Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Jul 25, 2019 18:20:04 GMT
Seeing this bad boy in a few hours; gearing myself up for another QT and DiCaprio masterclass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 18:29:22 GMT
I'm seeing it tonight, too. I have no idea what to expect.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jul 25, 2019 19:09:55 GMT
I’m heading out of town so I don’t think I’ll be seeing it until next week, but I hope y’all enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jul 25, 2019 19:20:23 GMT
I'm seeing it hopefully this weekend . If not I'm going dark. Lmao. I'm scared of spoilers.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 25, 2019 19:28:26 GMT
I'm seeing it hopefully this weekend . If not I'm going dark. Lmao. I'm scared of spoilers. YOU are scared of spoilers? I'm seeing this in a month!!! (yes, I'll be posting this every day in order to avoid spoilers...)
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 25, 2019 19:53:08 GMT
Watching it tomorrow afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jul 25, 2019 21:19:14 GMT
I'm seeing it hopefully this weekend . If not I'm going dark. Lmao. I'm scared of spoilers. YOU are scared of spoilers? I'm seeing this in a month!!! (yes, I'll be posting this every day in order to avoid spoilers...) hate to point out the obvious solution, Don't frequent this thread till you've seen it....
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jul 25, 2019 21:44:06 GMT
i got a free ticket but i don't wanna see it so ima try to sell it tonight but might end up seeing otherwise
feel like it's impossible to work up much excitement for QT anymore
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 4,357
|
Post by Archie on Jul 26, 2019 1:22:20 GMT
Just got the ending spoiled for me.... LOLTARANTINO
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 26, 2019 2:25:46 GMT
When Sally Menke died, so too did Tarantino. Because once again, he’s let down again by his bloated, tangent-happy ego. There are some genuinely terrific things about this movie—DiCaprio’s “acting” as Rick Dalton, the Bruce Lee fight—but the rest of it felt either superfluous or aggravatingly smug. It’s not as woefully dire as The Hateful Eight, but it feels like Tarantino’s most pedestrian effort to date, and that’s somehow worse.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jul 26, 2019 2:44:44 GMT
Just got back from it and Wow what a letdown. I was so hyped for this shit too (by far my most anticipated film of this year actually) and so much of it fell flat for me. Don't get me wrong, its not all terrible. Pitt & Leo had some cool moments but JFC overall what a pointless shit show. 5.5/10 Between this film , The Hateful Eight and the 3rd act of Django , I gotta say Tarantino has fallen off hard. I'm kinda now on the fence if I even want him to direct his Star Trek film idea he keeps rambling about lately lol.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 26, 2019 2:44:46 GMT
When Sally Menke died, so too did Tarantino. Because once again, he’s let down again by his bloated, tangent-happy ego. There are some genuinely terrific things about this movie—DiCaprio’s “acting” as Rick Dalton, the Bruce Lee fight—but the rest of it felt either superfluous or aggravatingly smug. It’s not as woefully dire as The Hateful Eight, but it feels like Tarantino’s most pedestrian effort to date, and that’s somehow worse. Ooof...sounds rough. I can acknowledge Tarantino's influence and unique place in film culture, and also acknowledge that he may also be ridiculously overrated as well. But I had high hopes for this one. We don't always agree (which is great!), so I may end up really digging it, but I haven't loved a Tarantino film in awhile, so this doesn't exactly raise my expectations. Critics are permanently in the tank for Tarantino, so it's hard to always ascertain how good his latest is just based on reviews.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 26, 2019 2:46:36 GMT
Just got back from it and Wow what a letdown. I was so hyped for this shit too (by far my most anticipated film of this year actually) and so much of it fell flat for me. Don't get me wrong, its not all terrible. Pitt & Leo had some cool moments but JFC overall what a pointless shit show. 5.5/10 Between this film , The Hateful Eight and the 3rd act of Django , I gotta say Tarantino has fallen off hard. I'm kinda now on the fence if I even want him to direct his Star Trek film idea he keeps rambling about lately lol. And it gets worse. Were the Pitt/DiCaprio Oscar "lock" talk fanciful hyperbole?
