Most Kino film of the year easily

I saw it for the second time today. My opinion didn't change that much. The first and third acts are exhilarating, but the second just drags. 6-7/10.

This

>'tarantino put me in this movie for pedo fanservice'

Attached: screen-shot-2019-07-25-at-4-19-30-pm-1564086966.png (480x240, 185K)

Only a boomer would think beating the shit out of the manson family is satisfying to a general audience. What people want is to see hollywood A-listers slaughtered and some bunko acid madman ranting about the coming race war running a Colonel Kurtz style micro-nation in the mojave desert with a following of 16 year old girls.

you just simplified the plot to a extremely basic level, that doesn't explain to me why the movie is good
>the most satisfying way possible
an opinion

>Manson as the protagonist

MANSON FAMILY CINEMATIC UNIVERSE WHEN?

Everyone clapped.

Taranfarto's only good film is Reservoir Dogs

GREAT POST PAJEET
HERES 0.2 RUPEES FOR YOUR ACCOUNT

alright OP you start

It was pretty great, but some scenes did drag out. So it wasn't perfect by any means. The best were the ones where Cliff goes to Spahn Ranch and the ending scene at the mansion.

I saw this movie at the arclight in LA on Friday and that literally happened when the title credits appeared over Tate's driveway. Fucking boomers man I swear to god.

What I can give you is either a description of what it is about, or describe what I thought was great about it. Neither seem to be acceptable to you so I don't know what you want from me.

The first and the third act were both good, but they felt like two different movies. One was a raw character piece about two washed friends and the other was a gonzo piece of speculative historical fiction ala Inglorious Basterds. I feel he should have picked one idea and stuck with it, either idea but just pick one.

ok

Attached: 357bedv.jpg (1280x720, 159K)

Clever

The actual fucking manson murders would have been way more interesting. There were several besides tate. There might have been some actual tension in the final scenes if we saw the hippies slaughter a few of their 'piggies' before invading Dicaprio's house so we know that they are actually worth a fuck.

Everyone yesterday was raving about this movie and now today people are hating on it. I wonder if it is a demographic thing. Maybe Euros don't like it?

left the theater yesterday disappointed and considering myself an ex-Tarantino fan, went home and put on my Reservoir Dogs bluray and became a Tarantino fan again, watched it twice back to back, really great flick

PUT THE LIME IN THE COCONUT, DRINK THEM BOTH UP

Attached: ResDogs.jpg (1463x1000, 213K)

>Only a boomer would think beating the shit out of the manson family is satisfying to a general audience
I went to see it with my pleb girlfriend and the manson beatdowns were her favourite parts, and she doesn't even like violence or action on films

how about explain why something is a particular adjective instead of just giving me a generic adjective? declaring that it was the "most satisfying" conclusion doesn't tell me much, other than you, mr. specific user, found something satisfying about it. now what am i to take from your subjective qualia? what gives you the idea that my interpretation of "satisfying" is the same as yours? do you lack theory of mind?

Okay I should have said boomers and pleb girlfriends, but that's being redundant.

The whole point of the movie was not giving them the satisfaction and exposing them for the worthless sacs they are instead of building them up as some behind the scenes huge evil.

I just wish that the slow pacing was more consistent throughout the movie. If he wanted to make a slow-paced movie, make it slow.

>tfw you'll never be a 80 year old blind guy fucking teenagers

And I reject the whole point of the movie as a pointless boomer power fantasy that does not resonate with anybody today. Drug-addled young creeps ranting about the race war are way more relevant as legitimate antagonists today than they were even in 1968. As I said in an earlier post, he could have preserved them getting their comeuppance in the finale if he at least established them as a credible threat by showing their other two murders go on while Brad and Leo are dealing with their washed up actor drama. Instead Tarantino chose to pretend that the manson family didn't successfully murder a whole bunch of people and effectively infilitrate the hollywood underbelly because historical revisionism glorifying the golden age of boomer hollywood was more important to him. Not interesting in the least to anybody outside his demographic.

