Oppenheimer wins 7 Oscars (Best Picture) (film & awards)

[T'Chenka]

I'm planning to see Emma and The Way Back in the next while, as well as Onward (though maybe not right away). This year in film is slowly picking up a bit, now that we've passed through the annual January February film wasteland.

If anybody sees any of these three, please share your thoughts.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

Partly inspired by "My People, My Country" a few days back, I decided to go for nostalgia for the motherland today. So I ordered hamburgers and French fries, and I decided to watch Forrest Gump. Not for the first time in my life, but probably for the first time that I was actually able to be conscious of an understand it. So at least like 10 years.

Man, that's a good film. I guess most people here have already seen it and there's not much to say. But man.

[T'Chenka]

Partly inspired by "My People, My Country" a few days back, I decided to go for nostalgia for the motherland today. So I ordered hamburgers and French fries, and I decided to watch Forrest Gump. Not for the first time in my life, but probably for the first time that I was actually able to be conscious of an understand it. So at least like 10 years.

Man, that's a good film. I guess most people here have already seen it and there's not much to say. But man.

There are a lot of people who hate that it won Best Picture over The Shawshank Redemption, but the fact that Shawshank is so well-rated and loved and you DON'T see Forrest Gump getting put on "worst Best Picture choices of all time" lists speaks volumes IMO.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I revisited 'Samurai Cop' yesterday, one of the most notorious "so bad, it's good" movies of late. I watched it the first time a few years ago and as funny as it was it's low on my list of favorite bad movies (which I am something of a connoisseur of). It faded a bit from memory though and in seeing it listed as available on Amazon Prime, I decided to rewatch it and see if it grew on me.

Nope. But I now know why I was only meagerly ironically entertained by it and found it overrated by bad movie standards. It has a lot of hilariously bad and incompetent moments but they all occur before the 30 to 45 minute mark. You have awful dialogue, awkward editing, awkward sex scenes, bad acting, bad action scenes, bad dubbing, bad sound effects, blatant continuity issues (the protagonist wears a wig through half the film and the other half is his real hair), basically no plot, and a distracting knitted lion head mounted on the wall in one of the film's locations. All that stuff happens in the first half of the film though and after all that it's just those same things all over again with nothing really new to laugh at. It gets kind of old fast...except the lion head, I cackled every time it appeared in the background of a scene.

It's often said that the best bad movies keep you engaged in them due to them constantly throwing new and interesting things to notice and make fun of. 'Samurai Cop' has that stuff, but it runs out of doing anything new and just becomes an overly straightforward revenge film that also resembles a 'Lethal Weapon' knock-off.

I actually instead recommend two of the director's other, more underrated, movies instead 'Hollywood Cop' and 'Killing American Style,' which are also on Amazon Prime. They are much more bizarre and befuddling in the same incompetent ways that 'Samurai Cop' is and in many more unique ways too. I think more people need to see those two films, I don't know why 'Samurai Cop' gets all the attention. I don't even think it has better individual moments than these two.

'Samurai Cop' is better than 'Young Rebels' though, another of the director's films on Amazon, in terms of entertainment. Yes, I made it a goal to see every Amir Shervan film I can. My life is worth questioning. 'Young Rebels' is just a boring action film, and in somehow being slightly better made than his other films it actually becomes less amusing.

[T'Chenka]

THE WAY BACK (2020) - No Spoilers

3.25 STARS OUT OF 5 / lower end B PLUS

Affleck and the direction are strong points here. I wouldn't say the script is weak, but it isnt' great or way above average. This kind of movie has been done many times, and even though this one isn't especially original, it somehow finds a way to not FEEL cliched and like a retread. I would definitely recommend this movie, but I wouldn't give an especially strong recommendation.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Swallow (2019)

That was a great film in terms of production, atmosphere and tension.

No spoilers. Just watch it without the trailer, as the trailer does have spoilers.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machuca

Machuca (2004) is a Chilean film taking place during the CIA's 1973 coup which deposed Salvador Allende and introduced military dictatorship to Chile. Despite the politically charged nature of the subject, it does not concern itself so much with the boring formalized aspects of politics so much as presenting a contrast between the hyper-privileged life of upper-caste, generally white Chileans who viewed Allende as a tyrant for threatening their way of life, and the shantytown-residing lower-caste Chileans, who viewed Allende as a hero for giving them the opportunity to advance in life.

