Without memeing, can someone who genuinely thought this film was great explain to me why you thought so...

it would have been better if there was a bad guy with a laser shooting the sky trying to destroy the world and then Leo punched the bad guy in the face

I dont trust anybody that wasn't unironically on the edge of their seat during the ranch visit, kino scene

OP is the type of guy who thinks stuff like Baraka/Samsara/the Qatsi trilogy are a waste of time

Then the bad guy explains his reasoning and Leo and the bad guy destroy the world together

You could have gotten your first 3 points just by understanding the Manson murders though. This film elaborates nothing on what we already know about all that shit. I’m sure Quentin put a lot of effort into the film but the story just seems lost and boring for the most part. The ranch was a great scene and the end obviously, but beyond that it was literally just driving and bullshit dialogue. As for your last point, every movie has fantastic elements which makes a viewer strongly identify with a character or want to be in their shoes. I don’t think the fact this movie has one of those characters makes it a masterpiece, just a decent movie.

Thanks! Opinion discarded.

My parents and I went to the kinoplex to watch this garbage fire of a movie and were all thoroughly disappointed, I was genuinely excited to see this movie because me and my parents went to the same high school as quentin and watched all of his movies but this shit was just awful.

So you ask, then be a smartass when you get an answer? kys

This movie is the biggest pleb filter ever, maybe the only one greater than the 2nd half of Full Metal Jacket.

>It illustrates the way in which film is used as propaganda, and turns that weapon against violent killers
Bruce Lee was a violent killer?

and The Tree of Life

It was world building. You get an insight inside each character's psyche.
I don't know what more needs to really be explained to you.

>The Cliff character is someone everyone wants to be

>everyone wants to be an over-50 washed up extra with a meaty face

sorry wat

And tweeeeeens...

I’m trying to discuss this film with someone who isn’t pic related. That means I’m skeptical, you say something, I respond. If I didn’t, you could say “I love the fact that Tarantino included a bucket of dog shit with my popcorn” and I’m supposed to what? Accept that’s why you think the film is a masterpiece? The dogshit has nothing to do with the film. People driving around Hollywood for 2 hours is objectively boring and contributes nothing to the story. What is the story supposed to be? Do you have any thoughts on this and how the rest of the film ties into it or are you just going to be the Joker and tell me to go kill myself?

Attached: DDB65C1A-C497-4741-B72A-65013CCA7E7C.png (636x773, 14K)

This is why you don't understand OUATIH

tits or gtfo

Isn't an actor and a stuntman's adventure in Hollywood enough of a story?

So I'm sat in the cinema watching an actress playing Sharon Tate sat in a cinema watching the real Sharon Tate playing some other character in a movie.
It's clever, but the audience I was watching seemed to be enjoying the movie, whereas irl my wife was moaning she was bored and people were leaving the cinema.

The movie was made to launder money to pedowood. The content is irrelevant

Based truth poster

It was a set up and a punchline type of movie.

Im frugal so i watched a cam rip and the audienece was laughing so much at the end that i couldnt stop laughing either.
Im not sure i would have laughed so hard "alone".
It made the build up worth it.

I too don't go to the movies

what i want to know is, i keep hearing how the manson murders had a big impact and changed hollywood, well how the fuck did that happen? did people go "holy shit roman polanskis wife was murdered, lets do cocaine and invent disco" or what?

I don't think you can say they "changed hollywood". As the film shows, Hollywood was already changing (the production code had been broken in 1965). The murders merely showed that the Peace & Love garbage that was used to sell the change was a complete lie.
there were several other events that helped kill the illusion of Hippie peace & Love. The Manson murder spree was a big one, but there was also Altamaont, and also the death of so many rock stars. Hippie bullshit was steeped in satanism, CIA fuckery, and just degeneracy. Pure Jewish social engineering at every level.

