Guest Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 It is a QT flick, he plays around with your expectations of what a Manson/Tate plot element will mean as he always does when mixing in historical people/stories into his films. I actually think the sense of dread I had about Tate based on knowing the real history there helped carry a lot of the extended periods of limited plot momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: IB for example. I liked everything with the Bastards, and hated everything related to the cinema. Deathproof only got good once they got in their cars. So it was 80% boring. I agree with your overall post but I loved all of Basterds - the cinema stuff is the emotional heart of the film! But I know almost every QT movie is divisive (though I love them all, even Death Proof). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodporne Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I miss that gritty L.A. noir vibe that pervaded his first few movies. I thought maybe this would be a sort of "comeback" but I have my doubts he's still got that sort of personality in him to create that. I liked those worlds of failing, weirdo small-time criminals. I love Ordell and Louis in Jackie Brown although that's getting totally off-topic because I just want to rant about how much Jackie Brown rules. Edit: I actually kind of hated Basterds on my first viewing. It felt like the whole cinema segment just tonally was way off. I eventually came around to it on my second and third watch and think it's a great movie by now and works shockingly well given its absurdity and subject matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 15 minutes ago, Bloodporne said: I miss that gritty L.A. noir vibe that pervaded his first few movies. I thought maybe this would be a sort of "comeback" but I have my doubts he's still got that sort of personality in him to create that. I liked those worlds of failing, weirdo small-time criminals. I love Ordell and Louis in Jackie Brown although that's getting totally off-topic because I just want to rant about how much Jackie Brown rules. Edit: I actually kind of hated Basterds on my first viewing. It felt like the whole cinema segment just tonally was way off. I eventually came around to it on my second and third watch and think it's a great movie by now and works shockingly well given its absurdity and subject matter. Tarantino has simply become a better filmmaker. There's less of a raw quality to his work but in its place he's become even more careful, measured, composed. The way he makes films elevates grindhouse films (Death Proof) and Shaw Brothers martial arts C-grade action flicks from the '70's (Kill Bill, his transition period) into Oscar-level and arthouse-level films. The influence of French cinema filmmaking in all the Melanie Laurent scenes in Basterds are just masterful. His camera pull-back when the music kicks in as she's applying make-up before the big show is just next level to me. The man's become an artist. You're seeing the same with a few other filmmakers, like Christopher Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodporne Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said: Tarantino has simply become a better filmmaker. There's less of a raw quality to his work but in its place he's become even more careful, measured, composed. The way he makes films elevates grindhouse films (Death Proof) and Shaw Brothers martial arts C-grade action flicks from the '70's (Kill Bill, his transition period) into Oscar-level and arthouse-level films. The influence of French cinema filmmaking in all the Melanie Laurent scenes in Basterds are just masterful. His camera pull-back when the music kicks in as she's applying make-up before the big show is just next level to me. The man's become an artist. You're seeing the same with a few other filmmakers, like Christopher Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson. I actually don't disagree with any of that and I basically like all his movies, even thought Hateful 8 was great and like Death Proof quite a lot. The only one I've only seen twice I think is Django. There's something about the pacing, or something else I didn't really care to analyze, that turned me off. Many great vignettes but the film as a whole never clicked with me unfortunately. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bloodporne said: I actually don't disagree with any of that and I basically like all his movies, even thought Hateful 8 was great and like Death Proof quite a lot. The only one I've only seen twice I think is Django. There's something about the pacing, or something else I didn't really care to analyze, that turned me off. Many great vignettes but the film as a whole never clicked with me unfortunately. Totally understandable. Like Kubrick, he tests audiences' patience because he actually lets scenes breathe to get a real scene going (Nicolas Winding Refn and Michael Mann are also good at this) and that doesn't click each time for each viewer with each film of his. I've seen all of his movies numerous times (at least 3-4 times for all of them except Death Proof and The Hateful Eight), Tarantino is in my top 10 or top 5 directors of all time, so I'm pretty biased, to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodporne Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 17 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said: Totally understandable. Like Kubrick, he tests audiences' patience because he actually lets scenes breathe to get a real scene going (Nicolas Winding Refn and Michael Mann are also good at this) and that doesn't click each time for each viewer with each film of his. I've seen all of his movies numerous times (at least 3-4 times for all of them except Death Proof and The Hateful Eight), Tarantino is in my top 10 or top 5 directors of all time, so I'm pretty biased, to be fair. I hate Refn so much, I'd go to Riker's for 3 to 4 years just to prove my point. PS: I love Kubrick! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 14 minutes ago, Bloodporne said: I hate Refn so much, I'd go to Riker's for 3 to 4 years just to prove my point. PS: I love Kubrick! Yes I know but I love Refn so deal with it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 One of my favorite cinema experiences was sitting with my friends in an otherwise empty room watching Only God Forgives and torching it for all of Refn’s sham artistic opulence. I hate that film so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodporne Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, sblfilms said: One of my favorite cinema experiences was sitting with my friends in an otherwise empty room watching Only God Forgives and torching it for all of Refn’s sham artistic opulence. I hate that film so much. I just wrote one of the most hateful posts I've ever conceived on here, then realized I'm a grown man and should probably just get over my sheer hatred for his offenses against cinema. I will say that I truly wish I could've been part of this group haha Also just watched the first episode of his newest masterpiece and if I didn't know better, I'd think it was a David Lynch parody skit on SNL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShreddieMercury Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I have a tortured relationship with Tarantino. I find his scripting and direction to be generally brilliant, but his films don't ever fully come together for me. I find individual scenes and exchanges in some of his movies to be among the best and most entertaining that I've ever seen (the watch monologue in Pulp Fiction, or the tavern standoff in Inglourious Basterds for example), but they are often sandwiched between narrative beats and stylistic choices that I can't stand. I loved Kill Bill as a teenager, and I found it borderline unwatchable when I tried to revisit it recently. Inglourious Basterds, however, is a top-to-bottom masterpiece, and easily his crowning achievement in my eyes. I'm really looking forward to Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, if only because his films are genuine events. Even if I don't enjoy the majority of his movies, it's hard to argue with his status as perhaps the most singular and exciting filmmaker of his generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I'm a huge Tarantino fan, but honestly, his last two movies (Django and Hateful) left me pretty cold. Hopefully this reverses the trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazatron Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 I liked it, largely on the strength of DiCaprio and Pitt who were both brilliant. I get the whole Manson/Tate parallel, but I just don't see what the scenes focusing on Tate added. I didn't really feel any connection to the character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 18 hours ago, Bloodporne said: I just wrote one of the most hateful posts I've ever conceived on here, then realized I'm a grown man and should probably just get over my sheer hatred for his offenses against cinema. Write it again and post it! I bet it's positively tame compared to what I posted about Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof after seeing Prometheus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 22 hours ago, Greatoneshere said: I agree with your overall post but I loved all of Basterds - the cinema stuff is the emotional heart of the film! But I know almost every QT movie is divisive (though I love them all, even Death Proof). I know that’s what he was going for, but for me it fell flat. I did not care about her or her cinema. Those scenes bored me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 I loved it. I went in not even knowing that it was related to the Manson murders, and only started to question it when the creepy guy (Manson) showed up at the Polanski residence (and then confirmed when the "dirty hippies" showed up in the car). I too thought "where is this movie going?" more than a few times, but each scene was so fun that I didn't really even care. Brad Pitt was fantastic in it, as was Leonardo. Loved Damien Lewis' little cameo as Steve McQueen, too. Two favourite sequences were probably the tension in the Brad Pitt-visting-the-commune scene, where I legitimately thought he was going to die, and then of course the fantastic violence of the ending. Overally, I'd say it's one of my favourites of Tarantino's. On 7/26/2019 at 7:23 AM, Bloodporne said: You just kind of answered your own question or whatever you wanna call it there though. It completely depends on context and portrayal in my opinion and you certainly can exploit tragedy if the context is off obviously. I haven't seen the film so I have no opinion on it yet. I strongly dislike American culture's general exploitation of serial killers and/or sensational crime and I honestly cringed when I read this was going to include the whole Manson aspect. Then again...Tarantino managed to QT the shit out of a WWII war film, which I hated in theory and then ended up thoroughly enjoying on screen. I'll see how I feel once I watch it. They go to great pains in the movie to paint the killers as "dirty hippies" and make them seem like losers, so I would't say they glorify it at all, or exploit it. The murders play such a small part in the movie, too. Also, if you've seen IG, then you know that he tampers with history in his movies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 On 7/26/2019 at 10:09 AM, sblfilms said: It is a QT flick I'll say. