Once upon a time.... in Hollywood



niceonemarra said:
people dissing this movie are probably the ones who went to see 'amazing avengerman superhero and the CGI academy' and said it was brilliant.
Click to expand...
When's that out?
Cockney Mackem said:
Reservoir Dogs I thought was a tremendous debut, and quite an apt calling card for Tarantino. It showed he wanted to make films from recognisable genres, heavily referencing older films and music that he loves, but with a different spin brought about by the way he creates characters and how they talk to each other.

Pulp Fiction was him properly jumping off into that, creating his own kind of cinematic universe. All his influences and stylistic touches are there. It's a bit contrived in places and sometimes more of a showcase for his style, but it showed a really talented director and writer who offered something different.

Jackie Brown is his masterpiece, and should have been the start of him taking that style of his and creating a body of films that defined an era, the way Scorsese, Coppola and Friedkin defined the 70s.

Instead we got Kill Bill, which has good stuff but too much self indulgence in part 1 and just self indulgence in part 2, and Death Proof which is just shite from beginning to end. This accounts for a decade of Tarantino's career. What a waste.

Inglorious Basterds was a return to form, but still weighed down by Tarantino's desire to be Tarantino more than he wants to get the film right. In this respect he's like a fancy dan winger who needs to do more stepovers rather than just get the bloody cross in, even if that's at the expense of the scoring opportunity. There's too much sitting at tables and talking for a start.

Django Unchained was properly brilliant. It's right back to form, giving you the QT version of history, with lots of reference to Spaghetti Westerns and all that but a bloody good (and bloody) story told in the way only he can.

Hateful 8 imho is too much Tarantino indulging himself at the expense of the film. If you like his style, dialogue and characters there's obviously lots to enjoy but three hours on one set? Making a big thing of shooting a western in 70mm and then setting the whole thing indoors? Put it this way, if you were trying to get someone into Tarantino who hadn't seen his films before, you definitely wouldn't show them this one first.

On the strength of what he's done before, I'm almost certainly going to go and see his new one but it could go either way as to whether I'll love it or be irritated to fuck. Saying that, he's a genuinely interesting director who gets people talking about his films, and I wish a lot of other directors had that kind of individuality.

PS True Romance is in some ways the lost Tarantino film/his best film, depending on the way you look at it. QT didn't direct it himself but Tony Scott delivered the style, references and dialogue intact, and more to the point channeled it all into something that first and foremost works as a film. It's also telling that of the films of his I love best, they're either cowritten with someone else like True Romance (with Roger Avary who was also responsible for a lot of the best bits of Pulp Fiction) or depends on the ideas and style of another writer (Jackie Brown is based on an Elmore Leonard novel).
Click to expand...

Mostly agreed. Except I'd rate Pulp over JB. This new one is up there though imo.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Reservoir Dogs I thought was a tremendous debut, and quite an apt calling card for Tarantino. It showed he wanted to make films from recognisable genres, heavily referencing older films and music that he loves, but with a different spin brought about by the way he creates characters and how they talk to each other.

Pulp Fiction was him properly jumping off into that, creating his own kind of cinematic universe. All his influences and stylistic touches are there. It's a bit contrived in places and sometimes more of a showcase for his style, but it showed a really talented director and writer who offered something different.

Jackie Brown is his masterpiece, and should have been the start of him taking that style of his and creating a body of films that defined an era, the way Scorsese, Coppola and Friedkin defined the 70s.

Instead we got Kill Bill, which has good stuff but too much self indulgence in part 1 and just self indulgence in part 2, and Death Proof which is just shite from beginning to end. This accounts for a decade of Tarantino's career. What a waste.

Inglorious Basterds was a return to form, but still weighed down by Tarantino's desire to be Tarantino more than he wants to get the film right. In this respect he's like a fancy dan winger who needs to do more stepovers rather than just get the bloody cross in, even if that's at the expense of the scoring opportunity. There's too much sitting at tables and talking for a start.

Django Unchained was properly brilliant. It's right back to form, giving you the QT version of history, with lots of reference to Spaghetti Westerns and all that but a bloody good (and bloody) story told in the way only he can.

Hateful 8 imho is too much Tarantino indulging himself at the expense of the film. If you like his style, dialogue and characters there's obviously lots to enjoy but three hours on one set? Making a big thing of shooting a western in 70mm and then setting the whole thing indoors? Put it this way, if you were trying to get someone into Tarantino who hadn't seen his films before, you definitely wouldn't show them this one first.

On the strength of what he's done before, I'm almost certainly going to go and see his new one but it could go either way as to whether I'll love it or be irritated to fuck. Saying that, he's a genuinely interesting director who gets people talking about his films, and I wish a lot of other directors had that kind of individuality.

PS True Romance is in some ways the lost Tarantino film/his best film, depending on the way you look at it. QT didn't direct it himself but Tony Scott delivered the style, references and dialogue intact, and more to the point channeled it all into something that first and foremost works as a film. It's also telling that of the films of his I love best, they're either cowritten with someone else like True Romance (with Roger Avary who was also responsible for a lot of the best bits of Pulp Fiction) or depends on the ideas and style of another writer (Jackie Brown is based on an Elmore Leonard novel).
Click to expand...

Nice.

Wasnt sure if this was a THOR for a second.
 
I thought it was class. Everyone likes different things.
There was some cracking shots in it and QT got his foot fetish in as well as some Easter eggs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I loved it. Good storyline and very enjoyable. Thought the scenes at the end were great from an alternative point of view. The little tie ins to his other movies were good too.
 
wq0pco said:
I'm aware of that and the Tate/Manson background but too much time was spent on the boring stuff, hence the film actually got boring and I can see why people were totally non-plussed at the end.
Click to expand...
I thought it would be more about Tate/Manson and more violent to be fair, I think I might have enjoyed it more if it was. I still liked it mainly because of Leo/Pitt and even the "boring shots" were well done. I did think the scene where Brad Pitt goes to the Manson family compound was class mind.
 
I found it an engrossing film with a main character I got on board with in Dalton. You feel like you are seeing him trudge through a moment in his life that'll shape his future. We didn't see a story about Rick Dalton. We saw a chapter in the life of Rick Dalton. And since life isn't like the films, it's not some snappy quick paced affair but a more methodical walk. So the film does feel flat overall. But it's designed that way (I feel). The violence, much like in life, comes out of nowhere and creates a pivotal moment in his life - but he gets that moment because of the slugging around he had to do.

Of all the characters Tarantino has created, Dalton feels the most three dimensional. Yet in spite of that in a few years when I fancy putting a Tarantino film on, I'm more likely to put Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction on.
 
Went to see it today.

Thought it was enjoyable and interesting and a nice twist on a horrific story that had to wait this long to be twisted without being utterly tasteless.

Tarantino made a film that he always wanted to make: a film about making films with loads of references and some humour and authenticity. He obviously saved the violence to satisfy his own desires about what he thought *should* have happened.

I didn’t read reviews or spoilers (hope I haven’t offered any) so the ending was a surprise and really quite poignant when you know the story.

Anybody who didn’t get all the references and understand about ‘Terry and Dennis’ and the gang and Manson and the location... should crawl out from under the rock that’s been hiding modern popular culture and its historical context for the past 50 years.

Disappointed there wasn’t a knowing reference to Helter Skelter.

😀
 

Back
Top