|
Yes I know he technically isn't a serial killer (perhaps only one murder) but he's always lumped in with them anyway. Where I was there was loads of news on his death, and online too, so I dunno
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Charles Manson is explicitly not a serial killer, even I know that With the news cycle these days, if you weren't on the Internet the day his death happened it probably got buried in some other political garbage that took over the next day. Preston Waters posted:The general public likes all of the Fast & Furious sequels. The basic concept of Fast & Furious that you need to know is that cars go fast, which is in the loving name of the title. Just imagine how even fewer people are going to know about who Sharon Tate is 20 years from now when people that are not even born yet look back at Tarantino's collection of films as a whole. It will literally be the only movie you have to go into saying "You should probably read the Wikipedia entry on Sharon Tate before you watch it".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
I don’t understand how this is even a discussion. What is going on? If you went into a movie that took place in like, the Rwandan civil war, and that war was what the movie’s plot revolves around, it kinda assumes you know what the war is about walking in. Even if we assume that Sharon Tate’s murder was a footnote in history, which it’s not, it’s such a loving absurd complaint to say that the movie should have stopped and explained to you who this person who existed in real life, straight up said “I’m Sharon Tate!” in the trailer, and you could easily Google is. Unreal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
I saw this movie Saving Private Ryan and it was such a piece of poo poo. Why were they even there? Who’s this “Hitler”? F- zero stars
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:I don’t understand how this is even a discussion. What is going on? Never in my life have I googled the name of a character in a movie before I saw the movie. You'd only do that if the trailer also said it was based on a real story, which it didn't. But why would I google the character's name and potentially see a spoiler? Now one bit of googling about the movie would have answered my question, but I was sold on it being a Tarantino film because I like the previous 8 films he has made. I don't even like watching a trailer immediately before seeing a movie, because then I start thinking things like "hmm, I wonder when that scene where the gun comes into play" The trailer starts out by introducing Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth, both fictitious characters. It shows Rick acting in fictitious movies. You then see Rick saying he's a has been, flat on his rear end, and living next to Sharon Tate. There is nothing that would imply that Sharon Tate is a real person, unless you were familiar with Wrecking Crew and recognized the name/poster, but then you'd probably already know who Sharon Tate was. It implies that Rick will somehow interact with this woman once before the last 2 minutes of the movie. Apologies for not knowing about a movie that came out in 1969. Pussycat then says "Charlie's going to dig you", but unless you know that she's referring to Charles Mansion, who I've never heard referred to as Charlie Mansion in my life, you do not make that connection. You just assume that Charlie is another character in the movie. If Tarantino referenced Sharon Tate in one of his previous films, you know, I'd give it to you that it should be common knowledge. But as far as I can recall he never has. If I went into a movie about the Rwandan Civil War, the premise itself implies that it is in Rwanda and that there is a civil war. If you need to know a deeper understanding of the history of that war, including how specific people died, then the movie fails at explaining the premise to you. Astro7x fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Aug 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
The Tate Murders are one of the defining moments of the 60s and are, along with the Hell's Angels stabbing that dude at Altamont, widely seen as the moment when the hopeful idealism of the hippy movement died.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
I am an old and I know about Sharon Tate, but I can see how younger people now wouldnt know about her. She doesn’t get mentioned in pop culture even 1/100 as much as Hitler or the Civil War. I don’t think we need to assign blame on anyone over this. We don’t need to blame the director or the audience about whether or not the audience should have pre-knowledge of Sharon Tate. If you know, good, and if you don’t already know, feel free to google it. Problem solved! Plenty of movies lean on foreknowledge of things, it’s not a thing to turn into a blame game, it just happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Ok so whoever wanted to know about the porn movie premiere in the movie and what it’s significance was. That was the Eros Theater, which was later renamed The New Beverly, which Tarantino now owns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
I saw this the other night. I don't want to hate on it. It's excellent in every way except the story was inconsequential and that made the whole thing pointless for me. If there was some 10 part one hour miniseries about that time in Hollywood and it is universally considered the best TV series of all time - then I consider 'Hollywood' edited down to ''Rick Dalton's Subplot for YT''. I'm disappointed. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The Tate Murders are one of the defining moments of the 60s and are, along with the Hell's Angels stabbing that dude at Altamont, widely seen as the moment when the hopeful idealism of the hippy movement died.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Yeah it's flawed view of the events that doesn't quite line up with how things really were. But it is the dominant pop historiography. Probably largely due to Boomer nostalgia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Ok so whoever wanted to know about the porn movie premiere in the movie and what it’s significance was. That was the Eros Theater, which was later renamed The New Beverly, which Tarantino now owns. lol what a nerd edit: Tarantino, I mean. not you
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Fun Fact: Woodstock happened after the Manson murders, so the timeline isn't really all neat, and the movie makes a good argument that people are giving the Manson Family way too much credit. And almost a year before the shooting at Kent State that most people credit for taking the rug out from under the whole scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:Just imagine how even fewer people are going to know about who Sharon Tate is 20 years from now when people that are not even born yet look back at Tarantino's collection of films as a whole. It will literally be the only movie you have to go into saying "You should probably read the Wikipedia entry on Sharon Tate before you watch it". That's when the 20th Anniversary Edition is released with an additional scene spliced in during the Rome interlude: Margot Robbie with a champagne glass in a bubble bath casually yet succinctly explaining the history of Charles Manson, his cult, and the Tate house murders while comedic infographics help the audience to understand directed by adam mckay
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Just saw this with my friend, later than I wanted but had to wait till we were both free. Thought it was excellent honestly. My friend had no idea about Sharon tate or the murders and I'd told him about them after seeing the trailer a few months back, we're both early 30s and in the UK and tbh over here and especially with people younger many people have no idea about that whole thing, they might have heard of Charles Manson but most think incorrectly that he was just some crazy serial killer back when. I watch a lot of documentaries on true crime etc so I knew about it but it's not shocking many people wouldn't going into the film. Anyone itt acting like assholes because they think people have to know about all this are living in their own American centric bubble. Though I'm sure many many young people in America have zero clue about it. I'd be very curious to hear how people who had no idea about that night would react watching the film. My friend was glad I told him prior because he like me had a massive sense of foreboding throughout the whole movie once you see Sharon Tate, and that last part was some of the most tense I've been in a cinema in a long time, just knowing how brutal those killings were and potentially will be on screen, I really thought even that was just maybe too far for Tarantino but when it starts to play out you really get tense waiting for it to happen. Then there is just a relief when Cliff starts killing the hippies and you're laughing with the audience at the violence because its so over the top but also such a relief. Its a fantastic ending for that reason alone. Also the dog lived which helped. I can see why people would not be so hot on it. Not only if they didn't know prior about the murders but also because there's no real straight up A-B plot so to speak and if you go into it expecting it to be like a typical Tarantino film it's not quite that. Yes you're building up to the murders but that's like a mini arc in the story and essentially It's just a bunch of scenes with DiCaprio and Pitt coping with the decline of their careers, almost like you're watching a TV show following those two around, it feels quite episodic. I wouldn't change a thing but I can imagine people maybe expecting more of a traditional story where we see DiCaprio down on his luck and watch him navigate a very Tarantino depiction of Hollywood where its all violence and drugs and whores etc as you imagine, but instead it has a very fairy tale view of Hollywood which honestly with today's cinema where everything has to be dark gritty and realistic felt nice. It does lack that Tarantino thing where his films have lulls followed by a super high high, they ebb and flow with memorable over the top scenes throughout (Usually people dying, such as the beginning with the hiding of the Jews or the bar shootout in Inglorious Basterds, the Kill Bill fight scenes throughout those movies, Marvin getting his head blown off, the brutal fight between the slaves in Django etc) and instead it's more of a film that's about slowly building up the tension to a climax where you might need to know what happened on that night, and everything prior to that is more about great acting and small character moments. Anyway TLDR: I thought it was an excellent film and was a masterclass in building tension and then releasing it, but that having prior knowledge of Manson and Sharon Tate might be necessary for that to work. Just Chamber fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Sep 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
e.: on second thought lovely Twitter hottakes not worth reposting, movie good even if there are some things that are open to critique.
