In many ways taking apart Tarantino’s ideas leaves nothing. Why he chose the time and place was related to the end of an era....maybe? Of course those are my own interjections. Hollywood probably as it’s a tribute to Tarantino’s love for the place. So I guess I feel he loves both 1969 and Hollywood. He’s at the position in life where he can basically do what he wants, and get away with it. The thing is I never thought of it but how many of his movies are in the past? Basically......Inglorious Bastards has been in the past and every movie since (4)......and the 6 before........ present-day? At least that’s how I figure it? So he has only gone into history with the last 4 movies.
My father walked out of the theater at that point. Which is a perfect example of how incredibly violent Tarantino can be in his movies, but people desensitized don’t notice it.
But maybe he’s the best with that style, you know..........guns accidentally going off randomly?
His movies are violent, and from what I've heard, he enjoys the expression of violence in different ways. That's one of the key signature of his. He likes to show brutal violence.
Shaw Brothers did brutal violence way before Tarantino. Tarantino's gun violence was influenced by John Woo's with multiple gun shots/wounds. I've seen movies of his that he takes from other movies, and just looks like copy of the original style, but not as good as an original, which is what I'm not really into. Like Kill Bill for example. I would rather watch a John Woo Hong Kong classic in which he does these gun violence scenes properly with a more of a purpose. On the other hand, Tarantino's adaption of such style is just seems like for the sake of violence. So yeah, I can see why there would be people that are uncomfortable with his depiction of violence.
Saving Private Ryan is a prime example of violence expressed as a necessity. Can't say the same for Tarantino.
End of an era of what? You mean 1969 marks an end of an era? Why does that specific year mark it?
His movies are violent, and from what I've heard, he enjoys the expression of violence in different ways. That's one of the key signature of his. He likes to show brutal violence.
Shaw Brothers did brutal violence way before Tarantino. Tarantino's gun violence was influenced by John Woo's with multiple gun shots/wounds. I've seen movies of his that he takes from other movies, and just looks like copy of the original style, but not as good as an original, which is what I'm not really into. Like Kill Bill for example. I would rather watch a John Woo Hong Kong classic in which he does these gun violence scenes properly with a more of a purpose. On the other hand, Tarantino's adaption of such style is just seems like for the sake of violence. So yeah, I can see why there would be people that are uncomfortable with his depiction of violence.
Saving Private Ryan is a prime example of violence expressed as a necessity. Can't say the same for Tarantino.
When I say the end of an era, it’s simply my injection. But....many have seen the Tate murders and subsequent Manson trials as the end of the Flower Power era. The end of a style of innocence and idealism that was the 1960s. If the movie shows this, it’s simply a matter of opinion.
But no Shaw movies were ever mainstream like Pulp Fiction as far as I know. Your right the violence is taken to a different level, almost surreal level starting with Pulp Fiction. IMO
So we have to ask.....are Tarantino’s movies popular because they ARE violent, or is the violence just a component?
Here is one article but there’s many which simply tell of the times when the hippy crowd went from happy hippies to feared hippies. The Manson trials were more shocking than we can perceive today. I mean I even remember the teacher talking about it to us in first and second grade.
So in one way the movie could be looked at as the end of an era, but only if people choose to. IMO
When I say the end of an era, it’s simply my injection. But....many have seen the Tate murders and subsequent Manson trials as the end of the Flower Power era. The end of a style of innocence and idealism that was the 1960s. If the movie shows this, it’s simply a matter of opinion.
But no Shaw movies were ever mainstream like Pulp Fiction as far as I know. Your right the violence is taken to a different level, almost surreal level starting with Pulp Fiction. IMO
So we have to ask.....are Tarantino’s movies popular because they ARE violent, or is the violence just a component?
I had no idea hippies were depiction of the Manson family. That really changes how I see this movie. I think it's also important to know what actually happened with famous murder the movie is about. Without knowledge of all this, what's going on in the movie will seem much less significant than they are.
This pretty much explains it. Tarantino tells stories of a corrected history with projecting the violence on those that deserves it. That explains his aim.
He could have told the story factually as possible or he can spice up the event with good dose of fiction, which he seems to do with his movies. He's not looking to tell movie adaptions of what actually happened.
I had no idea hippies were depiction of the Manson family.
This pretty much explains it. Tarantino tells stories of a corrected history with projecting the violence on those that deserves it. That explains his aim.
He could have told the story factually as possible or he can spice up the event with good dose of fiction, which he seems to do with his movies. He's not looking to tell movie adaptions of what actually happened.