I just like to see an attractive man driving a car through LA

I watched Vertigo when I was younger and absolutely hated it. Now I like it. I think you're young.

jesus - take your lithium you sad burnout

holy shit, I had the exact same thing happen to me too. Couldn't even finish it as a kid, but totally fell into it in my twenties pushing forty now

user the truth is you're either too young to understand or you simply want to hate this film. The movie isn't about "efficient storytelling", it's about movies themselves and why they are important to Tarantino. If you don't get it now, watch the rest of his movies and try again later because Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a masterpiece.

Attached: shut up boomer.jpg (787x773, 133K)

completely agree with you. I think people who don't like Tarantino movies are legitimately dumb. They think that people like his stuff because they think his movies are "cool", and they aren't capable of thinking about movies for themselves.

There were audible gaps from most women in the audience when he took his shirt off on the roof. And this is in a majority white European country and the theatre was full of under 30 qt’s on dates with their bf’s, no desperate landwhales in sight
So I reject your hypothesis

OP is an underage pleb, that much is evident

What's the point of asking if you discard every opinion. Have sex and get shit on annon

Cant wait for the BD to come out so i can finally watch this

Projecting. None of that is in the film.

It was so pointless and boring and Tarantino is such a pervert this may actually be true

oh yeah, i get it, thats why the hippie culture and the peace and love crap died by 1970, thats why its a uniquely 1960s phenomenon

I went to see it and the only time the audience chuckled was when Brad Pitt started acting high.

Imagine thinking a film needs a plot in order to tell a story.

Liberals are unstable psychopaths and not the nice people they purport to be. What else is new. White men with thick glasses and pipes could've told you that in the early 60s.

>Projecting
Meaningless dishonest buzzword

You're looking at an empty film and going "wow, it's all about these generic ideas, man"

Irony of this post

The movie is a feel good representation of an era the director loved. The way I described it to my friends before we watch it together at the theaters (2nd time for me obviously) is that it is different than most (Hollywood) films in the way there is not a clear task or goal for the protagonists. It's just three characters living their lives.
I wouldn't say there is nothingness, just not strongly connected scenes. The most pointless scenes from the movie might have been the Tate scenes, which 1) overall contributed in the feel good feeling of the movie and 2) make the ending more satisfying.
It was nice to watch an actor experiencing his fading away and giving his best performance of his life, watching Leo briefly star in the Great Escape and an spy exploitation film, Cliff drive around the city, Sharon genuinely enjoying people appreciating her in the her role. Maybe not a masterpiece, but a very enjoyable film for me and I think its weakest part, the lack of a clear goal, might be what made it so special

people who think a film is valuable only if it's value is intended

imagine being too stupid for a tarankino movie lol stick to onions wars and capeshit kid

He is the perfect white human male.

Based Quentin

I genuinely feel bad for you

>brainlet

wow

Attached: 3e2.jpg (323x323, 31K)

The film wasn’t good. You’re not stupid for not liking it. You are stupid for pretending it has layers just so you don’t seem out of your depth bro

Don't forget to subscribe to disney+.

you're stupid for thinking other people are supposed to tell you what to think
you get out of a movie what you get out of it, that part is up to you
you think information is supposed to come from people in authority instead of being what you can figure out for yourself

I walked out the cinema very disappointed. That was my own conclusion. Enjoy your delusion

enjoy your brainlessness

That took you less than 20 seconds to respond. Are you just sat here waiting for my responses?

I'm responding with my actual thoughts, you're not saying anything very challenging, so it's not like I'm having to spend minutes and minutes on deciding what I'm going to say back to you

Haha epic bro:)

Can you tell me why you thought the film was good?

because I liked it

basically this

Liking something doesn’t make it good though

Attached: 987643678123.png (909x900, 467K)

when you get older you'll get it zoom zoom

Is there a virgin driver vs chad cliff meme out yet?

>art is objective

Attached: file.png (1242x1197, 575K)

it does for me, you huge idiot
jesus, that's like saying a parent is stupid for loving their own children; "don't they know everybody else's kids are just as important?" fucking hell, artistic value is subjective almost by definition
I was writing you a real response about why I like this movie, but instead I think I'll just watch another movie instead of wasting my time on YOU
gonna watch Virus with Sonny Chiba and directed by Kenji Fukasaku in honor of this Tarantino thread

i hate to break it to you, but you're an Npc yourself

> I like rape
> It’s subjective
> Rape is good

I said nothing about the film. I'm just talking about zoomers who use the "muhjection" memegument.

