Jump to content
Kasanova King

Once Upon a Time in Holllywood - New Film by Quentin Tarantino, July 2019

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am watching it now and pondering on turning it off mid-way through it is that boring. Utter shite. Unless it picks up in the second half, his worst film yet.

If I hadn't seen it in the theaters, I would've turned it off half way through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RussTCB said:

If I hadn't seen it in the theaters, I would've turned it off half way through. 

Didn't make it sadly!! Knocked it off with 30 mins to go, just as they come back from Rome. This film is utterly appalling, meandering, lacking any sense of story, purpose, rhythm, stuffed with aimless scenes and cameos. The Bruce Lee bit was extra offensive to a Lee aficionado like me. I hate this movie with a passion.

It makes Death Proof look like Citizen Kane

 

PS

Did watch the final third for the sake of completion and it doesn't get any better.

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

How the heck has this got 85% on Rotten Tomatoes? It is utter garbage. 

I loved it. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I loved it. :) 

I can literally count the number of times I have turned-off a film midway through, or walked out of a cinema, on one hand: this is one of them. One of the most boring films I have ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I can literally count the number of times I have turned-off a film midway through, or walked out of a cinema, on one hand: this is one of them. One of the most boring films I have ever seen.

The last film I can remember turning off was Showgirls. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

The last film I can remember turning off was Showgirls. :lol: 

I'd rather watch Showgirls than this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I can literally count the number of times I have turned-off a film midway through, or walked out of a cinema, on one hand: this is one of them. One of the most boring films I have ever seen.

cinematically speaking your objections to it are not unfounded, my liking for it has to do with a fondness for the world and characters it is kind of a homage to.  The whole Bounty Law thing is a direct take on Wanted Dead or Alive starring Steve McQueen, the TV show that made him, which I fuckin' love.  Leo's whole character is a lot like a lot of actors I like, ones that sort of migrated towards Europe in the middle 60s, your Charles Bronsons etc, its those sort of familiarities that make it for me.  The Manson Family as well are something I have a very extensive awareness of, its all kind of speaking to cultural thingies that I have more than a little awareness of, I knew like 70% of those films characters decades before watching the film. 

But yeah, without that what your left with, cinematically speaking, is a film that doesn't really go anywhere.  But it kinda doesn't need to for me because of the aforementioned.  Leo and Brads characters are pretty cool and carry the piece well.

 

vs

 

Even the character names are the similar, Josh Randal, Jake Cahill.  Even the smoking commercial bits are a take off from something Stevo (as well as a lot of other actors) did:

And they say smoking ain't cool :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

cinematically speaking your objections to it are not unfounded, my liking for it has to do with a fondness for the world and characters it is kind of a homage to.  The whole Bounty Law thing is a direct take on Wanted Dead or Alive starring Steve McQueen, the TV show that made him, which I fuckin' love.  Leo's whole character is a lot like a lot of actors I like, ones that sort of migrated towards Europe in the middle 60s, your Charles Bronsons etc, its those sort of familiarities that make it for me.  The Manson Family as well are something I have a very extensive awareness of, its all kind of speaking to cultural thingies that I have more than a little awareness of, I knew like 70% of those films characters decades before watching the film. 

But yeah, without that what your left with, cinematically speaking, is a film that doesn't really go anywhere.  But it kinda doesn't need to for me because of the aforementioned.  Leo and Brads characters are pretty cool and carry the piece well.

 

vs

 

Even the character names are the similar, Josh Randal, Jake Cahill.  Even the smoking commercial bits are a take off from something Stevo (as well as a lot of other actors) did:

And they say smoking ain't cool :lol:

I like all of that also. Everything you mention there I have a fondness for also. But this film is just shite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I love almost everything Quentin is involved I can't imagine it will be any different with that movie. I just haven't watch it yet.

Just watched The Irishman and I think liked it. I have to let it sink a bit, maybe watch it again. I waited for too long for that movie and I'm not disappointed but I still don't know what to think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

my liking for it has to do with a fondness for the world and characters it is kind of a homage to.

You know I don't watch old movies. Can't. Like I can watch a movie from the 70's. Maybe from the 60's. I simply can't enjoy the shit if it's too old. It's not like music at all for me.

So I had no fuckin' idea what the fuck. I knew about the Manson thing cause that's like a separate thing but I don't care about little Quentin's child-like fascination as a director by all that fuckin' movie shit. I know about Steve Mcqueen and a couple other things but that's it.

