Guys, I like antovolk too, I greatly appreciate his updates.

m4st4 wrote: ↑

August 7th, 2019, 12:34 am

Artemis wrote: ↑

August 6th, 2019, 8:34 pm

Instead of superhero fatigue we got passive aggressive fatigue.

For real dude, lay off Anton. He's the best member we got here.

Antovolk deserves to get his name colored purple for the next year. Positive-Informative-Friendly.

I agree

(seriously though thanks, kinda dunno what to say to all this? I know my taste can be 'too' positive but idk. should I hatewatch things more? lmao)

Maybe I need to watch it again (on film this time, I guess digital is a fair tradeoff to seeing it 'early'), maybe the hype machine got to me...don't get me wrong, I overall really really enjoyed it and had a great time with it, just that these flaws kind jumped out at me - maybe because I went in expecting a ZOMG MASTERPIECE. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how much of that (especially the pacing/length/amount of actual story combo) was by design, and if so, then fair play to QT.

It also feels like the sort of film where having prior knowledge of everything actually pays off, because it seems like QT is so.... Maybe it's because I'm not from the States, I'm not from LA, fairly young so stuff like Manson (though am aware of him of course) wasn't a - I guess - cultural moment. My point being, if this was a big deal for you, you're likely to get way way more out of this film.

But I think we can all agree how amazing the cast is and again, just want more of it. Though absolutely agree with those saying there was too little Robbie as Tate (or at least for her to do) aside from that wonderful Wrecking Crew in the middle . I know the tone of my comments come off that I didn't like the film as much as I did, I just didn't think it was up up there with the toppest of top tier QT like Pulp or Kill Bill.

Got tickets for Tuesday. Cannot wait

The more it stews, the more I think Robbie’s Sharon Tate is QT’s best written character. I know that’s super unusual to say considering a large majority of filmgoers think she was hardly in the film at all. But hear me out: I think the constraint Tarantino shows with her presence is honestly the most humbling thing he’s ever done. In my opinion, it’s his best film character because it’s precisely not a film character. She’s the least “Tarantino” character he’s ever put on screen. She’s simply seen as... normal. I greatly admire what Tarantino did with it.

I was just talking about this with Teddy. Ant's reaction proves (so far) a suspicion of sorts I have for international audiences.

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood definitely assumes a certain implicit knowledge level both of the evens that take place and their cultural importance.

in the states, i'm hearing tons of younger people leaving this movie not "getting it" since they don't understand what or why Tarantino is doing what he is. There's a huge cultural disconnect. They have fun, they like it, but they can't really connect on an emotional level to what the piece is doing in genearl.

For instance...
So I do think it's going to be *fascinating* to see how it plays with international audiences with less of a cultural connection to these events.

PS- I do think the naturalism with Tate is pretty wonderful.


-Vader

Tbh as a non american I’m really curious if I’ll “get” this now lol

You seem very familiar with it all, so I'm sure you will


-Vader

Ruth wrote: ↑

August 7th, 2019, 11:36 am

Tbh as a non american I’m really curious if I’ll “get” this now lol

You’ll be fine, don’t worry