The whole thing just felt like a collection of unfinished script ideas that would have made better movies on their own. I really want Brad Pitt's Hawaiian shirt an moccasins, though.

this, the tension from Cliff fending of all those hippie weirdos and their sinister vibes, could have used more of that and less of the little girl that talked like a 50 year old and less of the stupid Pacino character and less of the filming guest spots on westerns...

They got triggered by a slit eyes being btfo by a chad.

so only dumb people like this film. cool, i shall avoid it then

Pleb filter for sure.

The bit where DiCaprio fumbles around on the pilot shoot, gets his shit together and actually delivers a great scene was really good, but everything leading up to that was just "Hey, look at this stereotypical washed up, drunken B-List actor!" And then they just fastfoward through Cliff's development without following up on any of potentially REALLY INTERESTING things about him.

Correct OP.

The violence was gratuious and funny at the end. It exposed the notion that the mansons were something to be feared and instead made them a laughing stock. This imo, made it satisfying as it successfully subverts expectations and leads to a happy conclusion. Cliff is charismatic because he comes off as a good guy who puts himself in danger to check if some old aquaintance is OK. His friendship with Leo also makes him seem like a cool dude. The banter between him and Leo is funny and illustrates a positive friendship without any gay shit attached. Leo is considered the weak point of the movie, but I defend those sections. They are supposed to be a homage to the transition of films and acting styles of the era and what it means to be an actor. The ending is extremely optimistic (it is a fairy tale) and shows what could have happened that fateful night that could have possibly steared us away from this hellscape. The film is about many different things honestly and the mixed reception you see to is some people relating to aspects of the film but not to other aspects. (It seems the film making process and transitions of it appeals to people the least) Each of the characters appeal to a different taste in cinema that I am sure some can't completely appreciate. Everything here appealed to me and it was by far Tarantino's most mature film. Django was my favorite before this, but this is definitely my favorite Tarantino now. If you are a zoom zoom that thinks anything about culture before you lived is lame then you shouldn't see it though.

zoom zoom

I find it really amusing that the rian jonson defense is the go-to argument of apologists for this movie. Subverting the audience's expectations is not in and of itself a commendable thing.

Nice argument shill.

django was terrible though

It's a critically acclaimed movie and a financial success. Most threads on Yea Forums have been really positive about it. Saying anyone is an apologist is hilarious.
>Subverting the audience's expectations is not in and of itself a commendable thing.
Good thing I didn't say that then? What level is your reading comprehension at? I said it worked because it played a horrific act that ended an era into something that leads to a fairy tale ending for literally everyone. It makes the audience think what could have been and re contextualizes to make the audience think of them in a different way. Good job only attacking one point btw because you are scared shitbird that can't actually debate, articulate and just lays back and demands everyone else explain away. In the end you will just say "nah", thinking you have won, but all you have exposed yourself for is an idiot.
Ok, but that is irrelevant to what I am really saying though.

You are the one that outed yourself as a zoomer, what else do I have to say?

this, like Inglorious Bastards it was wildly inconsistent not just in tone and pacing but also in quality itself, shit the first 10 minutes of Bastards had me convinced I was about to watch the best WW2 flick ever filmed, but then the next two hours were all over the map, it's like every film of his now have a couple of 10 minute sequences that are brilliant but he's never able to consistently deliver that for 100 minutes (which, honestly, should be the length of a Tarantino flick, 100 minutes of absolute kino, not 20 minutes of kino inside of a bloated 160 minutes)

>but that is irrelevant to what I am really saying though.
actually i think it's very relevant because it provides a comprehensive look at what you deem to be quality filmmaking. if django was your favourite, then once upon a time must have seriously doubled down on the retardedness for it to take the crown

>It's a critically acclaimed movie and a financial success. Most threads on Yea Forums have been really positive about it. Saying anyone is an apologist is hilarious.
>appeal to authority
>appeal to majority
If you open your posts with two logical fallacies right in a row, why should anybody read the rest of it?

