tell me, how long have you been electroencephalographically challenged?kamarozy wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 1:23 pm
They’re portrayed as one dimensional teenagers and never come across as a real threat. What was the point of that ranch sequence. The guy goes into their territory, talks to a random old guy, and nothing happens. Are we supposed to care about this for some reason ?
Sharon Tate was like fairy dust in this movie. We see her prance around town and then watch a movie with herself in it, and, that’s it?
The Exposition. Every scene is like 90 percent boring exposition. McQueen for example. “This guy likes this girl. And this girl likes this guy. And this guy. And this girl. And that guy. And that girl.” Great dialogue bruh. Why was this character and scene needed?
Then we have brad Pitt pausing and slow drawling through every single line, meanwhile he’s on the awards circuit trying to convince us of the “rich poetic rhythm” of Quentin Tarantino dialogue.
Come on man this movie was so trash.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)
DREAMER wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 10:47 amThe last act is tasteless because it over simplifies death and violence.
It turns into a silly loony Tunes skit and unashamedly Tarantino plays with these characters in such a reckless, childish manner that oversimplifies what came before.
The meat of the film is no longer there, for me.
You could add classic Looney Tune sounds effects (ping ! pong ! pow!) in that last scene and it wouldn't look or sound out of place.
Its just so over the top,so slapstick that it become utterly ridiculous. How am I supposed to take this seriously ?
These Manson kids were on their way to do some real horrible things to Sharon Tate and then Tarantino takes them out of their sick little mission of their's and places them into a fucking live-action-cartoon.
Its why I feel the tone of the last act particularly hard to like.
is so crass towards Tate. Because its a void.
The seriousness of the situation is no longer present.
Its just not there.
It's like I walked into a different film.
Sure we can all sit there laughing "hahaha,those Manson kids sure got their comeuppance" but its a indulgent and cheap
It cheapens what came before and it cheapens the real facts of what actually occurred and that's the disappointing thing for me.
It's like he's two different directors in one and you're never quite sure which one is pulling the wool over your eyes.
There's little depth in death with Tarantino. We all know that. Its abit of a game for him and that's understandable because he's a lover of trashy,violent films.
In all of his films not once have I felt emotionally attached to any one of his characters that get killed off ,usually in the most bizarre comedic fashion.
Death in film is hilarious to the guy. There's no depth in it with him and thus,as a viewer, I'm sort of left in no mans land with him because this is fundamentally such a delicate subject.
It's like Tarantino is trying to make a delicate dish with a machete.
Sure his films have spunky characters and punchy dialogue and only recently have looked fantastic but there's nothing there underneath and,the disappointing thing for me is, it could have easily been here with this but he loses it at varying circumstances in the film.
Its directed by Jekyll and Hyde. A film pulling in two directions and not feeling confident or comfortable in either.
Posts: 8437
Joined:
August 2012
The whole world has spent 50 years demonizing the manson family and turning them into these horrific witchy boogeyman figures, completely neglecting the life of sharon tate and her friends (and other victims) and reducing her to a mere perpetual victim, leaving her gruesome death as the only legacy she ever had, and you guys are complaining that tarantino refused to give into this ghastly fetish to make the movie feel “serious”? here, sharon tate and death are the two things farthest away from each other, and that does not take away from the seriousness of this film. it has a ton of imagery, short little flashes of the grim reality trying to and almost coming close to disrupting the facade of the fairytale LA of the film. the film reads like a dream, you’re immersed in that dream, but you’re always kind of half aware that it’s not the reality that was ever going to be, and that’s the point. no movie needs to crank out subtext and ~depth~ to carry weight in what it’s trying to do. it’s basically a “farewell” movie to a lot of things in life
it’s not a manson film, it had no business exploring or even dedicating anything beyond the few minutes it gave to the family. it didn’t owe them anything beyond the kind of depiction they got. you can try and downplay everything me or anyone else would say and make this about tarantino’s affinity towards violence, but the thing is, to manson and the family, death WAS CHEAP. they tried to build a legacy off of it, they craved attention, they mocked tate’s death, and wanted people to be shocked and scared of them. the crimes were orchestrated to terrify you. manson above anything else wanted fame and power. idc if you believe the whole helter skelter woo woo shit but the murders idea literally stemed from manson turning his nuttiness up to 11 because he was a rejected wannabe rockstar. they were an absolute pathetic bunch of drugged out morons, and the film didn’t hesitate to portray them as such. people already know what happened on august 9th of 1969, there was no need to recreate something that would have been a million times more distasteful and would have added to the effect the family wanted to have on people. it makes perfect sense in the most twisted and ironically poetic (yes am mentioning poetry!) way that a director like tarantino would be the one to ultimately trash their memory, and elevate sharon tate to a human being known for the way she lived, not the way she died.