In particular, we're shown the life of a white boy from a wealthy family, going to a private Catholic school which is undergoing racial integration as some Indian boys are allowed into the class. After some initial bullying, the white boy, Gonzalo, and an Indian boy - Pedro Machuca, become friends, making money by opportunistically selling political flags at both left-wing and right-wing rallies. We see the stark contrast of family culture of both boys' families - a fundamental division in viewpoints coming from living in fundamentally different environments.

The subject of race relations in South America is something I've seen firsthand and feel strongly about. I think this film does a good job of portraying the human side of it.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Perfect Corona-virus film to watch whilst in isolation:

David Lynch

Eraserhead (1977)

I was always under the impression it was late 1980's because that is when I first saw it after a summer of alcohol and bucket bongs. And I was freaked out then.

But to have made it in 1977 is a true reflection of the genius of his film-making. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

Here is a film based on a short story by H.P. Lovecraft.

Born into wealth in Providence, Lovecraft was a sickly child whose parents died insane. His mother had hoped for a daughter and dressed him as a girl for much of the first decade of his life. He suffered two nervous breakdowns before he was fifteen. He was a known xenophobe, racist and anti-Semite.

Howard Phillips Lovecraft inspired modern day authors of success such as Stephen King ("The Shining"), John Carpenter ("In the Mouth of Madness"), Robert Bloch ("Psycho"), Clive Barker ("Hellraiser") and Anne Rice ("Interview with the Vampire").

Most of his short stories were hand written as he refused to type them. As such, many publishers would not accept his work.

Despite being one of the most famous and influential authors of all time, he was a virtual unknown during his lifetime, and died in poverty.

There has never been a direct adaptation of any of his stories......until now.

Richard Stanley

Color Out of Space (2019)

A provocative and disturbing film on many different levels.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Perfect Corona-virus film to watch whilst in isolation:

David Lynch

Eraserhead (1977)

I was always under the impression it was late 1980's because that is when I first saw it after a summer of alcohol and bucket bongs. And I was freaked out then.

But to have made it in 1977 is a true reflection of the genius of his film-making. 

If you're into David Lynch you have to see 'Blue Velvet,' 'Mulholland Drive,' and 'The Elephant Man' too.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I watched 'Doctor Sleep' last night and I loved it! I would put it up there as one of the best sequels ever made and definitely one of the best sequels made last decade alongside 'Blade Runner 2049.' Both movies, despite being made decades later, manage to enhance their predecessor and that's what makes a great sequel!

I do wonder if certain Kubrick purists will find this movie controversial though. I personally think that it makes 'The Shining' better by clarifying and extrapolating on aspects of Kubrick's classic. Not only that but it somehow manages to simultaneously be a sequel to both the book and movie at the same time which is a real accomplishment considering how much they differed and how much King detested Kubrick's adaptation. For one thing, this movie is actually about "the shining" and almost creates its own universe based on that aspect. We get to see a mythology and world being built here, and it's really fascinating. In that sense though this movie is mistitled and I feel bad because that might have been why this movie was a relative flop. It shares that issue with another recent Ewan McGregor film-'Birds of Prey'/'Halrey Quinn: Birds of Prey,' and like that movie should have had a title to establish more familiarity with it. Maybe 'The Shining 2: Doctor Sleep' could have worked. I mean, they only mention who/what "Doctor Sleep" is once. But even then, it's also possible that like with why 'Blade Runner 2049' flopped somewhat, 'The Shining' might just be too much of a niche franchise for the average moviegoer. I do feel that this movie won't be for everyone.
If you're a huge fan of 'The Shining' though, like me, you will get a lot out of this film. It might end up containing a few too many fan service/member berry moments for some, especially towards the end, but I don't feel like they ruined the film or anything. I was fine with them. There was one little easter egg that I guffawed at involving tea cups in particular which only the most obsessive and detailed fan of 'The Shining' would notice, and I wholly appreciate the filmmakers' inclusion of it as well as other painstaking details that make this movie as much of a homage to Kubrick's film as it is a sequel to it. It is not as scary as 'The Shining' though. This movie is actually less of a horror movie (though there are some scary moments, one of which is among the most disturbing things I have seen in a recent film) and more of a supernatural drama-thriller. So keep that in mind when managing your expectations for seeing it. It's also really long, about two-and-a-half hours.