Tarantino subverted expectations in a positive way

I would disagree. It was a major blueballing for me, personally. I literally do not give a shit about elderly hollywood beefs with their bloodthirsty drug dealers and it gives me no satisfaction to see them get their 'revenge' in rewriting history. This movie is like what inglorious basterds would have been if it had only the slaughter of the nazis in the theater at the end without any of the interesting moral ironies of the basterds vs the nazis according to prevailing attitudes about honor and decency and the post-9/11 era attitudes towards brutalizing guerilla warfare.

I think you mean second most kino of the year...

Attached: Alita Laugh Tom Cruize.jpg (650x366, 40K)

I said that to attack your usage of the word apologist. Because by saying apologists, you act like the movie is nearly universally derided where anyone who defends it is doing it with the half realization that it isnt that that well received and is arguing it is only somewhat redeemable. That is hardly the case as I explained and you know it. To twist that argument as some fallacy is hilarious and shows you don't even understand what the argument is about. You lack the understanding of argumentation and you take one aspect of the argument your idiotic brain finds the weakest and attack it, and then say you are all good and have superiority in the argument. It's weak. It's cowardly. It's lazy. You are simply wrong and won't admit it. If you were the guy who initially asked me to explain, then you are a POS who probably didn't think I would say anything allowing you to sit back and deride it, only I responded and your chicken ass shit the bed and you are trying to scramble.

this is the type of film that needs two versions available: a 2 hour long version released to theaters so you don't get theater fatigue and then a 3+ hour long version released on bluray you can watch at home and fuck around while watching (pause/walk out of the room/get drunk/talk on the phone/eat/etc) but unfortunately what I saw was neither, it's the worst of both world's, a 2 3/4 hour long theater slog, I should have waited for the bluray

First of all, u mad. Second of all, i'm not the same guy, so what are you going to do now hothead?

What Tarantino do you like then?

trash

hateful eight, inglorious basterds, jackie brown, death proof.
hateful eight is easily his best film

I feel like Tarantino is at an "Emperor's New Clothes" level where he's so in love with grindhouse/exploitation movies that he thinks he's making brilliant stylistic choices but really he's just up his own ass and making deliberately bad movies , and nobody in Hollywood is brave enough to say anything about it.

Fair, but I guess the rest of my argument stands as you didn't even argue against it and simply said UMAD? lol No one actually wants to argue against me and they just take cheap pot shots they don't want to defend. That's fair I guess, but all that means is I win the argument.
yep, I already explained it here.

Holy fuck, I've never seen anyone sum it up quite so well

lol, Hateful Eight is literally his worst film. (Not even in a joking to get back at you kinda way) JB and DP are shit and IB is good. I guess I finally proved OUATIH is good then cuz your taste is shit.

this, he's overindulged like nobody ever has been before

does anyone else remember the scene where Timothy olyphants character asks Leo if was almost in the Steve McQueen flick. he walks up to him without a hat then there's a jarring editing cut and he's wearing a hat.

seemed totally out of place with the rest of the movie. just wondering if anybody else noticed that

then you're only interested in superficial schlock filmmaking and can't grasp when a film has a thematic drive

He's been getting progressively shittier since inglorious basterds, although I know i'm in the minority in thinking that is a great movie. Up through to inglorious basterds though I think it can be safely asserted that he was making films definitively situated within well-defined genres which were if nothing else interesting for how they played with the tropes of those genres. From Django Unchained on he seems to be developing this stylistic monotony which is idiosyncratic to his directing style that overrides the genre features of his films and doesn't really offer anything original in terms of cinematography or narrative presentation.

this is his worst film, by far

One thing that came to my mind early on in the movie is how unwatchable it would be the second time. It's an enjoyable film like most Tarantino films but nothing too special.

I kind of like him for that reason. He honestly doesn't give a fuck anymore because his reputation is so high. He's one of the few directors with final cut privilege and can do anything he wants.
It's a stylistic thing. He did the same thing in Death Proof. I think it's supposed to mimic changing the film reel on digital.

I fucking loved that. It shows that the dude is chatting up Rick for way too long.

>Django was my favorite before this
dude, whatever

This film purposefully avoids the exploitation angle that his previous films would have taken. Many reviews noted this. If he went the exploitation route, Tate would have killed Manson in this movie. Manson was basically a cameo which is just one instance of Tarantino avoiding exploitation here. Tarantino honestly made this film to be respectful towards Tate and tear down previously held thoughts about Manson and co. To single out this work as anything you described signals your lack of understanding of this film.