KazigluBey fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
How many people alive know a lick about the Manson murders? I had previously spent hours reading about the Manson family out of personal interest. But man, I really sympathize with all the people who went into this with no knowledge, particularly non-Americans. In some ways I feel like this is the most culturally specific, non-mainstream movie Tarantino has ever made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:How many people alive know a lick about the Manson murders? I had previously spent hours reading about the Manson family out of personal interest. But man, I really sympathize with all the people who went into this with no knowledge, particularly non-Americans. In some ways I feel like this is the most culturally specific, non-mainstream movie Tarantino has ever made. Me? I'm still alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:How many people alive know a lick about the Manson murders? I would imagine that everyone who knows about the Manson murders is alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
this movie was super enjoyable but I cannot interpret it as anything less than incredibly reactionary and this disconnect keeps loving me up
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
My friend who loves Leo saw it and said he didn’t know anything about the Mansons and lost something from that but he’s an adult and realized that’s his problem and googled it when he got home. In conclusion, film is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:So has there been any hot takes about the finale being an acid-induced hallucination yet? Because I feel Tarantino is “cool” enough that a lot of stupid people would watch it. Well my take was that ending is a hallucination of Cliff. Though the film is a fairy tale (it's right there in the name), the ending's tonal shift is really weird and everything is wrapped up so nicely. Cliff, the alleged wife murderer and washed out stuntman is actually a hero and easily beats three people to the pulp. Even his dog is actually a trained killing machine who can interpret his tongue clicks just the right way and knows who to attack first. And Dalton has flamethrower full of flamethrower gas and ready to use. Very convenient. And who are they fighting against? Those same hippies Cliff had seen once before and with whom he had a nasty and violent interaction. Of course they are now psycho killers ready to kill him and Rick. After the fight the next door neighbours who had barely even registered them come over and all of them are revealed to be lifelong Rick Dalton fans. After all, the cigarette selling lady promised that it would give a trip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Kim Morgan did a great Tarantino interview. The only problem is that I come away from them with a list of another 30 movies to watch. http://thenewbev.com/blog/2019/09/tarantino-on-hollywood/ quote:KM: I love this line – When Mike Moh as Bruce Lee says to Cliff, something like, “You’re kinda pretty for a stunt guy.” It’s a direct line, and so something that would be said to a stunt guy who looks like he could also be a movie star.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:Well my take was that ending is a hallucination of Cliff. Though the film is a fairy tale (it's right there in the name), the ending's tonal shift is really weird and everything is wrapped up so nicely. Nothing in the movie indicates it's a hallucination. -We're already shown Cliff is in shape and a good fighter -We're already shown that his dog is very, very, well trained. -The flamethrower was shown waaaaaaay early in the movie as something in Rick's garage and that's it's a real working flamethrower -The hippies were in the neighborhood before he even smoked the acid dipped cigarette and they interacted with Rick first before they run into Cliff. So I guess someone could come away with that take if they didn't actually watch the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Death to "it was all a dream" interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Death to "it was all a dream" interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Thanks to the people recommending the You Must Remember This podcast. Learned some new things about the Manson Family, and I’m now enjoying hearing about the debauchery that went on in 1920s Hollywood. I quite enjoyed the movie, although I’m not sure I would have if I wasn’t well aware of Tate’s demise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Leo was in a coma and imagining it the whole time
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:I like how a lot of the criticism is boiling down to, "I'm ignorant as poo poo and proud of it, and the movie is bad for not catering for me". I don't know whether to laugh or cry. and lmbo @ that guy being like "ah yes it's important like JFK and the Wall coming down" Off the top of my head, literally the only other thing that was more newsworthy in 1969 was the Moon landing. Maybe whatever poo poo went down in Vietnam. It was bigger than the Zodiac murders for sure. Preston Waters fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Sep 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:What about my "it's actually a very elaborate play" interpretations? Ah yes, the Super Mario Bros 3 defense We might as well just say their plane home went down
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
