• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

SvennusDemonicus

alt account
Banned
Jun 22, 2019
501
Until I realized what the movie actually was, I was seriously wondering where all this was going, and suddenly the title made so much sense at the end.
Everything you see in the film is just a fantasy, not only from the director, but also the characters (which is why, though initially miffed, I ended up not taking Cliff's 'memory' of Bruce Lee seriously).

Everyone was really top of their game, from acting to directing to photography and editing.
Once you realize what the film is and that it isn't just a Tarentino self serving vanity project (though it also is that of course), then you can really enjoy the film and both have fun and marvel at the beauty of the craft.
(I realized it was complete fantasy land when Cliff's ranch owner buddy turned out to be exactly what he was described by the Manson girl instead of the dreaded tortured/ dead old man you expect, though there are many hints beforehand).

I also found a very interesting and biting critic of 1970s era Hollywood under the love letter, which was very welcome (if you look at it with things meaning the opposite of what is shown, then it makes sense, from Pitt refusing service from an underaged girl, to the crew coming to the defense of Bruce Lee in a possibly thinly veiled racist brawl, to Hollywood having blackballed a man suspected of killing his wife -nod to Richard Wagner-, to a non exploited and very mature 8 year old girl flourishing in the film industry, to a Playboy mansion devoid of sex and drugs with a very self aware Steve McQueen... and Countless more exemples).
They did exploit the old ranch owner in reality
 

Addi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,224
Just saw it, I liked it, but not 100% sure how I feel about it. It's a bit too long, they could have easily cut down some of the transportation scenes (walking/driving). I get the slice of life arguments, I just don't think Tarantino nails it that well. An other issue is simply how the movie requires outside knowledge of the Sharon Tate murder and the Manson family to support the underlying tension. Manson is never mentioned by his whole name, only "Charlie". Even if you had heard about Manson, you could easily miss the context. Maybe it's more known in the US, but I feel some more exposition could have been done without changing too much. It was a nice double bill to watch Mindhunter Season 2 before this though.

Some great scenes and amazing performances. The violent showdown with the Manson family was incredible and the final shot actually made me feel a bit melancholic.
Don't think I'll watch it again any time soon, but it does make me intrigued at idea of Tarantino making a TV-show.
 
Oct 2, 2018
3,902
Just walked out. Not sure what to think TBH. Odd movie.

I guess it's a fairy tale as the name suggests but the last act threw me off
 
Sep 12, 2018
19,846
I noticed much more of a 3 act structure* second time through with it of course being set over 3 different days. Reminds me of There Will Be Blood a bit where I hadn't a clue where the movie was going until the last half hour when it all clicked into place and made the second viewing a lot more lucid for me.

*It's just that the second act happens to be like 90 minutes long too heh
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
Well its the same thing.

When it come to art, weather somthing is good or bad is dictated by your personal opinion. And I stick to my original statement, good acting, camera work and dialogue alone can't make a good movie other components ( that are of high quality) are necessary for a film to be good.

I mean name some good movies that are good that just have good acting, dialogue and camera work?

Koyaanisqatsi has *nothing* but great camera work and a great score, and it's a brilliant movie.

Kiss of the Spider-Woman barely has a plot but has great acting and dialogue and is a brilliant movie.

2001 has already been mentioned as well.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
I don't think we needed to see so much much of Daltons acting career, in other films that would of been dealt with in a lot quicker and slicker way, it could of been done in montage sort of a way.

Dalton's acting career was some of the meatiest parts of the film

Reducing it to a montage would have achieved nothing and ripped a quarter of the heart out of the film.
 
Last edited:

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
And the Sharon tate character was going out with one guy and then got engaged to this other guy and she went to go see a movie she was in...?.... Ok why is that even in the movie? It does not really add anything.

Because seeing Sharon Tate be a normal human being with a normal life was entirely the point.

She's remembered for dying brutally, this is QT letting people experience her living happily.

The entire goal was to show her just living her life. It's part of building that dread for the expected end and then changing history.

