|
Post by hi224 on Mar 21, 2020 6:17:25 GMT
1st time 6/10 2nd time 9/10 now 10/10 What changed so dramatically for you? I started realizing what Tarantino's whole intention was with the movie. Same thing happened with Basterds and Jackie Brown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 6:28:38 GMT
Agreed, the Bruce Lee scene was terrible. Brad Pitt was really the only thing that makes this film worth seeing. I love Leo but his character was meh I actually enjoyed Leo more. Maybe as an actor, I relate to his sensitivity and insecurities. The trailer scene is perfect. Pitt is fine, but I feel like we've seen him do all this a dozen times in other movies. Is this the first time anyone has won an Oscar just for being cool? Back to my original point, I just realized this is the first QT movie I liked LESS the second time I saw it. It took me a second time to get into Pulp Fiction and Basterds so I was hoping the same would happen here. No such luck. I think Leo did a great job, but I would have liked a better story arc.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Mar 21, 2020 8:45:44 GMT
What changed so dramatically for you? I started realizing what Tarantino's whole intention was with the movie. Same thing happened with Basterds and Jackie Brown. Same here 👍
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 9:51:24 GMT
I started realizing what Tarantino's whole intention was with the movie. Same thing happened with Basterds and Jackie Brown. Same here 👍 Explain it to me, because I'm missing something.
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Mar 21, 2020 16:03:35 GMT
Explain it to me, because I'm missing something. Iwatched, I'm not at all a fan of musical movies but I am a fan of great movies....and this a great movie. I have never been so mesmerized by set design and direction, the mass human emotion of this film is astonishingly captured and embedded magically in the audience. It keeps running through my mind...the poetry and beauty intertwined with the raw misery of show business. Treat yourself....see this movie!
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 21, 2020 17:01:41 GMT
Explain it to me, because I'm missing something. Basically its mean to be a deconstruction of Hollywood golden age Mythology. IE: legend of the Manson family and the mythos which has been disturbingly built up by the murders they committed 50 years ago, or could we simply see them as petty criminals with no real shroud of mystery like we do nowadays. IE: basically Bruce Lees whole illusion of grandeur of being this godly super ass kicker when at the very end of the day hes still just a human being. it deconstructs the tropes and myths built up by generations of people. IE: what would've happened had Hollywood figures like Rick Dalton or Cliff Booth been given more respect and or better treatment as well? we see at the very conclusion Rick is now slated for a Polanski movie, which will presumably turn around his career. It's about how the golden age is being phased out as personified by Rick and Cliff and a new ones being welcomed in as personified by Sharon. It also serves as a haunting reminder pre-dating where the whole industry progressed. Idoltry and our obsession with Hollywood grandeur.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 20:39:10 GMT
Explain it to me, because I'm missing something. Basically its mean to be a deconstruction of Hollywood golden age Mythology. IE: legend of the Manson family and the mythos which has been disturbingly built up by the murders they committed 50 years ago, or could we simply see them as petty criminals with no real shroud of mystery like we do nowadays. IE: basically Bruce Lees whole illusion of grandeur of being this godly super ass kicker when at the very end of the day hes still just a human being. it deconstructs the tropes and myths built up by generations of people. IE: what would've happened had Hollywood figures like Rick Dalton or Cliff Booth been given more respect and or better treatment as well? we see at the very conclusion Rick is now slated for a Polanski movie, which will presumably turn around his career. It's about how the golden age is being phased out as personified by Rick and Cliff and a new ones being welcomed in as personified by Sharon. It also serves as a haunting reminder pre-dating where the whole industry progressed. Idoltry and our obsession with Hollywood grandeur. Okay, I'll watch it again with that POV in mind. I bought it cause it was on sale and I love both Brad and Leo. I still wish they wouldn't have done that to Bruce Lee. I wonder, is there any proof he was actually like that?
