Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    brackets is offline Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Tarantino's last film synopsis (please correct)

    Hi everybody,

    This is my first post. It's a synopsis of Tarantino´s "Inglorious Basterds" that I wrote this morning (just as a private exercise) and I would apreciate very much if anyone could correct my mistakes. Don´t read it if you haven't seen the film.

    INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
    The film is ambiented on the second world war. Germany has invaded France and they already know that the American troops are about to attack from the beach. However they keep on persecuting Jadish hidden in small French villages. Simultaneously, there is a special military team of nine American-jewish” that will arrive France before the rest of the troops, in order to kill Nazis cruelly and spread fear among the Germans. Hitler is strongly concerned about this and he tries to mute this news to his soldiers, besides, one of his best officers, the unusually intelligent “Jewish-hunter”, is trying to capture the American team, known as “The Inglorious Baterds” by the Germans. There is also a jewish girl who managed to escape from the “Jewish-Hunter” and know owns a Cinema in France pretending to be French. When the Nazis choose her Theatre to show the premier of a propagandistic film, she decides to revenge her family killing by burning the cinema during the film. Hitler, Goebles, the “Jewish-hunter” and the most important men of the party attend to the premiere. Also the “Inglorious basterds” are there as Italian film makers. Their plan is to blow the theatre up, but two of them are discovered and taken out from the cinema by the “Jewish-Hunter”, who finally decides to betray the Nazis not warning them from the attack, expecting to get the amnesty. In the end the Cinema burns and the bombs explode so the basterds, the jewish girl and the Nazis dye inside the building. The “Jewish-hunter” is forgiven by the alliance, but he won´t be able to hide his Nazi past, because Aldo, the basterd's leader, tattoos him, drawing with his knife a swastic on his face.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tarantino's last film synopsis (please correct)

    Quote Originally Posted by brackets View Post
    Hi everybody,

    This is my first post. It's a synopsis of Tarantino´s "Inglorious Basterds" that I wrote this morning (just as a private exercise) and I would apreciate very much if anyone could correct my mistakes. Don´t read it if you haven't seen the film.

    INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
    The film is ambiented on the second world war. Germany has invaded France and they already know that the American troops are about to attack from the beach. However they keep on persecuting Jadish hidden in small French villages. Simultaneously, there is a special military team of nine American-jewish” that will arrive France before the rest of the troops, in order to kill Nazis cruelly and spread fear among the Germans. Hitler is strongly concerned about this and he tries to mute this news to his soldiers, besides, one of his best officers, the unusually intelligent “Jewish-hunter”, is trying to capture the American team, known as “The Inglorious Baterds” by the Germans. There is also a jewish girl who managed to escape from the “Jewish-Hunter” and know owns a Cinema in France pretending to be French. When the Nazis choose her Theatre to show the premier of a propagandistic film, she decides to revenge her family killing by burning the cinema during the film. Hitler, Goebles, the “Jewish-hunter” and the most important men of the party attend to the premiere. Also the “Inglorious basterds” are there as Italian film makers. Their plan is to blow the theatre up, but two of them are discovered and taken out from the cinema by the “Jewish-Hunter”, who finally decides to betray the Nazis not warning them from the attack, expecting to get the amnesty. In the end the Cinema burns and the bombs explode so the basterds, the jewish girl and the Nazis dye inside the building. The “Jewish-hunter” is forgiven by the alliance, but he won´t be able to hide his Nazi past, because Aldo, the basterd's leader, tattoos him, drawing with his knife a swastic on his face.
    "ambiented" is an unsual use of the word. Usually it refers to the atmosphere, also it is "ambient"
    Second World War should all be in capitals or abbreviated as WWII.
    "...nine American-jewish” Jewish should be capitalized as it is a proper noun.
    Check your spelling on the word "basterds" at dictionary.com

    "There is also a jewish girl who managed to escape from the “Jewish-Hunter” and know owns a Cinema in France pretending to be French."
    Capitalize Jewish, do not capitalize cinema in this sentence as it is a noun but not a proper noun. Example of proper name would be the name such as the Blue Moon Cinema.
    No capital for the word "Theatre" in the next sentence. Not a proper name.
    “Inglorious basterds” The first letter in each word should be capitalized, "Inglorious Bastards." Words such as "the" and "of" are not usually capitalized.
    "... drawing with his knife a swastic on his face." Awkward sentence. A better example would be "...using his knife to draw a swastika across the character's face."

  3. #3
    Ann1977 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,131
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tarantino's last film synopsis (please correct)

    This is a really high level of mastery of English. Many American students would not have done as well as this.

    Almost any US university campus newspaper would gladly publish this with only minor editing (such as I did here.)