It was like Charles Manson used the hippy movement to attract people but Manson was a hardened convict, who first tried to make it in the entertainment business. When those dreams ended he used his brainwashed followers to attack the very house where terry-melcher used to live. So the house and anyone in it was actually symbolic of an industry that rejected Charles Manson, just like society in general rejected him starting in his youth. Manson’s cooperative style of living was a parallel of many new “extended” “family” type family house structures which were showing up all over the world and reflected the “hippy” culture. Only the process was different in his “commune”......and the end results different. These people living this new lifestyle were in many places but were never looked at as dangerous, until after Manson. Hence the end of the Flower Power Generation.
It was like Charles Manson used the hippy movement to attract people but Manson was a hardened convict, who first tried to make it in the entertainment business. When those dreams ended he used his brainwashed followers to attack the very house where terry-melcher used to live. So the house and anyone in it was actually symbolic of an industry that rejected Charles Manson, just like society in general rejected him starting in his youth. Manson’s cooperative style of living was a parallel of many new “extended” “family” type family house structures which were showing up all over the world and reflected the “hippy” culture. Only the process was different in his “commune”......and the end results different. These people living this new lifestyle were in many places but never looked at as dangerous, until after Manson.
Ok, so when the hippies appearing seems to be where the movie starts to develop for the pay-off at the ending. So, it seems there's a lot of unnecessary stuff in the movies, particularly the early stuff. The plot doesn't really develop until the hippies come out. I guess the early stuff introduces you to Tate and Roman Polanski, but the main two character's events from earlier on doesn't add much to this story line. Like somebody pointed out earlier, this movie could have been edited better and thus shorter, as it was rather long.
Tarantino could have made things more obvious with Manson, and gone more details into it, but he chose to focus a bit on the Hollywood actors.
Ok, so when the hippies appearing seems to be where the movie starts to develop for the pay-off at the ending. So, it seems there's a lot of unnecessary stuff in the movies, particularly the early stuff. The plot doesn't really develop until the hippies come out. I guess the early stuff introduces you to Tate and Roman Polanski, but the main two character's events from earlier on doesn't add much to this story line. Like somebody pointed out earlier, this movie could have been edited better and thus shorter, as it was rather long.
Tarantino could have made things more obvious with Manson, and gone more details into it, but he chose to focus a bit on the Hollywood actors.
I think that I need to see the movie again. But my brother has seen it twice and says the first half is better the second time. So it goes along with my idea that Tarantino movies are better and better after you see them multiple times. For me the movie didn’t get good until the western bar part. In the bar when they would then show it as them making a movie was totally real. Your mind thought you were seeing a western movie, then he made a mistake and dropped out of character. Then I realized a I cared what happened in the movie. But guessing maybe the first part is building up the characters? Many don’t mind the first half, but it was boring I thought? Though it may be better on a second watch.
Tarantino is making what I think is a movie that surprises people because it does not show what you thought it would show. Where Hollywood many times would promise one thing and deliver another.
Is Tarantino doing with his movies of history what we do as humans by delusions of facts in remembering the past the way we want to? But we all know it would have been in bad taste to show Sharon Tate be killed. Instead we get to see her being completely humble and beautiful and using politeness to see her own movie. All the stars were polite in Tarantino’s storybook Hollywood. Everyone was polite? Except Jeff Bridges Wife, but she was reflective maybe of people who do her job in Hollywood so.....it was a Hollywood inside joke, the way she acted.
He doesn’t show Manson, as only once maybe because he doesn’t need to? But also again, he is doing the opposite of what we think to outsmart us.
Ok, so when the hippies appearing seems to be where the movie starts to develop for the pay-off at the ending. So, it seems there's a lot of unnecessary stuff in the movies, particularly the early stuff. The plot doesn't really develop until the hippies come out. I guess the early stuff introduces you to Tate and Roman Polanski, but the main two character's events from earlier on doesn't add much to this story line. Like somebody pointed out earlier, this movie could have been edited better and thus shorter, as it was rather long.
Tarantino could have made things more obvious with Manson, and gone more details into it, but he chose to focus a bit on the Hollywood actors.
I didn't think the beginning was gratuitous. I viewed the Manson family as being secondary to the overall plot: which was life in Hollywood (for example, Tarantino decided to leave out the character of Charles Manson). Instead the primary characters are an actor coming to grips with him being typecast and "washed out"....along with his stunt double who also relives older days (his recollection with Bruce Lee might be considered unnecessary, but it still puts an amusing slant on a Hollywood icon). Scenes with Sharon Tate are a contrast in which she's young and having lust at being a movie star. There's also enough interaction with the Manson family, that Pitt's character goes to an old ranch that served as sets for westerns that he had worked on years before.....and him having a connection with George Spahn (a real life person). I think his use of typecast being westerns is from his great respect of Sergio Leone. Ironically, I watched Once Upon a Time in the West last night. I can see analogies to the movie in other Tarantino movies that aren't related to westerns: I heard quite a bit of music themes that Tarantino recreates. I think it's also an interesting artistic choice to spend more time on main characters that are mostly fictional to add more credence of the ending being an alternate history.