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 26, 2019 4:29:22 GMT
When Sally Menke died, so too did Tarantino. Because once again, he’s let down again by his bloated, tangent-happy ego. There are some genuinely terrific things about this movie—DiCaprio’s “acting” as Rick Dalton, the Bruce Lee fight—but the rest of it felt either superfluous or aggravatingly smug. It’s not as woefully dire as The Hateful Eight, but it feels like Tarantino’s most pedestrian effort to date, and that’s somehow worse. I was trying to avoid spoilers before seeing it today, but someone on another forum just said that they liked it but would only rank it above The Hateful Eight and Death Proof, so I tried not to go in expecting too much. I mean it was okay, but I don't get all the love for it other than DiCaprio and Pitt who really elevate it. Still even then, it felt more like one of those Tarantino knock-offs from the '90s that were really popular for awhile there. A great knock-off, but a knock-off nonetheless. I will say pacinoyes is absolutely going to hate this, and I can't really blame him. That ending. Wow. No words. I get that it's a fairy tale, but I get now why there were so many questions about his use of actresses in his films. Usually he writes strong female roles, but in this I guess there was Margaret Qualley who got a little bit to do. Other than that, there was barely anything especially for poor Margot Robbie. I feel like there's going to be a lot of think pieces about Tarantino picking this historical event where a man commanded so many women to follow his bidding along with why Robbie's Tate had to have two men save her and why those men used so much violence against the two women that they killed. I really don't know what Tarantino was going for other than I guess he loves time period, and wanted to include one of the big tragedies of that time. I think it would have worked better either as either focusing more on Tate or just cutting that part out, and just having it be about Rick and Cliff. Fact and fiction worked for me until the ending, but then it just went off the rails for me. Just got back from it and Wow what a letdown. I was so hyped for this shit too (by far my most anticipated film of this year actually) and so much of it fell flat for me. Don't get me wrong, its not all terrible. Pitt & Leo had some cool moments but JFC overall what a pointless shit show. 5.5/10 Between this film , The Hateful Eight and the 3rd act of Django , I gotta say Tarantino has fallen off hard. I'm kinda now on the fence if I even want him to direct his Star Trek film idea he keeps rambling about lately lol. I agree. It's pretty sad too because he used to be one of my favorite directors, and I still hope that he's just in a slump. I don't know though because he seem so far up his own butt at times. When he's not doing that, I think there's a lot of potential in Once Upon a Time..., but then it seems like he just help himself and inserts a reference to his other works which just took me out of it. When Sally Menke died, so too did Tarantino. Because once again, he’s let down again by his bloated, tangent-happy ego. There are some genuinely terrific things about this movie—DiCaprio’s “acting” as Rick Dalton, the Bruce Lee fight—but the rest of it felt either superfluous or aggravatingly smug. It’s not as woefully dire as The Hateful Eight, but it feels like Tarantino’s most pedestrian effort to date, and that’s somehow worse. Ooof...sounds rough. I can acknowledge Tarantino's influence and unique place in film culture, and also acknowledge that he may also be ridiculously overrated as well. But I had high hopes for this one. We don't always agree (which is great!), so I may end up really digging it, but I haven't loved a Tarantino film in awhile, so this doesn't exactly raise my expectations. Critics are permanently in the tank for Tarantino, so it's hard to always ascertain how good his latest is just based on reviews. I'm really surprised that it's doing so well with them. I mean I think it's good, but I would say maybe in the 70-80 range for me. Just got back from it and Wow what a letdown. I was so hyped for this shit too (by far my most anticipated film of this year actually) and so much of it fell flat for me. Don't get me wrong, its not all terrible. Pitt & Leo had some cool moments but JFC overall what a pointless shit show. 5.5/10 Between this film , The Hateful Eight and the 3rd act of Django , I gotta say Tarantino has fallen off hard. I'm kinda now on the fence if I even want him to direct his Star Trek film idea he keeps rambling about lately lol. And it gets worse. Were the Pitt/DiCaprio Oscar "lock" talk fanciful hyperbole? I think that they're probably locked for a nomination because this is the first real big Oscar bait movie, and they're big stars. Plus, they were the best things about the movie. I wouldn't give them the win though, but depending on the competition, I think a nomination would be deserved. Poor Margot Robbie though. It's funny that she was my predicted winner for awhile there until Cannes, but it's even worse than I expected.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 1,790
|
Post by dazed on Jul 26, 2019 5:34:46 GMT
I loved it. Definitely more of a ‘hangout’ movie than one with a clear narrative. Throughly entertaining (although one of Tarantino’s slower movies) powered by a spectacular DiCaprio and hysterical Pitt. Handful of memorable scenes. I for one thought the ending was great. The theatre was clapping and chuckling throughout it all. Robbie didn’t have a whole lot to do, but I like how Tarantino put the limelight on her as a normal, fun loving person rather than focusing on the her murder like most people do. Qualley was really good here as well imo. I can see both sides of argument for Pitt being lead/supporting.