I enjoyed it cause of the performances mostly. The Bruce Lee thing was horrid though. Leo and Pitt are really good in it. It loses direction but it was like a more circular movie, more like it works thanks to the strength of individual scenes and was made by an old super fan of that era I suppose. Glad he made it, too bad his next film is going to be his last cause Quentin wants to be just like his heroes when he grows up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rovim said:

You know I don't watch old movies. Can't. Like I can watch a movie from the 70's. Maybe from the 60's. I simply can't enjoy the shit if it's too old. It's not like music at all for me.

So I had no fuckin' idea what the fuck. I knew about the Manson thing cause that's like a separate thing but I don't care about little Quentin's child-like fascination as a director by all that fuckin' movie shit. I know about Steve Mcqueen and a couple other things but that's it.

I enjoyed it cause of the performances mostly. The Bruce Lee thing was horrid though. Leo and Pitt are really good in it. It loses direction but it was like a more circular movie, more like it works thanks to the strength of individual scenes and was made by an old super fan of that era I suppose. Glad he made it, too bad his next film is going to be his last cause Quentin wants to be just like his heroes when he grows up.

This is what I'm kinda curious about cuz a lot of people like it without being super fuckin' into all the like nerdy fuckin' references so there must be something to it other than those things. 

I have no idea why the Bruce Lee thing is so insulting to so many people.  I really don't get it and I'm a HUGE Bruce Lee fan.  Whats objectionable, the fact that he was arrogant in it?  There's interviews out there that you can listen to where he says pretty arrogant things, 'if I told you I was the best you'd say I was being cocky but if I told you I was no good baby you'd KNOW I'm lying', thats almost a verbatim quote of something he said in an interview.  The stuff about fighting Muhammad Ali, thats not too far outside of the Bruce sphere, many people in many interviews have made mention of his studying Ali and saying stuff like someday he'd like to fight him or words to that effect.

After that, what else is objectionable, what, the idea that, possibly, somebody might be able to throw the guy over his shoulder into a car door?  I don't get it, I don't get why thats insulting, I mean the guy was a fighter, he didn't have an invisible force-field around him making him impervious to attack, I'm sure he took plenty of shots in his life or got thrown plenty of times, he trained and sparred with people, he never claimed to have never ever been hit or hurt or struck in his life...so where's the problem? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

This is what I'm kinda curious about cuz a lot of people like it without being super fuckin' into all the like nerdy fuckin' references so there must be something to it other than those things. 

I have no idea why the Bruce Lee thing is so insulting to so many people.  I really don't get it and I'm a HUGE Bruce Lee fan.  Whats objectionable, the fact that he was arrogant in it?  There's interviews out there that you can listen to where he says pretty arrogant things, 'if I told you I was the best you'd say I was being cocky but if I told you I was no good baby you'd KNOW I'm lying', thats almost a verbatim quote of something he said in an interview.  The stuff about fighting Muhammad Ali, thats not too far outside of the Bruce sphere, many people in many interviews have made mention of his studying Ali and saying stuff like someday he'd like to fight him or words to that effect.

After that, what else is objectionable, what, the idea that, possibly, somebody might be able to throw the guy over his shoulder into a car door?  I don't get it, I don't get why thats insulting, I mean the guy was a fighter, he didn't have an invisible force-field around him making him impervious to attack, I'm sure he took plenty of shots in his life or got thrown plenty of times, he trained and sparred with people, he never claimed to have never ever been hit or hurt or struck in his life...so where's the problem? 

Nah I know he was arrogant. I just didn't buy it. The depiction of him came off as shallow. My main problem was why would he do the same kick twice lol? it's Bruce Lee.

maybe cause Brad asked him nicely and it was a movie. In real life... I don't know. I just don't think he'd do that but it's possible I guess. Maybe it was too little screen time and it came off like that cause it was like: here is the scene with annoying Bruce fighting and then saying that shit line (I just want to clarify no one beat up Bruce Lee) and here is a collage of stupid Tate/Bruce scenes with smiles.

But yeah, it surprises me that I dislike his depiction in this movie so much. When I think about it, maybe it's like a touchy subject but I liked that he got owned there with the car so that wasn't it. Probably not enough Bruce time.

