OT: New Tarantino film

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

What I saw in the movie was a beautiful, sensitive young woman just so happy about her life and her future.

With, ahem, terrible taste in men.... .

 

[rudedude]

Another piece of crap from a sicko.
Tarantino is a sadist and his movies and treatment of actresses prove it.
His movies trivialize gratuitous violence and even worse view it as humorous.
Until recently his films were produced by Harvey Weinstein, who he knew was raping women, and he has famously defended Roman Polanski by saying the 13 year old he raped was a "party girl" who was "asking for it".
Uma Thurman also described how she was in a serious automobile accident on the set of Kill Bill because Tarantino had insisted she perform her own driving stunts. She now has a permanently damaged neck and knees.
Making his movies he has choked Thurman and another actress and spit in their faces - no doubt for "artistic" reasons.
His latest portrays the murdered Tate as an airhead.
Look at the expression on his twisted face - the look of a sadist.

 

[Delco Lion]

What he said about the portrayal of Tate in the movie proves he didn’t see it. What I saw in the movie was a beautiful, sensitive young woman just so happy about her life and her future.

Totally agree on that. Really enjoyed her performance.

 

[bobolink1]

It doesn't surprise me that the middle-aged adolescents on this board love the obvious sadistic violence of this creep's movies.
QT has progressed in his films from making a joke of violence to vengance porn. No, I didn't see his latest crap-fest but I understand it ends with his usual violent vengence porn so all the children in the audience can again feel virtuous about reveling in gore. We know what happened in real life, so the only way the way the director can maintain some semblance of context while placating his blood-thirsty fans is by turning the tables - they can have their cake and eat it too. Like his "apologies" for mistreating actresses and not reporting Weinstein..
https://www.thedailybeast.com/quentin-tarantinos-history-of-disturbing-behavior-toward-his-actresses
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...margot-robbie-once-upon-time-hollywood-cannes

 

[rudedude]

It doesn't surprise me that the middle-aged adolescents on this board love the obvious sadistic violence of this creep's movies.
QT has progressed in his films from making a joke of violence to vengance porn. No, I didn't see his latest crap-fest but I understand it ends with his usual violent vengence porn so all the children in the audience can again feel virtuous about reveling in gore. We know what happened in real life, so the only way the way the director can maintain some semblance of context while placating his blood-thirsty fans is by turning the tables - they can have their cake and eat it too. Like his "apologies" for mistreating actresses and not reporting Weinstein..
https://www.thedailybeast.com/quentin-tarantinos-history-of-disturbing-behavior-toward-his-actresses
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...margot-robbie-once-upon-time-hollywood-cannes

Is that you, Rex Reed?

 

[CentexLion]

It doesn't surprise me that the middle-aged adolescents on this board love the obvious sadistic violence of this creep's movies.
QT has progressed in his films from making a joke of violence to vengance porn. No, I didn't see his latest crap-fest but I understand it ends with his usual violent vengence porn so all the children in the audience can again feel virtuous about reveling in gore. We know what happened in real life, so the only way the way the director can maintain some semblance of context while placating his blood-thirsty fans is by turning the tables - they can have their cake and eat it too. Like his "apologies" for mistreating actresses and not reporting Weinstein..
https://www.thedailybeast.com/quentin-tarantinos-history-of-disturbing-behavior-toward-his-actresses
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...margot-robbie-once-upon-time-hollywood-cannes

I gave you a LIKE , not because I agree with you, but so you don't feel like we are attacking you or threatening you on this violent vengeance porn site discussing unseen violent vengeance porn movies.. We are all winners on the BWI board!!

PS: Actually, this was his least violent movie since JB probably (?). I also think I must have missed all of the porn in this movie.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

It doesn't surprise me that the middle-aged adolescents on this board love the obvious sadistic violence of this creep's movies.
QT has progressed in his films from making a joke of violence to vengance porn. No, I didn't see his latest crap-fest but I understand it ends with his usual violent vengence porn so all the children in the audience can again feel virtuous about reveling in gore. We know what happened in real life, so the only way the way the director can maintain some semblance of context while placating his blood-thirsty fans is by turning the tables - they can have their cake and eat it too. Like his "apologies" for mistreating actresses and not reporting Weinstein..
https://www.thedailybeast.com/quentin-tarantinos-history-of-disturbing-behavior-toward-his-actresses
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...margot-robbie-once-upon-time-hollywood-cannes

Roxine, welcome back! Still working on your taxes?

 

[LionJim]

I have mixed feelings about the film. Does it have a point or is it just bells, blood, fire, and whistles? What I appreciate most about the film is the acting, which was superb throughout. There are a lot of little things regarding character that I’ve come to understand only after I’ve left the theater, and you definitely got to admire how T and his actors get this done so consistently. That’s one of the things you see in his movies which keep people coming back for more. (Richard Linklater is the same way, at least for me.)

But beyond this, the whole movie seems to mishit for me. Cliff beats up Bruce Lee? Okay, but why? Only because it gives us an expectation for the finale. (This expectation sails out the window once the cigarette is lit.) Same thing with the flamethrower. It’s just so contrived, and to what end? Once he decided which way to go for the finale he effectively painted himself into a corner plot wise. It would have been better if Manson himself had been killed in the film.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I have mixed feelings about the film. Does it have a point or is it just bells, blood, fire, and whistles? What I appreciate most about the film is the acting, which was superb throughout. There are a lot of little things regarding character that I’ve come to understand only after I’ve left the theater, and you definitely got to admire how T and his actors get this done so consistently. That’s one of the things you see in his movies which keep people coming back for more. (Richard Linklater is the same way, at least for me.)