Cut Tate or reduce her role and you've removed half the heart of the film.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2018
3,902
watched a few reviews on YT about this flick and yeah.. its quentin's weakest film for me. Sorta of slow, kind of languid (which I didn't have a problem with) but the whole tate/manson thing and the way it basically falls apart into this cheesey stupid cornball kill the serial killer final act doesn't really work for me. I thought when Brad Pitt visited the farm, there was a palpable sense of dread and there's a lot I liked here - the movie tries to be too many things. Serious, failing acting actor drama, LA/Hollywood love affair, serial killer suspense actioner, comedy fighting flame throwing killing final act and it just doesn't come together. The whole thing is building up to the killings. What with the timer and countdown and voice over in the final act and you get that...

I'd say a 6 or 7/10. It's not something I'd particularly ever want to watch again.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
Dalton's acting career was some of the meatiest parts of the film

Reducing it to a montage would have achieved nothing and ripped a quarter of the heart out of the film.

"Montage like" I said, so not just some rocky like montage, somthing more like the introduction of "ace" in the movie casino
Because seeing Sharon Tate be a normal human being with a normal life was entirely the point.

She's remembered for dying brutally, this is QT letting people experience her living happily.

The entire goal was to show her just living her life. It's part of building that dread for the expected end and then changing history.

Cut Tate or reduce her role and you've removed half the heart of the film.

Does not make her appearance any less unnecessary.
 

xyla

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,385
Germany
There were black people in the movie pilot Rick Dalton was shooting. In the saloon.

I'm not sure and might have to watch the movie again, but isn't the guy on the table that's sitting in the middle Sam Jackson?
You only see one eye, the rest is covered up by an eye patch, a big beard and a hat, but it sure looked like him at a glance.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
54,117
I normally loathe the "you didn't get the movie" but hearing some people's complaints makes me think they didn't get the movie. A lot of people's ideas for "improving" the movie are basically changing it into something else entirely. And I don't even mean it in a condescending way. I don't think it's that the movie is "above" certain people or anything like that. This movie is QT's love letter to 60s tv/movie/culture, and a retelling/revising of an event shaped and changed that culture irreparably. I get that if you don't already have an interest or perception of those events (a lot of people probably don't) or that culture parts of the movie are going to fall flat, be boring, seem meaningless or whatever, but for me personally I'm glad it was what it was.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
At this point I have to conclude you didn't get the film if you think the like basically most important part of the movie is unnecessary lol.

Just because Somone disagrees with you does not mean they didn't get the film.

Sharon tate went to the cinema, OK.... Does contribute to the story with Dalton and booth or the manson stuff? No it does not
If she was not in the film it would improve it because her scenes were utterly boring and pointless.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Because it's a pretty pointless conversation.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
Just because Somone disagrees with you does not mean they didn't get the film.

Sharon tate went to the cinema, OK.... Does contribute to the story with Dalton and booth or the manson stuff? No it does not
If she was not in the film it would improve it because her scenes were utterly boring and pointless.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Because it's a pretty pointless conversation.

No literally if you think Sharon Tate being in the film isn't important, flat out you didn't get it.

She's literally the point of the film.
 
Nov 9, 2017
3,777
Is the "Bengal Lancer" joke just a corny play on words? Like he was in a military unit that just happened to have the same name as his last name and the show? Didn't really get that one.
 

cognizant

Member
Dec 19, 2017
13,751
Hopkins, have you tried juxtaposing Sharon's journey with Rick's? Two actors on different trajectories who will ultimately intersect. Sharon is enjoying the fruits of her labor in a cinema... in a movie that's a love letter to Hollywood and cinema...

Your enjoyment of the movie is dependent on your knowledge of the context of the era, the characters and Tarantino himself, I think. Without context I imagine the movie would feel random.
 

Realyst

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,163
No literally if you think Sharon Tate being in the film isn't important, flat out you didn't get it.

She's literally the point of the film.
I disagree about Tate being the point of the film. Yes, she serves a narrative purpose, but I think she just represents an idea in the film. As others have said, the true events that this is based on mark a real turning point for Hollywood. I said it before upthread, but I truly believe that this film is about QT's love/hate relationship with the town and the culture that drives it, not fully about a "how it could've been" scenario in regards to Tate.
 

phazedplasma

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,855
You remove Sharon and the film is pointless.