Not an argument.

meant for

Ahhh the classic “I was gonna respond but then I decided not to”
I get you bro, your secrets safe with me.

>rape is art

Attached: file.png (216x233, 34K)

They are both me;^)

> Hey THAT isn’t art
> But this is;)

Get a grip

Not the same user, just reread this post to yourself and get off the internet for a while

you were getting a real response until
> Liking something doesn’t make it good though
we're talking about a fucking movie, you dolt
which you obviously don't like in the first place
I'm guessing you're a TV/video games person

Refute my argument or move along. Liking something can make it enjoyable, not good.

He is probably someone who browses the internet on their phone through everything, like a woman

I asked you for your thoughts on the movie. You couldn’t come up with any. It’s fine. I get it.

Shut the fuck up you spoiled little faggot.
>agree with me or get out :(
Absolutely pathetic. Reconsider your entire life and try to make some friends

Art is subjective but there is also objectively good and bad art. You are not wrong for liking something I think is shit. But there is a difference between the Mona Lisa and your autistic sisters macaroni picture

Calm down mate, don’t get so upset

>agree with me or get out :(

>there is also objectively good and bad art
no there's not

I asked for

and you're gonna get

I asked for a rebuttal. If you’re not gonna debate it then anything else you have to say is irrelevant

And awaay we go

You rancid swine

and everything you've said has been meaningless and stupid anyway, that's why I've decided not to respond to you in a way that requires any effort

Just asked for your thoughts on why the film was good. Didn’t realise it was such a big ask

it is, because I'd have to give you a real answer, and you don't want one

No but there fucking needs to be

Take a beginner art history course when you graduate highschool

I do want one. That is literally all I wanted from yoh

>gets answers
>nah man those aren’t REAL answers
>wow why won’t anyone answer
Cringe

the short answer is because I love movies
there's an essay that has to be written to explain the statement past that one sentence, but that's the short answer
if you wanted a real answer, you've got it
and now I'm watching a movie, and explaining to you what THIS movie says about movies takes more effort than you're going to get out of me now

who decides what is good and bad art then?

Not an argument.

Where are the real answers of why the film is good besides “art is subjective I liked the film”

Wow.

Good Tarantino movies :
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown

Enjoyable movies/guilty pleasure tier :
Kill Bill 1-2

What the hell is this retarded shit tier :
everything else

Me

experts who dedicate their lives to a subject. seriously i have to explain this? look at early dali paintings to see how you learn the rules so you can break them.

100% accurate answer
all refutation of this answer is idiotic

what defines an "expert". is the relationship between the non-experts and the artwork discarded because they are not experts?

Cheers

You’re an expert virgin

experience. if ive seen 10000 movies i am able to see things that a guy that has only seen 10 cant

Aren’t we forgetting something, user?

Attached: A310F631-2408-43D2-9D86-D30AAC88832D.jpg (999x433, 116K)

then why do "experts" regularly disagree? surely if art was objective than everyone would always agree on what was objectively good and objectively bad.
also
>is the relationship between the non-experts and the artwork discarded because they are not experts?

and no. the relationship you describe is what i said earlier- subjective vs objective

no expert will disagree about common ideas- a film is well made. a painting is skillfully done. they will disagree on effectiveness.

If you had two experts and showed them a stick man drawing they would agree that it was shit.

They disagree over more complex issues surrounding art

it's a pastiche of Hollywood circa the 70s, don't read too much into it and enjoy it for what it is

>no expert will disagree about common ideas like
>if a film is well made or if a painting is skillfully done
but they do though
look at the " experts' '" reactions to the premiere of Stravinky's Rite of Spring for example

a good point. and i agree that sometime objectivity requires distance. however that does not take away from the point that there is good and bad- compare your autistic sister hitting a piano to Stravinsky and tell me there is no difference

Oooh, I was indeed.