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 A foot fetish isn’t even weird. Especially compared to some fetishes out there. Have your toes sucked/suck on some toes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLeon Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 This time around, it really felt like QT was just (literally) throwing it in the faces of everyone who has joked about the foot thing in his previous films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emblazon Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 QT is to feet what JJ is to lens flares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 I enjoyed it a lot more than his previous three or four films. There's some great performances in this and while I normally feel like QT's films are 45 minutes to an hour too long, this one only felt like 15 to 20 minutes too long. While I have seen a lot of folks say that Brad stole the show, Leo REALLY shined in this. He should definitely get a nomination if not a win from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emblazon Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 11 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said: I enjoyed it a lot more than his previous three or four films. There's some great performances in this and while I normally feel like QT's films are 45 minutes to an hour too long, this one only felt like 15 to 20 minutes too long. While I have seen a lot of folks say that Brad stole the show, Leo REALLY shined in this. He should definitely get a nomination if not a win from this. For the most part, I'm not the biggest fan of Leo, but his performance in this was far and away the best performance in the film, and it would be a crime if he isn't nominated for it. That little girl wasn't lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoberChef Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 So the one hitch hiking dirty hippie...was the armpit hair necessary or just REALLY method for the actor in that scene. Also, did she have a bunion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 14 minutes ago, SoberChef said: So the one hitch hiking dirty hippie...was the armpit hair necessary or just REALLY method for the actor in that scene. Also, did she have a bunion? Lol I think the Arm Pit hair was perfectly in character but It threw me off too! I was like "Oh!" when I saw it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Watched it again tonight and it is way better when you know there is close to no plot and each scene is mostly to be enjoyed for all of its own accord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 1 minute ago, sblfilms said: Watched it again tonight and it is way better when you know there is close to no plot and each scene is mostly to be enjoyed for all of its own accord. That's pretty much most of QT's films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 25 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: That's pretty much most of QT's films. The three that fit that most IMO are Hollywood, Hateful Eight, and Pulp Fiction. There certainly are always scenes that fit that bill in his movies, but those three films have close to no plot at all while the rest of his films have pretty clear plots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 8 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said: That's pretty much most of QT's films. 8 hours ago, sblfilms said: The three that fit that most IMO are Hollywood, Hateful Eight, and Pulp Fiction. There certainly are always scenes that fit that bill in his movies, but those three films have close to no plot at all while the rest of his films have pretty clear plots. Kill Bill/Inglorious Basterds were the two that were most plot-heavy, imo. Reservoir Dogs did have one, though it was thin: the heist went wrong, and Pink thinks there's a rat, but was there? But I don't mean thin in a bad way as I loved seeing the gang of guys going from tough guys to really seeing the ripples, personalities and in some cases, and actual unsureness that they try to hide with their tough guy talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 6 hours ago, SaysWho? said: Kill Bill/Inglorious Basterds were the two that were most plot-heavy, imo. Reservoir Dogs did have one, though it was thin: the heist went wrong, and Pink thinks there's a rat, but was there? But I don't mean thin in a bad way as I loved seeing the gang of guys going from tough guys to really seeing the ripples, personalities and in some cases, and actual unsureness that they try to hide with their tough