    It would have been strengthened by the addition of your own reflections on this movie.

    INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
    > Tarantino never explained his spelling of these words
    INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

    The film is ambiented on the second world war. Germany has invaded France
    > "ambiented" is not used as a verb like this
    The setting is Occupied France during the Second World War.

    and they already know that the American troops are about to attack from the beach.
    > "invade" is a better word.
    > The pronoun "they" doesn't have a clear referent
    > tie this sentence into the next one
    The Nazis already know that the Allies are about to invade from the beach,

    However they keep on persecuting Jadish hidden in small French villages.
    but they keep on persecuting Jews hidden in small French villages.

    Simultaneously, there is a special military team of nine American-jewish”
    > This awkward construction can be avoided
    A special military team of nine American Jews

    that will arrive France before the rest of the troops,
    > people are "who" not "that"
    > but the sentence structure is altered now anyway
    has been sent to France in advance of the Invasion

    in order to kill Nazis cruelly and spread fear among the Germans.
    > conjunctions could be better chosen
    to spread fear among the German troops by killing them savagely.

    Hitler is strongly concerned about this
    Hitler is gravely concerned about this

    and he tries to mute this news to his soldiers,
    > this is a run-on sentence. Change the comma to a period and start a new sentence after this part
    and he tries to suppress the spread of this information.

    besides,
    > "besides" is used wrongly here.

    one of his best officers, the unusually intelligent “Jewish-hunter”,
    > this is the start of a new sentence
    > comma falls inside the quote marks
    > No hyphen between "Jewish" and "Hunter"
    > "Hunter" should start with an upper-case letter
    One of his best officers, the unusually intelligent "Jewish Hunter,"

    is trying to capture the American team, known as “The Inglorious Baterds” by the Germans.
    > Both words are spelled wrong in the title: Inglourious and Basterds
    is trying to capture the American team, known to the Germans as the "Inglourious Basterds."

    There is also a jewish girl who managed to escape from the “Jewish-Hunter” and know owns a Cinema in France pretending to be French.
    > Start the sentence with a better subject than "there is" -- which didn't take this narrative along much
    > Not "know." "NOW" means "at present."
    A Jewish girl, who managed to escape from the Jewish Hunter and who has been pretending to be French, now owns a cinema.

    When the Nazis choose her Theatre to show the premier of a propagandistic film,
    > theater
    > premiere
    > propaganda film
    When the Nazis choose her theater for the premiere of a propaganda film,

    she decides to revenge her family killing by burning the cinema during the film.
    > avenge, not revenge
    she decides to avenge the murder of her family by burning down the theater with the Nazi audience inside.

    Hitler, Goebles, the “Jewish-hunter” and the most important men of the party attend to the premiere.
    > Goebbels
    > "attend" not "attend to"
    Hitler, Goebbels, the Jewish Hunter, and most of the other important Nazi leaders attend the premiere.

    Also, the "Inglorious Basterds” are there as Italian film makers.
    > end the sentence at a more interesting part
    Disguised as Italian film makers, the Inglourios Basterds are present as well.

    Their plan is to blow the theatre up,
    Their plan is to blow the theater up,

    but two of them are discovered and taken out from the cinema by the “Jewish-Hunter”,
    > comma inside quotes
    > but anyway, no quotes
    > taken out OF the cinema, not FROM
    > "theater" is better than "cinema"
    but two of them are discovered and taken out of the theater by the Jewish Hunter,

    who finally decides to betray the Nazis not warning them from the attack, expecting to get the amnesty.
    > warning ABOUT, not warning FROM
    who finally asks for amnesty in exchange for betraying the Nazis by not warning them about the attack.

    In the end the Cinema burns and the bombs explode
    > I think this should be its own sentence
    In the end, the theater burns and the bombs explode.

    so the basterds, the jewish girl and the Nazis dye inside the building.
    > New sentence
    > DIE not DYE
    The Basterds, the Jewish girl, and the Nazis are all killed.

    The “Jewish-hunter” is forgiven by the alliance,
    The Jewish Hunter is granted amnesty by the Allies,

    but he won´t be able to hide his Nazi past,
    > no spaces around apostrophes
    but he won't be able to hide his Nazi past --

    because Aldo, the basterd's leader, tattoos him, drawing with his knife a swastic on his face.
    > "to carve" means "to draw with a knife"
    the leader of the Basterds carves a swastika into his face.
    --------------------------------------------

    Dear Author:

    As a reader, I really wanted another paragraph telling me what you have to say about all this. Anything would do -- reflections on Tarantino's career, the meaning or impact of this movie, whatever.

