I really don't understand, someone please explain here...why do people love this movie if it's literally pointless? I mean the plot. Every movie has a central conflict, every story actually. In this case it's that Leo struggles with his midlife crisis and waning fame. However, this plot point is resolved less than halfway through the film. After this, there is nothing left to solve. The Sharon scenes are pointless, they don't contribute to the plot. And Booth scenes asides from the ranch one are also meaningless in the grander scheme of things.
It seems that really Tarantino only wanted to have an excuse to kill the manson family and added 2 hours of filler because he knew it couldn't make for a compelling movie. Yet people still say it's one of his best films, why?
NPCs love what they are told to love. That's why the forced Cliff fighting Lee has appeared. There is nothing in the movie that is memorable so NPCs have glommed onto one of the two five minute action scenes and push it as a meme. That the meme is the only one to come out of the movie and it has to be forced to exist demonstrates just how unmemorable the movie is.
Austin Sanders
Cope
Cooper Price
WoW ZiS IS A TotallY NeW ObservatioN, MR BradU PittU!
Henry Cox
The last twenty minutes felt so disconnected to rest of the movies with its extensive narration, fast pace, and violence. Tarantino movies have never had a purpose or meaning, but the majority of film was empty and dull.
Easton Flores
NPCs are triggered why the white man beating the shit out of a minority and killing women.
Elijah Perez
>I mean the plot.
A film doesn't need a "plot", you fucking brainlet.
Go watch your capeshit, this film is literally too deep for you.
Grayson Lee
Leo's career was going down the toilet. The Italian movies paid but it wasn't going to make him A list. Meeting Sharon Tate at the end, who would presumably introduce him to her husband to cast him
Isaiah Flores
I enjoyed the film. It's not his best work but it was interesting and I'm glad he tried something new.
The ranch scene was very impressive. There was a building of suspense throughout the film.
Leo's acting was actually good for once. He played an actor, an actor performing poorly and an actor performing well.
The constant feet was a mistake, it was gross. We get it bud, some people are sexually attracted to feet. It detracted from the film.
It's a cool concept, to take a piece of history and think about how you would like to change it.
I like what he tried to do with the direction but I don't think he quite achieved it.
It's a shitty 3/10 movie, but there are always faggots with shit taste who love being contrarians and try to convince the masses that some garbage movie like this is "patrician."
Zachary Edwards
So is Polanski still a pedophile in the Tarantinoverse? I find it funny how Tarantino claims to hate pedophiles and how he dissociated from Weistein for the sexual harassment thing, but he didn't use this film as a perfect chance to bash Polanski's skull.
TL;DR The film is a reflection of coming to terms that you're past your prime. Tarantino is very adament that this will at least be one of his last feature films (if not the penultimate). Rick and Cliff are dinosaurs in their industry, at the end they have a triumphant showdown with the embodiment of evil within a new young generation.
Cameron Howard
I think that the end was so cute and sweet also It feels like a reminder that you only watching a movie dont take everything so serious.
What I don't get is Tarantino spends two hours or so setting up this love letter to a bygone age and then subverts history so that, within the world of the film, none of that pathos means anything. Dalton gets his happy ending, sure, and it's nice seeing the killers get fucked over on screen, but it makes the entire lead-up to that classic Tarantino conclusion pointless, rather than the rest of the movie being in service to leading up to it like Inglorious Basterds or Django.
Jackie Brown is still his best movie, because it exercises the most restraint, so each moment of violence carries more weight, and it has characters with actual believable emotions and motives.
Ryder Davis
>plot Not every film needs a conventional plot you brainlet.
Isaiah Thompson
>The Sharon scenes are pointless, they don't contribute to the plot. They contribute to the thematic side of the film, she represents the innocence that was taken from Hollywood by her murder.
Of course I got that, it still doesn't make any sense why the first couple of hours set up a source of conflict that doesn't lead anywhere thematically. It would have made more sense to spend more time on Manson, seeing how his cult's edgy 'evil' is what's subverted by the "fairytale" ending. It's a very poor attempt at misdirection at best by spending too long on a topic that's ultimately not relevant to the "main" plot.
Angel Myers
Just saw it today in imax. All I know is that Leo deserves an oscar for it. The movie sucked but Leo has gone full Jack Nicholson mode.
Hudson Johnson
they’re 10/10 and boogie nights is late 70’s totally dif periods
Charles Jenkins
From my perspective the message is clearly this >no matter how much you try and work hard in hollywood, you'll only get invited to the right parties when you start fucking killing people for fun Which literally is what happened in the film. People are too fixated on Charles Manson to see the actual story the film presents. The actual story is Leo got his big break with the pedo director when he burned a woman alive and the pedo director's entourage got interested in him.
Justin White
My take on it is it was like Tarantino wanted to do a Coen brothers movie and then got to the last 20 minutes and went "actually, I wanna do a bit of my normal shit".
I went in not knowing anything about the Manson connection so opinion is incredibly skewed because of that though.
Ayden Bell
No movie has "a point" except entertaining you. If you absolutely had to have one continous plot then you could only watch shit like mcu because regular movies don't connect to one another. If you don't then that means you are fine with not everything following one story. Having a plot and conflict is a plot device in and of itself. And plot is a movie making device. You don't have to have it. The problem with OUaTiH is not lack of one central plot, but 75% of the movie being very unentertaining. The majority of the pointless scenes also happen to be unentertaining so they offer nothing. But the children of the corn ranch sequence for example, while it did not really contribute to the plot, it was entertaining. You can also see it's one of these few moments in the movie where they knew what they want to do because they didn't cut to somewhere else for no reason. So basically, fuck "the point", fire the fucking editor
Brody Anderson
The LOOK I'M ACTING bits actually were powerful. Pitt did fuck all in terms of acting, but his charisma deserves some kind of award. The screen presence of that man fucking hell
Christian Harris
>by her murder Which doesn't happen in the film, so it has nothing to do with the film.
