Nothing Happens: The Movie

Mmmm ... QT finally made cinema, not flick that everybody loves so much. The words are flying around the media, but I would love to see him handle last gig out of love, not because of needing one.

>That movie poster

Attached: starring 2 middle age faggots.jpg (1000x1000, 142K)

there's definitely a plot. in my pants whenever jamie pressley's little sister is onscreen

Sure, just spout a meme instead of something constructive, that'll really prove your point!

Film is an audio visual medium not plot driven medium also OUATIH has a plot so complaining about there not being a plot is stupid in the first place.

It’s Tarantino’s worst yet

>slice of life

Attached: 1565846429180.png (456x740, 48K)

Rewatched Pulp Fiction the other day. Somehow comfier than the 60's LA in Once Upon a Time. Odd. It shouldn't feel comfier, but it did.

I'm with you OP, it was garbage. Margot Robbie's screentime as Tate served no purpose to the narrative, nor did it stand up on its own as a character study.

It did. She is an important part of the film.

So what's the point of showing the contrast? And who cares how some random people could have theoretically saved the day with a fucking flamethrower?

It didn't and she is not.

A good plot is a positive but plot itself should not be the main focus

Well it obviously wasn't a character study and it obviously served a purpose to the narrative. Just because you went in knowing the plot of the movie doesn't invalidate what the director was trying to achieve with those scenes - make the film better for anyone with a basic grasp of history who didnt know the twist going in.

The fact that you say its garbage then follow that up with the most brainlet take next to OPs to justify that makes me think you're just a brainlet who watches too many youtube video essays.

It's a love letter to Hollywood and he wanted to do a tribute to someone whose murder marked the end of this gold age, basically. Tarantino shit has already done these little tributes to that and that. I will say I expected the climax to be bigger cause of a comment I read on Yea Forums. I knew Tate would survive but I swear I read a comment claiming Lee redeemed himself at the end by helping Booth and Dalton defeat the Mason killers. So I legit thought after the first three idiots were killed we'd get Charlie raging his dick off and sending even more to that neighbourhood to kill and the climax would be a balls to the walls ott shootout. Was a bit surprised when it suddenly ended. When the credits started rolling I expected it to be a fakeout. They'd roll for 15 seconds and then Tarantino interjects with 'that's not all there is to the story' narration thing.

Yeah, no. The one seen with Charlie was cool but the rest was utterly redundant. I don't watch youtube essays but keep projecting, sorry if I hurt your little feelings.

Read a book then fuckwit

I don't diagree with what you just said but none of it changes the fact that Tate's arc had nothing to do with the main story.

The scene with Charlie has nothing to do with your point or mine, and the fact you think they're comparable in their purpose to the film just confirms you're a brainlet.

>And who cares
Yeah that's a great argument.

If you removed the Tate scenes then you'd have the hippies showing up at the end for literally no reason. They are there originally to kill her and the audience needs to know that. Not everyone who saw this movie was familiar with the backstory

It's K-On directed by Tarantino.

Except that it's one of Tate's scenes and is otherwise just as unremarkable as the rest, genius. You can keep hurling kiddy insults but it just makes you look more insecure about your own lack of intelligence.

i
It is, yes. Stuff that no one cares about doesn't deserve to be made.

Ok, so? Still a great movie.

>being able to enjoy something where plot isn't everything makes you "averse to plots"
Fucking nigger

I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, you plot point mental midget but it does have a big thematic relevance in the film. It's funny that when Tarantino makes something that is not exploitation garbage, half of his regular audience is completely baffled and lost.

>a film doesn’t need a story

You’re like a baby entertained by keys

Attached: D457E783-A343-4A3B-A52B-B8C7965A6C57.jpg (731x837, 44K)

who cares how some random people might survive if a fictional alien got aboard their spacecraft?
who cares how some random guy might deal with getting sent back in time to the 50s?
why do they even make fiction anyway?

Please tell me of a film that does not have a story.

This film is so bizarre.

So the story is that there is an actor and a stuntman. And they stop Sharon Tate being murdered in another timeline. What am I supposed to take from this?

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood

The scene where Charlie shows up is essentially just a historical cameo, a small injection of dread into the movie. If you think that's a better scene for that reason, its because the other Tate scenes were doing their jobs as QT intended by endearing you to the film's Tate - those are the scenes you're complaining about that Im making a point for. So unless you completely missed the point of the scene and just thought, "woah cool it's that guy from wikipedia who kills people", then you might be able to see why the Tate scenes had a purpose.

And the way you keep seething about every little insult I make just means they're working brainlet.

What do you want, an aesop? Go read Chicken Little.

Was Sharon Tate even that big of a deal?

>the end of an era!!

I can’t think of a single film with her in it

No but the fact that a bunch of crazy hippies could just walk into a rich Hollywood home and kill everyone for no reason is a pretty big deal

Any movie that calls out the hippie jew is ok in my book. All fucking hippies must fucking hang.

Attached: 1480319453600.png (689x693, 675K)

some of the worst acting by Di Caprio

Clearly lots of people cared as this movie is doing very well.

I didn't mind her in stranger things, but when she appeared in once upon a time in hollywood it really clonked my bonkers

Attached: 345345.jpg (297x170, 8K)

I liked the setting, the characters, the soundtrack, the cinematography and the individual scenes, but it really does feel as if it was just meandering aimlessly for most of its runtime.

>Was Sharon Tate even that big of a deal?
Whenever something bad happens to an attractive white woman it's always a big deal.

I don't even remember her in the movie

OH LOOK AT SENOR DROOLCUP OVER HERE

>wouldn't it be nice if Sharon Tate hadn't been brutally gutted and her unborn child cut out of her by loonies?
and of course
>money can neither buy happiness nor social skills

You've never seen The Fearless Vampire Killers? You poor soul. Also, the movie tells you of two with her you should've seen. The Wrecking Crew and Valley of the Dolls.

Attached: 1442632300991.png (599x353, 49K)

The member of Manson's gang that got cold feet and drove off.

If you have to try THIS HARD to convince people it's a bad movie, then maybe you're the one who's wrong.

Attached: image.jpg (700x919, 141K)

What's the story and the aesop in Inglourious Basterds?
>So the story is about a bunch of Jewish people forming a team of guerilla fighters to kill Hitler. Most of them die but they kill Hitler in the end, mostly because a Jewish girl who got away during a shooting executed her revenge murder suicide plot at the same time.

Don’t pretend like you know what is good acting you dumb redditnigger

>cowboy actor and masculine stuntman stop a bunch of hippies from murdering innocent people
Good conservative kino

Why didn't Tarantino mention that Helter Skelter depended on black inferiority and racial warfare?

Charlie Manson wouldn't be out of place on /pol/