One of my favorite action movies. Haven't seen this one in over 10 years and it's just as good as I remember.
Only real negative is some of the dialogue wasn't that great, but no big deal.
I'd rank this up there with Die Hard, Speed etc.
Another one I like and watch often is "Executive Decision" by Kurt Russel. Lots of pretty bad acting in that by some of the smaller roles.
If you can, also be sure to watch "Breakdown" with Kurt Russel. I think that one is near perfect to me.
PS it's funny how bad some of the older DVDs are when it comes to video quality.
The worst ones are those that are in square box format, but widescreen (inside the square box!).
The absolute worst DVDs were the early Hong Kong releases around 2000.
Even for $5-$10USD you'd expect better quality. They're now a lot better and way more expensive.
South Korea always had the best DVD releases, but were expensive. Many of them were region free (and english subtitled!) despite being labeled as region 3 (or whatever it is there, I forget).
I don't miss VCDs. Luckily those didn't catch on in the USA.
I don't know if many know this, but I read that most movie releases in Hong Kong were required to have English subtitles.
Not sure if this is still true or not.
I used to rent 8 Hong Kong DVDs a week from a place like Netflix called Webjade (no longer in business).
I wish I still had that much free time!
One of my favorite action movies. Haven't seen this one in over 10 years and it's just as good as I remember.
Only real negative is some of the dialogue wasn't that great, but no big deal.
I'd rank this up there with Die Hard, Speed etc.
Another one I like and watch often is "Executive Decision" by Kurt Russel. Lots of pretty bad acting in that by some of the smaller roles.
If you can, also be sure to watch "Breakdown" with Kurt Russel. I think that one is near perfect to me.
PS it's funny how bad some of the older DVDs are when it comes to video quality.
The worst ones are those that are in square box format, but widescreen (inside the square box!).
The absolute worst DVDs were the early Hong Kong releases around 2000.
Even for $5-$10USD you'd expect better quality. They're now a lot better and way more expensive.
South Korea always had the best DVD releases, but were expensive. Many of them were region free (and english subtitled!) despite being labeled as region 3 (or whatever it is there, I forget).
I don't miss VCDs. Luckily those didn't catch on in the USA.
I don't know if many know this, but I read that most movie releases in Hong Kong were required to have English subtitles.
Not sure if this is still true or not.
I used to rent 8 Hong Kong DVDs a week from a place like Netflix called Webjade (no longer in business).
I wish I still had that much free time!
Did you watch a new mastering of Cliffhanger on UHD? I recently got Cliffhanger on UHD disc when there was a discount. I've also gotten most the Die Hard movies in UHD. Can add a new level of experience to films to watch them in their full potential (where with given scenes, studios are now siding with showing film grain vs totally softening detail). Also amazing to see how many movies are being remixed to Atmos or DTS:X. With that and improved dynamic range, I'm double dipping quite a few movies...even ones I had on blu-ray. It's also a given that I'll get some classic movies as soon as they're released on 4K: for me, especially Stanley Kubrick movies (he was a photographer himself, and always has good cinematography).
I was sure I would like this and skipped it in the theater. Now I am glad I didn't bother going to see it.
Hated the script and the dialogue is painfully bad. Lots of pretentious narration like something out of a Terrence Malick film.
Everyone in the film talks so slowly or whispers, as if they are half asleep when filming started.
I know they are going for a specific tone for the movie, but why do so many sci-fi movies do this?
Brad Pitt's acting is not very good in this and the only decent acting was from...well I won't say.
During parts I felt like I was doing my own Mystery Science Theater commentary and even laughing at so many ridiculous parts.
I actually think this one should be classified as part comedy.
You know what would really be better than this? A Planet of the Apes movie, but in space!
Matt Reeves could do it and he should make it as serious as possible with poetic Terrence Malick quotes for the Apes.
Don't know where I came up with this great idea? Watch Ad Astra!
It should also contain lots of shoot-outs on Lunar Rovers (again, watch As Astra).
During the movie I was also reminded of an old quote from "Contact" about going wind surfing with dear old dad.
I think they sort of borrowed that idea for a scene in this movie.
That's a movie i'd suggest watching instead. I didn't like it much the first viewing, but now it's a favorite and kept getting better and better.
You know what other movie is better? "Passengers". More thought went into that script by far.
I originally gave that film a 7/10, but now I like it a lot more.
I guess there is one good thing about this movie. Cinematography is great and it has the same cinematographer as "Interstellar".
I think as a silent movie it might be a better film.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