Only issue I had was that the time jump was handled a bit carelessly.
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Jul 26, 2019 11:55:37 GMT
This is my most anticipated movie like ever and kinda disappointed with the reviews here. I really hope it's not the next American Hustle for me because that one huuurrt. Still, overall it's highly acclaimed so far and I am super duper excited. Watching it tonight 🤗
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 26, 2019 13:41:43 GMT
So now that I’ve had some time to marinate on it, I think one of the things that utterly frustrates me about this film—and what has frustrated me with Tarantino’s last two movies as well—is that he is good at setting up potential avenues of intrigue and then decides to just clumsily take the easy way out. One of the themes the film tries to set up is Cliff’s discontentment with the path his life has taken, and that the only thing he has going for him is acting as Rick Dalton’s Man Friday. It’s a compelling character trait, especially as we know that Cliff ain’t exactly the stablest individual. And you know where unstable individuals tended to coalesce in 1969 Los Angeles? Spahn Ranch. So dig this: why not have Rick fire Cliff early on in the film, for the same reasons he does in Italy?
Cliff, now drifting through a pointless existence, gets caught up with Margaret Qualley’s character and winds up becoming part of the Manson Family. And when it comes time for the fateful night, he’s part of the group that goes to Cielo Drive and it’s because of him being dismissed that causes Rick to be targeted rather than Tate and the others? Perhaps Cliff gets a moment of clarity when he sees his old buddy get the shit kicked out of him, and then he turns on his new family and wipes them out the same way he does in the film, although he winds up dying as a result. I also thought the film was going to end with a shot from Chinatown with Rick in the Nicholson role, and I think that would’ve been a missed opportunity. It would've shown that Rick's flagging career was on an upswing. There's a lot more I wanna say about the film as it comes to mind, but this is as good a start as any.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jul 26, 2019 16:24:28 GMT
Armond White said this is QT best film. I'm hyped now, don't really care about what philistines say ITT
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 26, 2019 17:52:52 GMT
So now that I’ve had some time to marinate on it, I think one of the things that utterly frustrates me about this film—and what has frustrated me with Tarantino’s last two movies as well—is that he is good at setting up potential avenues of intrigue and then decides to just clumsily take the easy way out. One of the themes the film tries to set up is Cliff’s discontentment with the path his life has taken, and that the only thing he has going for him is acting as Rick Dalton’s Man Friday. It’s a compelling character trait, especially as we know that Cliff ain’t exactly the stablest individual. And you know where unstable individuals tended to coalesce in 1969 Los Angeles? Spahn Ranch. So dig this: why not have Rick fire Cliff early on in the film, for the same reasons he does in Italy?
Cliff, now drifting through a pointless existence, gets caught up with Margaret Qualley’s character and winds up becoming part of the Manson Family. And when it comes time for the fateful night, he’s part of the group that goes to Cielo Drive and it’s because of him being dismissed that causes Rick to be targeted rather than Tate and the others? Perhaps Cliff gets a moment of clarity when he sees his old buddy get the shit kicked out of him, and then he turns on his new family and wipes them out the same way he does in the film, although he winds up dying as a result. I also thought the film was going to end with a shot from Chinatown with Rick in the Nicholson role, and I think that would’ve been a missed opportunity. It would've shown that Rick's flagging career was on an upswing. There's a lot more I wanna say about the film as it comes to mind, but this is as good a start as any. Those ideas would have made a lot more sense to me. I especially like the first one because they were barely connected to that night in anyway, and then get to become heroes still. I just really hated it. Even Bruce Lee being there and stopping the Manson family, or another theory I read having Steve McQueen there to also do it would have even been slightly better.
Plus, maybe there wouldn't have been that what I thought was an awkward time jump six months later from February to August. All I could think of was in Adaptation how Robert McKee tells Charlie not to ever use voice over, and how Tarantino basically uses that with the narration to explain the time jump instead of finding a better way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jul 26, 2019 19:23:27 GMT
For those who have seen it, how are the other cast members? (not D-Caps, Pitt, Mobbie)
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Jul 26, 2019 19:25:15 GMT
For those who have seen it, how are the other cast members? (not D-Caps, Pitt, Mobbie) To add to it, Is Victoria Pedretti even in the movie?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 26, 2019 19:37:58 GMT
For those who have seen it, how are the other cast members? (not D-Caps, Pitt, Mobbie) Mike Moh and Margaret Qualley were excellent and needed more screentime.