William Reyes
>she represents the innocence Doesn't the film go out of its way to point that she's an opportunistic whore who fucks big name directors for roles
Connor Ward
not really
Caleb Sanchez
Visually illiterate. You cannot read of perhaps even watch films in general. Cinematic image juxtapositions you cannot pick up on, like a five year old confused by an adults conversation because he doesn’t understand all the words. Let me break it down for you. The whole movie is wrapped In the sequence which starts with the juxtaposition of Margot Robbie (playing Sharon Tate) watching the actual Sharon Tate on screen in the movie theater. The film is basically about subjectivity, objectivity and the oddness of a creation of a fantasy. Cliff Booth lives in reality, he coasts on it, he rides the waves and nothing can topple him over. Cliff is the loyal supporting squire to Rick Dalton, the famous wealthy knight (or prince). Dalton’s subjective reality is breaking in around him from the objective force of the world. Rick sits in his pool and talks to his tape recorder, he talks to a creation of himself. The film is another loose King Arthurian retelling much like Pulp Fiction was, cowboy stories are already repackaged knights and wizards fantasy tales, so this movie has three layers to comb through. Charles Manson’s family is basically just goblins or mountain bandits that want to destroy Tolkienesq society because they are objectively evil. Every ‘wound’ is the force of the objective world intruding onto your subjective physical body, the gratuitous shots of the hippies ‘wounds’ at the end are clear signs that their subjective creations break way to Cliffs objective force because Cliff submits himself to the objective current of the world unwaveringly, allowing him to actually hold real weight and power in the realm where humans subjective realities co-mingle and clash. The film is actually suprisingly optimistic and I would even say a work of genius, it’s his best film since Pulp Fiction
Tyler Bell
Why is there a scene where some dude says that when Polanski fails in hollywood another guy would take her away from him? Seems to imply she's in it for money/fame.
Christopher Hall
Bait. Jackie Brown is his worse movie by far.
Christian Bennett
Let’s look at the scene where Cliff and Rick are watching the premier of that one show where he’s blasting those WW2 soldiers with a shotgun in the truck, what do you honestly think is being telegraphed there? It’s meta-commentary almost *slightly* bashing the medium of film. It’s 4th dimensional, like when films depict an audience watching a film in the actual movie in a *slightly* negative light, a sort of biting sarcasm. This is also telegraphed when Quentin tries his hardest to immerse us in the scenes where Rick is acting on set, he films in like it was the actual movie and then abruptly cuts us out of it, like when Deadpool looks at the camera and says poopie cowabunga. I don’t put that much artistic merit in this technique and it is a classic one that goes all the way back to the silents, but it is *entertaining* at least and feels intellectual stimulating. Cowboy stories are by nature Arthurian, so what do you think Quentin is telegraphing when he abruptly cuts us out of the ‘Arthurian’ fantasy tale and intercuts it with aims at a psuedo-real (hyper-real IE symbolic) world that ‘appears’ to try to be ‘mundane’ (slice of life reddit meme) but the movie is literally called Once Upon a Time.... Which brings us back to the scene with Margot Robbie watching Sharon Tate, a fantasy false creation watching an actual real person, except that person is in a film and the fake person is the one watching it.
Charles Anderson
>blasting those WW2 soldiers with a shotgun wasnt that from some FBI show?
Robert Collins
But you know it happened in real life and what effect it had. She is known only because she was killed, Tarantino showed her as a gentle and nice human being. When she takes the hitchhiker etc. That's why the scenes are important. Also she represents the higher class of Hollywood. She and Polanski are at the top. Rick is struggling to make the transition. Cliff is someone who works the most yet has almost nothing. So yes, she is the beacon of light in the film and she is important. When Rick gets invited to her it's like he ascended from one social class to another. Not really. I guess what Steve McQueen said might be taken that way.
Wyatt Taylor
Just back from watching this and these are almost my exact thoughts. The film is so masturbatory it's gross. It's just girls without shoes in the background while characters watch tv or drive around listening to 60s music. Ironically it really reminds me of Drive, except without being particularly good. I'll admit it's very comfy
Adrian Price
It's his best.
Anthony Brooks
Did that scene actually happen or was it just Cliff imagining what would happen if he bothered to show up? I'm thinking the latter since no one in the show they were shooting was wearing a tuxedo and Bruce Lee obviously wasn't in it either
Parker James
Women and fags shouldn't be allowed to talk about movies. This would solve this board's problems in an instant.
Lincoln Flores
If you sit through a 2.5hr movie and at the end when asked "what was the movie about" your response is "nothing" that's a reflection on you, not the movie you watched.
Tyler Price
>the Sharon scenes are pointless
They're supposed to paint a picture of a girl who's in love with cinema in such a pure and genuine way you fucking mongoloid. She's the absolute reflection of the younger generation's hope and innocence and promise, in the same way the Manson Family in an absolute reflection in the negative of the younger generation's pessimism, malice, and decay. Those scenes with her are supposed to be peaceful little moments where we, the cynical overfed overstimulated audiences of the 21st, are reminded that there's a part of all of us who are Sharon Tate. That we all have genuine love and affection for something of passion in our lives the way she does with the movies.
That's the motherfucking point you mongoloid. Plotfags are worse than analytic philosophers.
>But you know it happened in real life I didn't. That's not common knowledge outside of US. We all have our own local serial killers.
>Tarantino showed her as a gentle and nice human being Did he? She came of as an arrogant airhead to me. She didn't want to pay for the movie ticket, kind of a dick move. Also who the fuck puts dirty feet on a seat in front of you? A total cunt that's who. Also that face she made when people liked her acting made her feel like a self absorbed asshole. I didn't find her likable. You're projecting your real life lore on the character, you think she's SUPPOSED to be likable so that's what you're trying to find.
David Harris
>But you know it happened in real life and what effect it had. Films should be able to stand on their own. This film can't. It's unreasonable to expect someone in 20/30 years to know who Sharon Tate was or Charles Manson, meaning this film can't stand the test of the time. Nevermind its other numerous flaws Yes, it was. Leo only killed nazis with the flamethrower
Matthew Russell
The problem is that neither story is fleshed out AT ALL. Why did Qualley join the Manson family? Why did any of them join? Why was Sharon so innocent and in love with small guys who looked young? The film provides literally no context. This is undeniable. They aren't characters, they're props Tarantino uses to tell a story jerking off the 60s
Anthony Foster
Zoom zoom zoom. You're really this upset because you're too young to know who a famous actress who was famously murdered is? This sounds like a personal problem, zoomer. I'd call this bait if the board wasn't so shit these days.
John Johnson
No movie works this way. You're retarded and being unreasonable because you didn't like this particular movie.
Adrian Campbell
>everything NEEDS to be explained and fleshed out
Don't write a movie script.