A more accurate description of the feeling you provide is that you (and people like you) don't understand why people like the movies. To not feel stupid and left out (instead of simply saying it is not for me) you conclude everyone else is just an idiot to explain and bolster your position.

That was another one of Q's "Stylistic Choices" to try and mimic older b-movies and the often slap-dash way they were put together, but while I'm sure it made him feel warm and nostalgic most of the audience thought it was just a fuck up.

Your whole post was just an attack on my character based on wrong assumptions of who I am. If you want to argue with me about the merits of the movie you can address the specific points I made about the film earlier in the thread. I'm the guy who would have preferred more successful acts of violence by the manson family and thinks the movie is a pointless navel gazing power fantasy geared towards nostalgic old fogey's of the hollywood elite. The pay off of the finale is not earned because he does not establish the menace of the mansons nor the entire rationale behind their motives within the actual film. Expecting the audience to have preconceived notions about what they were trying to accomplish and knowledge of their IRL exploits is farming out the world building of his film to the viewer, which is lazy script writing.

it happened twice in that scene so it was an artistic choice

We're very proud of you Quentin

>Tarantino honestly made this film to be respectful towards Tate and tear down previously held thoughts about Manson and co.
I just want to highlight what a limited audience this purpose serves and what a boring and pointless endeavor it is itself. Tate is dead, her nearest relations are literally pedophile fugitives from the law. Making a movie addressed to a dead celebrity from several years before he was even born is fine, but it does NOT engender the movie with any compelling quality outside of the theoretical ghost of Sharon Tate.

IB is good for having thematic drive. The rest are shit and show your idiocy and love for schlock. H8 really exposes this. I couldn't think of a more low brow movie. You don't understand the themes of this film at all and simply dismissed it.

i havent seen hollywood and after seeing what sort of people were defending the film in this thread, im not planning on seeing it ever.

I wish T would adapt another one of Elmore Leonard's, it certainly seemed to keep him from indulging in his worst habits

Attached: Jackie Brown.jpg (1250x704, 84K)

I saw it earlier tonight, and I'm not exactly sure what I watched, but I know I enjoyed it.

Cliff Booth is my favorite Tarantino character ever. I wish I was him.
Why won't hollywood make characters like that anymore?

he was 6 when it happened and probably remembers the uproar over the killings

The whole sequence with Rick screwing up his lines, freaking out in his trailer, and then knocking his monologue out of the park caught me off guard in a very emotional way. I can really relate to the experience of being an underachiever and feeling like a loser for a long period of time, only to unexpectedly do something impressive and to be praised by people who you thought judged you and looked down on you. This film has Tarantino's best character work since the 90s, it makes all his other films from Kill Bill onwards look like memes.

>implying Quentin Tarantino isn't cancelled

Attached: 1566174103928.jpg (1936x1936, 616K)

I wonder how many Champion t shirts are going to sell before this Halloween?

We need a new godwin's law for when a person presents an idiotic SJWs criticism of something as a positive argument in favor of that thing.

I don't know, I think overall the quality of his work has suffered a bit with the increasing freedom he has. I don't hate his movies, I'd rather watch them then a lot of other stuff, but most of his later stuff just leaves me with a "That could have been better" feeling. Sometimes limitations help you focus on what's really key to a project.

HAHAHA

HAHAHA

Attached: 1554067286840.png (1236x824, 530K)

this, he needs whatever was supposedly the reigns on Lucas when he made Star Wars, that's it, Tarantino needs a strong wife who's a film editor and will take his miles of film and craft a tight masterpiece, in a better timeline Tarantino has that

I have been making solid points about the movie and its themes throughout the whole thread with people only making 2 word potshots like this.I don't really have to prove anything else at this point, because people have let my arguments stand with little argument.
The reason the movie is brilliant is because it doesn't do this
>he does not establish the menace of the mansons
Honestly, everything you want the movie to be would make me hate it and make it much less interesting. The movie is about an era in the past that you seemingly hate and you want it to be more about issues that relate to you. I'm 22, but I am really into history and relate to nostalgia, but it is a lot more than that. If it is any consolation, this movie was never going to be what you wanted it to be.