I also want to mention that this film utilizes the novel concept of casting new actors in flashbacks. We don't see that too often anymore and I honestly prefer it to digital de-aging. Everybody they got, especially the new Halloran and Wendy, are great! They may not look 100% like the previous actors but they do feel like them. I do wonder if the casting agent for this film regretted not casting the kid from 'Marriage Story' as young Danny though. The kid in this film was perfectly fine, but the kid from 'Marriage Story' is a dead-ringer of the original Danny (who actually appears in a small cameo in this movie).

As for the few flaws I had, and there were very few, the concept of the shining, while integral to this movie and greatly expanded upon seemed to fall into the trap that the force does from 'Star Wars' (the prequels featuring McGregor also, coincidentally). It kind of becomes too inconsistent, ubiquitous, and vague. The new character Abra, who is great overall, actually might fall into that "Mary Sue" criticism for Rey to some. It didn't bother me, but I'm sure some have thought that. The only other thing about this film that bothered me was Rebecca Ferguson as the villain, Rose. She was actually fantastic in the role, but at times her accent seemed to drift in and out between being American and British. What's weird is that she is actually Swedish, so I don't know what that was about. It was a bit distracting. Otherwise I loved her.

So yeah, this has become another one of my favorite movies of last year. 

[morgankingsley]

I watched 'Doctor Sleep' last night and I loved it! I would put it up there as one of the best sequels ever made and definitely one of the best sequels made last decade alongside 'Blade Runner 2049.' Both movies, despite being made decades later, manage to enhance their predecessor and that's what makes a great sequel!

I do wonder if certain Kubrick purists will find this movie controversial though. I personally think that it makes 'The Shining' better by clarifying and extrapolating on aspects of Kubrick's classic. Not only that but it somehow manages to simultaneously be a sequel to both the book and movie at the same time which is a real accomplishment considering how much they differed and how much King detested Kubrick's adaptation. For one thing, this movie is actually about "the shining" and almost creates its own universe based on that aspect. We get to see a mythology and world being built here, and it's really fascinating. In that sense though this movie is mistitled and I feel bad because that might have been why this movie was a relative flop. It shares that issue with another recent Ewan McGregor film-'Birds of Prey'/'Halrey Quinn: Birds of Prey,' and like that movie should have had a title to establish more familiarity with it. Maybe 'The Shining 2: Doctor Sleep' could have worked. I mean, they only mention who/what "Doctor Sleep" is once. But even then, it's also possible that like with why 'Blade Runner 2049' flopped somewhat, 'The Shining' might just be too much of a niche franchise for the average moviegoer. I do feel that this movie won't be for everyone.
If you're a huge fan of 'The Shining' though, like me, you will get a lot out of this film. It might end up containing a few too many fan service/member berry moments for some, especially towards the end, but I don't feel like they ruined the film or anything. I was fine with them. There was one little easter egg that I guffawed at involving tea cups in particular which only the most obsessive and detailed fan of 'The Shining' would notice, and I wholly appreciate the filmmakers' inclusion of it as well as other painstaking details that make this movie as much of a homage to Kubrick's film as it is a sequel to it. It is not as scary as 'The Shining' though. This movie is actually less of a horror movie (though there are some scary moments, one of which is among the most disturbing things I have seen in a recent film) and more of a supernatural drama-thriller. So keep that in mind when managing your expectations for seeing it. It's also really long, about two-and-a-half hours.