>t. doesn't like The Shaggs

was that a rebuttal or are you giving up?

>objectivity requires distance
for that to be true you would have to assume art is objective... which it isn't
>compare your autistic sister hitting a piano to Stravinsky
if you looked at the negative reviews from the time of the premiere, some "experts" would tell you that there would be no difference between those two

Could Tarantino have done all that with a plot on top? Isnt it flippant to iust choose a random theme because you like it and then not bother to write it?

Sure it provides an opportunity to reflect on the times based on what you already know about them but thats not in the movie

i'm pretty sure he made a conscious decision not to do that. it would have bogged down the atmosphere and the chemistry between the characters which is really the raison d'être of the film

The movie really doesn't work if Tarantino himself isn't directing it to be honest, but because everyone knows how much he loves movies and Hollywood in general they go along with it.

I loved the movie personally, my friend who never even knew about the Manson family somehow also loved it, my other friend who has only watched his Kill Bill movies really liked it.

Lmao you think you're a free thinker here? You've been procedural as fuck

>for that to be true you would have to assume art is objective... which it isn't
of course it is. ask yourself is there a difference in quality between lolita and 50 shades of grey.- and please answer this
>if you looked at the negative reviews from the time of the premiere, some "experts" would tell you that there would be no difference between those two
the reviews could be scathing. might not understand what he was doing. but at no point would they accuse him being incompetent- crazy maybe, but like i said earlier critical distance is an important part of understanding anything

Cool movoe though nothing really to complain about unless you just cant get into the mindset of a classic movie fan

Is the Sharon Tate murder and Manson really such an iconic moment for Hollywood? I never paid particular attention to it

>is there a difference in quality between lolita and 50 shades of grey
i personally think lolita is better. but it isn't objectively better because 50sog could resonate more with someone else more than Lolita does. it literally depends on what the reader/audience values in the art

>the reviews could be scathing. might not understand what he was doing. but at no point would they accuse him being incompetent- crazy maybe, but like i said earlier critical distance is an important part of understanding anything

Henri Quittard, called the work "a laborious and puerile barbarity" and Gustav Linor, writing in the leading theatrical magazine Comoedia, thought the performance was super

also your comment "might not understand what [the artist] is doing" could also be applied to someone critiquing a negative review of 50sog maybe a critic who doesnt "get" 50sog just needs more critical distance...

don't even bother, man, this guy is beyond help
he's already decided OUATIH is bad, and any statement that doesn't back that up is going to be "incorrect". You'll learn more about yourself by arguing with him, which you might find inherently worthwhile, but he's not listening to anything you say.

>I went into a Tarentino movie and expected Transformers
well done zoomer, you played yourself

The film was actually a cowboy western film.

Brad Pitt plays a modern cowboy in changing time. He always maintains his morals even in the face of temptation.

>because opinions and different perspectives exist, there is zero objectivity
No. OUATIH is objectively a Quentin Tarantino masterwork about his love of film

>cowboy western film
There was no horses or guns tho

Cliff's horse is his dick
his gun, too

the most based image I've ever seen

>i personally think lolita is better,. but it isn't objectively better because 50sog could resonate more with someone else more than Lolita does. it literally depends on what the reader/audience values in the art
a subjective opinion. but looking at complexity, nuance, word choice, etc you can objectively say one is on a different level from the other,

>also your comment "might not understand what [the artist] is doing" could also be applied to someone critiquing a negative review of 50sog maybe a critic who doesnt "get" 50sog just needs more critical distance...
agreed to an extent, 50sog may have some underlying genius i, and every literary snob, is missing, but to compare it to Stravinsky, i think, does everyone a disservice - and clearly you admire him so ill ask: is 50 shades of grey as good as rite?