Julia Butters was probably my choice of MVP and would deserve a Supporting Actress nomination well before Robbie would.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 26, 2019 20:21:03 GMT
For those who have seen it, how are the other cast members? (not D-Caps, Pitt, Mobbie) I agree with Stephen that Mike Moh and Margaret Qualley were excellent but needed more screentime. Julia Butters is such a scene stealer too. I know that the Supporting Actress category loves its "it" girls, and I think a lot of people like myself just assumed that Margot Robbie was going to have a worthy role and be nominated possibly even win, but Sony really should promote Butters since this category also likes its child actors. She'll probably still miss because I don't see OUATIH being a top tier contender to get a coattail nomination, but even for those that were underwhelmed, I still see Julia Butters routinely being singled out by them. Outside of them and Bruce Dern who I also thought was great, no one really stuck out in a good way. I'll put the rest of my thoughts under spoiler tags because I might give away how much each person is in the movie which might spoil things.
Al Pacino - He was good. I felt like it was a missed opportunity since I felt he didn't get much to work with which seems bizarre since this is the first time Tarantino has worked with him.
Emile Hirsch - He was fine.
Damian Lewis - He was okay, but I found that whole scene somewhat awkward which surprised me because I felt that Tarantino would nail it since he obviously loves everything about that time and place.
Kurt Russell - He was good, and along with Mike Moh's excellent performance, this is a big part of the reason why I wish the story had just decided to focus on the Rick and Cliff relationship and not any of the Sharon Tate stuff, or Tarantino had only focused on Sharon Tate and real life people.
Rebecca Gayheart - Barely recognized her.
Nicholas Hammond - Really liked him and his character. Nice touch.
Timothy Olyphant - Fine.
Scoot McNairy - Fine.
Clifton Collins Jr. - Fine.
Luke Perry - Fine.
Lena Dunham - She was okay, but sort of took me out of the film when she appeared. Also I thought that Tarantino was more clever at this point in his career with the big joke that she had so that was disappointing.
Austin Butler - I was pleasantly surprised by him. He seemed so bland in The Dead Don't Die that I was worried about him being chosen to be young Elvis, but he was pretty menacing here. Still has room for improvement, but at least I see potential there now.
Dakota Fanning - She was good.
Lorenza Izzo - She was funny in her brief scenes.
Maya Hawke - She was cute in her scene.
Mikey Madison - Terrible.
Madison Beaty - Not very good either.
For those who have seen it, how are the other cast members? (not D-Caps, Pitt, Mobbie) To add to it, Is Victoria Pedretti even in the movie? I looked her up on IMDb, and I'm pretty sure she is. She doesn't really do anything though.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 26, 2019 23:40:40 GMT
Just saw it, so I have a lot of scattered thoughts I'll just get into. The short of it is I really liked it, but it's mid-tier Tarantino. - You know how every other modern period piece by a major filmmaker is called a "love letter" to that setting? Well, that actually applies here. This is Tarantino's love letter to late '60s Hollywood and just like a real love letter, it's extremely romanticized and uncritical of its subject. There are no skeletons, prejudices, or abuses in this Hollywood. Hell, they don't even try to cover up for a stuntman who maybe, probably, almost definitely killed his wife. And despite Rick constantly associating with said stuntman and being a has-been, he's still treated with the utmost respect and love for playing a TV cowboy a decade ago. If you were looking for a mature, melancholic take on Hollywood from the mind of a Hollywood obsessive, this ain't it. This is Tarantino's love letter to his heroes growing up, the Hal Needhams and Ty Hardins of the day, and having their on-screen genre personas and Hollywood mystique spill out into the real world. It's not how it was, but for Tarantino it's how it ought to have been.
- I had read in an interview that Tarantino wrote this as a few days in the lives of these characters, but I didn't expect the guy who made his bones on goal-oriented, tunnel vision characters and pulpy tales of MacGuffins and revenge to make what was mostly a Linklater-esque casual hangout movie. I didn't hate that decision, though I can definitely see some getting pissed about that.