I also want to mention that this film utilizes the novel concept of casting new actors in flashbacks. We don't see that too often anymore and I honestly prefer it to digital de-aging. Everybody they got, especially the new Halloran and Wendy, are great! They may not look 100% like the previous actors but they do feel like them. I do wonder if the casting agent for this film regretted not casting the kid from 'Marriage Story' as young Danny though. The kid in this film was perfectly fine, but the kid from 'Marriage Story' is a dead-ringer of the original Danny (who actually appears in a small cameo in this movie).

As for the few flaws I had, and there were very few, the concept of the shining, while integral to this movie and greatly expanded upon seemed to fall into the trap that the force does from 'Star Wars' (the prequels featuring McGregor also, coincidentally). It kind of becomes too inconsistent, ubiquitous, and vague. The new character Abra, who is great overall, actually might fall into that "Mary Sue" criticism for Rey to some. It didn't bother me, but I'm sure some have thought that. The only other thing about this film that bothered me was Rebecca Ferguson as the villain, Rose. She was actually fantastic in the role, but at times her accent seemed to drift in and out between being American and British. What's weird is that she is actually Swedish, so I don't know what that was about. It was a bit distracting. Otherwise I loved her.

So yeah, this has become another one of my favorite movies of last year. 

Well honestly Blade Runner 49 flopping was no shock because the original didn't do too well either and yes it is a cult classic but the overwhelming majority of people still never even heard of it beyond pop culture references, so it was sort of bond to only get newer fans of the original and the older fans of the original and some die hard Gosling fans

[T'Chenka]

I still have to see Doctor Sleep.

Blade Runner 2049 was very good, I wouldn't say "incredible" or "masterpiece", but very underrated.

A whole pile of films are leaving Netflix Canada between now and early April, so I'm trying to work my way down a list of them I made that takes into account how soon they're leaving, how well-received they are and how badly I want to see them.


Pride & Prejuduce
- 8.5/10 - rating of A

Memoirs Of A Geisha
- 8.0/10 - rating of A minus

Das Boot
- 7.5/10 - rating of A minus

Girl, Interrupted
- 7.0/10 - rating of B plus

Catch Me If You Can
- 7.0/10 - rating of B plus

Arthur Christmas
- 7.0/10 - rating of B plus

Fried Green Tomatoes
- 6.5/10 - rating of B plus

Race
- 5.5/10 - rating of B

Liar Liar
- 4.5/10 - rating of B minus


Will come back later and add ratings to these as I see them.

[Meclazine for Israel]

A film about Austrian Franz Jägerstätter and his family living during the turmoil of World War II.

Terrence Malick

A Hidden Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXmdY4lVR0

[T'Chenka]

A film about Austrian Franz Jägerstätter and his family living during the turmoil of World War II.

Terrence Malick

A Hidden Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXmdY4lVR0

I had wanted to see this. How good was it?

[Meclazine for Israel]

A film about Austrian Franz Jägerstätter and his family living during the turmoil of World War II.

Terrence Malick

A Hidden Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXmdY4lVR0

I had wanted to see this. How good was it?

Very interesting to view World War II through a completely different lens. For example, I would like to see a WWII film from the perspective of a German or Russian soldier on the Eastern front.

The Western Front was done to death.

Nothing wrong with the production quality of "1917", "Dunkirk" and "Saving Private Ryan", but an equivalently produced film(s) from the Ukraine or Belarus during the same period would be welcome.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Shining is my favorite scary movie ever and I enjoyed Doctor Sleep very much. It's overlong and casting Henry Thomas (who looks nothing like Jack Nicholson) as Danny's father was disconcerting. But it deserved better at the box office.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Shining is my favorite scary movie ever and I enjoyed Doctor Sleep very much. It's overlong and casting Henry Thomas (who looks nothing like Jack Nicholson) as Danny's father was disconcerting. But it deserved better at the box office.

You just reminded me of something I forgot to mention.

I was actually kind of disappointed that there was no reference to the guy in the bear suit giving the blow-job to the other guy. For all the references made to the Kubrick film, there was nothing about this. 0/10 stars!

[Meclazine for Israel]

Clint Eastwood

Richard Jewell (2019)

A really well produced film. Enjoyed the portrayals and the gripping storyline.