But beyond this, the whole movie seems to mishit for me. Cliff beats up Bruce Lee? Okay, but why? Only because it gives us an expectation for the finale. (This expectation sails out the window once the cigarette is lit.) Same thing with the flamethrower. It’s just so contrived, and to what end? Once he decided which way to go in the finale he effectively painted himself into a corner plot wise. It would have been better if he had killed Manson himself

Same. I wanted to love it, but again, IMO it's slightly better than Django (which is definitely more of a traditional QT movie) and that is my least favorite QT film of all time (noting there are standout performances and scenes throughout). I didn't know about the big Tate/Bruce Lee connection until after the movie, but Pitt taking him out was pretty funny, and it sort of got you thinking - 'There's something more to Cliff,' and that flame is only stoked when Rick mentions he's a 'war hero' (and that is what convinces the stunt director to let him dress up). I am told for all the famous folks in the movie, only Lee's family and Polanski were not asked for input.

I did like the 'fantasy' ending and cheered when drunk Rick busted out the flame thrower (it's sort of harkens back to Butch sort of scouring the pawn shop for weapons - and he eventually settles on the samurai sword; Rick trumps that big time). It was a gag throughout (Rick practicing with it: 'Damn that's hot! Can we do something about the heat?') and really funny when deployed. I'll add the follow up conversations with Rick/Jay/Tate were hilarious - 'Is everyone okay?' 'Well.....the f*ckin' hippies aren't, that's for damn sure.'

Still, there was some sizzle that was lacking and that I haven't really seen in his movies since Basterds - maybe it's how good he is at story structure when using chapters (noting he did that in subsequent movies as well). The ending of the movie, Cliff's trek to Spahn Ranch, and Rick's spaghetti western as the 'heavy' opposite Timothy Olyphant were my favorite parts.

 

[burghBuck]

Same. I wanted to love it, but again, IMO it's slightly better than Django (which is definitely more of a traditional QT movie) and that is my least favorite QT film of all time (noting there are standout performances and scenes throughout). I didn't know about the big Tate/Bruce Lee connection until after the movie, but Pitt taking him out was pretty funny, and it sort of got you thinking - 'There's something more to Cliff,' and that flame is only stoked when Rick mentions he's a 'war hero' (and that is what convinces the stunt director to let him dress up). I am told for all the famous folks in the movie, only Lee's family and Polanski were not asked for input.

I did like the 'fantasy' ending and cheered when drunk Rick busted out the flame thrower (it's sort of harkens back to Butch sort of scouring the pawn shop for weapons - and he eventually settles on the samurai sword; Rick trumps that big time). It was a gag throughout (Rick practicing with it: 'Damn that's hot! Can we do something about the heat?') and really funny when deployed. I'll add the follow up conversations with Rick/Jay/Tate were hilarious - 'Is everyone okay?' 'Well.....the f*ckin' hippies aren't, that's for damn sure.'

Still, there was some sizzle that was lacking and that I haven't really seen in his movies since Basterds - maybe it's how good he is at story structure when using chapters (noting he did that in subsequent movies as well). The ending of the movie, Cliff's trek to Spahn Ranch, and Rick's spaghetti western as the 'heavy' opposite Timothy Olyphant were my favorite parts.

My .02 cents if anyone cares for it...saw the movie a second time last night and I found it much more interesting and connected on reviewing. Still not sure where I would put it on the list of his best, but I would say it moved up. It's still not some sort of Kubrick everything-is-connected-and-foreshadows-or-references-back-to-everything-else, but there is so much detail and cultural touchstones that are laced and intertwined throughout. The catharsis for Rick at the end seems maybe pedestrian compared to the heroes (if you can call them that) in QT's previous films, but I think he had a different kind of catharsis in mind here.

I agree that Cliff's fight with Lee is meant to clue you into his physical skills, as well as his violent side in general. The Spahn Ranch scene with the hippie does the same, so maybe you only needed one to get the idea - but the Bruce Lee scene was funny and the Spahn Ranch scene was creepy and tense, so which to cut??

SPOILER ALERT

I also agree that if you're going to turn this into a fantasy revenge story, why not have Charlie at the scene and let him get what he deserves as much or more so than the family members? Two minutes of Charlie vs. an hour or more of scenes with the family members seems skewed to me. Maybe part and parcel of QT's overall attempt here to demythologize Charlie and all he was about. However, I did like the scene where he's in the driveway talking to Jay as Sharon asks who's there and, when Jay turns slightly to answer her, Charlie's face briefly slides into view, then disappears back behind Jay's head. Two seconds of footage and more menacing and unsettling than anything else in the movie.

 

[LionJim]

Good take, @burghBuck.

I question whether the film can work for those who don’t know the story of the Manson family. The scene with Charlie (which, by the way, actually happened more or less as shown) was chilling to me also but to a lot of viewers it’s going to be a throwaway scene. To me, it’s an indication that QT is going to follow the historical record, but to those less up to speed it’s what?

 

[razpsu]

I thought the scene before and after Bruce dern were good. Intense and creepy. Especially the red head. Sorry Bruce.

 

[Delco Lion]

I read where Steve McQueen's x-wife said he was supposed to be at Tate's the night of the murder but he picked up some "hottie" at a club and never made it.

 

[bobolink1]

Good take, @burghBuck.

I question whether the film can work for those who don’t know the story of the Manson family. The scene with Charlie (which, by the way, actually happened more or less as shown) was chilling to me also but to a lot of viewers it’s going to be a throwaway scene. To me, it’s an indication that QT is going to follow the historical record, but to those less up to speed it’s what?

Interview in which sadist pervert QT defends a pedophile.
When the interview surfaced and became controversial 15 years later, he "apologized", as he does only when called out.

 

[LionJim]

I read where Steve McQueen's x-wife said he was supposed to be at Tate's the night of the murder but he picked up some "hottie" at a club and never made it.

Quincy Jones, also.