Movies
-
I liked that Tarantino tried capturing the essence of the 60's, much like he did with Jackie Brown and the 70's. I can take or leave Brad Pitt depending on the roles he plays but enjoyed the rawness of DiCaprio's performance more. I'm ambivalent about the Bruce Lee scene. I know some viewers took issue with how Tarantino portrayed Bruce Lee but I chock it up to Tarantino being Tarantino and taking creative license with his image. I thought the guy who played Bruce Lee actually did a great job with his speech and mannerisms.
-
In typically meta fashion Tarantino pays tribute to the working men of Hollywood, by casting one of it’s biggest stars as a simple stuntman, so simultaneously worshipping the idea of the star. I think Tarantino sees both Pitt and DiCaprio as two of the last true Hollywood icons. I got the impression the whole movie was a love letter to Brad Pitt. The amount of focus on his jawline, butt etc is insane and that scene where he fixes the antenna on the roof is borderline soft porn.
These things are all present in that Bruce Lee scene. I loved it and don’t see it as a sleight to Lee at all. The whole thing is a fairystory anyway, as the ending proves.
-
We enjoyed watching The Two Popes, Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins both brilliant. Good seeing two older actors (Hopkins in his 80s now) playing such great roles.
-
@Madame:
We enjoyed watching The Two Popes, Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins both brilliant. Good seeing two older actors (Hopkins in his 80s now) playing such great roles.
We watched The Two Popes the other night as well. Great movie.
-
I saw Once Upon A Time in Hollywood on the plane, and I liked it.
-
Jackie Chan in his prime. One of the best fight scenes on film. Benny The Jet is epic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Watched movie from 2009 called Moon.
Give it a 7/10. Low budget showed but thought it was interesting idea and liked the actors performance.
Watched Judy.
Give it 8/10. Could have been better but decent watch.
Watched a beautiful day in the neighbourhood.
9/10. Give it a 9 because Tom Hanks is very good here and im a fan. Otherwise 5 or 6 out of 10.
Watched Chips.
8/10. Good comedy 100% worth watching I think.
Watched Knives Out.
7/10. Daniel Craig with hilarious US accent. Ok movie
-
I loved Moon. When it came out the there wasn’t much else like it.
It was a total surprise because I was looking for a movie that my nephews had not seen.
They had seen absolutely everything I suggested so I looked for older sci-fi movies that may have passed them by.
None of us had any idea what it was about and found the movie boring in the beginning.
But oh boy did we get a surprise and the movie really came alive and became very interesting.
-
Not sure why he wanted to tell the story or why he told it the way he did, but "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" could have been at least an hour shorter.
-
He could have made it an hour longer for my part and ditched any narrative pretence. But it is when QT is at his cinematically poetic best that I like him the most, and story be damned. Some of the LA driving montage scenes were exquisite, and the segment when Di Caprio’s character films the western TV show contains some wonderful dialogue and acting.
I think OUATIH is probably his most layered, personal film. It’s also low key in its subject matter and the way he treats it, compared to the more obvious, visceral genre/history inspired films of his middle to late term work.
-
-
Moon does indeed rock.
Once Upon a Time is still boring until the last half hour.
And yes, I know all about Sharon Tate (who seemed more like a prop than a character, BTW) and understand what he was doing in cultivating a sense of dread during that slow burn. Could have told the story (or a more interesting one) and still made it pretty in 90 minutes. Maybe QT couldn't squeeze in enough female toes in that timeframe…One final thought is that a better tribute to Tate than a 2-dimensional character with zero development and only a few lines SPOILER: might have been for her to be involved in deterring the Manson family. I mean while we're revising things and paying tribute, why let two fictional characters get all the glory? I think if she could have fended them off and called for help and then had the neighbors/cowboys/superheroes swoop in, that would have been a more satisfying ending. Though, the ending wasn't really the problem.
-
I read a few articles criticising the treatment of Tate, from a gender perspective, and I think it is a valid point. QT was called out on it at Cannes and gave a typically boorish response. Robbie, when asked was loyal to the film and director. All a bit disappointing in this day and age.
That being said, and rightly or wrongly I think that considering the movie as a revisionist nostalgia fantasy/fairytale means it makes sense for Tate to be this idealised über feminine starlet. The sequence where she goes to watch her own movie being a case in point. Her, and Polanski too, are unwitting, utterly innocent, little elf-like beings, existing in their own hallowed, ethereal plane, far removed from the world of our grubbier, more earthly heroes. The two of them don't get their hands remotely dirty and have no conception of the danger they are in at any point in the film.
For me that part of it is the flimsy frame that Tarantino hangs the real work on, which as I've implied earlier in the thread is his love letter to a period, to the city, to the workers of Hollywood, to the nascent glory of TV culture and not least to The Leading Man. That's the real story for the director, the Manson/Tate situation is a over-developed MacGuffin, necessary in order to tell it.
I found it a sumptuous bit of filmmaking, and it will be forever amongst some of my favourite films I suspect. But these things are, fortunately, like everything else worth talking about and enjoying, subjectivity and personal preference make the world go round. Hell, I still believe David Lynch's "Dune" is a misunderstood, misrepresented pearl of a movie, to be enjoyed at least once a year
