Bad Times at the El Royale

doesn't 'el' mean 'the'? this title is fucking retarded

Would have been better if it started out slow and ambiguously with everyone feeling each other/the situation out and then descending into madness nearer the end Reservoir Dogs style
I felt let down af how it started out so hardcore and interesting but then it slowed waaaaay the fuck down and started doing rings around itself for no reason other than to jerk itself off

Good first half, atrocious second half.

>Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
>having a story
OH NO NO NO

This. All debate on the matter is now closed and this thread can be pruned.

if thor and don draper had switched characters, yeah, that would've been more interesting

It was unironically more Tarantino esque than Once Upon a time. I would give bad times a 9/10. but I would give once upon a time 10/10.

good at the start and good when the clerk killed the shittiest character

Why don't people like Billy Lee? The only shitty actor was the adult white girl.

>The only shitty actor was the adult white girl.
I wanted to put my penis in her vagina, so it was OK.

I'd rate him much higher than the "let me show off my singing on every scene" woman. But he shows up way too late in the story to stall things and add another good half hour runtime without much left to resolve at that point

That would've been a great idea.

Why are you comparing it to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood when it was pretty much a student film version of Hateful Eight?

Probably because the tarantinoesque chapters and the not-manson family showing up at the end.

You can really tell it's not made by a filmmaker or someone who even cares about filmmaking. There's no personality there. The thing with QT is he's deeply obsessed with cinema and has his own taste, even if he is very derivative there's no denying there's a strong creative personality that is being expressed through the way he picks his references. You can tell QT is a guy who really loves and gets why a good shootout is a good shootout, or a soundtrack moment or a punchline etc and you know that's what's driving him. He wants you to have cinematic orgasms to the same cinematic moments he gets off too and his passionate energy and sincere enthusiasm is what makes his movies so irresistible. This is just a guy who wants to appear as clever but has no taste, no real understanding of what he even wants to achieve, no attachment to the history of specific genres and the masters and the thrills etc. There's no bite to any of it. Tarantino never would have made the black chick a one dimensional 'good' character in a gallery of morally ambiguous characters because he would understand it completely ruins the appeal of this specific genre. He would have never cast a bland pretty boy like Hemsworth as the magnetic cult leader because he would understand this is the kind of role that necessitates a dirty aura and some grit, something psychologically troubling alongside the physical charisma. He would have blatantly lifted ostentatious techniques from De Palma or Argento to push the playful tone and mysterious atmosphere to 100 instead of doing the bare minimum visually. The violence at the end would have been really over the top and impactful instead of falling flat, and the slow build of tension preceding it would have been a lot tighter and tenser, with the character being more cruel and unpredictable etc.

It's like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood if QT never got over his 60s nostalgia boner and remembered to make a story that ends in an emotionally satisfying way
El Royale had a great set up to a convoluted mystery plot that ended up being pretty boring due to John Hamm dying immediately and the black lady taking up so much screen time with her non character. The only good part was when not-Tom Holland picked up the rifle and operated on Chris Hemsworth and his followers, everything before that felt like a waste of time

so is it worth watching or not bitches?

Dakota Johnson deserves better roles

it is until it isn't

Honestly not
It's just a sub-standard rip off of a Tarantino version, you might as well just watch the genuine article. If you're really interested by the premise than watch the first half hour until John Hamm gets to a phone booth and amuse yourself by imagining what the rest of the movie turned out to be

There are worse movies that came out at the same time.
Saw it on HBO when I had a free month, it was perfectly fine. Not good, not great, but it's watchable.

maybe,maybe not whose askin?

Go to bed Melanie you got an early start tomorrow with all those botox injections scheduled

>setting is a hotel on the border between two states
>has absolutely no relevance to the plot, it could have happened anywhere
what a fucking waste. the plot should have focused on that and sprung from there instead it was garbage fire

It is if you enjoyed any of the movies in this post Its probably the best movie in the "Walmart Brand Tarantino/Ritchie" genre, but it obviously is inferior to the real thing.

It's not unpleasant but ultimately hollow and disappointing

>Change my mind.
I can't, since I won't watch Once Upon a Time in Hollywood until it's on a torrent site. Why would I ever pay to watch a (((hollywood))) film?
All of those are great movies

I have two grievances with El Royale: too long run time to tell the kind of story they were telling and the black girl singing too much even though she is good.

The set was good, solid cast (although Jon Hamm should’ve lived until the end), good soundtrack (arguably as good or better than OUATH). Best scene was the confession scene between Jeff Bridges and the hotel clerk. Rare for Hollywood to portray a Catholic in a positive manner. This movie isn’t as shitty as you dickheads are making it out to be.

It did beat Tarantino to the punch in using two great songs: 12:30 by the Mamas and the Papas and Hush by Deep Purple.