Watch this review. It explains it all.

youtu.be/Y_vc44IwiBY

Film is the dumbest 'art' that exists. People who spend time watching it are poorer and dumber than those who spend less time. (Scientifically proven btw)

Don't read anything into it. It's never deep. It's always shallow or pretentious pretending to be deep.

If it were deep it'd be written down. Because it's accessible to the illiterate and dyslexic and uninformed and can be consumed without any prior knowledge, or analysis, or intelligence, it's not smart, no matter how dumb movie fans or reviewers try to make it seem.

Attached: giphy.gif (235x240, 1.85M)

>My parents and I
loser

It’s literally a modern day western you retard

i'm just repeating myself now. im going to take a break from this

Just sit down and watch the film, that's what they're good for. Same way that books are good for reading. Just fucking watch the thing, and Tarantino is great for that

This. Just read Helter Skelter if you got blueballed by Tarantino's take on it.

I feel for a Yea Forums meme again. It was the worst movie I've seen in a long time.

zoomers telling other zoomers that they're too young to "get" a tarantino movie is quite funny.

cool. you were an awful debater- i decided- which makes it as valid as if i actually had to back up my claims

You're saying this as if Tarantino doesn't just design films to be fun and entertaining during the runtime

Mental gymnastics.

not him but thanks for posting this. really interesting

Correct

Wrong

There was literally horses and guns brainlet, tex rose a horse at the ranch which had gone bankrupt, and tex broke into rock daltons house with a revolver, user who posted the western comparison is spot on the more I think about it.

yeah but they were fake so doesn't count

Interesting, thanks user.

Movies aren't scripts. All you're criticizing is the plot which is just one component of the film. It needs to be looked at in relation to everything else.
No offense, but if you don't understand that there's no point in engaging.

>inserting your own themes into a movie: the Post

So, the women in the audience want to be an over 50 washed up extra with a meaty face. What a weird thing to bring up.

Helter Skelter was half facts, half speculation from the DA

I enjoyed it but boomer dad loved it. He said that if you watched a lot of those TV westerns growing up it resonates better with you. Like the movie was a love letter to 50s - 60s TV Hollywood.

>Scientifically proven btw
sauce? would be interesting if true

Your gif is from a movie, you are a hypocrite.

your woman is showing

i wasn't overly familiar with the history 60s hollywood besides the tate murders but i really loved the film. i dont know if you necessarily have to be familiar with those types of shows/films for the film to resonate with you personally.

Now THIS is mental illness

>sexy evil hamlet

Attached: file.png (1365x556, 634K)

OUATIH is Tarantino attempting to demythologize the Manson family but fucking up and doing it to Bruce Lee. Which of the two is more interesting?

that everyone is dogpiling on this post is just an excellent example of the level of drooling idiocy most Yea Forums posters operate under
very legitimate post demonstrating the INTERPRETATION of art

because youre a cuck

this

This, but unironically. It is common knowledge that when an opinion is criticized by a lot of people, it makes that opinion automatically right.

It's shit.

Zoomers hate it.

>fucking amazing soundtrack
>comfy as fuck
>the planting-payoff is god tier
>fucking Cliff Booth
>leo's arc about coming to terms with irrelevancy and the necessity for him to adapt to the new Hollywood
>kino meta fight scene in which stuntman cliff pretty much does all the work while movie star Rick just hangs out and barely finishes the job.
>feet
>"fuckin' hippies motherfuckers!"
pleb filter of the year

great actors and characters
>what was the point of all this?
why does a movie need to have a point?

Not guy but you're being an obtuse autist and you know it. He means he's a man men want to be and man women want.

Plus evidence can still look attractive when he puts in some effort. Know women that were never into twink Titanic-era Leo liking his Once Upon A Time look.

>It illustrates the way in which film is used as propaganda, and turns that weapon against violent killers
Can anyone support this with an argument? Because to me it seems Tarantino lacked the balls to represent Charles Manson at all in the film and doubly fucked up by turning Bruce Lee into a meme instead.