    I know that it was only a self-imposed exercise for you, but I suspect that some day you will write for a wider audience, so I thought I should let you know about the readers' wish for more.
    Last edited by Ann1977; 26-Sep-2009 at 12:02.

  4. #4
    brackets is offline Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tarantino's last film synopsis (please correct)

    First of all, thank you Sharonk123 and Anne1977 for your corrections and quick answering. Anne1977, your words have motivated me very much.I'll work hard to improve my english. I'm going to write that last paragraph you ask me to:

    When you sit in front of the screen to watch a Quentin Tarantino's film you know what you are going to find. Even before having seen the film you know if you will love it or if you will hate it. That is what you will get with “Inglourious Basterds”. If you left the theater when Michael Madsen tore out the cop's ear in one bite on “Reservoir Dogs”, you will do the same when the Jewish Bear hits the nazi Officer's head with a bat on “Inglourious Basterds”. If you thought that the robbery at the cafe was a brilliant introduction for “Pulp Fiction”, you will love the first fifteen minutes of “Inglourious Basterds”. There is no discussion at this point. However someone could consider an irresponsibility making such a violent movie on this sensitive topic. Above all we must not forget that this is a film. We have got used to mafia and western watching films, but are still afraid of Nazi's movies. Steven Spielberg made many Nazi's films. “Schindler's list” was a great success because it described on a realistic way the horror of the holocaust. But What about Indiana Jones' sequel? Most people wouldn't define “Indiana Jones” as a Nazi's film, they would say it's an adventures' film. That’s what happens with “Inglourious Basterds”. This is not a Nazi's film but a Tarantino's one. Forget the Nazis and the Jews. They could have been cowboys and apaches or gangsters and policemen. Just keep your eyes opened and enjoy the movie. Nothing is real, the Basterds never existed and, as we all know, Hitler didn't die that way. That's what I like the most of Tarantino, some way he is telling us “Hey! don't forget this is not real life, this is my film and I can do whatever I want”, then he makes us feel like being part of the crew. I think that Quentin Tarantino is one of those directors who make us love films and for sure hundreds of youngsters have decided to be directors after watching one of his films.
    Last edited by brackets; 25-Sep-2009 at 12:20.

  5. #5
    Ann1977 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,131
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tarantino's last film synopsis (please correct)

    When you sit in front of the screen to watch a Quentin Tarantino's film you know what you are going to find.
    > no apostophe on Tarantino. This is not a possessive use here.
    > If you had said "to watch one of Quentin Tarantino's films," then you would use the apostrophe
    > SEE is probably a better verb than GET
    > This sentence looks wordy, but it needs all these words for rhythm and balance, and to draw the reader into your essay
    > comma after the dependent clause (ending at "film")
    When you sit in front of the screen to watch a Quentin Tarantino film, you know what you're going to see.

    Even before having seen the film you know if you will love it or if you will hate it. That is what you will get with “Inglourious Basterds”.
    > Non-standard US placement of the comma
    Quotation Marks: Where Do the Periods and Commas Go--And Why?
    > This was a shallow idea, a repeat of the first line, and not smooth
    > Just delete this and get on with the message
    > It's not uncommon for these 'circling the airport" kind of delays to creep into writing. They are warm-ups, more like "throat-clearing" than communication.
    > They crop up all the time. But all you have to do is delete them in revision. Don't worry about them the first time around. Delete them later.

    If you left the theater when Michael Madsen tore out the cop's ear in one bite on “Reservoir Dogs”,
    > tore OFF
    > WITH one bite
    > IN Reservoir Dogs
    If you walked out of the theater when Michael Madsen tore off the cop's ear with a single bite in Reservoir Dogs,

    you will do the same when the Jewish Bear hits the nazi Officer's head with a bat on “Inglourious Basterds”.
    > "hits the nazi Officer's head" is WAY too weak
    > Upper case N for Nazi
    > Lower case O for officer
    > IN not ON
    you will do the same when the Jewish Bear brains a Nazi with a baseball bat in Inglourious Basterds.

    If you thought that the robbery at the cafe was a brilliant introduction for “Pulp Fiction”, you will love the first fifteen minutes of “Inglourious Basterds”.
    > This is risky, because by repeating this kind of remark, you have made it prominent.
    > Now you need to develop whatever idea you are thinking of: "Love it or hate it, this is a classical Tarantino film" or something like that
    > Periods and commas inside quotation marks for the American market
    If you thought that the stick-up of the cafe was a brilliant introduction to Pulp Fiction, you're going to love the first fifteen minutes of Inglourious Basterds.