it’s not a manson film, it had no business exploring or even dedicating anything beyond the few minutes it gave to the family. it didn’t owe them anything beyond the kind of depiction they got. you can try and downplay everything me or anyone else would say and make this about tarantino’s affinity towards violence, but the thing is, to manson and the family, death WAS CHEAP. they tried to build a legacy off of it, they craved attention, they mocked tate’s death, and wanted people to be shocked and scared of them. the crimes were orchestrated to terrify you. manson above anything else wanted fame and power. idc if you believe the whole helter skelter woo woo shit but the murders idea literally stemed from manson turning his nuttiness up to 11 because he was a rejected wannabe rockstar. they were an absolute pathetic bunch of drugged out morons, and the film didn’t hesitate to portray them as such. people already know what happened on august 9th of 1969, there was no need to recreate something that would have been a million times more distasteful and would have added to the effect the family wanted to have on people. it makes perfect sense in the most twisted and ironically poetic (yes am mentioning poetry!) way that a director like tarantino would be the one to ultimately trash their memory, and elevate sharon tate to a human being known for the way she lived, not the way she died.
Well said.
Posts: 4794
Joined:
January 2012
William Bibbiani on his podcast placed this film on his worst of the year list because he felt it was a film with great elements (performances, production design, etc.) but all in service of what he called an 'ugly, fan service idea of Hollywood History' that is about some mediocre dudes that the film thinks are amazing and the narrative essentially says that if these macho guys were there the night that Tate was murdered everything would have turned out ok: http://www.criticallyacclaimed.net/2020 ... J0P0QRJEBU
Lmfao of course you're in the camp that dislikes this
And that's the way it is.Ruth wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 2:33 pmThe whole world has spent 50 years demonizing the manson family and turning them into these horrific witchy boogeyman figures, completely neglecting the life of sharon tate and her friends (and other victims) and reducing her to a mere perpetual victim, leaving her gruesome death as the only legacy she ever had, and you guys are complaining that tarantino refused to give into this ghastly fetish to make the movie feel “serious”? here, sharon tate and death are the two things farthest away from each other, and that does not take away from the seriousness of this film. it has a ton of imagery, short little flashes of the grim reality trying to and almost coming close to disrupting the facade of the fairytale LA of the film. the film reads like a dream, you’re immersed in that dream, but you’re always kind of half aware that it’s not the reality that was ever going to be, and that’s the point. no movie needs to crank out subtext and ~depth~ to carry weight in what it’s trying to do. it’s basically a “farewell” movie to a lot of things in life
it’s not a manson film, it had no business exploring or even dedicating anything beyond the few minutes it gave to the family. it didn’t owe them anything beyond the kind of depiction they got. you can try and downplay everything me or anyone else would say and make this about tarantino’s affinity towards violence, but the thing is, to manson and the family, death WAS CHEAP. they tried to build a legacy off of it, they craved attention, they mocked tate’s death, and wanted people to be shocked and scared of them. the crimes were orchestrated to terrify you. manson above anything else wanted fame and power. idc if you believe the whole helter skelter woo woo shit but the murders idea literally stemed from manson turning his nuttiness up to 11 because he was a rejected wannabe rockstar. they were an absolute pathetic bunch of drugged out morons, and the film didn’t hesitate to portray them as such. people already know what happened on august 9th of 1969, there was no need to recreate something that would have been a million times more distasteful and would have added to the effect the family wanted to have on people. it makes perfect sense in the most twisted and ironically poetic (yes am mentioning poetry!) way that a director like tarantino would be the one to ultimately trash their memory, and elevate sharon tate to a human being known for the way she lived, not the way she died.
Posts: 708
Joined:
November 2010
Ruth wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 2:33 pmThe whole world has spent 50 years demonizing the manson family and turning them into these horrific witchy boogeyman figures, completely neglecting the life of sharon tate and her friends (and other victims) and reducing her to a mere perpetual victim, leaving her gruesome death as the only legacy she ever had, and you guys are complaining that tarantino refused to give into this ghastly fetish to make the movie feel “serious”? here, sharon tate and death are the two things farthest away from each other, and that does not take away from the seriousness of this film. ...
manson above anything else wanted fame and power. idc if you believe the whole helter skelter woo woo shit but the murders idea literally stemed from manson turning his nuttiness up to 11 because he was a rejected wannabe rockstar. they were an absolute pathetic bunch of drugged out morons, and the film didn’t hesitate to portray them as such.
This is a great point.Tarantino has made films with comical, over-the-top violence since the beginning of his career. By that standard, I feel this film is more restrained than his other films. (Other than Jackie Brown, of course.)
Tarantino trivializes the Manson Family to such and extreme Charles Manson's name isn't even said. he turns them into the stupid fools they actually were. It's why the ultra-violence is so gleeful and comic, it's at the expense of the Manson Family, not Sharon, who as I say, is basically a religious and transformative figure.
ruth is right
-Vader
ruth is right
-Vader
