This is where you post your review to be posted on the main site. Reviews will screened for relevance and spelling before it is posted to the main site.
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.
But Leo is not anywhere near past his prime put away from his hey day. I can’t think of the right way around it or who to cast from a few years back who is off the radar now. But I’m sure there’d be someone.
Anyway, he didn’t go that way, which was his call.
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: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.
Which QT still sets up that they planned on hitting her place until they (the Manson goons) got distracted, so up until that moment with Drunk Rick, we the audience still believed they would hit her home and (possibly) Rick and Cliff would come save the day being neighborly.
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: 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.
He doesn’t seem to need mojo to flamethrow.
The sprinkles on that delicious sundae
It was a delicious sundae to be fair. As finale tension goes.
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.
Which QT still sets up that they planned on hitting her place until they (the Manson goons) got distracted, so up until that moment with Drunk Rick, we the audience still believed they would hit her home and (possibly) Rick and Cliff would come save the day being neighborly.
I hadn’t thought of it in that way/direction of travel. The whole pounding the hood of the car etc effectively broke the timeline almost literally in that regard.
Took my mom, my niece and my nephew to the theater to see it. Movie starts in 20 minutes. My niece already saw it. New watch for my mom ans nephew. Spent almost 100 bucks on four tickets and snacks. Lol.
Jason wrote:Took my mom, my niece and my nephew to the theater to see it. Movie starts in 20 minutes. My niece already saw it. New watch for my mom ans nephew. Spent almost 100 bucks on four tickets and snacks. Lol.
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.
The movie is built on the audience's expectations. The audience's collective knowledge of the murders makes it all very relevant.
Jason wrote:Took my mom, my niece and my nephew to the theater to see it. Movie starts in 20 minutes. My niece already saw it. New watch for my mom ans nephew. Spent almost 100 bucks on four tickets and snacks. Lol.
$100?
Was the popcorn gold leafed or something.
Four sodas, two popcorns, two cheese pretzel bites. 53 bucks. Four tickets, 32 bucks. Not sure the exact euro equivalent, but expensive. Still worth it, in my opinion.
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.
The movie is built on the audience's expectations. The audience's collective knowledge of the murders makes it all very relevant.
It helped that I had no idea what it was about other than an actor and his stunt double. When I saw Polanski and Tate I didn't think too much about it. Then Cliff and Rick making that unmistakable turn down Cielo Drive to find out Rick lives next door to Tate really brought the intrigue. Tarantino had me at that moment and could've went in any direction and I would've followed.
Jason wrote:Took my mom, my niece and my nephew to the theater to see it. Movie starts in 20 minutes. My niece already saw it. New watch for my mom ans nephew. Spent almost 100 bucks on four tickets and snacks. Lol.
$100?
Was the popcorn gold leafed or something.
Four sodas, two popcorns, two cheese pretzel bites. 53 bucks. Four tickets, 32 bucks. Not sure the exact euro equivalent, but expensive. Still worth it, in my opinion.
That's why I only get snacks when I've saved up enough points on my Regal card for free popcorn or soda. A trip to the movies can bleed you dry.
Jason wrote:Took my mom, my niece and my nephew to the theater to see it. Movie starts in 20 minutes. My niece already saw it. New watch for my mom ans nephew. Spent almost 100 bucks on four tickets and snacks. Lol.
$100?
Was the popcorn gold leafed or something.
Four sodas, two popcorns, two cheese pretzel bites. 53 bucks. Four tickets, 32 bucks. Not sure the exact euro equivalent, but expensive. Still worth it, in my opinion.
Think that’s steeper than London. Which I must admit is pretty rare.
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.
The movie is built on the audience's expectations. The audience's collective knowledge of the murders makes it all very relevant.
It helped that I had no idea what it was about other than an actor and his stunt double. When I saw Polanski and Tate I didn't think too much about it. Then Cliff and Rick making that unmistakable turn down Cielo Drive to find out Rick lives next door to Tate really brought the intrigue. Tarantino had me at that moment and could've went in any direction and I would've followed.
That must put you in that special category of Sharon Tate experts. I don’t now what Cielo Drive is.
I think a lot of Americans are endlessly fascinated by everything Manson. The murders themselves are really one of the more defining events of their time. And if you want to understand that extremely unique time period in US history, the story of Manson and his followers is a great place to start. All the issues of the time are rolled in.
Headhunter wrote:I think a lot of Americans are endlessly fascinated by everything Manson. The murders themselves are really one of the more defining events of their time. And if you want to understand that extremely unique time period in US history, the story of Manson and his followers is a great place to start. All the issues of the time are rolled in.
Personally, the ones that enthrall me most are Lizzie Borden and then Zodiac.
