Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[blankall]

Also saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Really liked it. Although I was shocked at how Un-PC it was.

Spoiler!

That was definitely the most brutal beating of a woman I've ever seen. The depiction of Bruce Lee was hilarious, but a lot of people are up in arms about it.

I guess Tarantino gets away with a lot of it because the movie was clearly meant to be tongue in cheek.

[snootchiebootchies]

Spoiler!

I saw the new Tarantino last night and the obvious analogue in Tarantino's oeuvre is Inglorious Basterds. The difference is that when the fire/massacre scene in the movie theatre comes up in Inglorious Basterds, everyone knows it is a "re-imagining".

I would argue most people do not know about the Tate murders to understand/appreciate what's going on in the new film. When the credits rolled, I told my wife what really happened to Sharon Tate and she was shocked. So the climactic final scene obviously had a much different effect on her than it did on me.

Still, it was a great film. It was not only a love letter to the movies and to Hollywood, it was also a love letter to Los Angeles. I could have easily stayed immersed in 1969 Los Angeles for another 2.5 hours. Many have referred to the final scene in this thread but for me, the best set-pieces were Cliff at the Spahn Ranch and Rick Dalton in the trailer threatening to kill himself and then coming back out and delivering that great performance for Wannamaker. And speaking of that great performance, what about that Julia Butters girl?!

[nfotiu]

You should spoiler the first paragraph. I do agree with your points in that last paragraph.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You should spoiler the first paragraph. I do agree with your points in that last paragraph.

Done. I don't think it spoiled anything but better to be safe.

[N-E-B]

Saw The Lion King last night. It was good. Not great, and to be honest I’m not sure how necessary it was to make but it’s bringing in lots of money so what do I know?

Visually it could be one of the most amazing movies I’ve ever seen. I don’t think the musical numbers translated well to live action and I felt some of the emotion was lost in the characters because of the live action.

I don’t think the hyenas were done very well either. They lost some of their charm from the originals. James Earl Jones was fantastic as Mufasa.

[CofR]

Anybody else see The Farewell yet? I finally got to see it tonight and really enjoyed it. Awkwafina was great, very well made film.

I’ve seen 52 movies with a 2019 release date so far, and The Farewell is my 3rd favourite film of the year so far.

[CofR]

Double post

[Cecil Terwilliger]

For anyone who has seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Spoiler!

When Brad Pitt is on the roof fixing the antenna, was he imagining what might’ve happened or was that a flashback explaining why Kurt Russell doesn’t like him?

[Yamer]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is...a movie. I think. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what I spent the last 2.5 hours watching. Film studies classes probably had a golden goose fall into their pretentious laps, but from an entertainment perspective there isn't much bang for your buck IMO. Probably the first Tarantino flick I didn't care for, and the first film in a long time I kept glancing at my watch.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

For anyone who has seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Spoiler!

When Brad Pitt is on the roof fixing the antenna, was he imagining what might’ve happened or was that a flashback explaining why Kurt Russell doesn’t like him?

Spoiler!

Flashback. The Green Hornet ended in 1967.

[CofR]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

For anyone who has seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Spoiler!

When Brad Pitt is on the roof fixing the antenna, was he imagining what might’ve happened or was that a flashback explaining why Kurt Russell doesn’t like him?

Spoiler!

I interpreted it to be a flashback

[Erick Estrada]

I thoroughly enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. We went to a late 10:25 start and while I was aware I was watching a long movie I never got tired or looked at my watch nor did my wife who is notorious for falling asleep during evening movies. I have to commend Tarantino for making a movie that effectively teleports you right in the middle of the late 60's and immerses you into the prevalent Hollywood and hippie culture of the time. While not his typical formula I quite like the departure from his darker stuff as this is more comedic and lighthearted (for him at least) storytelling. I can see moviegoers used to instant gratification of the Marvel movies maybe not getting this because there's a lot of dialogue but to me this is what going to the movies is all about as few movies have whisked me away to a different time period like this one. Also loved the subtle tribute to Sharon Tate. IMO one of his his best.

[direwolf]

Finally saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood yesterday and it was entertaining as hell. Excellent writing as usual, terrific acting, and just a fun ride overall. Pitt and DiCaprio have great chemistry together and the movie does a fantastic job of immersing you in that time period. Tarantino's films have always featured lots of humor, but I'd say this one is arguably his funniest movie to date. Lots of belly laughs from the audience at my screening, particularly during the scenes involving Pitt's character.

It's also his least violent movie. But when the violence does happen...holy s**t!

The recreation of 60s Hollywood was very impressive. It made me want to jump into a time machine and just go back and hang out there for a while. Great movie!

