|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Oct 18, 2020 2:20:56 GMT
Last saw this in January so figured up for a revisit.
Margot Robbie’s beauty is really something
Definitely the least focused of Tarantino’s movies but that isn’t a negative. It still retains my interest even as it doesn’t seem to be building to anything for quite some time.
Brad Pitt’s Oscar win is deserved.
Like Tarantino’s other collaborations with Robert Richardson, its cinematography is excellent. Its attention to detail also stellar.
Brandy is adorable.
Would absolutely watch DiCaprio in The Great Escape.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 18, 2020 2:23:42 GMT
I like this movie. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 18, 2020 2:28:12 GMT
Brad Pitt’s Oscar win is deserved. HOW?
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Oct 18, 2020 3:59:42 GMT
Brad Pitt’s Oscar win is deserved. HOW? It was deserved mainly in the sense that it was actually more of a lead role than a supporting one.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 18, 2020 4:05:05 GMT
It was deserved mainly in the sense that it was actually more of a lead role than a supporting one. Can't say that logic doesn't escape me. Being in the wrong category makes it less deserved.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 18, 2020 6:01:47 GMT
I was disappointed honestly. Like with other recent Tarantino films, too self-indulgent and overlong. There's a good movie in there, but it didn't need a 2 hour, 40 minute runtime. We don't need to see Margot Robbie dance and Brad Pitt drive around for an hour before the story finally moves along.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Oct 18, 2020 12:04:51 GMT
It was deserved mainly in the sense that it was actually more of a lead role than a supporting one. Can't say that logic doesn't escape me. Being in the wrong category makes it less deserved. The Oscars aren't about logic; it's more about strategies to get as many awards for a film as possible, so the categories are kept vague. DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor (mediocre performance, but he's a big name and a previous winner, so now he's a Big Star and has to be nominated, just like Streep almost always gets a nomination for her show-off performances), which means Pitt can't be nominated for Best Actor for the same movie because they'll cancel each other out.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 18, 2020 12:36:22 GMT
Quentin Tarantino's movies are known for mundane conversations that manage to absorb the viewer. His ability to write good dialogue is usually the main reason. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, the main reason is how the actors deliver their lines. Not that they were badly written or anything, but there are no memorable quotes. Fred Raskin's editing is weird (and not in the cool way it's intended). Kurt Russell's narration comes and goes without any rhyme or reason and, several times, he redundantly mentions a date or time while an on-screen text is showing it. Whenever a period piece shows archive footage to provide context, it normally takes about 2 seconds. That's enough for the viewer to recognize the clip. Here, they're shown for much longer. In some cases, the scene from a movie or TV episode is almost played in its entirety. I know Quentin likes to pay homage, but there's no point in that if it's going to ruin the pacing. Not to mention that his strenght is taking elements from other works and adding his own style. Let's play a game. Imagine placing the climax of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS onto PULP FICTION. It wouldn't fit, right? That's this movie in a nutshell. We get over 2 hours of different people who are somehow connected doing all sorts of things without that much plot progression, but time flies by thanks to the writing, directing and acting. There's even a very long sequence about a fictional TV show. I was so invested that I kind of forgot I was watching actors playing actors playing characters. I will say that the tone and especially the camera work and editing felt too modern for a TV pilot in 1969. Anyway, the climax is an over-the-top gore fest that reveals that this is an alternate timeline. It's fun to watch, but a "This was just a slice of life" ending would've been more appropriate. Unlike I.B., there are no layers of depth (like the bittersweet irony of a person sacrificing themselves to kill Nazis without killing the specific Nazi they wanted to get revenge on) or an ambiguety on how the future will be affected. It's a revisionist fantasy for the sake of it that has a clear outcome. The villains experience a violent encounter, but it felt to me that the women received a more brutal treatment than the man. Coincidence? 8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.The Oscars aren't about logic; it's more about strategies to get as many awards for a film as possible, so the categories are kept vague. DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor (mediocre performance, but he's a big name and a previous winner, so now he's a Big Star and has to be nominated, just like Streep almost always gets a nomination for her show-off performances), which means Pitt can't be nominated for Best Actor for the same movie because they'll cancel each other out. Sorry, but everything you said is factually wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 18, 2020 12:50:32 GMT
I was disappointed honestly. Like with other recent Tarantino films, too self-indulgent and overlong. There's a good movie in there, but it didn't need a 2 hour, 40 minute runtime. We don't need to see Margot Robbie dance and Brad Pitt drive around for an hour before the story finally moves along. I’d go one further and say cut Tates character completely. She was pointless here. A good third of the runtime is spend on a character who rides in a car, goes dancing, walks around town, goes to see a movie....it didn’t do anything for the story. For me.
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 18, 2020 13:21:42 GMT
It’s a bit slow but it’s thanks to the characters with their performances with QT’s direction that makes it enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 18, 2020 13:59:57 GMT
I was disappointed honestly. Like with other recent Tarantino films, too self-indulgent and overlong. There's a good movie in there, but it didn't need a 2 hour, 40 minute runtime. We don't need to see Margot Robbie dance and Brad Pitt drive around for an hour before the story finally moves along. I thought it was just...okay.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Oct 18, 2020 14:28:47 GMT
My fav aspect: QT's use of radio sounds/music. That alone chops millions of dollars off having to decorate/fake the look of 21st century LA into 1969. Probably one of the best uses ever of that, with the likes of American Graffiti.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Oct 18, 2020 19:46:41 GMT
Why all the references to Hollywood pedophiles? Besides Polanski, actors portraying notable child molesters John Phillips and James Stacy turn up as party guests. Brad Pitt's character picks up a teenage hitchhiker who propositions him. What was the point of that?
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Oct 18, 2020 19:54:57 GMT
The soundtrack was good, the 60's feel was awesome, but the movie seemed to be more about pop culture references than a plot. I'm still not a huge fan of QT rewriting history but I;m getting used to it.
I did think the scene at Spahn Movie Ranch was one of Tarantino's best.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 18, 2020 20:38:27 GMT
Why all the references to Hollywood pedophiles? Besides Polanski, actors portraying notable child molesters John Phillips and James Stacy turn up as party guests. Because they were famous at the time. No big mystery there. Brad Pitt's character picks up a teenage hitchhiker who propositions him. What was the point of that? What does this have to do with your previous statement? And to answer your question, if they hadn't met, he wouldn't have gone to the ranch, and the last part of the movie wouldn't have happened.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 18, 2020 21:47:11 GMT
It oddly seems to be one of the more divisive Tarantino films.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 18, 2020 22:34:13 GMT
Can't say that logic doesn't escape me. Being in the wrong category makes it less deserved. The Oscars aren't about logic; it's more about strategies to get as many awards for a film as possible, so the categories are kept vague. DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor (mediocre performance, but he's a big name and a previous winner, so now he's a Big Star and has to be nominated, just like Streep almost always gets a nomination for her show-off performances), which means Pitt can't be nominated for Best Actor for the same movie because they'll cancel each other out. But the question was about its deservedness, not about self-evident loopholes to get extra nominations.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Oct 18, 2020 22:44:24 GMT
One of the best movies of the year. Effortlessly entertaining, masterfully crafted, expertly acted; a masterpiece.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Oct 19, 2020 12:29:38 GMT
The lead actors are incredibly interesting and highly watchable in their chemistry and day to day activities. Dont understand people who say there is no story or progression. Its pretty clear and straightforward
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Oct 19, 2020 18:41:56 GMT
It's grown on me with subsequent viewings, but it's still too long and meandering.
And the flamethrower/swimming pool sequence is still pretty stupid.
|
|