Aiden Barnes
This shit is why 10k+ word wookiepedia articles exist >i'm autistic and need EVERYTHING explained
Kevin Lewis
I knew who she was and her story. That doesn't change that the film was terribly written. Imagine making a film about Kubrick which ended with him hugging her daughter and then they make a joke about how no one would ever be stupid enough to join scientology. And that's the only mention in the entire film. It'd be shitty writing, just like this film Every film provides a reasonable explanation. Considering there's LITERALLY NOTHING in the film about who the Mansons are, it's shitty writing. Imagine they weren't the Mansons and this was set in today's age, but otherwise everything was the same. You'd rightfully call it out for being rubbish. Every good film is written with important details being provided and contextualised Everything should be written in a believable, proper manner, yes. You're an idiot
Julian Peterson
>you're too young to know who a famous actress who was famously murdered is Again, not everyone is American. I know who Manson is but I certainly didn't know a list of his victims and why the fuck would I? And she's not a famous actress. In what world is she famous, even in the movie in that current year people running a fucking cinema didn't recognize her. Tarantino himself deliberately tells us she's not a famous actress.
Brody Nelson
Would you argue that every work of art exists (and was created) in a vacuum, entirely detached from and unaffected by the world? Because this is the perspective of a an utter fuckwit.
Jackson Adams
Why was Cliff eyeing up the hippie so much like he wanted to fuck her just to deny the blowjob from her if at that point he thought she was underaged. Why did he pick her up in the first place then?
If you need to read a wiki article for a film to make sense, it's a bad film with bad writing.
Jason Green
Why the fuck do you need the Mansons explained? You know who they are and what they did
Connor Rivera
>poopie cowabunga. Kek What did you make of Rick's final decision? Should he have gone next door or stayed at home with his wife?
Jackson Hughes
It's a love letter to the 60's, if you don't get that you might actually be retarded
Joshua Allen
Those details would be windowdressing. You're thinking like a capefag analyzing the motives of the heroes and villains. It doesn't matter why Sharon is doing the things she's doing, same with Manson family--it matters what they are. The movie isn't about an in-depth psychological exploration of Sharon Tate and the Mansonites. It's an impressionistic take on the 60s, which Tarantino chose because it's one of the largest apexes of American culture in all the best and worst ways.
That's the context. Tarantino is trying to show audiences that things can be different. The era of the 60s that the film takes place in was much like our own today--gaudy and gilded and neon on top, and pretty rotten down below in the streets. He's trying to tell people that sometimes, just sometimes, the innocent don't have to be snuffed out. Sometimes the good guys can win and it's not cheesy or corny or pandering--it's just the good guys winning. And that's alright.
Nicholas Lee
Reminder that these are the same type of people who love shit like the last 6 star wars movies. There is no sense of less is more because they're used to wikis explaining every goddamn thing.
Luis Hall
No, I'd argue that every piece of art shouldn't require (relatively obscure) external knowledge going in. WW2 everyone should know for example. George Bush's birthday, not so much. Because it's lazy writing with 1-dimensional characters
Ayden Brown
stop watching our movies then nigger
Justin Price
Lmao, no one cared if you fucked underage girls in the 60s unless they were VERY underage. If a guy his age fucked a 15 or 16 year old girl, nobody would have batted an eye.
Andrew Diaz
>sometimes, just sometimes, the innocent don't have to be snuffed out Just a reminder that the 3 people protagonists killed didn't kill anyone and realistically they seemed to scared to actually pull the trigger on anyone. Again, you're projecting real life on this film. This isn't what happened in the movie.
Lincoln King
>No, I'd argue that every piece of art shouldn't require (relatively obscure) external knowledge going in.
>It doesn't matter why Sharon is doing the things she's doing, same with Manson family--it matters what they are. Okay, describe Sharon Tate in this movie without saying she's naive or innocent. What are her character traits? What makes her angry? What type of food does she like? How's her family relationship? Now do the same with Margaret Qualley's character. You literally can't because neither character has any depth. They are both painfully artificial and caricatures
Asher Gutierrez
I'm 19, from Europe and i knew that. I'm not going to bother with a longer reply this time but this guy summed it up perfectly. Even if you didn't know about the murders the character had symbolic value which could be interpreted if you actually thought about the film.
Michael Morales
Stop showing them in my cinema. I only saw this film because I had 3 hours to kill. Also stop posting on a japanese forum gaijin.
Anthony Torres
>says the movie with the Manson ranch scene has lazy writing and unbelievable characters.
Leave here. Get out. Go the fuck home and go back to getting excited for the Mandalorian trailer.
Gavin Carter
>some murders 50 years ago in one city is everyday knowledge If I didn't browse Yea Forums and the internet so much, I wouldn't have known Tate was one of Manson's victims. In 20 years time, even less people will know or care.
Jeremiah Miller
Based cumbrains can’t comprehend anything
Xavier Robinson
Sorry you were forced to watch the film user. I'll be sure to get you extra foreign assistance for your country because your education system is clearly lacking.
Jayden Ortiz
The characters are lazy. They're props used to create a creepy atmosphere so you get that it's a cult. That's all you get about them the entire film. The next time we see any members, suddenly they're casually talking about murdering people with half-assed justifications that makes it sound like they're on coke
Jonathan Ramirez
What movies REALLY give you those details? What's Sarah Conner's favorite food? Her family relationship? You sound obnoxious.
Justin Carter
Are you autistic? Do you need an excel spreadsheet, a D&D character outline for every movie you watch? What the hell are you even talking about?
What's Darth Vader's favorite food? What kind of shoes does Rocky wear?
Are you incapable of examining and talking about art within multiple layers of context? Do you only look at the gears of plot?
What are you even talking about dude.
Jaxson Long
Did Tarentino mean to make a pleb filter when he made this film? Or is he just too old for zoomer, normies and normie boomers now?
The film is fine user, I don't have a problem with the film, it works without prior knowledge. What doesn't work is your retarded argument that the worldwide audience is supposed to know the victim of some US serial killer from the 60s. We just don't. As I was getting out of the cinema, I heard people talk and it seemed to me like nobody had a clue it had any connection to real life events. So if you think the movie doesn't work without the real life connection, I'm here to tell you the movie doesn't work for at least half of everyone who saw it.
Adrian Carter
The funny thing about this comment, aside from the (((r)))eddit spacing, is that there are almost certainly D&D character character sheets for Darth Vader and Rocky somewhere out there. Probably for several different editions each.
Ryan Diaz
Are you forgetting Margaret Qualley's whole character?