[Magnum PEI]

I was impressed with Leo's performance. I kinda think maybe he's a little overrated as an actor but he was really good in it.

[Yamer]

I will say that from the bit parts to the leads the performances were top notch. I'll echo that Pitt and DiCaprio really seemed to have some chemistry going, but I think Leo is one of the most adaptive actors out there and can probably work with anyone. I also have to give credit that it is a VERY immersive film. Definitely felt like I was in late 1960s LA.

However it just felt, meandering, I guess is the best word for it. Throughout the whole film I kept asking where this was going and why, and I still had those questions at the end of the movie. I had some catharsis watching the end, and the most interesting scenes were at the Spahn Ranch and the flashback.

Perhaps I missed or didn't appreciate what the experience was supposed to be, but it was a bit of a snoozer. I also don't get people calling this film hilarious or other such adjectives. I didn't really find it funny at all, actually. Fascinating glimpses into the past, but certainly nothing humorous about it.

[djsFlames]

If you didn't crack up at the final act as well as the flashback part then well.. I don't know, might want to work on your sense of humour?

But yeah, a lot of Tarantino films tend to meander, while also being highly watchable still. It seems like he wanted to bask in the 60s atmosphere. As some critics called it, it's more or less a "hang out" drama/comedy, which seems about right.

Could his movies be more cohesive in terms of plot? Sure. But I'd expect by now people would know what they're walking into.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

If you didn't crack up at the final act as well as the flashback part then well.. I don't know, might want to work on your sense of humour?

That was hardly bust a gut material, but thanks, tips.

But yeah, a lot of Tarantino films tend to meander, while also being highly watchable still. It seems like he wanted to bask in the 60s atmosphere. As some critics called it, it's more or less a "hang out" drama/comedy, which seems about right.

Could his movies be more cohesive in terms of plot? Sure. But I'd expect by now people would know what they're walking into.

Narratively it was pretty on key for Tarantino (his storytelling certainly has never been an issue for me), but I would argue that

Spoiler!

apart from the uber violence tagged on at the end

it was a large departure from his MO.

Maybe when I re-watch it I'll actively adjust my expectations knowing what it is all about and try to aim for that experience. "Hang out" dramedy might be an accurate description as structurally I don't really see the point of the film other than period immersion.

EDIT: I should have been more clear before. There is certainly humour in the film and I made a mistake implying there isn't. I just didn't find it that markedly more funny than other Tarantino films, and while I chuckled in a few spots it really wasn't all that humorous to me.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

If you didn't crack up at the final act as well as the flashback part then well.. I don't know, might want to work on your sense of humour?

Humor is a pretty subjective thing, so I get why certain people might not find this stuff funny. Personally I had a blast, and judging by the response in the theatre, so did the majority of the people I watched it with. The ending in particular seemed to generate the most laughs, especially the manner in which Pitt's character dealt with the situation. The entire sequence was just flat out funny and completely insane, which has been Tarantino's style since day 1.

[burnin_vernon]

Sometimes people want so badly to laugh because of the artists' (directors, actors, writers) track history/reputation, that they come to theater with laughter loaded and ready to fire, when the humour isn't even there.

I like Wes Anderson but I feel his audience overlaughs at his jokes. I can see Tarantino fans doing the same.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

Sometimes people want so badly to laugh because of the artists' (directors, actors, writers) track history/reputation, that they come to theater with laughter loaded and ready to fire, when the humour isn't even there.

I like Wes Anderson but I feel his audience overlaughs at his jokes. I can see Tarantino fans doing the same.

No.

[djsFlames]

Humour is subjective to an extent.

But the things that make people laugh tend to overlap between individuals more often than not and share a certain formula, otherwise certain comedians wouldn't resonate with such a large audience. There are common ingredients that go into making something funny. Usually involves making statements that are painfully relatable, being clever, going head on into an objectively uncomfortable situations, exhibiting behaviour that is not conventional to a situation, or taking something to an unexpected extreme. Things that trigger a mix of shock, delight and amusement.

For me it's somewhat difficult to imagine someone staying completely straight faced through that entire third act tbh. Pitt and Leo's reactions and how they dealt with what should've been a terrifying situation was pretty damn ridiculous and fell under a couple of those categories. Hard to take that seriously. I think you'd have to be in a crummy mood to not find some enjoyment in what went down. But if you didn't, then I suppose you have a very specific kind of humour that doesn't align with few kinds that they hit right on the head.

Come to think of it, my parents wouldn't find it funny either. They're a tough crowd. They're tickled pink by Stephen Colbert though. Some people have that mocking politicians and dad joke humour combination with not a lot in between.