One of those films that enters the psyche.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Sorry to be posting here more than everyone else, especially with my tendency for overlong posts, but I have to get my thoughts out on this film because I've been really bothered by it! I don't even care if you read this or not.

Incoming spoilers, obviously.

I finally saw 'Once Upon a Time In Hollywood' and really disliked it. The whole film felt disjointed and pointless to me. It's Tarantino's second worst film after 'Death Proof.' And I say that as a fan of his. Not the biggest, blindest fan of his as some tend to be, but a fan nonetheless.

I'll get to the things I disliked, but first the things I did enjoy since there's less to say. As always with Tarantino, the guy knows his s*** and can craft a truly splendid film when it comes to acting (to me this was DiCaprio's best role since 'The Wolf of Wall Street'), directing, and production design. All those surface level aspects of the film continue to be major attributes of Tarantino's and are as good as ever. Additionally, I appreciate that this was a somewhat different Tarantino film from what we've seen of him, especially recently. He was a lot more restrained with this film-there wasn't nearly as much violence (not that I minded it in his previous films, but it's just a rarity for him), there wasn't a single utterance of "the n-word," it was tonally consistent unlike some of his previous films, and he resisted using anachronistic music this time (a major pet peeve of mine with some of his movies was his use of music from the future in his period pieces (it really conflicts with immersion). I was reminded a lot of 'Jackie Brown,' his most underrated film and probably most mature film, with this. Though he was certainly not restrained with his foot fetishism. I'm not going to hold this against the film since it's a minor detail but I have the opposite of a foot fetish and am massively repulsed by feet. That did not change here. All the bare feet, especially with them being filthy, in this move really kind of made me nauseous. I guess it makes sense though since the film involves hippies and Sharon Tate supposedly liked being barefoot as much as she could. I don't blame this notorious foot fetishist for leaning into it with this content.

Anyway, in spite of enjoying the 1960's era of Hollywood too and enjoying the painstaking recreations and winks to them, as Tarantino always likes to do, this film was way too self-indulgent with its glorification of it and the constant barrage of references. It was like if the writers of 'Family Guy' wrote 'Forrest Gump' it just seemed like an excuse for Tarantino to recreate his favorite parts of the 1960's film industry and show off his pop culture knowledge, especially of obscure media. A film that is entirely a tribute to the golden age of Hollywood would be fine if it was integrated into a more cohesive narrative, but this film failed at that to me. Actually, maybe it could have worked if the film was entirely about these two washed-up buddies (DiCaprio and Pitt; who have great chemistry in this film, were good characters, and probably all around the best things about the movie) trying to make their way in a Hollywood that's different from the one they knew back in the 1950's, meeting prominent figures and everything. That's almost what we had here until the f***ing Manson family got involved as an excuse for Tarantino to have one of his violent climaxes and engage in the historical revisionism he seems to have taken a shine to. A more focused Manson family movie by Tarantino also could have worked, come to think of it. But these two film ideas being combined with the loosest possible thread of Sharon Tate was just poorly conceived in my view. Sharon Tate barely even did anything in the movie. Margot Robbie, in spite of needing to learn a different American accent from that Long Island sounding one she always does (which doesn't always fit the characters she plays) was wasted here. All she does is dance and see a movie. Her feet had more to do.