The sadly funny thing is that if she hadn't been murdered, Tate really only would have been known as a mid-tier actress and probable ex-wife of a creepy Polish rapist. But since she was murdered in a really horrible way, he public profile was elevated through sympathy.

People who meme about the editing are just people who fell out of Tarantino's style and are looking to explain it.

HE MURDERED HIS WIFE

>Tfw no Cliff best friend
Also, I loved how all hi scenes were shot like westerns. He is a real life cowboy while Rick is a make believe one. Great stuff.

The era that you are nostalgizing very much included the mansons and what they actually were, which was successful killers and drug dealers with a pipeline connection to the hollywood elite. They knew tate because she was hooked up into the same drug circle that charlie and the manson family were. What you want is a whitewashed version of history, which is fine, but it is in fact bluepilled and not interesting to anybody with a real fascination about the the period for the blend of class, political, and psychotropic supply chain dynamics which made the 1960s what they were.

why's everybody make a big deal over this scene, Lee takes a quick ass whooping like a man and who knows in a re-match could have beat Cliff's ass, I don't know what is so enraging or out of bounds about the scene, and if you don't know that Lee was a well-known egomaniac (prick to you and me) then why claim to be a fan?

>Lucas' wife single handedly saved Star Wars
when will this meme die?

They were bozo punks who were complete morons and this picture tears down this idea that they are this super competent great evil and reduces them to the monkeys they are.

well, yeah, have you ever seen "Fearless Vampire Killers"? She was REALLY hot in that, but yeah, what you said.

I really wish they hadn't just glazed over that. Could have been a really interesting story hook depending on how it played out.

>who knows in a re-match could have beat Cliff's ass

He ain't beating that old man.

Nobody in the history of ever has ever thought of the manson family as a Dr Doom style super competent malevolent force. They were derided at the time as braindead drug zombie losers. You are advocating an argument against a position which nobody has ever proffered.

this, what was T thinking with this? I don't think current year +4 is the time to make a joke about your hero murdering his wife because she was a nag, and to suggest she was Natalie Wood is a double WTF

>slow-paced movie
thanks for saving me three hours of my life

I would never want a director to have limits on their creative freedom. Obviously Tarantino enjoys his work and is passionate about its subject matter. If you're referring to technical/budgetary limitations, I absolutely agree. Tarantino could make a great low-budget film with minimal resources. That's essentially what Reservoir Dogs was and that turned out great. So long as he keeps making consistently competent crowd-pleasing movies, I'll like him.

I didn't believe it but then the autists on here convinced me, at a minimum she GREATLY contributed to it being as good and tight as it was

Times you acted like Cliff booth Yea Forums
>Be me
>Walk into convenience store
>Keep sunglasses on
>Old lady drops her umbrella on the ground
>Pick it up for her
>"Thanks young man"
>Just nod without looking at her
>"No problem"
>Grab a couple of frozen pizzas
>Pay for them with coins
>Cashier thanks me
>Flash a smile
>" 'Precciated"
>Go home
>Crack open a beer
>Take the dog for a walk

ha, Cliff was pretty bad ass but who knows a Lee roundhouse could have got him, he would have taken it like man though

Dan Schneider makes him look like an amateur

She didn't single-handedly save Star Wars, but it would have been a very different movie without her.

this, he had those dumb drifter kids under his spell and they stabbed some people to death, pretty shit actually

>the mansons and what they actually were, which was successful killers and drug dealers with a pipeline connection to the hollywood elite.
They didn't even kill the people they were supposed to dude. You said you wanted to build them up into this super menacing group when they were just braindead yahoos. And yes Manson has been built up as this larger than life force. IDK how you would portray them as both idiotic monkeys and a super menacing and evil force at the same time, but I guess it works in your head.

get it on bluray and make it into a 4 hour film with all your pausing to eat and drink and do whatever but it's a slog to experience from a theater seat

>They should have been the ultra menacing force that reflects all the evil shit they did
>T-T-They were idots who didn't know what they wer-re doing no one ar-argued differently

>t. arantino

kek, don't forget drive like a fucking maniac everywhere and let you dog kiss you on the lips

>it would have been a very different movie without her.
yeah, one without a sequel

>you will never have Cliff Booth as a friend

Why even bother bros?

killed my wife

OK, I am done. I don't need to work with this BS anymore.

make a sense, I figured it was to show that the guy was talking Ricks ear off.