guy talk. I would say Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs are his most plot driven films. The plot of Kill Bill is in the title I haven't seen Jackie Brown in years so I don't really remember that one. Inglorious Basterds doesn't really have a plot at first. The mission to kill Hitler comes really late in the movie... The Basterds were initially there just to terrorize Nazis. It's a vey episodic film up until they come up with the plan to assassinate Hitler. There really ISN'T a plot until that point. I would argue that Death Proof, Hateful Eight and Django are all more plot driven than Basterds even though those have loose plots too. Actually Hateful Eight has a pretty clear plot. It's a mystery really for the most part. I don't say any of this as a critique... Tarantino is much less interested in plot than he is character, tone and mood. I would LOVE for him to do a ten episode series which would basically be a ten hour movie. it's what he really wants to do and seems to be what he's more suited for. I enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood more than most of his recent films but there was really no need for this movie to be three hours long. Granted it didn't drag much at all, much less than Basterds, Django, Kill Bill 2 and Hateful Eight, but there were still some places where the movie slowed down a bit and could have been trimmed in my humble opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 I'm still figuring out exactly what I thought of the film, but my initial thought coming out of the theater was that this is QT's Titanic. There's this idea (and I don't know how true it is exactly) that Cameron made Titanic largely because it allowed him to go see the actual titanic and then to recreate the vessel itself. The film was in many ways a mean to these ends. That's not a comment on the quality of the film, but rather a partial explanation of the primary mover behind it. I really felt like this film was QT doing the same, but for a number of different ends. In making this movie, QT got to: write and direct parts of TV shows from the 50s and 60s, both using modern filmmaking techniques and mimicking those of the time. He got to go to a 60's party at the playboy mansion and create all the posters and memorabilia surrounding spaghetti westerns. More than anything else, he got to recreate late 60s Hollywood and lavish himself in the filmmaking of the time. QT is constantly presenting various homages to genres and eras of filmmaking he loves, but never before has he made something so literal. This isn't Kill Bill as a love letter to Hong Kong action films, this is shooting a 50s Western on 8mm, this is creating a complete opening sequence to F.B.I. and putting one of our greatest modern actors into a sequence form The Great Escape. There are plenty of homages in typical QT style, but among them there are complete recreations, and I'm sure he was using period correct film and lenses and whatever else. None of this is really a comment on the quality of the film itself, just my overwhelming impression on why it got made and how it came to be the way it is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 14 hours ago, SoberChef said: So the one hitch hiking dirty hippie...was the armpit hair necessary or just REALLY method for the actor in that scene. Also, did she have a bunion? 14 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said: Lol I think the Arm Pit hair was perfectly in character but It threw me off too! I was like "Oh!" when I saw it She leans over his lap and lays it all out to show that she's old enough to blow him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 20 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said: She leans over his lap and lays it all out to show that she's old enough to blow him. But she wasn't old enough, right? That's what I got from that whole exchange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: But she wasn't old enough, right? That's what I got from that whole exchange. Right. But she was trying to show that she was a grown woman in the biological sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 23 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said: Right. But she was trying to show that she was a grown woman in the biological sense. Yeah I didn't get that... one, underarm hair starts growing when you're like 12. Two, I don't think she thought anything of it... any ongoing gag from that time was that hippie chicks didn't shave their armpits. That's the gag that Tarantino was going for. I don't think she was flashing underarm hair to show that she was an adult. It was more of a sight gag. Anyway apparently she DID have a bunion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: Yeah I didn't get that... one, underarm hair starts growing when you're like 12. Two, I don't think she thought anything of it... any ongoing gag from that time was that hippie chicks didn't shave their armpits. That's the gag that Tarantino was going for. I don't think she was flashing underarm hair to show that she was an adult. It was more of a sight gag. I don't disagree with your take. I think it can be both, though. From an evolutionary perspective underarm hair starts growing when pubic hair starts growing--a biological indicator that you are at childbearing age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.