)
Kris


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 24, 2009)

1. I will probably not see the movie either. (over the top southern accent) "We are in the Nazi killing business......and business is booming!" - Give me a break

2. I'd rather watch Pitt than Cruise any day of the week.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 24, 2009)

Or Afleck. Pitt trumps em both. Not by much, but...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2009)

Civettone said:


> It all depends on what you're looking for. Troy was a great action movie but historically incorrect.
> 
> I haven't seen this new movie but the first thing I've heard is that it is a comedy and not meant to be historically correct in any way. A bit Kelly's heroes I also read. So if you want to see a good WW2 movie this is probably not it. Just like Pearl Harbor wasn't. But I enjoyed it.
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I like a head-stomping "splat" movie as well as the next guy, but if you are making the movie, don't base it on a well known event (especially historically significent). That would be like Tarentino filming a purely fictional movie "loosely" based on D-Day, full of dark humor, costumes that look nothing like the uniforms actually worn, and a cliche spewing lead man standing on top of the sea wall, mowing down dozens of heavily armed German infantry with a single .45 Automatic.

Back in the golden age of Holleywood, when they wanted to make up a battle film that wasn't historical, they would make it based on the time period (equipment. uniforms, phrases, etc.), and give it a fictional battle with perhaps factual references. It make it exciting as well as entertaining without you wondering what history book the guy was reading when he thought it all up, because you knew it wasn't a historic portrayal. But to name a movie "Troy" with a hero named Achilles and one named Hector, you are certainly led to believe this is something based on the historical event, and expect a little accuracy.

But it seems that times have changed.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 24, 2009)

On which well known event is it based??


Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2009)

There was an epic battle between the kingdom of Troy and an allied Greek army. According to legend, the Trojans and Greeks (Troy was technically greek, but located on the west coast of what is now Turkey) went to war. And the battle continued for about 10 years.

It involved a large number of heros and gods of antiquity and was written about in Homer's Illiad. Eventually the Greeks pulled a trick on the Trojans (the Trojan Horse) and the city fell. It has been said that the descendants of Troy eventually founded the city of Rome, and the legendary stories of the Greek hero Ulysses were based on his long voyage home...called the Oddyssey.

This all occurred around 1150-1200 B.C.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Aug 25, 2009)

Well, Pitt's got his looks. After that, he's in a little bit of S.O.L. Pretty sure that there's no way he could get a PH.D in anything. Best WWII movie which is 95% historically accurate, that'll be the day. 

I think I'll stick with SPR, or A Bridge Too Far.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 25, 2009)

My son went and saw it and thought it was pretty good, if u remember that its fictional... Not to ruin the movie for anyone, but as it seems that no ones gonna watch it anyways, they kill Hitler at the end...

No historically accurate u say?????


----------



## bigZ (Aug 25, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> There was an epic battle between the kingdom of Troy and an allied Greek army. According to legend, the Trojans and Greeks (Troy was technically greek, but located on the west coast of what is now Turkey) went to war. And the battle continued for about 10 years.
> 
> It involved a large number of heros and gods of antiquity and was written about in Homer's Illiad. Eventually the Greeks pulled a trick on the Trojans (the Trojan Horse) and the city fell. It has been said that the descendants of Troy eventually founded the city of Rome, and the legendary stories of the Greek hero Ulysses were based on his long voyage home...called the Oddyssey.
> 
> This all occurred around 1150-1200 B.C.



Having read the Illiad I would hardly call it a factual blow by blow account. If you ask me the movie was more relistic than the book. In the book the gods take to the field of battle and Ares actually get injured. Also only one common soldier is mentioned in the book. But then the book was a record of a oral history long after the event.

As for the Inglorious Bastards it looks like another Hollywood Calssic. Such as Pearl Harbour,U-571


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 26, 2009)

I would like him to leave his foot in his mouth if at all possible. I cannot stand celebrities who think they have all the answers to solving the US's and worlds problems.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 27, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> My son went and saw it and thought it was pretty good, if u remember that its fictional... Not to ruin the movie for anyone, but as it seems that no ones gonna watch it anyways, they kill Hitler at the end...
> 
> No historically accurate u say?????



I had a fun time too, I thought it was a good film...Pitts not really in the whole thing (if that bugs people). Most of the film seems to be Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Daniel Brühl and Diane Kruger. The movie is not really a "splatter fest"...BUT if you only like your war films factual historical you will not enjoy yourself. Christoph Waltz was great as "the jew hunter"...he gives a chilling performance. And Melenie Laurent was simply fetching as the "damaged beauty" (so, so sexy). 