Christ. She's supposed to be alluring--she's hot, she's funny, she's aggressive in a fun, strange kind of way. She's the side of the Manson family that attracted people. The literal poster child, how they see themselves. That's why the rest of them are so dirty and schlubby and she's /relatively/ clean and well-groomed compared to the rest. She's essentially the corrupted version of Sharon Tate.
You don't know how to talk about film.
Angel Russell
Those were examples of literally any trait we might get to make her feel real. What are Tate's motivations? Sarah Connor has multiple instances of an actual emotional range. And, more importantly, the film isn't about her as a character. It's a horror film about a robot trying to kill her. And it's scary, tense and compelling. Once Upon A Time doesn't have a single storyline for Sharon other than her existence. And her existence is shallow as fuck. That's why it's awful writing See above
Angel Cooper
Here’s a real redpill user, all movies are pointless in any way and add nothing to your life.
Christian Davis
The latter, it's definitely geared towards the older crowd but when I went to see it the theater was full of younger people and a couple of old farts. Everybody seemed to enjoy it, all smiles.
Jayden Rodriguez
>She's supposed to be alluring--she's hot, she's funny, she's aggressive in a fun, strange kind of way. So she's hot and playful? Wow, I take it back. What a deep and complex character...
Thomas Smith
I'm sure that there are. I'm sure the writers have those ideas in their heads when they're making the stories. But asking about all this mundane shit sounds like a twelve year-old thinking they're smart when they point out how no one goes to the bathroom in movies. At some point in adult development, you're supposed to fill in the gaps and be able to process information at a higher level without having it spoonfed to you.
Jack Martin
He literally just wanted to make a montage of homages to the 60s and wrote this film around that
Leo Taylor
I watch Peep Show, my favorite comedy in fact. I don't throw a fit like you are when I don't understand what a shadow minister is. I look it up because I'm not a spastic. Drink bleach.
Ryder Jenkins
>What's Darth Vader's favorite food?
Thanks reminding me about Emperor Palpatine Surgical Reconstruction Center.
It's what she SYMBOLIZES. How the Manson Family is terrifying because ANYBODY could be attracted to it. It's like seeing a hot Nazi. For a moment, your lizard brain overrides the Holocaust and you're attracted to someone who was part of the Third Reich. This is disregarding any deeper discussions about internal motivation for a person like that, which you'd be unable to have.
She's a terrifying creature. Like a siren. Didn't you notice how the girls, when Pitt was initially driving by them, were perched on the bench, singing songs and calling out to him to come over? He knows the game.
You don't. You shouldn't have bought a ticket and stolen an opportunity for someone with a functioning prefrontal cortex to see this movie.
Brayden Gutierrez
Retard, has capeshit made you used to getting spoonfed about themes? Lucky for you another Star Wars movie is right around the corner.
Anthony Perry
Why does every character need to be deep and complex?
Evan Adams
I think that you don't really think that hard. And I don't want to spoon feed you right now. So keep on being obnoxious.
Jaxson Richardson
Not knowing the historical context hurts the movie but basic human empathy kicks in when you realize retarded hippies are about to slaughter a 9 month pregnant woman, and tension emerges from there. And then they change their mind and go for the main characters you saw the whole movie.
Also, people know Polanski name unless they're a complete casual underage, which isn't the target audience. Being the wife of a famous real life director will clue people in that she was real too, specially after having part of her story nsrrated by McQueen, another well known real person.
>How the Manson Family is terrifying because ANYBODY could be attracted to it Except it doesn't even tell what's so bad about joining the family. >She's a terrifying creature. Like a siren. Didn't you notice how the girls, when Pitt was initially driving by them, were perched on the bench, singing songs and calling out to him to come over? He knows the game. None of them were scary. They were creepy as a collective and that's it. I'm not saying the scene was bad. I'm saying none of them had any depth. That you can't argue without resorting to petty insults tells me all I need to know about the maturity of the people defending this film
Ethan Wilson
>THAT'S POLANSKI >AND HIS WIFE SHARON TATE >HE JUST RELEASE ROSEMARY'S BABYYYYYYYYYYY >HIS WIFE, WHO'S PREGNANT >THOSE DAMN HIPPIES, AND THEIR BUDDY CHARLIE >CHARLIE, IE CHARLES >CHARLES WILL LOVE THIS GUY Zoomer: Who the fuck are these people????
>needs to be told why joining the Manson Family would be bad
Kayden Gutierrez
>figuratively pointless ftfy
Brayden Gonzalez
They don't and I hope I haven't implied that. Sharon and Qualley should because they have no other story. If they existed and were going through some sort of actual story, that would be fine. But they're given a very large amount of screentime in which they do basically nothing other than exist
Samuel Collins
>Except it doesn't even tell what's so bad about joining the family. member when they planned to murder a bunch of innocent people because they were in a cult?
Alexander Myers
>you're wrong cause reasons >just trust me Great argument. Yeah, it's me who's obnoxious...
Jeremiah Flores
Kids literally don't know any of those. But then again they shouldn't go watch an r-rated movie I guess.
Joshua Davis
Thats your opinion.
Jacob Thompson
You're just not looking for things. Sharon has some character, she's not Mia in Pulp Fiction or Beatrix in Kill Bill. But the limited amount of screen time was used well. And again, why should I spoon feed you my opinion? I'd rather not be obnoxious like you and keep seeking attention because you didn't like the movie. Big fucking whoop. Who cares? You didn't like a movie, WOOO time to go on Yea Forums! Leave me alone, dork.
Ryder Sanders
Err kind of? Not necessarily bad, maybe they were justified or something. I mean, I know they weren't. But the film doesn't really tell you that. And I would've welcomed a telling from 'their side'. I would've been open to seeing a film where they try to tell us that not everyone in there was evil. Or the opposite. Or let us make our own mind up. Just something really. So they were told to kill one single family? And the only proof of this is the word of a guy who's mentally unhinged and very insecure? If anything, the film implies that the family was fine and this one guy just felt the need to do something drastic. And they went along with it cause reasons
Carter Carter
>tarantula movie >deep lol, why are you so retarded?
Connor Sullivan
No, you literally just can't argue your opinion well and now you're getting mad because you equate me disagreeing with your opinion and pointing out flaws as an attack on you personally.
Jaxon Roberts
>If anything, the film implies that the family was fine and this one guy just felt the need to do something drastic. And they went along with it cause reasons Did you watch this movie on mute?