I had an idea of how this could have worked though, and it's where I thought the movie was going. Coming into it I knew about the Manson Family being featured in the movie, but I didn't know in what way. I thought the film was setting up Sharon Tate to be the one who dispatched her would-be attackers with the martial arts she learned from Bruce Lee for that film of hers that she went to see earlier in the movie, perhaps alongside DiCaprio and Pitt's characters. I figured that was the point of the film-a setup for the climax with the Manson attackers. But no. They end up intruding on DiCaprio's residence instead and Brad Pitt kills two of them while DiCaprio roasts the last one with a flamethrower introduced earlier in the film. Sure, we got some payoff after all, and it admittedly was a satisfying moment, but the way this was done wasn't satisfying overall! If we look at Tarantino's other historical revisionist pulp-tribute films- 'Inglorious Basterds' and 'Django Unchained-' it was incredibly cathartic to see Shoshana and the Basterds kill the Nazi leadership and burn down their theater, or seeing Django burn the plantation after slaughtering slave owners. These were historical villains who had done horrible things to people like the protagonist and are well-known in history for that, and deserve a dark fate. Same with the Mansons in real-life. These Manson Family members though never actually feel like a threat deserving of their gruesome retaliatory deaths as in real-life and aren't taken out by their real-life victim (Sharon Tate in this case). They can be both a threat and be portrayed as farcical and incompetent to deprive them of the power they had in reality, as Tarantino likes to do with his film's antagonists. Obviously the point of this film is for the Manson followers to have never accomplished their mission of senseless violence but they could have at least injured someone or something. In the actual movie them simply invading the residence of DiCaprio and threatening them didn't seem to warrant the deaths they got. Now, I guess I'll grant you this, Sharon Tate was eight months pregnant at this time and wouldn't have been able to fend off her assailants in reality, but we're talking about a Tarantino revisionist history movie here! This is a point where him being restrained was actually a detriment. Realism has never inhibited Tarantino before, so why not have a very pregnant Tate defend herself and her friends from the Mansons? Is it any less ridiculous than anything out of 'Kill Bill?' Something like that not only would have given Tate something to actually do, but also made her a stronger character. Hell, while we're at it, include Charles Manson himself among the attackers (he appears maybe once in the entire movie)? He may not have been with his followers in the real-life murders but he was the real villain through it all and I would have loved to see him die violently in addition to his three followers who we barely got to know in the film. In fact, this entire movie hinges on you having knowledge of the Manson murders. I am very curious about how people unfamiliar with them reacted to this film. They are a notable part of American history but still far more obscure and less visible than the likes of Confederates or Nazis as historical villains. Getting at least some insight into them could have helped. So what we got instead of all that was a significantly less interesting and more disjointed pairing of 1960's Hollywood and the Manson Family events. Was it meant to be a bait-and-switch from the aforementioned climax that I anticipated? I don't think I have any right to claim to be a better craftsman than Tarantino, but here I think my version is a better alternate history and a more enjoyable and coherent movie! Tarantino's climaxes usually tie the movie together like a gift being tied in a neat little bow, but this one just felt like he lazily taped a streamer on a box.

My version of this film's climax wouldn't have fixed some of the other issues though. It wouldn't have given more relevance to the pointless flashbacks and fantasy cutaways like with DiCaprio's character fantasizing about being cast in 'The Great Escape' instead. That just seemed like an excuse for Tarantino to film his own version of a scene from it. Same with the inclusion of Bruce Lee and Steve McQueen himself. They are really just glorified cameos (Sharon Tate was just about one of those too) that serve little to no purpose other than to be part of "member berry moments." Some of the cameos and the actors playing them aren't even all that good, like Damian Lewis as McQueen. The guy who played Bruce Lee was actually great though. So I guess it isn't that much of a cut-and-dry negative after all, it doesn't mean that they added much to the film though.

Also filmmakers should never cast a performer as a real-life person and then show them in real-life like when Robbie as Tate watches the real-life Sharon Tate in a movie of hers. It's very jarring and confusing and makes you realize that Robbie actually doesn't look as much like Tate as you would have thought at first.

I was also very bothered by a moment in this slow, long movie (which is expected by now for a Tarantino film) when it sporadically moves way too fast and seems to be rushing to get to the climax. The Kurt Russell narrator comes back, after not being a presence in the film for over an hour, to very quickly summarize DiCaprio's character and his bout filming Italian movies in Europe. Could we have seen that? That could have been fun to see and added to his character, right? Oh, we have to get to the bloody, over-the-top ending because we wasted too much time earlier with people driving around to 1960's tunes, and an overload of references? Right. Maybe we'll see that in the five hour Director's Cut...actually, you know what, nevermind...I don't care enough to want to see that.

