Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

Oh, whoops. Honestly I didn't make it past the first couple lines yet, where I saw the Primus reference.

I didn't find that review even slightly affecting. Affected, maybe.

I'm sorry the writer's friend killed himself. One of my best friends drove off a bridge. It sucks. But he failed to make the connection between that and the movie (was his dead friend a Tarantino fan?), so the part of me that reads movie reviews for thoughts on art thinks that maybe he should have written a review of the new Quentin Tarantino movie, and then written about his dead friend on Facebook.

i thought the review was v moving - thx for posting ums

I'm w unperson for once!

Agree that it's not a 'movie review' per se but I would say he drew a connection btw the film & his friend well enough: this movie about male friendships, aging, the fragility of macho personas, & violence inspired the writer to reflect about his own recent experiences with same.

I found the film nearly worthless, except as a retro popcult wallow. DiCaprio's acting is terrible, let's not mince words. He does that thing bad actors do when you hand them a cigarette, he fiddles with it incessantly and takes a drag every five seconds instead of smoking it like a normal person would. And it was embarrassing how he persisted with that silly, implausible accent.

Maybe the closest the film comes to having a point is near the end when Tex & the girls are in the car and the Susan Atkins character talks about having been weaned in a culture of violence, but that idea has been expressed more eloquently by the Manson Family themselves, whose rambling pronouncements contain more wit than this script. Yeah I know the film is mainly supposed to be about male aging/machismo, but it's far too artless to impress me on that angle.

I'd rather have rewatched The Wrecking Crew than sit through this. Alternatively if it were just 30 minutes of Brad Pitt driving around listening to old radio hits while passing mock-ups of old LA hotspots that would encapsulate all the joy I got from it.

ughhhhhhhhh you guys suck

this movie is SO good and all you nerds do is complain i cant stand it

seriously go back to the star trek thread nerds

I saw it last night and loved it. Was completely blown away by how convincingly it immerses you in that world. I thought the easy going pace gave it a great vibe, and damn, Brad Pitt is aging quite well. The whole ranch sequence was incredibly creepy, and captured exactly how I had imagined it.

The actual climax was the only bum note, disappointing in part because as soon as they announced it was a Manson family movie with Leo and Brad, it was obvious where Tarantino would go with it. That scene though was mostly redeemed by the final shot that gave it an unsettling poignancy, as if it was making clear that no, these people really died horrific deaths and will never come back, this was merely a fairy tale.

i thought it was cool that Rick’s episode of Lancer was really directed by Sam Wannamaker who really wore a cape irl, and really starred James Stacy (Oliphant) and Wayne Maunder (Luke Perry)

My wife and I really liked it and are going to see it again.

we’re going again tomorrow night

haha I haven't see this so come at me but I know it in my heart Josefa otm^

but per vg this nerd will bow out now

(although I can't think of single nerdier thing in the whole wide world than QT)

ok sorry calling you all nerds is too large of a pigeonhole

JOYLESS nerds is what i meant

:D

fair

the hour where 'nothing happens' is the second day, where we see someone making a movie, someone watching a movie, and someone living a movie.

Cant wait to see this tbh.

And i hated the last couple. But the bad reviews make it sound like something i will like

It's certainly way better than the last 2. I'm baffled by the people who think Django is one of his best movies. I thought it was hot garbage.

"Joyless" feelings given me by IB is what made me quit this supernerd's output. As someone wrote on L'boxd, "I’m just not that interested in all the shit and obscure minutiae floating around inside Tarantino’s head."

xpost It's much better than the last two. However, I think this movie's success, unfortunately, hinges on those last 20-25 minutes, so imo how you feel about the preceding 2+ hours - and there's a lot to like - is tempered by how you feel about the conclusion. And tbh I didn't even dislike those last 20-25 minutes, I just think they were a lame way to end this particular movie.

I only saw Django once, and while iirc it had so many more problems than this one, to the best of my memory one of the big ones was that it indulgently ended twice. That is, the movie reaches a logical conclusion, then there's the long digression with Tarantino as an Aussie, and then the movie basically backtracks and gets a redundant second conclusion? Something like that. With Hateful 8 (again, saw it once), I want to say the thing that hurt it the most was the redundant, unnecessary flashback, which was similarly indulgent and detrimental.

Ultimately, it's not the movie references and minutia that overstuff these films, imo, it's that there is just not enough story or depth to the characters. I liked Basterds a lot, but not for all the titular Brad Pitt bullshit. It was (from memory; now that I think about it I've not seen *any* of his post Kill Bill movies more than once) the richness of the Shosanna character that drew me in and enhanced the payoff. These last three were nowhere near as satisfying to me. I like the characters in this one, they're fun, but they add up to nothing, imo, and the conclusion is a bs means of imposing a Big Cultural Statement where there is none.