    Add: It's a classical Tarantino effort, employing the same techniques and patterns, the same graphic violence, the same attention to character development as his previous work.
    (or whatever the case is in your eyes)
    > You do need to have some reason to repeat the clever bit about "If you hated/loved that, then you'll hate/love this" -- beyond the fact that it was a clever thing to say.
    > You gave two examples that make a point, so name your point

    There is no discussion at this point.
    > Don't tell people what to think
    > Delete

    However someone could consider an irresponsibility making such a violent movie on this sensitive topic.
    > This is not necessarily a bad point, but
    > It is out of place in this paragraph -- or at least at this point in the paragraph
    > It is a really big switch-up in topic from "This is a typical Tarantino film" to "the philosophy of the responsibility of artists"
    > If you want to develop this point, you can, but it should be its own topic, in its own paragraph
    > Many "upscale" movie reviews do not describe the movie, but instead reflect on its significance just like this
    > But I think a book or movie review should answer the question "How was it?" (but not, "What is it about?" and not "What are your pensees on seeing it?" -- or at least, not ONLY these questions.)
    > Own your own. Don't refer your ideas off onto "someone."
    > I'm not so sure that there would be much sensitivity protest around depictions of smashing up Nazis -- rather the opposite, I would have thought.
    > Delete this

    Above all we must not forget that this is a film.
    > I think you are worried about nothing. No one ever complained that this movie was mean to Nazis.
    > Delete

    We have got used to mafia and western watching films,
    We have gotten used to Mafia movies and westerns,
    > delete

    but are still afraid of Nazi's movies.
    > I think this is factually incorrect
    > "Nazi" is not the possessor of "movies." No apostrophe
    > but we're still afraid of Nazi movies.
    > delete

    Your real point starts somewhere in here:
    Steven Spielberg made many Nazi's films. “Schindler's list” was a great success because it described on a realistic way the horror of the holocaust. But What about Indiana Jones' sequel? Most people wouldn't define “Indiana Jones” as a Nazi's film, they would say it's an adventures' film. That’s what happens with “Inglourious Basterds”.

    It's not easy finding the perfect bad guy. Animal activists squirmed when Jaws got it. Space aliens can work, but some of them are cute and all of them are fantasies. Radioactive monsters ravaging Tokyo are outdated, and the death of King Kong is a tear-jerker. So when a director wants his savage murders to give his audience complete satisfaction, he resorts to Nazis.

    There have been a lots of recent movies set in a Nazi frame. But only Schindler's List is really about Nazis. The Indiana Jones sequel, for example, is an actioner first and foremost, and the Nazis are no more than plot devices. The same is true for Inglourious Basterds.

    This is not a Nazi's film but a Tarantino's one.
    > No apostrophes
    > This is an insightful remark, and it should be developed strongly
    It's not a Nazi film but a Tarantino one.

    Forget the Nazis and the Jews. They could have been cowboys and apaches or gangsters and policemen.
    > Keep the language slangy and stereotyped so that your words are exactly the same in themselves as their meaning
    Forget Nazis and Jews. They could have been cowboys and Indians, or cops and robbers.

    ADD:
    Tarantino himself told film.com that despite its being a war film, Inglourious Basterds is a "spaghetti western but with World War II iconography."

    Just keep your eyes opened and enjoy the movie. Nothing is real, the Basterds never existed and, as we all know, Hitler didn't die that way.
    > I don't think this has any function here.
    > Maybe it will be a useful observation when you develop the next part
    > Delete this

    This next passage is an original and penetrating insight

    That's what I like the most of Tarantino, some way he is telling us
    > like most, not like THE most (in this case)
    > ABOUT not OF Tarantino
    That's what I like most about Tarantino -- the way he tells us,

    “Hey! don't forget this is not real life, this is my film and I can do whatever I want”,
    "Hey! This isn't supposed to be real life. This is my movie and I can make it do whatever I want."

    then he makes us feel like being part of the crew.
    Then he makes us forget that the Basterds never existed and that Hitler didn't die that way.

    I think that Quentin Tarantino is one of those directors who make us love films and for sure hundreds of youngsters have decided to be directors after watching one of his films.
    > You do need a concluding sentence, but this is not it.
    > It is too late now to drag in a new topic ("Tarantino's influence as a director")
    > You have forgotten that this is a movie review, not a term paper
    Watch this movie for the wild fun of being taken on another Tarantino ride.
    Last edited by Ann1977; 26-Sep-2009 at 19:23.

Similar Threads

  1. I thought I had
    By lycen in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 23-Sep-2009, 11:23
  2. Differences and Similarities Differences and Similarities
    By Jairinho1121 in forum Text Analysis and Statistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-Apr-2009, 14:47
  3. Is this usuage correct?
    By muktha in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-Jun-2008, 09:27
  4. Please correct
    By esophea in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-Jan-2006, 05:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •