|
TheAardvark posted:It's an important scene, too. I was in a packed theater and him beating Bruce Lee I had a funny feeling this was going to happen from watching the trailer, and as silly as it sounds, it's the kind of thing that can turn me off from seeing it. Is this movie going to piss me off if I really like Bruce Lee? The fact that apparently people were cheering is a good sign, but I haven't read any other spoilers but this one.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:I had a funny feeling this was going to happen from watching the trailer, and as silly as it sounds, it's the kind of thing that can turn me off from seeing it. It’s implied to be a sensationalized memory rather than straight fact but it’s never declaratively stated
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Riptor posted:how do you know this I went at an Alamo. I'm judging off the people who didn't immediately leave at credits, but I spent about 30 minutes amongst people discussing the movie and that's what I gathered. I'm just talking about general audiences here, the kind of people willing to discuss a movie in the theater until kick out time 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
I was born in the 80s and I feel like I was exposed to the history like 100+ times in my life despite never purposefully seeking it out. Wierd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:By the way, "He said he was the devil and uh... He was here to do some devil poo poo." is maybe the funniest thing Tarantino has ever written. Definitely, especially if you know the real history. SidneyIsTheKiller posted:I had a funny feeling this was going to happen from watching the trailer, and as silly as it sounds, it's the kind of thing that can turn me off from seeing it. I mean, Cliff doesn't really beat Bruce Lee. Lee gets in a good shot because Cliff underestimated him, and then Cliff gets in a good shot because Lee underestimates him. Then they are pretty evenly matched. I don't think the portrayal of Lee was cartoony, more that it showed him from the perspective that a lot of stunt men probably see a lot of show leads. LanceHunter fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Bruce Lee: they painted him as a whiny bitch, claiming his superiority in front of the white main character, and claiming he wasn't beaten with a standard "oh I would have won if" kinda thing. That bothered me too. QT painted it the way he would have if Bruce Lee was an embarassing person to have around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Everything I want to say about the movie has already been said. I loved it. Not my favorite QT movie, but that's ok. Someone here said it was his most indulgent movie, and that's totally fine by me. The dude loves cinema and it was fun to see his love letter to it. He referenced pretty much every genre and type of movie. Margot Robbie was loving great in this too. She totally commands your attention when she's on screen. Timothy Olyphant as a western star was a great touch too and he was awesome in it. I need to go see it again while it's in theaters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Tarantino's worst, by a country mile. Sad to say I think he's truly lost it, and perhaps all his talk of retirement isn't such a terrible idea. I was expecting a light-on-plot hangout movie, but am truly shocked by the lack of characterization and dialogue. Almost no memorable conversations or sequences, vast swaths of runtime with nothing going on, incoherent structurally. Hateful Eight didn't stick the landing, but had great characters and precise direction. OUTH feels like a first time screenwriter's first draft fan fiction of 1969. And for all his talk of a "buddy" film about Pitt and Dicaprio, they barely even share a conversation in this movie. Brad Pitt is cool to hangout with, would be great if there was an actual movie around him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
TheAardvark posted:Bruce Lee: they painted him as a whiny bitch, claiming his superiority in front of the white main character, and claiming he wasn't beaten with a standard "oh I would have won if" kinda thing. That bothered me too. QT painted it the way he would have if Bruce Lee was an embarassing person to have around. Bruce Lee when he was young, by all accounts, was a cocky rear end in a top hat. Also important to the scene: they agree to a friendly competition just trying to knock the other down and Cliff doesn't follow that, punching him square in the face. Bruce clearly wasn't going all out, and the one hit Cliff gets in was because he goads Lee into telegraphing his move, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Just got back from this and thought it was great. I didn't care for Hateful Eight, so I thought this was a nice return to form. Regarding knowledge of actual history: I saw this with a friend who knew nothing about the Manson family murders except that they had murdered some people, and he was baffled at the end of the movie until I told him about the real events, at which point he did a complete 180 on his opinion of the last act. I didn't realize just how much the movie relied on knowing the real story until then, and I wonder how most people going in blind will react.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
I knew the history and this was a big boring slog of a movie. The entire thing felt stakeless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Lee spent a good deal of time poo poo talking traditional martial arts and choreographed show fighting, which is why you'll always see people endlessly quoting his "boards don't hit back" line in the youtube comments of videos that debunk Kung Fu. He was like Ali in his self promotion, so it's no surprise in the movie that he brought up the Cassius Clay/Liston fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
The movie has a reactionary streak to it that I found pretty refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
When Cliff goes into the shed to get stuff to fix the antenna do we see the flamethrower hanging there? I didn't notice it, but I want looking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:When Cliff goes into the shed to get stuff to fix the antenna do we see the flamethrower hanging there? I didn't notice it, but I want looking. Yes, the camera even pans down and lingers on it for a second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Yes, the camera even pans down and lingers on it for a second. That makes sense. When Rick went into the shed I knew exactly what he was getting, but I didn't remember seeing it earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
I'm not a cinema expert by a long shot but I think QT has created a new sort of genre where historical events are "corrected" to create a more just outcome and it's really interesting. Most of the time I feel bad about enjoying movie violence, even against villains, but it's something different when the villains are based on actual people who did horrific things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
This movie may have flaws, I dunno. It is such a drat good recreation of late-60s Hollywood and I am so there for that poo poo that honestly I don't care. Like yeah, sure, just hang out in that milieu for a while. Spend some time showing a movie getting made. Yes. I will watch that. I'm not gonna analyze the strucutre or pacing too closely. Just the sequence of all the neon signs going on, man, that was great. But yeah there is good stuff besides all that too. The performances are all great (I kinda wanted to see more of Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate, though the fact that the movie isn't quite about her is sort of the point) and it walks this very interesting tonal line. Not sure all of it works, but the final shot actually made me a little bit teary- Sharon is warmly greeting a man who doesn't exist after all, and the music's kinda sad, as if to say "this isn't what happened and these people aren't with us, but let's remember them like this." Also anyone else seeing this in 35mm- did the music seem a little quavery at times? Like distorted? Trying to figure out if my theater messed something up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
General Dog posted:The movie has a reactionary streak to it that I found pretty refreshing. I mean, it's hard to do an honest portrayal of hippies that doesn't come off as at least a bit reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
This movie and its soundtrack is the biggest argument for a GTA: Los Angeles 1969 game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:I had a funny feeling this was going to happen from watching the trailer, and as silly as it sounds, it's the kind of thing that can turn me off from seeing it. My theater experience was a little lovely for that section with a lot of folks laughing a bit excessively at Lee's sounds. Like I get in the context of the scene, the fact that Lee is using the sounds he uses in his films is supposed to show that he's putting on a show and doesn't take the fight seriously... It's supposed to be a bit of a joke but ya know... some people were laughing a bit too hard. I really don't buy the idea that Cliff is imaging or exaggerating the scene in his head. The capper to the whole bit is Cliff just laughing it off and accepting that it's pretty reasonable for him not to get the stunt job that day based on what he pulled in the past. The whole interaction is about how no-bullshit Cliff is. He's able to see that he was an rear end in a top hat in that situation. In the context of the fight, Lee is posturing for his audience until he realizes that Cliff isn't and can actually fight which is what leads to Lee actually fighting and dropping the posturing. Also here's an interesting article about how Polankski thought Lee was Tate's murderer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I didn't mind what the movie was doing. Exaggerated or not, Lee being a bit of a blowhard is fine. They still make him clearly a badass and follow the Batman rule of it mostly being a tie. Honestly, I think it was kind of empowering in how it sort demystifies Lee. He's not some zen warrior or some other orientalist cliche. He's an athlete and an actor, but above all a kid in his 20s, a person of color in the 1960s, who for the moment has the world by a string. gently caress yeah he's going to gloat and ham it up! These are basically my thoughts and experience. Bruce Lee was cocky and charming. He was also a badass. They showed both of those sides of him. Was he a bit of a prop to boost Tarantino's badass? Sure. But that's fine. I especially liked the little flashback moment later of him happily training Sharon Tate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
That scene where the little girl tells DiCaprio "that was the best acting I've ever seen"* is true! Dalton gave a genuinely great performance. * Or thereabouts
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
TCE posted:That scene where the little girl tells DiCaprio "that was the best acting I've ever seen"* is true! Dalton gave a genuinely great performance. Honestly the movie they're making in those scenes looks pretty good. And it is very interesting/revealing just how hard he is on himself for screwing up a couple of times, which, well, every actor does. He's got very legit reasons to be worried about his career but his own insecurities are also doing a number on him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
I absolutely loved this movie. I didn't want it to end. I like how he just decided, you know what, gently caress these dumb murdering assholes I can do what I want. So he did. Even if it ended before that, I was just completely enthralled. This will fight Reservoir Dogs at the number #2 Tarantino spot for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
It's also a bit sad that Luke Perry never got used in actual Western.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Philthy posted:I like how he just decided, you know what, gently caress these dumb murdering assholes I can do what I want. So he did. This is also what he did with Inglorious and Django, which I think kicks off a kind of cathartic fantasy reaction in the audience. People were legit cheering the grisly deaths and I myself was having a great time. A really interesting way to wield cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:This is also what he did with Inglorious and Django, which I think kicks off a kind of cathartic fantasy reaction in the audience. People were legit cheering the grisly deaths and I myself was having a great time. A really interesting way to wield cinema. I think you knew up front with those, however. Or I was just being kind of blind with this. I knew it was a biopic of sorts, and I was honestly just happy to take a field trip through this time period. I was familiar with the entire history beforehand, it's just I had no idea he was going that route ahead of time. It already paid for itself well before the ending. Philthy fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
Personally, I think its a pretty cheap exploitative trick to take real tragedies and then throw shlocky violence at the problem to induce the audiences bloodlust. That being said, if he's going to do that, Inglourious Basterds is the best possible version of that, because it also satirizes the audiences desire for movie violence within that same sequence, so the revisionism works on multiple levels. Ultimately, if the movie around it is great, as Inglourious Basterds is, I don't care either way, but it's starting to feel like a cheap crutch for him