- Another thing that comes to mind regarding what Tarantino's said of his writing process is how he writes them as though they were novels, and that's certainly apparent here. There are a lot of strange choices in details, especially those covered very clumsily via voiceover, that you expect to be expounded upon or to otherwise matter, such as Cliff having likely killed his wife and gotten away with it but nope, it's thrown in there and referred to enough to seem to matter but ultimately provides nothing unless the recently wedded Tarantino terrifyingly finds the idea of having his idealized Old Hollywood stuntman being a wife-killer that alluring. I get the appeal in coming up with really detailed backstories for the characters so you can know them inside and out, especially for a casual day-in-the-life picture, but just because you have it in your script or in your head does not mean it needs to be in the film.
- It's a Tarantino film, so there's some cackling dialogue, great music, shots focused entirely on women's feet (if you're a foot fetishist, you're in for a treat, I guess), moments of brilliant tension, great acting (Pitt, DiCaprio, and Qualley having the most to do and nailing it), and an explosive finale. This one provides all of that, so if that's what you're looking for, you'll be alright.
- As soon as Tarantino had Susan Atkins giving the speech about all '50s TV besides I Love Lucy being all about killing and how the "Family" should kill the people who taught them to kill, I knew he was going to drastically change history and have Rick and Cliff kill them. That moment felt way too self-aware and there was no way with Tarantino's ego that he was going to take a harsh turn towards something resembling self-reflection by having the Hollywood stars killed because they made violent content. No, he was going to relish in killing off those murderous hippies in as brutal a way as he could possibly set up.
- I was incredibly wary of what Tarantino would do using Sharon Tate as a character and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. He presumes anyone watching the film already knows the story of her death so he spends his time relishing in her liveliness: every moment with the character is one of pure bliss and even though Margot Robbie doesn't have much in the way of dialogue or a true plot to work behind, she and Tarantino do well to honor the spirit of someone who had everything to look forward to in her life. That might be the actual touch of melancholy hanging over the movie as an audience member, the juxtaposition between the fairy tale way Tarantino depicts all this contrasted with the tragic reality of it all. I wouldn't put it past Tarantino to have been aware and deliberate in that when choosing to frame the setting around this particular year and revolve the third act around that specific tragedy. It's the most poignant way to tie in all his what ifs: what if the action hero and stuntman could do in real life what they do in TV? What if the Old Hollywood has-beens had been embraced by the New Hollywood counterculture? What if Sharon Tate hadn't died and therefore could be remembered and celebrated exclusively for how she lived? Some aren't going to like that attitude towards history, but for Tarantino, anything's possible on celluloid and there lies the magic of the movies.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 27, 2019 1:10:27 GMT
Finally got back from the theater, really enjoyed it, but I'm not sure where it land as far as Tarantino goes for me. There's some pacing issues, DiCaprio and Pitt are terrific, though. Some random thoughts, As expected from Tarantino. There's a lot of film homages, references to other movies, placing characters in different scenarios, like Rick Dalton in The Great Escape or the TV show F.B.I. As someone who loves film and media culture in general, I enjoyed that aspect a lot.
Mike Moh was great as Bruce Lee, and I enjoyed his big scene, but I did find it a bit disrespectful how Cliff Booth just beat him-up like it was nothing. I still don't know what I think about the scene in general.
Margaret Robbie worked well as Sharon Tate, but I thought she was a bit superfluous to the overall plot. She's only there because of The Manson Murder aspect. The fact that Tarantino wrote the screenplay as a "day in the life of", type deal, makes so much sense, because I thought the characters' liveliness, and constantly look of happiness (the fact that she plays music every-time she's on screen helps), was the best aspect about her in the film.
Al Pacino was very good, and Bruce Dern was excellent, I could have followed an entire film of his blind-man character. I wish we had seen more of them, but I guess that's part of the allure of the whole thing. They're basically there for walk-on extended cameos, and not necessarily part of the overall plot. Same with Kurt Russell.
There was perhaps maybe too many characters, even by Tarantino's usual standards. I didn't even recognize Luke Perry in the film until my mom pointed out it was him, as I was glued in on trying to spot everyone else, as a result names Lena Dunham, and Scott McNairy, didn't make much of an impression on me.
The climax was insanely bloody, as expected. I have no issue with Tarantino rewriting history, he did it to great effect in Inglourious Basterds. My only major issue is how precise he set the whole thing up. Booth encounters the crazy cult kids randomly first, and wham, you know there's something wrong and odd with them, especially with how they seemingly appear from out of nowhere. The build-up near the end however was great, and the big fight itself was darkly hilarious, especially when the dog revealed itself to be deadly.
|
|