This movie is also incredibly devoid of tension. Tarantino always excels at that, but here, with there being no obvious threat even from the film's ostensible antagonists, there's virtually none. Not that this film needs the intensity of others, but when he decides to include villains, it kind of needs that. I guess there's the scene where Pitt ends up at Spahn Ranch (a former Hollywood Western television set where the Manson family squats) and wants to visit George Spahn, an old acquaintance. The scene moves slowly and seems to build tension but for what? To build up to Pitt talking to Bruce Dern in a scene that, once again, feels pointless. Scenes like that don't even deliver on giving us the great Tarantino conversations and dialogue that fans of his, like myself, always love. I would argue that this film features his least memorable dialogues and conversations by far!

I got so little out of this film, at least when DiCaprio and Pitt weren't around! I was really disappointed. My sister actually saw this film in theaters when it came out and hated it. I thought that she was just too much of a casual moviegoer to get it and enjoy it and really wanted to like it for genuine reasons as well as to stick it to my sister, but I ended up sharing my thoughts on it with her and we spent a good hour discussing this film and how much we disliked it together. She still disliked it significantly more than I did though. Of course, she has never been much of a Tarantino fan (I think she enjoyed 'Inglorious Basterds' though) in contrast to myself, so it was probably to be expected.

So yeah, I think this film is one of last year's most vastly overrated movies, in addition to 'The Irishman.' Though 'The Irishman' at least had a better narrative to me. I would watch that movie again over this one, in spite of it somehow being even longer. What's with films featuring Al Pacino being the mark of death for 2019 films for me? By the way, Al Pacino? he was wasted too. Whatever, I don't care how contrarian it is, two of the greatest living filmmakers underwhelmed me last year. I'll say it. And you know what, while I'm at it, since it's relevant to this film: f*** Roman Polanski. 'Chinatown' and 'Rosemary's Baby' are way over-hyped and he is a despicable pedophile. I just figured why not say that while I was at it?

[T'Chenka]

Sorry to be posting here more than everyone else, especially with my tendency for overlong posts, but I have to get my thoughts out on this film because I've been really bothered by it! I don't even care if you read this or not.

Incoming spoilers, obviously.

I finally saw 'Once Upon a Time In Hollywood' and really disliked it. The whole film felt disjointed and pointless to me. It's Tarantino's second worst film after 'Death Proof.' And I say that as a fan of his. Not the biggest, blindest fan of his as some tend to be, but a fan nonetheless.

Post here as much as you want. I created this topic hoping it would see a lot of posts year-round.

I don't have much to say about your movie review. Most of your criticisms are valid, but the majority of them I would view as "technically a detriment but on a very very small level that barely registers". Your pacing critique near the end of the movie and the mis-usage of Tate are IMO legitimate detriments. I still give it an 8.5/10 or maybe a 9/10.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Sorry to be posting here more than everyone else, especially with my tendency for overlong posts, but I have to get my thoughts out on this film because I've been really bothered by it! I don't even care if you read this or not.

Incoming spoilers, obviously.

I finally saw 'Once Upon a Time In Hollywood' and really disliked it. The whole film felt disjointed and pointless to me. It's Tarantino's second worst film after 'Death Proof.' And I say that as a fan of his. Not the biggest, blindest fan of his as some tend to be, but a fan nonetheless.

Post here as much as you want. I created this topic hoping it would see a lot of posts year-round.

Yeah, post here as much as you want. As Atlas' best movie reviewer, absolutely no one is going to complain about the quality of your reviews.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

In some ways, I wish I had never seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Don’t get me wrong—I personally love the movie—but any successive rewatches will always be tinged in my mind.

When I saw it in theaters on opening weekend, I was mostly just tagging along with my friends. I had seen Pulp Fiction years and years ago, but no other Tarantino movies. I knew of Tarantino’s love of blood, feet, and the N-word, but not much more about him as a filmmaker. Unlike some of my other friends, however, I knew most of what actually happened with Tate and the Manson family. I was tensed for the whole movie, especially in scenes with Tate, because I knew what actually happened. Let me tell you, it was an amazing payoff for me. Knowing how the story goes, I won’t ever get that same tenseness, but I still find it to be a very enjoyable movie, even if it is a bit long (and there’s too many feet).

The tension I felt in the movie reminded me of Game of Thrones. You know from the beginning that there’s a big threat looming, but everything goes on as normal until the threat makes itself an actual problem.