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 21, 2020 21:11:22 GMT
Basically its mean to be a deconstruction of Hollywood golden age Mythology. IE: legend of the Manson family and the mythos which has been disturbingly built up by the murders they committed 50 years ago, or could we simply see them as petty criminals with no real shroud of mystery like we do nowadays. IE: basically Bruce Lees whole illusion of grandeur of being this godly super ass kicker when at the very end of the day hes still just a human being. it deconstructs the tropes and myths built up by generations of people. IE: what would've happened had Hollywood figures like Rick Dalton or Cliff Booth been given more respect and or better treatment as well? we see at the very conclusion Rick is now slated for a Polanski movie, which will presumably turn around his career. It's about how the golden age is being phased out as personified by Rick and Cliff and a new ones being welcomed in as personified by Sharon. It also serves as a haunting reminder pre-dating where the whole industry progressed. Idoltry and our obsession with Hollywood grandeur. Okay, I'll watch it again with that POV in mind. I bought it cause it was on sale and I love both Brad and Leo. I still wish they wouldn't have done that to Bruce Lee. I wonder, is there any proof he was actually like that? I feel like they were building off the persona he utilized in movies. Basically he had a wry sardonic screen presence as we see in a later see with Tate Lee comes off much more warm and acessible once again illustrating perhaps how grounded and normal he really is.
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Mar 22, 2020 19:07:01 GMT
ok
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 22, 2020 22:45:06 GMT
I thought it started out ok. It was kinda neat when it was about Brad and Leo's characters, but when it turned into the Manson Family side story, it just got boring. From the moment he (Pitt) picked up that one member and went to the compound, it got boring. I was more interested in this aging one-time big actor who was struggling with his fading career and his stuntman buddy; who may or may not have murdered his wife. There was no point to that subplot at all. It was like two different movies, with entirely different plots, that just happened to have the same characters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2020 23:14:35 GMT
I freely admit that Tarantino is one of the many hyper-praised modern directors whose work I just don't like at all.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 11, 2020 10:22:39 GMT
I found it really dull. I love Brad and Leo, but there wasn't much for their characters to do. I don't really get the hype this film generated, but I was happy Brad got an Oscar. He never disappoints. If there is a problem with the film, it could be Tarantino's over indulgence on insider and fanboy knowledge of an industry that many only are interested with on the facade level, not the mechanisms. He can also be a bit smart alecy as well. He can alienate the average and casual viewer who are not in sync with him. The flip side of this, is that the film does explain things as to who is who and what is what, and it can be seen as a bit of an education and interesting expose into Hollywood, especially in context with its era and all shrouded under the guise of a Trantinoverse jaunt. One only has to listen and observe and I found the film so much more rewarding the second time around.
I agree, Brad Pitt really shines in this film and he hits all the right notes and the film is so much better for his presence. I also enjoyed Timothy Olyphant's cameo role and I found him riveting to watch and very appealing on the eye. I found the film a vast improvement over the over-long and over-indulged Hateful 8, which really disappointed me. I viewed The Hateful Eight three times in the theater. I found it "good" the first time and "very good" the next two times. Certainly, that film lacks the easy charm of Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, but its climax is perhaps more consistent and its coda proves deliriously chilling. If Hollywood represents historical irony and fantasy, The Hateful Eight serves as a profound act of historical deconstruction and subversion. Plus, its opening credits sequence, with those wintry environs and Ennio Morricone's thunderously operatic score, proves eerily memorable.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 12, 2020 3:55:15 GMT
