Posts: 33,873
Threads: 2,549
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation:
3
07-23-2019, 10:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2020, 10:50 PM by Drunk Monk.)
I feel Shatterstarred again. My angle into this screener was a bust. That being said, Tarantino can really move a camera. He has such a keen eye for cinematography and an acute ear for period music. I was very entertained. Leo and Brad kill it. Margot is gorgeous as always, not a meaty role like I, Tonya, but we all know what happens to Sharon. Or do we? I laughed a lot at its wittiness and its ultravi finale. Satisfying overall but my presupposition on where my review was going to go is a total bust. Or is it?
Shadow boxing the apocalypse
Posts: 15,844
Threads: 977
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
1
Total bust. I thought there would be more of him, especially after all the controversy there was in the press about his depiction.
I'm about 2/3rds through. What a slog. Although I do feel I will have lung cancer by the end of it from all the cigarette smoke.
As a matter of fact, my anger does keep me warm
Posts: 15,844
Threads: 977
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
1
12-31-2019, 06:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2022, 01:04 PM by Greg.)
Well, that was a bloated self-indulgent piece of garbage. Technically, it was a superbly crafted film. Production design was top notch. But I could give you five scenes off the top of my head that could be cut and no one would know the difference. Do we really need to see Margot Robbie and her dirty feet watching the Dean Martin 'Matt Helm' film? The answer is no. We don't need to see that. Or Brad Pitt feed his dog? So much bloat. And yet there are still deleted scene. Tim Roth was completely cut from the film.
I watched some of the Behind the Features. The theme the cast said was it was a love letter to Hollywood. Okay, so you spent a lot of money to decorate Sunset Blvd to have a nostalgia fest about your child hood. I did like the use of Musso & Frank's restaurant, because that was my go to old school Hollywood restaurant. And I did spend a lot of time peering at the edge of scenes to see if I could catch any anachronistic elements, which I did not see. But at the end of the day, there wasn't a very good story at the heart of this picture.
And how does a love letter to Hollywood include the Manson Family? And what was the point of changing the actual story of the Sharon Tate murders? If you know anything at all about Hollywood, at the end of the day, Sharon Tate did not survive that night. So, why let her live? It makes me scratch my head. A lot. Someone explain that part to me and I'll revise my review.
As a matter of fact, my anger does keep me warm
Posts: 33,873
Threads: 2,549
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation:
3
It's QT. He assassinated Hitler, remember?
If you think that was bloat, just wait until the director's cut. It's QT, remember?
Shadow boxing the apocalypse
Posts: 33,873
Threads: 2,549
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation:
3
Watched this again with Stacy who enjoyed it despite its ultravi. We both chuckled a lot.
It's so much about Leo & Brad, about the style, the camerawork (many subtle one-ers) and that nostalgia love letter. The dirty feet was QT tapping a foot fetish and appears throughout the film, not just Margot. Matt Helm is the Bruce Lee connection because that's where he and Tate cross paths. It also feeds into the Jay Sebring scene, who was pivotal in introducing Lee into the Hollywood circles. The dog feeding scene also works into the acidic finale.
I do still have my issues with QT overall. He is overrated, but it's his style that makes him so. He's like the Warhol of post millennial filmmaking. He knows how to manipulate his critics, how to capitalize on scandal, and how to poach scenes and make them his own. Killing the Manson murderers is like killing Hitler in Inglourious Basterds. Sharon Tate is just a redux of the Bear Jew. It's OT formula, played out again.
Shadow boxing the apocalypse
Posts: 33,873
Threads: 2,549
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation:
3
Shadow boxing the apocalypse
Posts: 4,082
Threads: 681
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation:
0
[Borrowed from library]
Years ago, when we were a gregarious species, I had a face-to-face with DM soon after this came out. I stated I was boycotting it because of its less than positive depiction of Bruce Lee. DM, who had seen the screener, phfffted it off, saying it was an alternate reality version of Hollywood and its denizens and no big deal.
So I finally saw it. And yes, I can see Tarantino's logic, needing a stuntman (Brad Pitt) to clash with someone and get himself fired -- and not expand the cast to do so. Bruce Lee made the perfect foil, already a part of the inner circle of Tate and Polanski and others. So it was a useful fiction, to amplify his arrogance (a bit) and lessen his skills to enable the conflict -- and preserve a tight cast.
So I'm at peace with this, and it is a fun movie. But I remain puzzled at Tarantino's decision in light of who financed this film. It included Bona Film Group, also known as Beijing Polybona Film Distribution Co. Ltd. Upon the film's release, China didn't like Bruce Lee's depiction and wanted changes made, which Tarantino refused to do, leading China to ban it. (Likewise, Shannon Lee and others who had known Bruce remained bitter about his depiction.)
Anyway, from a purely monetary standpoint, Tarantino's decision may not have been fully thought out. But for me, I'm pretty much fine with it.
Recommended.
To fall down an outrageously deep rabbit hole for this movie, check its wikipedia page.
I'm nobody's pony.
Posts: 15,844
Threads: 977
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
1
As a matter of fact, there was a thread for this movie already.
As a matter of fact, my anger does keep me warm
Posts: 4,082
Threads: 681
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation:
0
(03-22-2022, 01:06 PM)Greg Wrote: As a matter of fact, there was a thread for this movie already. Dammit! The search failed me again. Maybe I misspelled something.
I'm nobody's pony.
Posts: 15,844
Threads: 977
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
1
I searched Tarantino
As a matter of fact, my anger does keep me warm
|
