Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

This film sounds like its going to be shit.

The cast is certainly eclectic (I never expected to see Leo, Pitt and Cruise in same pic) but Tarantino lost the touch a while ago and the whole Charles Manson thing seems forced.

I predict a shitass movie but movie nerds are going to spend the next 20 years trying to convince everyone how its a masterpiece.

Screamfeeder said:

When exactly do you think that was? DeathProof was probably his weakest movie and that was 2 years before Basterds (which I do really like) and 5 years before Django (which I also really like). I'm in no way some kind of QT nerd and have even said what a dick I think the guy is, but he does make watchable, quotable movies that are easy to remember.

Click to expand...

Kill Bill had some moments but ultimately I found it a chore to watch. I think thats where the skid began. Grindhouse as we know was terrible. I admit I only watched about 1/4th of Basterds, but thats only because its as much as I could stomach. I mean I really hate Nazis but even then the movie to me was total masturbatory garbage. Django was pretty decent but feels formulaic at this point - its the same revenge mechanism he keeps reusing, its the same whites/blacks dynamic he leans on so heavily to prop up his movies. The Hateful Eight was just forgettable. I enjoyed the whodunnit aspect of it a bit as opposed to the usual "revenge" story but the whole thing was just utterly unremarkable.

In contrast, I ended up watching Jackie Brown a few months back and found it to be still a pretty good movie. Tarantino hasnt made a good movie in 20 years.

Screamfeeder said:

You should sit down and watch Basterds all the way through. It was a good movie. Django was fucking hilarious dude. Taking that movie too seriously is where a lot of people didn't like it I think.

I am with you about Jackie Brown though. Probably his most underrated movie.

Click to expand...

I didnt take Django seriously, I watched it like a spaghetti western, not "12 Years a Slave". Its just the same over the top Quentin Tarantino. Thin on plot and overstylized - which is not necessarily a bad thing, but he's done this exact same schtick in multiple movies thus far and its OLD.

I wont even bother watching Basterds, its just another "revenge" schlock of his jacked up to the Nth degree which is only possible because the antagonists are Nazis. I mean no one likes Nazis right? It's the kind of movie I expect from 3rd year drop out of UCLA film school who becomes disilluisoned after seeing his 6 figure debt and joins Anti-Fa to bring down The Man.

Except that QT is a grown man who's been doing this for 20 years.

Screamfeeder said:

Honestly? That seems a bit absurd but ok. It's not like he is going to reinvent himself as a Socrsese or a Kurosawa at this point (two people he has openly been heavily influenced by. He has his niche, enjoys the films he makes and has a solid base of fans. Why change a working formula? Guy can remake Dogs and Pulp Fiction over and over in different settings all he wants.

You should watch some of those UCLA student films. They are fucking godawful. Not nearly on par with some of the crap that comes out of AFI. /shudder

Click to expand...

But that's the thing. His cachet is "visionary filmmaker" and all he does is still coast on "Pulp Fiction" and just recycle same shit. If I wanted to watch a forgettable, serviceable director who's just there as a warm body to work the 1st unit, I'd go watch 30 other guys wgosr names no one remembers

Screamfeeder said:

I'd say that his cachet (good fucking $5.00 word there brother) is that he is a pulp culture exploiter. Also you just said it. 30 other guys no one remembers. But here we are talking about a guy someone remembers. He took a formula that works and just does it again and again but in different settings and it's still entertaining to me. It's not to you and we both have assholes so it's ok.

It's like if someone took the original Deus Ex story and general conceptual gameplay and just put those exact same concepts into a Western setting.

Click to expand...

But that's the whole thing, people remember him because of one movie and they convince themselves that the rest of his filmography is almost just as good. Imagine Roland Emmerich putting out The Hateful Eight, that movie would be rightfully panned but here you have fanbois doing mental gymnastics as how of a visionary movie it is. But it's just a forgettable movie who's shock value lies once again in it's racial dynamic (again) and it's not even done that well.

You don't have to agree with me and that's fine. But I have a low opinion of QT these days just movie-wise. When you take external factors like his defense of Polanski and his general Weinstein/Miramax knob slobbing - he's just a dissapointing person all around. A white guy who desperately wants to be black, a filmmaker who desperately wants to be Kurosawa and just a low class fucker scheming his way to money and fame.

Screamfeeder said:

Are you fucking kidding me?! A western drama going on while THE WORLD IS BEING DESTROYED by *insert global event here*?!?!?!

That is awesome.

Fuck me dude I am going to work on a treatment of that shit RIGHT NOW. You will get zero credit obviously.

Click to expand...

Lmao, just acknowledge the fact that if some schlocky director made that exact same movie it would have been shat on. But because it's QT were supposed to deeply examine it like its a Vonnegut novel.

Screamfeeder said:

When exactly do you think that was? DeathProof was probably his weakest movie and that was 2 years before Basterds (which I do really like) and 5 years before Django (which I also really like). I'm in no way some kind of QT nerd and have even said what a dick I think the guy is, but he does make watchable, quotable movies that are easy to remember.

Click to expand...

Stuntman Mike is awesome.