I love 60s music. I love 50s and 60s tv. I like Pitt, Leo and QT for the most part. I like Polanski's movies. I was obsessed with the Tate-Labianca murders when I was a teenager. It triggered r/asianmasculinity and plebs everywhere. What more could I ask for?

thanks user. Made it myself.

it also somehow actually looks like Braddu, lol

that's the thing, I doubt this movie would be interesting for non-americans, it's liek mythology the wya americans play this shit up but to teh rest of the world it's extremely trivial boring shit.

American living in mexico here. I went to see the movie with a friend and his family. They obviously hated the movie, "Too long and boring" they said.

>I love the fact that Tarantino included a bucket of dog shit with my popcorn
Back to Yea Forums kiddo

I liked the characters. Everybody was proactive in the search of their own desires.

Rick accepting himself and going from franchise action star to serious, "vulnerable" actor was a neat character arc. He steals the scene (in and out of the context of the movie) he is put in while being in a role he demeaned as something unworthy of him (being the villain that loses in the end)

Cliff careless demeanor shows someone that has been in life or death situations many times (war, fights with police, stunt work) before not to care about anything now. Even his own well being seems secondary to him. He gets in a fight with Bruce Lee or inside a compound of killer cultist as he doesn't care if he gets hurt or killed. He accepts it with no problems.

Sharon showing insecurity and naivety while being an absolute Hollywood slut provides a neat contrast that shows how actors are perceived.

I don't like the villains being that fucking incompetent tho. Seems like a rehashed idea of what he did in Django. The whole movie was building the killings and then they just don't happen. The ending is literally a joke.

Was Bruce Lee actually that brash?

I remember reading that he got in a fight for a girl that wasn't even his gf

To be honest, shit like Pride or UFC demythologized martial arts more than the Bruce Lee scene.

Martial Artists are now seen brain damaged cavemen instead of people that can actually teach you something.

>adventure
it's literally just a day in their life, nothing adventurous about that

It's a good film if you're interested in 1960's Hollywood or are interested in the artistic value of how a film is shot / acted. If you're interested in neither of those things then it's a pretty average film. People pretending it's about maturity are just posturing.

Who the fuck still self inserts as fictional characters past the age of 20

Are you a fatherless cuck?

>The ending is literally a joke
i think that's kind of the idea desu. QT wants us to laugh at the scum that were the manson family. everyone in the theatre was roaring with laughter with the deaths being unflinchingly graphic. it makes the ending is so much more sweet and poignant with sharon tate talking on the intercom to rick at the end. you can just hear the care free innocence in her voice

It was a fantastic tribute to John Ford

Which part? The ranch scene is more Hitchcock than John Ford

>QT wants us to laugh at the scum that were the manson family.
By half assing it and not even giving them context so the audience doesn't know who the fuck they are. I think people are giving Tarantino too much credit for this when he didn't know how to handle that subplot and probably cut a lot of scenes out.

Manson dindu nuffin

>sexy evil sneed

i agree with this. Im a fan of period pieces, and this was an excellent one for me. I also love the dialog and characters, but i dont think its a movie for everyone.

the pseudo philosophies you hear on Yea Forums is just typical pseud Yea Forums drivel

Finnish here, I loved it and people in the theater were having a great time. All smiles as people walked out afterwards.

All of the work put into recreating LA 50 years ago. All of the fantastic cinematography, the amazing color, etc

ITT
Insecure zoomer doesn't understand a good movie for adults.

Guess I got lucky with my place, everyone was cheering when he beat up the hippie and when Leo nailed the cowboy performance
Normally I hate that kind of shit in movies but it felt right for this one

good post

I wish more people liked Kill Bill, it’s so unbelievably cheesy but never feels ironic and genuinely feels like an homage- everything just works. It’s got to be my favorite Tarantula joint

If you can't appreciate film footage of a fifty year old rear engined air cooled zooming through 60's Los Angeles then I can do nothing for you, I fucking hate California and this shit made me want to move there.

Attached: 1249350867169657234.jpg (1600x900, 138K)

i think he's just saying he wishes he was Brad Pitt

poor guy

>

Attached: file.png (500x375, 267K)