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Philthy posted:I think you knew up front with those, however. Or I was just being kind of blind with this. I knew it was a biopic of sorts, and I was honestly just happy to take a field trip through this time period. I was familiar with the entire history beforehand, it's just I had no idea he was going that route ahead of time. It already paid for itself well before the ending. I think the way he stuck to being super-historically accurate in the beginning (Charles Manson’s visit to the Polanski residence was basically word-for-word how that visit actually happened) brought some ambiguity on if it was going to stick to the real history or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:
I saw this article's headline when I searched showtimes for the movie and I worried I had come across a spoiler. That is, somehow Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's twist ending was Bruce Lee getting framed! Still thinking about this movie. It left an impression on me. It definitely immersed me in its world more so than anything I've seen in the last year or two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Philthy posted:I think you knew up front with those, however. Or I was just being kind of blind with this. I knew it was a biopic of sorts, and I was honestly just happy to take a field trip through this time period. I was familiar with the entire history beforehand, it's just I had no idea he was going that route ahead of time. It already paid for itself well before the ending. inglourious basterds was definitely a surprise
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
The thought process for anyone who hadn't read the script that had leaked for Basterds (which was a teensy bit different since it was written when Sandler would be The Bear Jew and thus had the chapter about how he got the bat - from an old Jewish lady in Southie) was pretty much "so how are both assassination attempts going to fall apart so Hitler survives" and then welp you saw the movie (the other big change from the script is in that sequence, actually: more of the Basterds were supposed to be in the theater; Samm Levine and another guy were supposed to be in one of the front rows and explode just as Shoshanna's plan is hitting high heat, sending Nazi pieces flying everywhere.) The arguments I got into back then on here about "well was everyone the Basterds killed as bad as a true Nazi?" seem really ridiculous now given where things have gone in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
I personally loved how they portrayed Lee in the movie. Mike Moh really had his cadence down and he’s exactly as arrogant as he should be. I don’t have access to it now but I remember seeing an interview with his widow on the Enter the Dragon dvd where she talks about a time where he beat up a stunt guy on the set, but I could be misremembering it a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:But yeah there is good stuff besides all that too. The performances are all great (I kinda wanted to see more of Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate, though the fact that the movie isn't quite about her is sort of the point) and it walks this very interesting tonal line. Not sure all of it works, but the final shot actually made me a little bit teary- Sharon is warmly greeting a man who doesn't exist after all, and the music's kinda sad, as if to say "this isn't what happened and these people aren't with us, but let's remember them like this." There is definitely something to the fact that the movie ends with a fictional character entering a big pair of gates to ascend to a meeting with a bunch of actually-dead people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 09:27
|
|
|
i do think the issues people are correctly pointing out about tate and manson would have been resolved well by the spoilers i thought were real — if tate is involved with the counter-murder rampage and everyone, including manson, gets iced then there aren't any loose ends and you've given her character a great deal more importance. lee being there would just be icing on the cake
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i do think the issues people are correctly pointing out about tate and manson would have been resolved well by the spoilers i thought were real — if tate is involved with the counter-murder rampage and everyone, including manson, gets iced then there aren't any loose ends and you've given her character a great deal more importance. lee being there would just be icing on the cake Absolutely not. It's good the way it is because it doesn't disrespect Tate. Going into this fantasy is like saying oh she could have done this different and that just leads to victim blaming ultimately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
The movie makes me weepy the same way that documentaries about any tragedy makes me weepy. In them, there are all these scenes of people living their lives, happy and carefree, oblivious that their existences are about to be reduced down to one horrible moment. You want to grab these people by the shoulders and scream for them not to get in that car, all the while knowing the it’s impossibility. That Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt thwart the murders in cartoonish fashion only underscores the tragedy for me. We, the audience, know what we are watching is fantasy. We know the absurdity of the Manson Family being stopped by a couple of strung-out cowboys with a flamethrower just as we know that the future of obscurity DiCaprio warned of likely came to pass. It’s Tarantino putting on a rictus grin and begging the audience to believe, at least for a moment, that all this pain and suffering might have been avoided. I still don’t know if this works. I’m still debating the finale in my head. On one hand, I am glad this film gives Tate the interior life she was robbed of, that she gets to be more than what happened on Cielo Drive. On the other hand, I’m not sure how I feel about her being denied any kind of agency. The movie takes a woman’s gruesome murder and makes it about two fictional dudes. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
Also, in my showing someone shouted, “stay for the end credits” as people were walking out and I had this sudden feeling of dread that, despite everything we had seen, the Manson “family” was going to walk across the driveway anyway. It being a dumb cigarette ad was a relief.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
what about the vanilla fudge cover, though? it's up there with comanche in pulp fiction and stealers wheel in reservoir dogs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 15:44
|
|