Edited by Rovim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Nah I know he was arrogant. I just didn't buy it. The depiction of him came off as shallow. My main problem was why would he do the same kick twice lol? it's Bruce Lee.

maybe cause Brad asked him nicely and it was a movie. In real life... I don't know. I just don't think he'd do that but it's possible I guess. Maybe it was too little screen time and it came off like that cause it was like: here is the scene with annoying Bruce fighting and then saying that shit line (I just want to clarify no one beat up Bruce Lee) and here is a collage of stupid Tate/Bruce scenes with smiles.

But yeah, it's surprises me that I dislike his depiction in this movie so much. When I think about it, maybe it's like a touchy subject but I liked that he got owned there with the car so that wasn't it. Probably not enough Bruce time.

But it ain't the Bruce show just like it ain't the Sharon Tate show (some press conference QT was catching heat for a shallow depiction of Sharon) like it ain't the Tex Watson Susan Atkins Patricia Krenwinkle Charlie Manson show, its the Cliff Booth and Leo show.  Everyone else more or less drifts in and out.  And yeah, he tried it again cuz the guy said try that again and, possibly, my man thought he was a blowhard stuntman pussy :lol: 

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bruce Lee bit was utterly awful. The whole film stinks. 

5 hours ago, Rovim said:

You know I don't watch old movies. Can't. Like I can watch a movie from the 70's. Maybe from the 60's. I simply can't enjoy the shit if it's too old. It's not like music at all for me.

That is weird. You are cutting yourself off from 99% of the films ever made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't even fight like Bruce Lee. His kicks were high legged bow legged Van Damme-esque rubbish and slow as a snail. In reality Bruce repudiated kicks above the waist (although he employed them in his cinematic fights).

This gives you an impression of how Bruce fought - he was more a Wing Chun purist,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

That is weird. You are cutting yourself off from 99% of the films ever made. 

Well, I have tried to watch a lot of films that are considered classics for years. Asked different people that are into eras I am not for suggestions.

I've tried watching influential old films and the work of film makers who influenced my favorite directors and the ones who influenced them. Different directors, different countries, languages, different themes, actors, styles. I just can't connect with it if it's too old. I have watched and enjoyed quite a lot of films from the 60's, even more from the 70's to now. I can't even enjoy a Hitchcock film. I can't enjoy a Kurosawa film, etc. I love Kubrick for example but I didn't even enjoy The Killing cause it's too old and I can't connect with it.

I at least believe I can recognize that I'm watching a masterpiece and that it's good but I just suffer through it. Like a popular dish that is prepared to perfection but you want to puke cause it just doesn't agree with you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Well, I have tried to watch a lot of films that are considered classics for years. Asked different people that are into eras I am not for suggestions.

I've tried watching influential old films and the work of film makers who influenced my favorite directors and the ones who influenced them. Different directors, different countries, languages, different themes, actors, styles. I just can't connect with it if it's too old. I have watched and enjoyed quite a lot of films from the 60's, even more from the 70's to now. I can't even enjoy a Hitchcock film. I can't enjoy a Kurosawa film, etc. I love Kubrick for example but I didn't even enjoy The Killing cause it's too old and I can't connect with it.

I at least believe I can recognize that I'm watching a masterpiece and that it's good but I just suffer through it. Like a popular dish that is prepared to perfection but you want to puke cause it just doesn't agree with you.

 

I cannot understand this for the life of me. A great film is a great film whatever era.

A lot of more modern films have dated far more than movies made in earlier eras. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

A great film is a great film whatever era.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying not everyone can enjoy a great film just because it's great. You need to first relate to it in order for that to happen at least on some level.  An era can also be an obstacle in art, films, music, whatever. Just like style or a genre can be the reason one will not find it enjoyable.

Edited by Rovim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying not everyone can enjoy a great film just because it's great. You need to first relate to it in order for that to happen at least on some level.  An era can also be an obstacle in art, films, music, whatever. Just like style or a genre can be.

 

Cannot say I understand it anymore but fair enough. There is so much variety in cinema of different eras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I undestand that "being-unable-watching-old-movies-thing" 

Godtfather and Serpico are probably the oldest movies I enjoy, like from the early '70s.