But obviously there is plenty of disagreement here.

has anyone watched the longer cut of Hateful 8 that's on Netflix (broke into hour segments)?

I read a few things that said it was misleading. Like this:

That “extended version” moniker is a tad deceptive, though: While the full runtime for the miniseries version of the movie clocks in at about 211 minutes, each episode also contains roughly 8 minutes of opening and ending credits that were mostly absent from the original film. As such, the miniseries reportedly mostly resembles the 187-minute extended “roadshow” version that Tarantino toured around the country in 70 mm, give or take a few edits, extra scenes, and alternate takes here and there.

I watched the Netflix series and kind of liked it better than my previous viewing of the cinematic version. I think it was mostly down to be less bothered by the interminable run time when broken up into episodes.

I haven't seen either so have been debating which one to watch; I'll probably do the 4 parter.

https://www.thewrap.com/bruce-lee-daughter-mockery-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-shannon-lee/

hey there was no n word in the script for the first time ever. baby steps

"Hippie" was the epithet thrown around in its place.

Yeah this might be the first one - not sure about IB or Death Proof, haven't seen either since they came out, does he use it in either? Can't remember a context or scene where it would make sense

No N word, and also ... no black characters.

the only way QT can excise the n word is to have no black people in the movie, damn

Right

i want to see this because i like LA, and i like LA movies, especially those set in the 60s and 70s. but generally late tarantella (lol) is not my favourite

Didn't mention how cool it was to see Lena Dunham in a big movie. Hope she does more acting.

Dakota Fanning was awesome. She's been keeping kind of a low profile, but she's fantastic in darker roles- Kelly Reichardt's Night Moves is carried by her and Peter Sarsgaard (Jesse Eisenberg stars and sucks)

xp It really reminded me of Altman, particularly California Split (another melancholic hangout movie that suddenly becomes really sad at the end)

https://y.yarn.co/4f6e92cc-bde5-4acb-b7fe-633e33f5c13a_screenshot.jpg

XP

when i saw the movie i thought that the bruce lee fight was what cliff was imagining his day on set to be like if Dicaprio hadn't sent him home...i did not realize it was supposed to have actually happened, that is in pretty fuckin poor taste

I only saw Django once, and while iirc it had so many more problems than this one, to the best of my memory one of the big ones was that it indulgently ended twice. That is, the movie reaches a logical conclusion, then there's the long digression with Tarantino as an Aussie, and then the movie basically backtracks and gets a redundant second conclusion?

this is totally fair and why i def don't think it's one of his "best"; just his only good one besides IG (and to a lesser extent Hollywood) this century.

tho tbf i have not seen KB2

KB2 is good.

.i did not realize it was supposed to have actually happened,

It helps if one knows something about the Green Hornet show, which was filmed in '66-'67.

BTW, I believe the whole Green Hornet series is up in watchable quality rips on YouTube, and it's worth checking out if you're into '60s action stuff.

Tarantino loves two things: "cinema" in some abstract way, and sadistic violence. Consequently, the "cinema" that he loves concretely is the metagenre of, you know, very violent movies: classical westerns, samurai films, war pictures, gangster sagas, the world of the grindhouse.

— Joshua Clover (@joshuaclov3r) July 30, 2019

Also: Feet

I don't see the Manson Family as portrayed here as representative of hippies or leftists. I think he sees them as murderers akin to the historical villains of his other films. With their bloodthirstiness and cop-out excuses about TV violence they strike me more as antecedents of the mass shooters of today.

Also, the film's one anti-hippie rant that I remember comes from Rick, a buffoon even when sober, who at that moment is totally drunk and oblivious.

Every single person making any comment about feet in this movie should be barred from all forms of public speech for one month, unless it can be shown that they have previously made a minimum of twenty complaints about directors who habitually show actors using hands, body language or facial expressions to convey character.

with the caveat that I haven't seen this movie & probably won't, Clover's thread feels weird to me from its opening gambit: "x love y. consequently" hold up hold up. why/how "abstract" - is T's use of reference-as-vocabulary "abstract"? Is allusion abstraction? what work is "loves" doing in this thread? etc

yeah seriously who gives a shit that you saw some fucking feet in a movie

But feet aren't one of the half dozen or so body parts that are regularly fetishized in movies and other media, so eww.

I've never seen certain people more satisfied with themselves and happy to repeat the joke than when they figure out a glaringly obvious recurring theme in a famous director's work.