Jace Harris
Gee, they went to kill ONLY a single family? I guess they weren't too bad after all....
Anthony Turner
Was I supposed to understand the significance of this scene?
Please provide evidence to the contrary because I did not in fact watch this film on mute. Ehh, could be a worse. Considering Dalton and Booth both kill a bunch of people, murder doesn't seem that bad in context.
Benjamin Collins
>The Sharon scenes are pointless She is literally the narrator of the whole plot
David Jones
I went in expecting violent thrill fest but it didn't take me long to realize it was high IQ telekino
This is literally all that registers with normies. Brief fight scenes. They literally cannot comprehend any more than than that, it doesn't even register. Read some quality reviews and grow your brain a bit
Samuel Parker
Somebody born in 2001 can watch an R rated movie.
John Cruz
The Manson Family as portrayed in the movie is horrifying. The fact you can't see this tells me you've become too used to being told what things are bad and what things aren't.
They're terrifying because they represent pure conviction that's been twisted and corrupted. In the same way that Sharon Tate is innocent and naive, and yet we can see she's self-assured and knows that she's where she needs to be and is doing the things she needs to be doing, the Manson Family is the same, only a photonegative.
They're terrifying because the actions they commit are objectively horrifying--murdering an innocent woman and her unborn child is an act of pure evil, absolutely so within the context of the film.
And yet you can tell they truly, unequivocally believe that what they're doing is right and necessary. It's that smug, dangerous confidence, the, "Don't worry, I know what's good for you," that makes them horrifying. Even
That's what makes Qualley's character heartbreaking and tragic. She's clearly a bit conflicted with the actions of the family, but she ultimately can't bring herself out of the system of belief, and falls fully.
Evil doesn't always show up in jackboots and a mustache wearing red and black. Sometimes it's a pretty hippie chick and her creepy friends.
Jaxon Harris
what do you mean?
Isaac Martinez
Normal people who don't know something: >Oh, Charles Manson? Wait, was he real? Huh, I'll do some research when I get home
Yea Forums: >I don't know who Charles Manson is, giving me free reign to shit all over this movie
Austin Myers
People bitching about this movie I can tell have never seen a late 60s-70s movie. Long drawn out scenes, often with little to no dialogue was common.
Today, every second has to be crammed with shit or you her threads like this
Levi Scott
>They're terrifying because they represent pure conviction that's been twisted and corrupted. Jesus christ, do you honestly believe that? That that's what's terrifying? No, they're not scary in this film, at all. They're shown to be incompetent children. Anyone can manipulate a child.
Elijah Jones
>The Manson Family as portrayed in the movie is horrifying
I appreciate your analysis but actually felt the point of the ending was to do the opposite. They are portrayed at the end as a punch line. As a bumbling group of losers, a joke meant to have their balls bitten off by a dog and head smashed in and casually torched by a fucking flamethrower. In the end they pose almost no threat and Cliff is actually laughing at them when they break in. I think Tarantino's point was to make fun of them in order to remove their power and evil.
Josiah Stewart
She narrates the whole story from beginning to end that Leo tells her after the credits role
David Lee
>Every movie has a central conflict, every story actually.
that's so stupidly dated
Dominic Davis
Wrong. Inherent Vice is kino. This film isn't, Strawmanning anyone who disagrees with you as not liking a film for 'x reason' is dishonest and makes you seem insecure in your own opinions.
Samuel Powell
Do you think that in the alternate universe where Sharon Tate lives and Leo meets her and Roman, that Leo will be in Chinatown? Will it even be made
Matthew Long
The film was simply drawn out, not bad. Some scenes took a little longer than they should have, but it's still a good movie about late 60s hollywood. Also, the Brad Pitt scenes were absolute kino >btfo meme chink man >destroying hippies
Nathaniel Jackson
>Inherent Vice DUDE
Nathan Hernandez
>Inherent Vice is kino Okay lol but next time you don't have to try that hard my man lol
Robert Harris
no Kurt Russel was the narrator
Levi Lee
oh I see it's pasta, I fell for it the first time I saw it
Jaxon Fisher
>no Kurt Russel was the narrator But how does he know what happened at the ranch and in the house?
Aiden Ortiz
>Voiceovers are often used to create the effect of storytelling by a character/omniscient narrator.
Caleb Foster
I should correct myself--I think we're both right.
American culture has--or had--built the Manson Family into this weird, quiet, untouchable monolith of tragedy. No one really talks about them. We make jokes about them and stuff, but I don't know if we've ever fully dealt with the cultural trauma they inflicted fifty years ago.
This movie does that. So, I think that you're supposed to go in seeing them as this horrifying--which I think they are, when you see what they stand for on an ideological level--and then you come out of the film laughing at them. That's what's so cathartic about the ending.
A great example of this would be (SPOILERS)-- When we see Manson say hi to Sharon Tate in the very beginning or so of the film. Before you know the end of the movie, you think of that scene in a completely different way. It's the butcher waving hi to the lamb and smiling about it. He's so sure she's going to die, even if he doesn't know it yet. Just like we are.
But by the end, we see what can happen--maybe the point of the movie?--when good people, or just regular people, aka Cliff and Dalton, go up against such a monolithic evil--they beat it. And what's better, they turn it into a joke. They do what The Producers did fifty years ago and completely gut and neuter an evil entity and obliterate it's cultural power. Or, at the very least, they give us the opportunity to laugh at it and supply hope that maybe the stuff we see as necessary evils, the bad things that just happen to good people, don't have to happen that way.
Adam Turner
I honestly don't see the point of turning the Mason killers into laughing stocks. I cankinda understand why he did it with nazis because 80 years later everyone is still obsessed about them, but who gives a fuck about Mason and his goons? I think the only people who could find catarsis in what happens in this movie are those in the industry, and who gives two fucks about them.
Luke Gutierrez
They represent an interior kind of evil--Nazis are an exterior cultural threat. The Manson Family is the kind of cultural evil that dystopias are built on.
Landon Young
This thread is why remake and comic book horseshit is so popular
Michael Murphy
updooted
Xavier Morris
I don't get if I'm being baited or if burgers really think this of Mason. He was just a wacko who second-handed killed 4 people. He made a cultural impact but come the fuck on, any serial killer you had was a lot more threatening and they actually represent some cultural nightmare.