I would say it fit death proof but in this movie it seemed out of place

come on man, stay in the thread, you are appreciated

Anyone have a list of all the licensed songs that played while Cliff was driving?

Cliff is the best Tarantino character ever because he's going to convince a generation of young men than being a nice, loyal, caring and dilligent man is the coolest shit ever.

IT'S A BLACK MALE THINGAAAAAA

u caught me

Attached: Epic.jpg (1300x699, 77K)

it was a lot of late 60s top 40 radio but not really hippie/edgy stuff, it was mostly mainstream stuff like Paul Revere and the Raiders and stuff like that, I did REALLY like when at the end just before the killing began Cliff put on one of my favorites Vanilla Fudge "You Keep Me Hangin' On"

you the man T and a credit to ex video store employees everywhere

>Started exercising daily and being more dilligent in general after watching this movie
Are you trying to be a little bit more like Cliff, Yea Forums?

TWO TARANTINOS?!?!?!

Attached: 1558052190492.jpg (505x490, 32K)

He murdered his wife

That's a baller move

no friend that acts like a chauffeur, hangs out and drinks and watches TV with you when you feel like hanging out and watching TV with somebody, tell him go to your place and fix something that broke and he goes and does it, tells you to believe in yourself and that you're the man, kills hippies that invade your home

Attached: 1454303811123.png (633x758, 26K)

He didn't. The harpoon wasn't even loaded. He was just too cool to care about defending himself of the accusations.

If a retard is deadly they are still menacing, despite being stupid and not diabolical. Inb4 you desperate idiots claim idiotic people are never deadly or threatening.

dude, move on, they were dirty hippies and murderous scum you're right

The amount of buttfrustration in this image is absolutely staggering:

>it's weird that all these a-list actors agreed to be in a fetish film
It's Tarantino, he's gonna have feet shots. Granted, this one was a bit overkill, but still, weak bait.
>everyone in the theater laughed as the one poc in the film was mocked and belittled
"Things That Didn't Happen" for $1000, Alex. It was fairly accurate to the time period too, sorry social justice didn't exist back then.
>the villain of the film isn't charlie. he's in one shot. it's young women who don't respect the hollywood old guard
They were antagonistic for what, one more scene than Manson appeared in? Get real, they were predominantly bystanders anyways.
>we spend more time watching brad pitt drive around than we do with any woman character
Because watching Bradd Pitt drive around is interesting, obviously. He even drove around with a woman at one point!
>we're supposed to like him because he might have killed his nagging wife
I don't know what made you think that, but it was clearly meant to give him more of a fleshed-out backstory and character, to solidify his gray morals. We like him because he's a total bro and lives his life at maximum chill.
>we're supposed to cheer when buff Brad Pitt beats a teenager's skull in
You're damn right, we're supposed to cheer! She's part of Charles Manson's cult of psychos, you dense motherfucker!
>but hey man, it's shot on film
Caring what Rotten Tomatoes thinks might be the biggest sign of your stupidity in all of this, which speaks volumes.

Raptor Jesus Christ, you dumb bitch. Do something more constructive with your life than complaining about how life doesn't fit your narrow worldview on the Internet.

/blogpost

kink-shaming
calling Bruce lee a racist by agreeing with the cocky sterotype presented in the film
not wanting equality
wants forced diversity, for no reason

that's a yikes for me, lady

I'm surprised this movie has received such positive reception since Quentin gave one of Yea Forums's least favorite pedos a part in it.

Attached: https___cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext_dam_assets_181206100712-lena-dunham.jpg (1200x675, 102K)