HorrorMovieFans.com

Good review mind.

showa58taro wrote:What did I just watch. . .

I have no idea if I liked it or not as I haven’t really worked out if I knew what it was about.

Lmao

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What did I just watch. . .

I have no idea if I liked it or not as I haven’t really worked out if I knew what it was about.

Lmao

I know, right! Like, it has all the hallmarks of a great film. But at the same time so much is devoted to things not interesting or relevant.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What did I just watch. . .

I have no idea if I liked it or not as I haven’t really worked out if I knew what it was about.

Lmao

I know, right! Like, it has all the hallmarks of a great film. But at the same time so much is devoted to things not interesting or relevant.

Were you one of the guys who picked Bruce Lee to beat Muhammad Ali?

What isn't relevant?

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What did I just watch. . .

I have no idea if I liked it or not as I haven’t really worked out if I knew what it was about.

Lmao

I know, right! Like, it has all the hallmarks of a great film. But at the same time so much is devoted to things not interesting or relevant.

Were you one of the guys who picked Bruce Lee to beat Muhammad Ali?

What isn't relevant?

I guess the bits that, in that film universe, were irrelevant was the Sharon Tate bits, the Timothy Olyphant bits, and the dialogue rehearsal scenes. They added nothing really in terms of driving that story forward.

I also hated the party scene where Steve McQueen literally dialogue exposes the relationships. Why? The love triangle but has no relevance.

By contrast the Pitt scenes were gold, including the random scene of him feeding his dog for like 10 minutes.

I think on a silly metanymical level Di Caprio is the wrong guy for the part too.

I think you didn't like it, then. :p

Jason wrote:I think you didn't like it, then. :p

Dunno. Maybe not. But the Ranch scene, and the finale, are pure gold. As I think was the Pacino and the scenes with the little girl.

Also, it’s a long film but I never felt it was too long. Always felt fine to be watching and some dialogue is excellent.

The Sharon Tate bits were totally relevant, highlighting what was lost in real history, while misdirecting that she would be murdered by the end. Olyphant was a cameo bit, same with Luke Perry. Those scenes were driven to help Leo mentally put himself back into the talent he once had. So no, those weren't irrelevant either.

Oh, I forgot, you're a DiCaprio hater, so the movie was a loss already

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:The Sharon Tate bits were totally relevant, highlighting what was lost in real history, while misdirecting that she would be murdered by the end. Olyphant was a cameo bit, same with Luke Perry. Those scenes were driven to help Leo mentally put himself back into the talent he once had. So no, those weren't irrelevant either.

Oh, I forgot, you're a DiCaprio hater, so the movie was a loss already

But In this universe, Tate isn’t murdered. She maybe opens a door to Rick at the end, maybe? But her sitting in a cinema watching a film about that seems irrelevant.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote: Olyphant was a cameo bit, same with Luke Perry. Those scenes were driven to help Leo mentally put himself back into the talent he once had. So no, those weren't irrelevant either

But do we need him to rediscover that talent if he’s just going to go do B-movie westerns?

showa58taro wrote:I think on a silly metanymical level Di Caprio is the wrong guy for the part too.

There it is, the bush finally gets beaten down.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think on a silly metanymical level Di Caprio is the wrong guy for the part too.

There it is, the bush finally gets beaten down.

But (and I admit this is from RLM) if the point is former stars now turned has-been a in a great shift in Hollywood, then using someone in that mold (like Carradine in Kill Bill) as the Rick character seems way better casting. That would mean a redemption story in the film by an actor being redeemed outside the film too.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think on a silly metanymical level Di Caprio is the wrong guy for the part too.

There it is, the bush finally gets beaten down.

But (and I admit this is from RLM) if the point is former stars now turned has-been a in a great shift in Hollywood, then using someone in that mold (like Carradine in Kill Bill) as the Rick character seems way better casting. That would mean a redemption story in the film by an actor being redeemed outside the film too.

You realize QT is like one of 5 people on the entire planet that can cast whoever he wants, right? He can literally scour the globe and handpick anyone and he will have an extremely high probability of getting them. But he obviously got it wrong here, rubbish casting on Rick for sure.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think on a silly metanymical level Di Caprio is the wrong guy for the part too.

There it is, the bush finally gets beaten down.