As a 32 yeard old mexican guy living in Mexico, I have to agree with whoever said that Charles Manson is worldwide famous but the details of the murders are not. Before reading this thread, I discussed this movie with at least five people and everyone agreed that Margot Robbie's scenes could have been cut and it would have made no difference. I don't think the same after reading this thread and the wikipedia page about the murders, but I think most people watching this movie outside of the US are going to be thinking the same thing, unless they are very interested in serial killers or something. I still loved this movie enough to see it twice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Fun Fact: Woodstock happened after the Manson murders, so the timeline isn't really all neat, and the movie makes a good argument that people are giving the Manson Family way too much credit. Manson and his followers were charged with the crime in December 1969, the public only became aware of him a few months after Woodstock and around the time Altamont happened. The less popular opinion is that the 60s we have idealized in our head never actually happened other than a few months in the summer of 1967 in a particular section of one American city, and even in that case it became a poo poo show by the time meth and heroin hit hard in 68.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:Manson and his followers were charged with the crime in December 1969, the public only became aware of him a few months after Woodstock and around the time Altamont happened. Yeah YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS does a great job of de-mystifying the 'Summer of Love' in the Manson episodes. Woodstock is less like a celebration and more of a last hurrah to something that was dying, even if the people didn't realise it at the time. Memory has these moments coming in like a lightning strike, where Manson and his followers became a household name immediately after the murders. In reality, it wasn't until December that they made arrests for the crime, as you said. Initially the police were floundering (they were certain it was a drug deal gone bad) and had first arrested Manson and some of the family for a car thieving ring. Had they not killed poor Gary Hinman earlier in the year, I think it's fair to say they would never have been linked to the crimes. Even with the December arrests, not much was said about Manson. His name wasn't really front and centre because he was already in custody. He didn't really get his infamy until the trial in 1970.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
The John Waters' film Multipile Maniacs (1970) has a scene where they reference the Tate murders and it is claimed one of the character did it but it was shot before Manson was actually caught.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Watched this again, I think it's the best thing DiCaprio has done. He does so much to show Rick's total insecurity and anxiety just in the way he holds himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Bruce Lee and Cliff looked like two adult boys caught by their mom roughhousing at the end of the fight. Or is that just me? To the point that I could picture Lee asking Cliff, "You wanna go play video games?" or whatever the 1960s equivalent of that would be. (Ordering a pizza and a six-pack and watching "FBI") It was almost like Cliff was reminiscing about the time he almost became Bruce Lee's buddy, in some masculine-driven, exaggerated-memory, male bonding thing. Also, I thought the sound design for the movie was great. Even the rustle of the wind and general on-set noises in the background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:08
|
|
|
The producer trying to get Rick to go to Italy explained that scene before it happens. Lee is the known actor coming in for Cliff the hero to beat so that the audience can see what a badass he is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Chappers posted:Bruce Lee and Cliff looked like two adult boys caught by their mom roughhousing at the end of the fight. Or is that just me? To the point that I could picture Lee asking Cliff, "You wanna go play video games?" or whatever the 1960s equivalent of that would be. (Ordering a pizza and a six-pack and watching "FBI") I like that take on it. It helps that at no point does Cliff seem upset about it, he seems to take the whole thing in good humor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
Noticed a lot of people checking their phones towards the half way point of the movie, I had mostly the same reaction, plodding and didn't justify the bloated run time. I understand it was meant to be a slice of life story with a de-emphasized plotline, but I don't think it had the characters, dialogue, or standalone scenes compelling enough to support that lack of structure. Dicaprio was too cartoonishly vain and childlike to take any of his drama seriously. Brad was cool, chill, badass, fun, etc. but he didn't have the depth to take his scenes anywhere interesting, and the use of the two as a tandem felt oddly underutilized. Yes, it had the cathartic history correction and some well done gore, but it felt limp after the tedium that preceded it. I understand that the symbolism of the final scene flew over my head so maybe I missed out on some of the inside baseball that would have made this more compelling, but I compare it to Jackie Brown or Pulp Fiction where every scene cracks like a whip, and I have to think Tarantino has lost the touch.
lurker2006 fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Robbie's pretty great (probably the best part of the movie) but if you didn't know who Sharon Tate was I could see how her scenes would feel extraneous and the catharsis of the climax would probably be completely lost. That said I don't really think it's the film's job to inform the viewer either. god dammit I didn't realize I was resurrecting a thread sorry about that
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:29
|
|