Oliver King
Mandalorian Trailer
Luke Rogers
Oh Yeah, I totally agree with you there then. The tension of the film exists because we as the audience (or at least the intended audience of the film) is familiar enough with the subject matter that there is dread and sadness in watching these events unfold because we anticipate this innocent woman to be murdered. Even the scenes prior documenting the timeline by the hour is nerve wrecking cause you expect a murder to follow. When what does follow is the murderers turned into clowns who get destroyed by our heros, it really is cathartic and takes away the power of the Manson family.
You have to understand that at the time, what the Manson family did was absolutely unimaginable. There were really no big name psychopaths at the time. Serial killer wasn't even a term that was invented yet (you can watch Mindhunters to get a sense of all of that). So the idea that a couple of good ole american kids could violently murder an innocent hollywood star really shook the whole country. There was a loss of cultural innocence then, a realization of the internal evils of american society.
Dominic Reed
What makes Manson terrifying versus other serial killers--which I admit, represent a cultural nightmare in their own right--is how he was able to amass a following, and how most people--as is common with serial killer stories--didn't seem to have a problem with what they were doing. Until they committed the murders, and then that woke people up at the end of the 60s to the fact that the flower power/change movement had a dark underside to it.
Andrew Reyes
Tarantino idolizes golden age hollywood and the family put a really nasty dent on it. And it's better to mock tryhard edgelords than mistify them like so many tv shows do.
Colton King
Prior to the Manson murders the american culture wasn't really aware of any high profile killers (son of sam wasn't for another few years) so the thing is Manson by comparison wasn't that big of a deal but at the time he was the scariest thing ever. Homeborn evil for the sake of evil, it really did shake the culture for some time before the concept of mass killers and serial killers became more common about a decade later.
Daniel Morgan
yes I get what it meant at the time, but having them ridiculed on screen would mean that the audience can feel some satisfaction in seen some sacred beast like the nazi idea was being reduced in shame. but, again, who gives a fuck about them 50 years later? it's a murder whose cultural legacy nowadays is basically over. and if it wasn't because tate waspolanski's partner and because she was pregnant, I doubt most people would have cared that much even then
Adam Sullivan
This
Carson Rodriguez
>whose cultural legacy nowadays is basically over The fact that you are desensitized to the murders now and can read about them without feeling fear or shock is proof that the legacy ISN'T over. That IS the legacy. The loss of innocence and ignorance, the awareness that this fucked up shit happens in our own backyards. It was new then, and now we are so accustom to it all. That's why is significant.
Jacob Roberts
>budget: 90 million >publicity 150 million >box office: 280 only Yea Forums love this piece of shit lmao, it's a bomb in the whole world
Ian Fisher
Most people enjoy seeing the bad guy get fucked, user.
Samuel Taylor
No I just keep reposting it in every Once Upon a Time in Hollywood thread I see. I’m the only ones that posted it and I’m the original guy that wrote it
Ryder Gomez
pleb filtered
Noah Phillips
I love you man
Jackson Hall
even admitting this is the lagacy of Mason, which it's not (because that would be giving him a lot more importance than he ever actually had), what did tarantula achieve with this movie? making fun of the masons didn't contribute to any debate because there simply isn't. society already made fun of much worst horrors like ww2, and for many decades now. what mason did was a laughable in comparison and only relevant because of the victims, but in and of itself it was very small, and if you aren't american it's fucking nothing
Aiden Stewart
>implying only liberal NPCs exist >t. alt-right NPC
oh I'm sorry for missing one letter, my princess. now go and finish cleaning the toilet with you tongue you fucking cumstain
Evan Peterson
You're on a board trying to have an intellectual discussion about film and you can't even spell the name of the main antagonist, much less one of the most infamous cultural figures in America, right. And you've been doing it down this whole thread.
You're an embarrassment.
Ryan Gutierrez
People really do forget that what you like or dislike and what is good or bad are completely subjective.
literally the only autist in the world giving two shits about my typo it's you, cumstain
Jayden Hill
>Inherent Vice is kino lol
Lincoln Edwards
This board is for discussing the merits of film, which means personal opinions and your individual taste of what's good and what's bad for you aren't just critical to the discussion, they're the grammar of how you form opinions on art. I'd agree with your sentiment if we were on /his/ or even Yea Forums, but we're not. Stop being so virtuous.
Leo Morgan
something tells me I should try watching it again, but it was one of the most fucking boring movies I've ever seen, I forgot the plot as it went along
Bentley Bennett
I found it to be almost parodying itself, like what Quentin did with the grauitous foot stuff. I feel like theres a deeper meaning somewhere, but ill have to watch it again
Blake Thomas
Rethinking your position is the core of intellectual discussion. Otherwise you're just a bunch of monkeys throwing shit at each other.
The foot shit is 100% a joke because Tarantino now knows people joke a lot about it. Now it feels more forced than usual.
Carson Nguyen
The after-credits red apple scene definitely felt like that. What was a subtle trademark felt like it has became this massive thing he's jerking off in front of the audience for the plebbit crowd
Jordan Hernandez
>I feel like theres a deeper meaning somewhere There isn't. The entire film is just Tarantino pretending like he's one of the directors from the golden age of hollywood.
Thomas Cox
Wait, was there really a post credit scene?
Thats lame as fuck. If thats the case then fuck that shit im out.
Thomas Sanchez
>every story and movie have a central conflict Holy mother of pleb, maybe stick to capeshit
Jaxson Reyes
Yep. Leo, as Rick Dalton, partakes in a cigarette ad for Red Apple cigarettes. It's as stupid and self-aggrandising as it sounds.
Mason Parker
Because she said she lived at the Spahn ranch, and he decided then to drop her off & check out what was going on.
Angel Russell
My use of "virtue" as it applies to your case was tongue-in-cheek.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to rethink your position, but the phrase "rethink your position" itself relies on the idea that you have a position to begin with. A position that was no doubt built on the innate tendencies and proclivities you display, aka what you may find to be "good" and "bad".
If we follow the line of inquiry you opened up on subjectivity, which is a fair line to open, then we have to ultimately come to the conclusion that good and bad and everything else are all subjective terms, truth itself is a hollow metaphor that holds no real water or weight other than that which we've arbitrarily ascribed to it, and thus all critical argument would appear to be robbed of meaning, because what's the point in discussing nothing?
That being said, you can absolutely accept an overall state of universal subjectivity while still understanding that, within certain domains, false objectivity is oftentimes the most readily apparent and useful truth.