You definitely didnt get it if you think she should be removed.
 

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,615
I wonder, do you people hating the splice of life element and no narrative here feel the same way about Pulp fiction? Honest question


Cause I can go into my opinion of how this film is pulp with more of a core, a true story being told, but whatever I wanna hear what those on other side think
Not someone who disliked it but I actually watched Pulp Fiction for the first time after watching this and I thought this was a way better movie
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
I disagree about Tate being the point of the film. Yes, she serves a narrative purpose, but I think she just represents an idea in the film. As others have said, the true events that this is based on mark a real turning point for Hollywood. I said it before upthread, but I truly believe that this film is about QT's love/hate relationship with the town and the culture that drives it, not fully about a "how it could've been" scenario in regards to Tate.

She's far more than just an idea.

The entire film is constructed around saving her life
 

Kewlmyc

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
26,683
Wasn't expecting that ending. Glad I went in with no spoilers.

Ending turns a nice movie into a good one.
 

ThatCrazyGuy

Member
Nov 27, 2017
9,846
I really liked, but the ending fell kinda flat for me.

Glad I watched it in the theater. Packed house last night.
 

Psoelberg

Member
Oct 26, 2017
306
She's the point of the film? How so?

The films synopsis does not even mention her.

I haven't followed the discussion, so sorry if I'm repeating anything.

The murder of Tate is generally seen as the symbolic death of the hippie movement (and its fight for tolerance and love). When Tate was murdered, Hollywood lost its innocence. A lot of essays and songs have been written about this. Tate is the symbol of innocence. That's why when we see her in the movie, she's just walking around enjoying life - without any drama in her life. The movie is Tarantino's tribute to old Hollywood. On a meta layer this is a movie about innocence vs evil and old vs new Hollywood. So the climax and what the film is building up to is the question of whether innocence/old Hollywood will survive or be killed by evil/new Hollywood. Without Tate the whole point of the movie falls apart.

So, in short. This movie is Tarantino's tribute to a certain time and place. The murder of Tate symbolizes the end of this period. By letting Tate live on, Tarantino postphone the lost of innocence.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
Literally the whole thing is a giant Rube Goldberg machine designed to save her life.

The point of the film is to tell the story about A faded television actor and his stunt double strive to achieve fame and success in the film industry during the final years of Hollywood's Golden Age in 1969 Los Angeles. You could cut the 25mins of Sharon Tate footage and it would be better for it,imo.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
I haven't followed the discussion, so sorry if I'm repeating anything.

The murder of Tate is generally seen as the symbolic death of the hippie movement (and its fight for tolerance and love). When Tate was murdered, Hollywood lost its innocence. A lot of essays and songs have been written about this. Tate is the symbol of innocence. That's why when we see her in the movie, she's just walking around enjoying life - without any drama in her life. The movie is Tarantino's tribute to old Hollywood. On a meta layer this is a movie about innocence vs evil and old vs new Hollywood. So the climax and what the film is building up to is the question of whether innocence/old Hollywood will survive or be killed by evil/new Hollywood. Without Tate the whole point of the movie falls apart.

So, in short. This movie is Tarantino's tribute to a certain time and place. The murder of Tate symbolizes the end of this period. By letting Tate live on, Tarantino postphone the lost of innocence.

Seems to be shoe horned in there just to achieve the goal you outlined.
 

DeathyBoy

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,430
Under my Hela Hela
Just because Somone disagrees with you does not mean they didn't get the film.

Sharon tate went to the cinema, OK.... Does contribute to the story with Dalton and booth or the manson stuff? No it does not
If she was not in the film it would improve it because her scenes were utterly boring and pointless.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Because it's a pretty pointless conversation.

It's okay to not get a film. It's not okay to double down so hard you reveal yourself to be borderline cinema illiterate. Your complaints are trite, devoid of any real substance, the musings of someone who wants desperately to be seen as clever but is left utterly wanting.