I love "old" (fictional) war films...so for me, this was a good movie. I enjoyed "Kellys Hero's", "Apocalypse Now", "Catch-22", "Where Eagles Dare", ect...and now "Inglourious Basterds".


----------



## joy17782 (Aug 27, 2009)

Actors should act and thats about all!!!!!!!!! brad,tom, and the rest of them will never hold a candel too John Wayne,Kirk douglas, or the others from the40s,50s,60s,


----------



## proton45 (Aug 27, 2009)

joy17782 said:


> Actors should act and thats about all!!!!!!!!! brad,tom, and the rest of them will never hold a candel too John Wayne,Kirk douglas, or the others from the40s,50s,60s,



I'm just curious about something...do you feel actors shouldn't do interviews about their new movies, or are you talking about something else (like how many celebrates get involved in charity's)?

On a side note...I'm not sure that many of our "classic" actors would have been remembered quite as fondly without the studio publicity machines controlling their public image. I love John Wayne movies, but he spewed out quite a few statements that sounded really racist...and this was after the studio system started to break down.


----------



## joy17782 (Aug 28, 2009)

Im talking about actors who think because they are actors they have a right too put there beliefs out there because they think there special, and yep they do good in charities, But then agian maybe if some people would get a life and not stick there nose up the actors s butt then they wouldnt have a reason too spout off, and just too get it strait am talking about some of the actors not all of them


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 29, 2009)

I think that a number of actors exploit the media's ability to hype themselves up to a certain level. There's even a few "actors" who have put out a couple crappy movies, and they have almost a cult status because they know how to work the system and end up in the tabloids almost on a daily basis.

As far as being politically motivated, I know that actors have always been in the spotlight. But look at how Ronald Reagan conducted himself as opposed to people like Jane Fonda or Sean Penn.


----------



## Butters (Aug 29, 2009)

Gawd, that 'Troy' movie...I was actually kind'a lookin' forward to seeing the epic battle between the legendary champions, Achilles and Hector.

Instead I had to endure a 90 minute male models hissy fit...

Sheesh...

JL


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 29, 2009)

Butters said:


> Gawd, that 'Troy' movie...I was actually kind'a lookin' forward to seeing the epic battle between the legendary champions, Achilles and Hector.
> 
> Instead I had to endure a 90 minute male models hissy fit...
> 
> ...


In my earlier post:


GrauGeist said:


> I agree, "Troy" was a real disappointment...however, just before that movie came out, another came out and was lost to the media blitz of "Troy".
> 
> See if you can find "Helen of Troy" (2003)...it follows the historical epic much much closer, has far more credible battle sequences and there's actually a lead-in with the storyline, as well as the movie following historical events at the end. And most importantly: Good acting!


Helen Of Troy had so much more than Troy. It covers Hector and Paris' visit to Agamemnon's court, all the way through to the evacuation of the city after the Greeks overran it and everything in between. I guess this is a moot point with some folks, but unlike most movies, this movie has also done a good job on the Greek armor (they don't all look like Romans!) 

You should be able to find it at your local video store, or online.

It was directed by John Kent Harrison and starred Rufus Sewell, Stellan Skarsgard, and Jonathan Rhys-Davies.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 30, 2009)

Butters said:


> Gawd, that 'Troy' movie...I was actually kind'a lookin' forward to seeing the epic battle between the legendary champions, Achilles and Hector.
> 
> Instead I had to endure a 90 minute male models hissy fit...
> 
> ...


True. 

I'll have to check that one out, GrauGeist.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 30, 2009)

Might have to check this one out me think.....


----------



## Crunch (Aug 30, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Not to ruin the movie for anyone, but as it seems that no ones gonna watch it anyways, they kill Hitler at the end...



Les you (%[email protected]*$#*!^@(^$#*(!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spoiler alert at least! 

You lot are a bunch of hard bastards. Even movies 'based on true stories' are usually ingly inaccurate. there's not many people out there that would think that this is a WW2 doco. it's a movie, suck it up and take it for the 2 and a half hours of entertainment that it is.....

remember the thread for the Nazi Zombie movie? You lot also got up that for being historically inaccurate


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2009)

I don't know ... I watched the first 45 minutes of the movie online ... shady quality ... but I just had to know.

I don't know if it's me but I was appaled by this movie. 

Ok, so it's fiction. But what kind of fiction? It is about Americans killing all Germans because they believe they are all nazis. But isn't this what we've left behind it years ago? this is the general idea during and after the war. And many uneducated people still regard the war as against an enemy which were all nazi pigs and jew killers. So to see the war being degraded into something so absurdly black and white again just irritates me. There's so much fiction you can write. Why go back and propagate old stereotypes? 

Perhaps it'll get _some_ meaning in the second half of the movie? 
Kris


----------