For instance, if we follow pure subjectivity to the root of the act of murder, there's nothing wrong with it, because in order for something to be wrong, there needs to be something right, and nothing can be right if everything is subjective, because true rightness doesn't exist in a purely subjective context.
However, the law, at least in the U.S., states that murder is in fact illegal and by extension, immoral. While this may not be true in the overall subjective scope of our realm, it has to be true in order for us to function as a society, at least within the point we're all at now.
Ryder King
in my opinion. Understand and be open to the idea that everything could really just be subjective--because we don't know if it is or isn't, because if we knew it was really subjective, we'd be objective in our view of our own subjectivity--while also accepting that in the sub-arenas of the world such as law, art, business, politics, and the like, certain rules must be observed in order to play the game. This doesn't mean the rules won't ever change--they do, historically, all the time--and this also doesn't mean that you can't advocate for overall change within the domain itself.
But you're not doing that. You're coming in here, brandishing philosophy like a religious icon and proselytizing, beating your breast with false sympathy and moaning for the masses to understand. All you're doing is masturbating to a perverted worldview you siphoned haphazardly from multiple sources without bothering to do any critical analysis on what you're now regurgitating into this thread.
Then again, I could be doing that too, but what I know about stuff is all subjective, so who's to say.
Julian Jenkins
So, in order to have a critical discussion on film, you must be able to think on those two levels, in my opinion. Understand and be open to the idea that everything could really just be subjective--because we don't know if it is or isn't, because if we knew it was really subjective, we'd be objective in our view of our own subjectivity--while also accepting that in the sub-arenas of the world such as law, art, business, politics, and the like, certain rules must be observed in order to play the game. This doesn't mean the rules won't ever change--they do, historically, all the time--and this also doesn't mean that you can't advocate for overall change within the domain itself.
But you're not doing that. You're coming in here, brandishing philosophy like a religious icon and proselytizing, beating your breast with false sympathy and moaning for the masses to understand. All you're doing is masturbating to a perverted worldview you siphoned haphazardly from multiple sources without bothering to do any critical analysis on what you're now regurgitating into this thread.
Then again, I could be doing that too, but what I know about stuff is all subjective, so who's to say.
Levi Cooper
How brainlet do you have to be to not get this film
Sharon Tate represents the innocence and purity of the 60s Hollywood.
The Mansons represent everything that destroyed it.
The ending is a fairy tale ending of reality. The Tate murder arguably changed the entire culture of the country for the worse, and brought an end to that era. It was a much stronger message and meaningful compared to Tarantino's films. He directed a love letter to old Hollywood and specifically to Tate who was victim to one of the worst crimes in Hollywood history.
It's a melancholy ending though because we all know what really happened. Much in the same way as Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns of the same name. Literally all of them have melancholy endings.
Sebastian Collins
Is it just me or was the violence at the end more satisfying than any other Tarantino film? Something about those creepy hippies was so hateable, and I didn't learn what they did until after I saw the film.
Jeremiah Williams
Thank you.
John Parker
thank yeeew wet me swuck your weee weee mmmmm
Sebastian Davis
It's that and also because the whole movie almost has no violence and then suddenly you get a surprising amount of gore at the end. The audience was laughing and going "daaaamnnn" during the whole finale.
Jack Parker
>Sharon Tate represents the innocence and purity of the 60s Hollywood. Yep. She's also shallow as fuck and has no personality. >The Mansons represent everything that destroyed it. Considering they're barely shown outside of the ranch scene and then again as comic relief - both times BTFO effortlessly by Cliff Booth - they're not particularly threatening. I can film my foot and say it represents alienation in an ever-changing environment. It wouldn't make that film of my foot good. >The ending is a fairy tale ending of reality. The Tate murder arguably changed the entire culture of the country for the worse, and brought an end to that era. It was a much stronger message and meaningful compared to Tarantino's films. He directed a love letter to old Hollywood and specifically to Tate who was victim to one of the worst crimes in Hollywood history. Great, an ending that only makes sense if you think about what it didn't do. The fact that you defend this is actually embarrassing.
Matthew Miller
I saw it last night for a second time, and Jay was the most melancholic this time around for me. He came across as just a nice guy, and like ST, he wasn't spared IRL.
Aiden Morgan
I went into this film thinking “Man, its going to be hard watching my beautiful wife Margot Robbie get killed on screen in some horrific manner” so when it was a happy ending, part of me actually felt relieved.
Landon Lewis
I need to see this film again. It seems extremely rewatchable.
You would hate the Sergio Leone "Once Upon a Time" films also considered classic. They have the same long, drawn out "pointless" scenes of characters just in the moment you're meant to take in and be comfy.
>the film only make sense if you think about what it didn't do Not really what I said? It makes you think about how reality could've been different, and how great things could've been if things went slightly different. I don't see why that's bad.
William Campbell
>muh violence and murder fantasy
Why are Americans this way?
Ryan Miller
I'm sorry Boris but you must come from some country where the main export is total retardation because the Manson murders are as far beyond a local serial killer (which most civilised places don't have believe it or not) in cultural relevance as those crimes are to the suspected shop lifting of a bottle of shampoo. If you don't know about them it's because you're a moron.
Juan Long
>You would hate the Sergio Leone "Once Upon a Time" films also considered classic. Once Upon A Time In America is literally the greatest film ever made. Don't compare this trash to that. It's not about having 'pointless' scenes, I never once mentioned that. Stop projecting and grow up
Sebastian Turner
Brad Pitt btfoing everyone certified this as a kino.
Henry Morris
>I really don't understand, someone please explain here...why do people love this movie if it's literally pointless? I mean the plot. It's this year's Bladerunner 2049 for /mu. It's constant tardposting with what they think is their oh-so-intelligent observations and SO FUNNY MEME. It will be over soon. And some other movie will be posted about constantly by the tard crowd.
It's Yea Forums. Lower your expectations.
Aaron Hill
This post reeks of capeshit fandom. Admit it
Kevin Williams
>comfy >you feel like you are hanging out with the characters >extremely accurate and detailed representation of 1969 >good acting >attractive looking actors
Benjamin Bailey
>you feel like you are hanging out with the characters Cringe. Thanks for confirming that the people circlejerking this film are autistic losers stuck in arrested development
William Roberts
>autistic >circlejerk >cringe Thanks for confirming that those who hate the movie are people who can't form an opinion without getting mad and using meme words.
James Brooks
Thanks for your two big, beautiful posts of poetic waffle.