If you remove Sharon Tate from this film, the film falls apart. Her existence literally drives the entire third act no less. And sure, you could make a film without her, but the point of this film is to show her as a full year fleshed human being instead of murder victim. Your repeated insistence that the film would be better without her screams armchair quarterback, and dude... You are not, and never will be, even comparable to Quentin Tarantino, nor will your attempts to fix his film be anything other than utterly banal.
 

CoolestSpot

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,325
Not someone who disliked it but I actually watched Pulp Fiction for the first time after watching this and I thought this was a way better movie
Its essentially the slice of life wandering structure of pulp but with a story behind it and a centeral character being explored. Some would say that was Travolta's character in Pulp but....I don't know.
 

CoolestSpot

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,325
Oddly this also has a better payoff of changing history and going against expectations then inglorious bastards

This movie oddly feels like it has a lot of other elements of Tarantinos works but all in a stronger context
 
Oct 2, 2018
3,902
It's okay to not get a film. It's not okay to double down so hard you reveal yourself to be borderline cinema illiterate. Your complaints are trite, devoid of any real substance, the musings of someone who wants desperately to be seen as clever but is left utterly wanting.

If you remove Sharon Tate from this film, the film falls apart. Her existence literally drives the entire third act no less. And sure, you could make a film without her, but the point of this film is to show her as a full year fleshed human being instead of murder victim. Your repeated insistence that the film would be better without her screams armchair quarterback, and dude... You are not, and never will be, even comparable to Quentin Tarantino, nor will your attempts to fix his film be anything other than utterly banal.

what a terrible shit post.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
It's okay to not get a film. It's not okay to double down so hard you reveal yourself to be borderline cinema illiterate. Your complaints are trite, devoid of any real substance, the musings of someone who wants desperately to be seen as clever but is left utterly wanting.

If you remove Sharon Tate from this film, the film falls apart. Her existence literally drives the entire third act no less. And sure, you could make a film without her, but the point of this film is to show her as a full year fleshed human being instead of murder victim. Your repeated insistence that the film would be better without her screams armchair quarterback, and dude... You are not, and never will be, even comparable to Quentin Tarantino, nor will your attempts to fix his film be anything other than utterly banal.

The only thing without any real substance is your first paragraph which is you spouting off a load of describing words without giving any reasons why.

Oh, her excistance drives the last 3rd of the film, how does it exactly?

Frankly I've had enough, its like me vs 3 other people in this thread. And guess what people have different opinion, so you little waffle nonsense about me thinking I'm Somone who thinks there better then QT is utterly rediculous.

People have a real hard time accepting other people don't share there opinion.
I'm done wasting my time, will never post in a film thread on era again.

Have fun with your witty replies to this post, well done folks, you really proved me wrong....
 

Bradbury

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,855
Oddly this also has a better payoff of changing history and going against expectations then inglorious bastards

This movie oddly feels like it has a lot of other elements of Tarantinos works but all in a stronger context
Bastards got me by surprise while in this one I was kind expecting because of Bastards, but still in Hollywood is a lot more powerful
It´s like each Tarantino movie he was mastering something that he show case in this one. not gonna lie, part of me feels this would have be a good movie for his tenth and last movie
 

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
Criticism of the Tate scenes shouldn't be shushed away. I think removing them would remove a key component of the film and would be making a different movie, but if we get to the heart of what Hopkins is saying, it's probably that those scenes weren't effective for him and didn't contribute enough to the rest of the film for them, or it was unclear what QT was trying to do. Or even that we know what he was trying to do and they weren't very effective.

This is a sentiment repeated by multiple posters and critics, as well.

I'm more mixed on those scenes. I see what QT was trying to do, and there is something sweet and human about it, but it is also (intentionally) a shallow look at Tate. He just wants to show her as a happy person, taking pleasure in her first success, living her life, etc. We're not really getting to know Tate any better or understanding her as a human, but we are getting these little glimpses that humanize her.