In my mind, the scene with Julia Butters (the child in the Lancer pilot) basically spells out the movie. It’s about a relatively washed-up has-been who’s trying (and struggling) to make his way in the New Hollywood exemplified by his neighbors (as Dalton himself references when Polanski and Tate drive up to their house).

Meanwhile, Cliff Booth is up on the roof fixing Dalton’s TV antenna, which is a rather obvious metaphor for Dalton’s TV career (not gonna lie, I didn’t get that until I saw it pointed out a week ago). Honestly, he did most of the heavy lifting throughout the movie. He drove Rick wherever he needed to go, he fixed the antenna, and he did most of the work in killing the Manson murderers.

Those last two paragraphs wrap back around to the scene I mentioned about Polanski and Tate arriving home. While the two are driving up their driveway, Dalton goes on about how they’re rising figures in the new Hollywood. I like to sum up the movie as “A man who wants to meet his neighbors and who ultimately does.” He gets to meet them at the end of the movie, where the assumption is that his career has been rejuvenated after his trip to make the Spaghetti Westerns. But first he had to overcome all of his internal issues.

I will say, it is a bit longer than it needed to be. I’m not really sure what I would cut, but maybe something like 10-20 minutes could be cut. Just not the Karmann Ghia scenes. I love that car. Maybe the flashback/imagining of Rick Dalton being in the Great Escape? I’m still confused by that scene.

I didn’t see Al Pacino as an issue. It was nice to see him as a small supporting role, more as a veteran of the industry in both his actual career and his role in the movie. Granted, I haven’t seen that much with him. I appreciated the dig at Polanski early on in the film when they say he looks like a twelve year old.

Edit: I loved the soundtrack too. Twelve Thirty by the Mamas and Papas made it really eerie as the Manson murderers walked up the street. Out of Time by Mick Jagger was a nice theme for them return to LA. My one issue is that Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show starts with “Hot August nights...” when the movie is still on February even though the end of the movie is in August on a very hot night.

I’d give the movie 9.25 out of 10. Not perfect by any means, but well worth the three rewatches I’ve done, with another planned for this weekend.

[T'Chenka]

I always tinker with these scores and rankings, but I just felt like posting my rankings of 2019 movies. Probably because I just got my hands on a 4K disc hard copy of 1917 and this thread is currently discussing OUATIH.

Spealking of those two films, I may as well also mention the third film of the "big three" that were gunning for Best Picture down the stretch as well. I was thinking about this the other day, and I'm pretty sure Mrs. Park would 100% get coronavirus based on this scene (from 2:55 on) in Parasite.

10/10 - A PLUS
01. Parasite [Gisaengchung]

9.5/10 - A PLUS
02. Marriage Story
03. 1917

9.0/10 - A
04. Avengers: Endgame
05. Midsommar

8.5/10 - A
06. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
07. Jojo Rabbit
08. Knives Out
09. Little Women

8.0/10 - A MINUS
10. The Irishman
11. Joker
12. The Lighthouse
13. Uncut Gems
14. The Last Black Man In San Francisco

7.5/10 - A MINUS
15. Booksmart
16. Us
17. A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood
18. Ad Astra
19. Rocketman
20. Toy Story 4
21. Ford V Ferrari
22. Luce
23. The Two Popes
24. Spider-Man: Far From Home

7.0/10 - B PLUS
25. Bombshell
26. Hustlers
27. Klaus
28. John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum
29. J'ai Perdu Mon Corps [I Lost My Body]

6.5/10 - B PLUS
30. Blinded By The Light
31. Shazam!
32. Dark Waters


Too lazy to do 6.0/B scores and lower right now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Thanks all. I just didn't want to come off as clogging the thread. I mean, under lock-down I'm watching even more movies than I already did, so sometimes I need to get my thoughts out for those I didn't watch with anyone else.

I appreciate your input as well, even as we may see things differently.

I will say though, Fubart Solman, as I said in my review, DiCaprio and Pitt's storylines were the best parts of the movie to me. So I am actually with you there. It's just that other aspects of the movie I disliked got to me in ways that overshadowed them.