I'm a mathematician not an english major though so excuse me if I skimmed your post.
As a human your opinion naturally forms, it does not require effort, it's an extension of the psyche. Keeping your ego in check does require effort for it is ever elusive, adapting and evolving.
You talk about intellectual masturbating and here you are spewing all this pseudo-intellectual shit, although I do find it aesthetic pseudo-intellectual shit.
Fuck your circular logic, I'm not playing that game and Fuck your moving the goalposts.
Objective truth exists, it's that which exists outside the mind. Human interpretation makes a subjective perception based on that truth, unless thought is funneled through logic and evidence, in which case it's objective perception.
Your fatal flaw seems to be thinking complexity = intelligence. It does not.
is Tarantino give you feet tokens to defend this shitty movie?
Mason Foster
>is Tarantino give you Go back to your shitty country and take some English classes, amigo. Then we can talk.
Ryder Brown
Are you trying to talk like Cliff?
Andrew Gutierrez
>The Sharon scenes are pointless, they don't contribute to the plot Is this like a meme now, or just some effective bait that got picked up by everyone? I find it hard to believe that so many people on Yea Forums didn't know about Tate and the murders.
Kevin Lopez
So you didn't read what I wrote and instead distilled it down to base points you're using to strawman the assertion of my opinion I made.
Objective truth exists only so much as we're able to claim it's objective. At this point in civilization, we have no way of knowing if there is or is not a God or gods; all art is based on circular human subjectivity aka our interpretation of what we'd call reality, which we don't know if it is or not, because how could we; and science and mathematics, which are currently our best methods of determining the closest thing to objectivity we can find in the natural world, are forever shifting and changing with our interpretation of the natural world. Kind of like art, almost.
It's almost like nothing can exist outside of the mind for us because there's no way to perceive anything without first having a mind to begin with. There's nothing outside of the human mind, and even if there is, there's no real way of knowing just how real it is.
I bet you're one of those people who thinks math is the objective language of the universe. You're the 21st century equivalent to a 18th century French Vicar. I wish you well in the playpen you've made for yourself. Have fun moving imaginary numbers around until you die.
Nathan Miller
These were eaxctly my thoughts first movie ever to have no plot whatsoever everything is filler except the hippie ranch and the final confrontation
Logan Hall
kek
Caleb Bailey
No you're delusional and now your arrogance is on display. You just stated you don't believe in reality. That right there should be enough for any user scrolling by to immediately write you off as a loony.
Your ego is so big you don't believe in a world outside of it. That's fucking hilarious man. >No wonder my op triggered you
>I bet you're one of those people who thinks math is the objective language of the universe. HA! Dumb people shouldn't bet because they lose!
Math and science are tools to help us understand reality, they are not perfect but they keep getting better and better. Personally I see math as a language.
Lol you've CHOSEN to be a fool, what else can I do but laugh?
On a serious note, you should study and practice zen/tao, it may just fix your cancerous belief system.
Peace and love buddy
Evan Thomas
can you explain more about Cliff's submission to the objective world and what Tarantino is trying to telegraph with real/fake transitions?
Nathaniel Lewis
Yeah, showing up to someone's house with knives and a pistol standing mere feet from the victims is no cause for defending ones self and others. Cliff should have just sat down and let them do whatever they wanted.
Nathaniel Adams
an actual NPC would never break away from the status quo you triggered retard the current satus quo is liberalism
Mason Davis
Did you forget how they reacted to Cliff when he merely wanted to visit an old work colleague? They popped his tire, screamed at him, flipped him off constantly, and acted like he was Donald Trump winning the 2016 election and doing a parade through the Hillary party. Did you forget about the red head barking orders in a militant way to those inside the house? Jeeze, pay attention.
Xavier Myers
can someone make a screencap version?
James Peterson
>Not scary, but creepy Yeah, it's called being unnerving, which is natures way of telling you something is wrong and you should separate yourself from it. It's a form of being scared, without the typical shock and awe of being frightened.
Isaiah Morales
You're the OP?
Christ no wonder.
Math and science will always get better, and they will never be perfect. They are a language, you're correct, which means they are inherently subjective. Anything shaped by the human mind is inherently subjective.
I personally believe that there is something bigger and beautiful than anything we could come up with beyond us. I think when we all pass on, we go somewhere else, I hope somewhere better.
I also think that we feel it's influence here. But we have a tendency to take that influence and twist it. To think that men could ever hope to truly understand the language of the universe is foolish, and your arrogance eclipses mine tenfold if that's what you believe.
I believe in reality; what I don't believe in is orthodoxy. You should never take things as they are--you should always strive for better. I thought a mathematician would be able to understand such simple logic.
If you're really the OP, you have a shallow view of art and by extension, life. Your overreliance on mathematics and your perverse deification of logic leads me to believe that you are near-childlike in the system that governs who you are as a person. I say near-childlike because you possess the crude understanding of a child, yet lack the naive and charming optimism of one. You are a member of the walking dead. For now, at least.
You called my previous statements "poetic waffles". You also mentioned the Tao Te Ching and it's potential to "fix your cancerous belief system."
Here's a line from the Tao Te Ching:
To know yet to think one does not know is best.
I'd suggest you take your own advice and start enjoying waffles.
Camden Phillips
The asian looking girl is the reason why they went after Rick instead of Tate at the last moment. His freak out at them in his private drive was the catalyst. She wanted to kill someone that taught them how to kill (i.e., an actor that got famous for killing people on T.V.). The two women that went along with Tex were just as hopped up and ready to murder people as he was. They showed no hesitation or need for motivation at all beyond what they already brought with them.
Jonathan Robinson
I would say there were 2 main conflicts. 1 was Leo's failing career as you said. The other was the mason murders that were just a backdrop until the last 30 minutes.
Kayden Hughes
Yikes and sigh and lol
Not the op to the thread, the op of this reply chain, how new are you.
>Anything shaped by the human mind is inherently subjective. I suggest you use a dictionary, jesus christ
>There's nothing outside of the human mind >I believe in reality Whoa, double talk, super impressive /s
>I thought a mathematician would be able to understand such simple logic. You're not logical at all
>You also mentioned the Tao Te Ching No I did not you buffoon
>To know yet to think one does not know is best. That's a dumb quote and no wonder, it's from the 6th century.
You have the entire collection of mankind's knowledge at your fingertips and yet you insist on being a pseudo-intellectual moron.
You reap what you sow faggot. I'm not replying after this.