I think they are sweet and effective in that way, but then again, I think QT's indulgences make it not work as much for me. Tate + foot fetish is weird (in a movie all about humanizing this person, QT has to add a scene that plays to his own extratextual love of feet, which he also knows his audience knows, so its this strange double/triple audience wink), and TBH, the entire "well, it's a good thing this type of masculine manly man was here to stop the murderers" is a very, uh, complex type of wish fulfillment/fairy tale.
It's okay to not get a film. It's not okay to double down so hard you reveal yourself to be borderline cinema illiterate. Your complaints are trite, devoid of any real substance, the musings of someone who wants desperately to be seen as clever but is left utterly wanting.

If you remove Sharon Tate from this film, the film falls apart. Her existence literally drives the entire third act no less. And sure, you could make a film without her, but the point of this film is to show her as a full year fleshed human being instead of murder victim. Your repeated insistence that the film would be better without her screams armchair quarterback, and dude... You are not, and never will be, even comparable to Quentin Tarantino, nor will your attempts to fix his film be anything other than utterly banal.
...this is a bit much.
 

Timeaisis

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,139
Austin, TX
I thought it was great. Kinda all over the place, but once I considered it an ensemble epic I just went along for the ride. Cliff was awesome.
 

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,615
Its essentially the slice of life wandering structure of pulp but with a story behind it and a centeral character being explored. Some would say that was Travolta's character in Pulp but....I don't know.
Only seen it once but I the impression I got about a central character was that it was Jules. His scenes were the only ones I cared for.

Oddly this also has a better payoff of changing history and going against expectations then inglorious bastards

This movie oddly feels like it has a lot of other elements of Tarantinos works but all in a stronger context
Yeah this was my thought too. It felt way more cathartic actually saving a specific person from the murderers on the night she would have died, and it's done by the main characters.

Obviously killing Nazis isn't bad and I like the ending there too but there's something about seeing a burning theater with people above shooting with assault rifles a little disconcerting.
 

CoolestSpot

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,325
Only seen it once but I the impression I got about a central character was that it was Jules. His scenes were the only ones I cared for.


Yeah this was my thought too. It felt way more cathartic actually saving a specific person from the murderers on the night she would have died, and it's done by the main characters.

Obviously killing Nazis isn't bad and I like the ending there too but there's something about seeing a burning theater with people above shooting with assault rifles a little disconcerting.
Also just the fact that killing Hitler isn't anything new. It isn't shocking. Hitler dies fiction has been going on forever, so when it does happen you're like, oh cool, I get to see this fucker die again, but there is no oomph in it.
 

captainuwu

Member
Aug 14, 2019
132
Enjoying life with Tate and spinning her tragedy into the open ending she deserved is one of the sweetest things I've seen at the theater this year. Loved it.
 

zuf

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,890
Did anyone else read into this movie being about how terrible Hollywood/LA culture is?

First, you have the surface level stuff about aging within the industry, becoming obsolete. Below the surface, there's discussion about how you have to play the game to get ahead. Al Pacino's character explained to Rick how there's a meta game in the industry between studios where they try to neuter/neutralize any potential leading men from other studios by giving them a guest spot as a villain or heavy in order for their leading man to beat the bad guy up or basically just look better than the other studio's guy.

Or, how women play the game, just to either end up in the trash and looking for crappy trinkets/bit roles just to get by (hippies), or doing what they need to do end up in a breakthrough role like Sharron Tate did. Prostitution was heavily hinted at as something you want to do if you want a career in that town.


So many more things come to mind, like how Rick literally ascended to a level that he was gated off from (Polanski's house). Also, how Rick basically followed Clint Eastwood's career trajectory by starring in tv westerns, making his way out to Italy for Sergio Leone films, then coming back stateside to an emerging career.

To me, the film basically showed how Tarantino has a real love/hate relationship with Hollywood. He gives homages, while at the same time saying that the area will hopefully become Arizona Bay.

Yeah, I think the casting of Dakota Fanning as a hippie in this film plays into that. Fanning was once an 8-year-old child star and her career trajectory and age now lines up perfectly with Rick's "in 15 years you'll be dealing with feelings of uselessness" speech with Trudi. Along with the focus on Sharon during the second half of the flim, I'd guess Tarantino is critiquing Hollywood's systematic failure to nurture and protect women and children.

This film is so complex though, it really needs a few repeat viewings to get a good a read on everything here.