I thought it started out ok. It was kinda neat when it was about Brad and Leo's characters, but when it turned into the Manson Family side story, it just got boring. From the moment he (Pitt) picked up that one member and went to the compound, it got boring. I was more interested in this aging one-time big actor who was struggling with his fading career and his stuntman buddy; who may or may not have murdered his wife. There was no point to that subplot at all. It was like two different movies, with entirely different plots, that just happened to have the same characters.The Manson subplot creates a sense of dread, suspense, and atmosphere—obviously, it works better for some viewers than for others. For me, it is quite enrapturing, even if Tarantino's tone shifts a bit too much at the end. As I indicated earlier, a movie about Hollywood in 1969 almost has to feature the Manson murders; horrifically, they constituted the defining event of a place and time. That subplot also reveals Tarantino's ultimate goal with this film, which is to recalibrate history and thus engage in vicarious wish-fulfillment half a century in the making.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 12, 2020 4:21:47 GMT
I viewed The Hateful Eight three times in the theater. I found it "good" the first time and "very good" the next two times. Certainly, that film lacks the easy charm of Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, but its climax is perhaps more consistent and its coda proves deliriously chilling. If Hollywood represents historical irony and fantasy, The Hateful Eight serves as a profound act of historical deconstruction and subversion. Plus, its opening credits sequence, with those wintry environs and Ennio Morricone's thunderously operatic score, proves eerily memorable. I chose to see H8ful8 at a specific session. It wasn't in 70mm, but digital projection on a 20m wide screen. I really wasn't that impressed with the visual presentation, although some scenes were well shot, I didn't think it warranted any hype over the cinematic process of Ultra Panavision 70. I find the image too narrow. The bulk of the movie was indoors in a shack. More liked a filmed play. Why not Super Panavision 70, (my favorite ratio of 2.20:1 which utilizes the entire frame for 70mm photography) or even genuine Cinemascope ratio of 2.55:1? It just seemed an odd choice and Tarantino being the fanboy that he was, could do what he wanted for no specific reason, other than he was Tarantino.
I need to see again perhaps, it just didn't excite or enthrall me, or make me want to re-visit. I hyped it up in my mind, felt that The Revenant wouldn't be up to par as Tarantino's offering would be and I ended up seeing it 3 times. You make a good point. The film's first act, staged outdoors (in and around a traveling carriage) makes excellent use of a wintry Western landscape (Colorado standing in for Wyoming), perhaps vaguely reminiscent of Sergio Corbucci's haunting The Great Silence (1968), which Ennio Morricone also scored and which I first viewed on Independent Film Channel in June 2007 and then saw in the theater in June 2018. (Tarantino would, of course, pay explicit homage to Corbucci in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood.) But as you indicate, the rest of the film basically occurs indoors, and while the slanting lighting is sometimes eerily compelling, the theatrical aspect ratio may not optimally complement the film's ostensible claustrophobia. Both The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood reflect Tarantino's sense of cinematic wonderment. Yet if the latter ultimately represents the director at his greatest point of optimism, the former might represent him at his high point of cynicism. Although totally different in tone, one might even analogize The Hateful Eight to John Ford's mournful Western masterpiece The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962). Both movies reveal the veneer of Western and American mythology, although Tarantino proves gleeful in his sense of dark revelation and exposed fabrication, whereas Ford is solemn and melancholic in his portrayal of convenient contrivance. Of course, I consider Liberty Valence that much better of a movie, in part because it deconstructs genre as well as history.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Apr 12, 2020 5:50:26 GMT
I thought it started out ok. It was kinda neat when it was about Brad and Leo's characters, but when it turned into the Manson Family side story, it just got boring. From the moment he (Pitt) picked up that one member and went to the compound, it got boring. I was more interested in this aging one-time big actor who was struggling with his fading career and his stuntman buddy; who may or may not have murdered his wife. There was no point to that subplot at all. It was like two different movies, with entirely different plots, that just happened to have the same characters. I think that sequence after Cliff enters the house built tension and suspense very nicely. It felt like a horror movie . In fact every time I've watched the movie it makes me hope QT will do a proper horror movie before he retires. That wretched shit heap cringe fest Death Proof doesn't count as a proper anything.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 12, 2020 6:29:09 GMT
A 70mm film set in a shack isn't really the best use of 70mm.
|
|