This says something about you and the society you live in. Why is violent retribution the type of resolution that is so obviously the most entertaining to you?
That could be worthy of its own thread, but seriously: do you go to a war movie and then complain there was too much shooting? Do you go to a horror movie and complain about the gore and that you just wanted to have a calm, serene moviegoing experience? I guess it’s possible that you have not seen any other Tarantino movies, but now you know for future reference.
I have seen several of his movies, so none of it was a surprise to me. Whether or not I choose to see a movie is irrelevant to examining Tarantino’s choice to depict a particular thing. “Oh, well he always does that” doesn’t address the criticism.
Missed the edit window.
I also want to point out that your claim here is a strawman. As I look at my list of favorite movies and particularly 40 or so that I have ranked higher than any Tarantino film, there are definitely some other violent movies—like the first two Godfather films and a couple Coen brothers movies. But there are also films with no violence at all, like “Un Coeur en Hiver”, “Wendy and Lucy”, “Stardust Memories”, and “My Dinner with Andre”. I certainly don’t rule out loving a movie because it features graphic violence; but neither is that a prerequisite.
You were the one who mocked the notion of these movies having a non-violent resolution. Your list of favorite movies doesn’t negate that.
Not going to read through the previous replies, as I may see it, but I have heard that this movie is too long and quite boring until the last 20 minutes or so. Do you agree?
I enjoyed it all the way through. I hardly noticed it was nearly three hours long.
It negates your strawman question “Why is violent retribution the type of resolution that is so obviously the most entertaining to you?” My favorites show that this is not necessarily true. (My single number one favorite movie of all time, “Her”, does not have any violence that I can remember.) It just depends on what type of movie it is. If a quiet drama erupted in over the top violence at the end, I would probably find that not the best resolution for that type of film.
ETA: Ashtura, I can easily imagine that other people would find the extended sequences from fictional and real classic movies and TV shows to be too long and unnecessary. But I loved them and would have been fine if they were even longer, as long as there were an intermission to go to the bathroom and stretch my legs.
Your own post stated implicitly that you consider the violent endings of the movies under discussion to be inherently more entertaining than a non-violent ending. You’re the one building a strawman by stretching my comment to mean that I’m accusing you of preferring violent endings to every single imaginable story.
I don’t think so, but I know other people who do. There are some people who found Jackie Brown boring for the same reasons–because after the visceral punch of his first two films, that one took its time in drawing out the characters in a way that were more characterization and less plot (aka “action”).
There’s plenty here that is definitely here to flesh out Leo’s character that some might think have no relationship to the last setpiece (the “action” they’re waiting for). For many, they might not feel the payoff is worth the wait, and certainly not as much “happens” compared to his other prominent period films. YMMV.
That’s only true if you go into the movie expecting it to be about the Manson murders. It’s not. It’s a movie about a fading tv actor and his stunt double/best friend, who are struggling to stay relevant in Hollywood. It just so happens to take place around the same time as the Manson murders.
Also, it’s a movie that really pays homage to the late 1960’s. Much of the appeal of the movie is the nostalgia. For me, I wasn’t alive until a decade later, but I enjoyed the thorough immersion in an earlier time.
Oh wow, I didn’t know that. I have thought she was one of the most beautiful actors of recent years since being introduced to her on “The Leftovers”. And I crushed on Andie MacDowell bigtime when I was a kid. Good genes!
:rolleyes:
So no actual argument to make them?
He was probably just reacting to the virtue signaling.
Got it in one.
So, by that twisted and tortured slaughter of logic, a female murderer with a gun in the act of trying to kill people who was shot by the cops would be an example of “an act of violence against women?” Are you even trying?
Are you talking about something that just happened in real life or are you talking about something that someone is choosing to depict in a film? It makes a difference.
So we can’t have films depict what happens in real life? That’s your policy? That’s a pretty slippery slope.
I enjoyed it but it seemed a bit overlong. I enjoyed the bromance between Dalton and his stuntman pal. Loved the talk between Dalton and the child actress, and the fight with Bruce Lee. The movie was an interesting, funny look at late Sixties Tinseltown (and Italian B-movies, too). Great production design. A very satisfying, if brutal, final action sequence when the Manson cultists get taken down (but c’mon, who keeps a fully-functional flamethrower in the pool shed?!?).
Yes. Later, when Brad is being questioned by police before being packed into the ambulance, and one of the cops is holding the dog, I leaned over and said to my son, “*Good *dog!”
Yes! Nice touch. I almost expected to see Zelig, or Forrest Gump, among the other POWs.
I disagree. In this universe, maybe he simply doesn’t drop by that night, or is nearby but offscreen. He lives just as the others in the house live.
That’s what I guessed. Their horrible run of crimes might’ve been nipped in the bud. But I would like to have seen more of Manson himself other than that one driveway scene.
Yeah, that seemed a bit much to me. And the licensing fees must’ve been a bitch!
I have a feeling his career is about to take a turn for the better. But maybe not - when Polanski returns, he’ll have no particular reason to feel grateful to Dalton for saving his wife’s life; no one knows about what *did *happen in our 'verse.
Fair point. My late-teen son knew very little of that period and I had to fill him in on it.