Then there's Rocky from the mid '70s

Never cared for for movies older than that *

*with exception of some Terrence Hill/Bud Spencer western comedy 

Edited by Free Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? You are deliberately cutting yourself off from the greatest films ever made, from German Expressionism to Soviet Montage and of course Old Hollywood. Masterpieces from bygone eras are often as relevant today as they were when they were first made. I don't understand this concept in the slightest. 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rovim said:

Well, I have tried to watch a lot of films that are considered classics for years. Asked different people that are into eras I am not for suggestions.

I've tried watching influential old films and the work of film makers who influenced my favorite directors and the ones who influenced them. Different directors, different countries, languages, different themes, actors, styles. I just can't connect with it if it's too old. I have watched and enjoyed quite a lot of films from the 60's, even more from the 70's to now. I can't even enjoy a Hitchcock film. I can't enjoy a Kurosawa film, etc. I love Kubrick for example but I didn't even enjoy The Killing cause it's too old and I can't connect with it.

I at least believe I can recognize that I'm watching a masterpiece and that it's good but I just suffer through it. Like a popular dish that is prepared to perfection but you want to puke cause it just doesn't agree with you.

 

I get what you're saying and, I've found amongst a lot of film buffs in my life, that they sought of taught themselves to like or appreciate that shit.  You often hear it don't you, 'I TRIED to like it' or 'I didn't like it at first'.  Why would you go back and watch something that you didn't like in the first place?  Its not a hard and fast thing or anything, I get that sometimes you see a piece and you're not all for it but a little piece of it, whether stylistically or...y'know, whatever, so it kinda draws you back...but with some you definitely get the feeling that a struggle has taken place :lol: 

And y'know what, when I was very very little I had the same reaction to a lot of films that I now love.  My old man used to watch all kinds of movies that I now consider classics that, at the time, were boring as fuck to me.  John Wayne stuff, movies like Laurence of Arabia or Ryans Daughter, I just wanted to see fuckin' Arnie and Sly Stallone and Bruce Lee and all that. 

Style to me is everything, style and certain romantic archetypes and notions and thats what initially drew me into older movies.  It began with James Cagney.  To me that guy was so cool.  I had (and probably still do a little) a lot of romantic notions about old New York and gangsters and their snazzy suits and them being like...y'know, men of men, guys not to be fucked with.  And through that the rest of it, the cinematic appreciation, kinda sprouted from there.  Romantic notions about everything from New York in the 30s to...I dunno, the American west in the mid 1800s to England in the...well, England all the fuckin' time actually.  I feel like every era and every time and place has its little stylistic stamp, in the best of movies you can kinda feel the colour of the times.  It transports me to somewhere that isn't like all the shit I see around me every day.  For a short while I'm no longer me in 2019. 

As much as I love and adore movies from the past I do think that cinema has a kind of problem with its relationship to that shit.  I notice that like, in a lot of poorer countries, that shit doesn't exist, they're kinda fiercely modernist, once something is old its old and, by and large, there really isn't much regard for it.  Its a sign of getting civilised I think, history and your love for that shit...and its good to be a little uncivilised.  

I think part of the reason why we don't have real story-telling advancements in cinema, part of the reason mind, is peoples obssession with the past.  Directors talk a lot of their inspiration from such and such in the past, and of course its an evolving medium so you kinda go based on whats come before but you gotta take it somewhere too and I think that when you start to revere the past too much, to where you start to talk about unassailable masterpieces, it becomes complicated to kinda go beyond.

Hitchcock is a great example, he used elements of things like German Expressionism etc but he weren't in love with that shit, he wasn't making German Expressionist cinema, he just took certain kinda stylistic cues, which is kinda the difference (or one of em) between a Tarantino and a genius.   

But I like what you're saying and, I think, if more people were honest with themselves, film buffs, more than a few would admit to the roots of their expansive taste being something of an act of attrition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

He didn't even fight like Bruce Lee. His kicks were high legged bow legged Van Damme-esque rubbish and slow as a snail. In reality Bruce repudiated kicks above the waist (although he employed them in his cinematic fights).

This gives you an impression of how Bruce fought - he was more a Wing Chun purist,

 

If he was a wing chun purist he would've never kicked above the waist.  You're right about the slow high legged kick thing but, in the world of the movie, he's just trying to put a slightly past his prime stuntman down, not take on a Shaolin monk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Bruce Lee fan but I thought that scene was great. He was arrogant, and also hated being Kato. He wanted to be top dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×