But (and I admit this is from RLM) if the point is former stars now turned has-been a in a great shift in Hollywood, then using someone in that mold (like Carradine in Kill Bill) as the Rick character seems way better casting. That would mean a redemption story in the film by an actor being redeemed outside the film too.

You realize QT is like one of 5 people on the entire planet that can cast whoever he wants, right? He can literally scour the globe and handpick anyone and he will have an extremely high probability of getting them. But he obviously got it wrong here, rubbish casting on Rick for sure.

He gave some great parts to a few of the old Hollywood guys for sure. Madden reappears. Tim Roth was in a bit that was cut. It felt like the film was crying out for one of the former glory days guys turned slightly “has been” now to take on that role. Not sure who I would think of, though my immediate thought was Costner. Can’t recall the last time I saw him in a real film, but he has the acting chops for it. I’m sure there are others.

But Leo was a safe bet and did a good job. Just felt like a missed opportunity to bring back an older legend past his prime, as it were.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:The Sharon Tate bits were totally relevant, highlighting what was lost in real history, while misdirecting that she would be murdered by the end. Olyphant was a cameo bit, same with Luke Perry. Those scenes were driven to help Leo mentally put himself back into the talent he once had. So no, those weren't irrelevant either.

Oh, I forgot, you're a DiCaprio hater, so the movie was a loss already

But In this universe, Tate isn’t murdered. She maybe opens a door to Rick at the end, maybe? But her sitting in a cinema watching a film about that seems irrelevant.

Hence the misdirection. And yes, opening doors for Rick at the end. And her seeing herself on screen and getting exactly the reactions she wanted by the audience that surrounded her made her feel accepted, which parralleled well against Rick's doubt about his own purpose.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think on a silly metanymical level Di Caprio is the wrong guy for the part too.

There it is, the bush finally gets beaten down.

But (and I admit this is from RLM) if the point is former stars now turned has-been a in a great shift in Hollywood, then using someone in that mold (like Carradine in Kill Bill) as the Rick character seems way better casting. That would mean a redemption story in the film by an actor being redeemed outside the film too.

You realize QT is like one of 5 people on the entire planet that can cast whoever he wants, right? He can literally scour the globe and handpick anyone and he will have an extremely high probability of getting them. But he obviously got it wrong here, rubbish casting on Rick for sure.

He gave some great parts to a few of the old Hollywood guys for sure. Madden reappears. Tim Roth was in a bit that was cut. It felt like the film was crying out for one of the former glory days guys turned slightly “has been” now to take on that role. Not sure who I would think of, though my immediate thought was Costner. Can’t recall the last time I saw him in a real film, but he has the acting chops for it. I’m sure there are others.

But Leo was a safe bet and did a good job. Just felt like a missed opportunity to bring back an older legend past his prime, as it were.

But that's the joke of old hollywood. You can be 40 and still considered past your prime. Someone like Costner (who's not considered to have any acting chops, so I'm surprised you mentioned that lol) would've been WAAAAAAAAY past that prime.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote: Olyphant was a cameo bit, same with Luke Perry. Those scenes were driven to help Leo mentally put himself back into the talent he once had. So no, those weren't irrelevant either

But do we need him to rediscover that talent if he’s just going to go do B-movie westerns?

Yes. That was a whole subplot he went though. Makes it feel earned that he got his mojo back, rather than just dumb luck of disposing some Manson asshats next door. That's just the cherry topping.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:The Sharon Tate bits were totally relevant, highlighting what was lost in real history, while misdirecting that she would be murdered by the end. Olyphant was a cameo bit, same with Luke Perry. Those scenes were driven to help Leo mentally put himself back into the talent he once had. So no, those weren't irrelevant either.

Oh, I forgot, you're a DiCaprio hater, so the movie was a loss already

But In this universe, Tate isn’t murdered. She maybe opens a door to Rick at the end, maybe? But her sitting in a cinema watching a film about that seems irrelevant.

Hence the misdirection. And yes, opening doors for Rick at the end. And her seeing herself on screen and getting exactly the reactions she wanted by the audience that surrounded her made her feel accepted, which parralleled well against Rick's doubt about his own purpose.

But doesn’t that misdirection only work if the real world is in place? Which in the film universe it isn’t. I get a nod to Tate and her being more than just a word or phrase, but in the film it’s just an elaborate wink to the rest of us.