That's exactly what I was going for. Now the Entertainment Board needs to have a quick fling with the EB equivalent of the Copy Girl to bring the bit full circle.

I thought Leo's character was going to end up being depressed and apart of Manson's family and do it.

gotcha. I knew that QT was doing the whole "flip history" thing based off what I read before (not spoilers, just that he was going to do that again), so I was 100% sure Tate was not going to be murdered.

Yeah. I think even had I not read it I would have started to lean that way given QT's history, but would definitely not have been as sure. It changed my anticipation but didn't ruin it. The moment he took the walk with the cig and the kids drove up, I knew it was on...I was just trying to figure out how and where.

Before seeing the movie, I had a feeling Cliff and Bruce Lee would team up and whoop all their asses.

Junkhead said:

---

Can we talk about the weird foot fetish thing QT has going on in this flick? It was a bit off putting and creepy to me.

---

How about the drink slurping fetish?

Or the exaggerated sounds of a cigarette burning as it's inhaled upon?

We watched this Friday night. Enjoyed it, but nothing special. Wife hated it

Someone check on his wife.

I'm jealous. If I had a choice that's the theater I would choose to see this movie.

Complete Idiot said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

Can we talk about the weird foot fetish thing QT has going on in this flick? It was a bit off putting and creepy to me.

---

How about the drink slurping fetish?

Or the exaggerated sounds of a cigarette burning as it's inhaled upon?

---

I didn't notice either. I did notice he chose to show multiple women snoring.

Listening to the official Spotify playlist. Good *****

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1DXdcrhWAJUc8C?si=FNMTJOshSbq1-q8nZ084Hw

Why is "Green Door" not on there? It's the song Rick sings on Hullabaloo. I have an original 45 of it.

I guess thanks Harvey Weinstein for QT's re-use of old scores in his movies.

Had no idea this wasn't Leo and Pitt's first collaboration!

Saw it last night. Probably my favorite QT since Kill Bill.

Brad Pitt, after Mr. Mrs Smith (not to apply causation), has really developed the strong/silent type vibe and it gives his performance more presence. Less becomes more and the audience hangs on his every word.

Leo. He did great with his character, or how his character was portrayed. "How do you play an actor?" The character is almost a caricature of actors. The scene in his trailer where he loses his sht:

QT: ok Leo chew the scenery as much as you want
Leo: <bites the table in rage>
QT: that's 190% let's bring it down to 110%

My biggest complaint is that the Polanski group really didnt have any role in the plot. They were just this separate kingdom minding their own business and could have been cut from the film and nothing of value would have been missed except Margo's sexiness. Maybe that's QT showing how insulated Hollywood is from the narrative. But their role is just there to remind people of the real historical event.

One could argue, QT has to piggyback that reality as a means to justify the ultraviolence against the home invaders. The audience brings their knowledge of the event into the theater and QT uses that preexisting knowledge to justify any pornographic gore against them.

To put it this way: 3 unknown home invaders come into a house, is it overkill to bash one of their faces into 27 different places until the brain comes out the skull? ....yea. but is it overkill if it's the Manson family? No. Is it overkill if the intruders were klansmen entering a black household? No.

The Manson family (and the existence of the Polanski house) gives QT the liberty to be as violent as he wants. This is gonna piss off a lot of yall: but its weak storytelling. This is in contrast to the excellent story telling of pitt/leo on screen. What motive did the film provide for th antagonist? What buildup? The incident at the ranch was entirely coincidence. "Senseless random violence" isnt compelling storytelling, its lazy. Every psychopath has some internal rationale that drives them, here we get 40 secs of dialogue "Charlie said" and "media teaches us to murder". As an audience we are just suppose to accept that as the "rising action".


Maybe I'm all wrong. The break-in isnt the narrative of the film, leo getting accepted into the A-list is the story. The breakin is just some peripheral event that gets him into the gate. The conversation with his neighbors is the true climax because his entire career hinges on their acceptance.

The Debt said:

---

Saw it last night. Probably my favorite QT since Kill Bill.

Brad Pitt, after Mr. Mrs Smith (not to apply causation), has really developed the strong/silent type vibe and it gives his performance more presence. Less becomes more and the audience hangs on his every word.

Leo. He did great with his character, or how his character was portrayed. "How do you play an actor?" The character is almost a caricature of actors. The scene in his trailer where he loses his sht:

QT: ok Leo chew the scenery as much as you want
Leo: <bites the table in rage>
QT: that's 190% let's bring it down to 110%

My biggest complaint is that the Polanski group really didnt have any role in the plot. They were just this separate kingdom minding their own business and could have been cut from the film and nothing of value would have been missed except Margo's sexiness. Maybe that's QT showing how insulated Hollywood is from the narrative. But their role is just there to remind people of the real historical event.

One could argue, QT has to piggyback that reality as a means to justify the ultraviolence against the home invaders. The audience brings their knowledge of the event into the theater and QT uses that preexisting knowledge to justify any pornographic gore against them.

To put it this way: 3 unknown home invaders come into a house, is it overkill to bash one of their faces into 27 different places until the brain comes out the skull? ....yea. but is it overkill if it's the Manson family? No. Is it overkill if the intruders were klansmen entering a black household? No.

The Manson family (and the existence of the Polanski house) gives QT the liberty to be as violent as he wants. This is gonna piss off a lot of yall: but its weak storytelling. This is in contrast to the excellent story telling of pitt/leo on screen. What motive did the film provide for th antagonist? What buildup? The incident at the ranch was entirely coincidence. "Senseless random violence" isnt compelling storytelling, its lazy. Every psychopath has some internal rationale that drives them, here we get 40 secs of dialogue "Charlie said" and "media teaches us to murder". As an audience we are just suppose to accept that as the "rising action".


Maybe I'm all wrong. The break-in isnt the narrative of the film, leo getting accepted into the A-list is the story. The breakin is just some peripheral event that gets him into the gate. The conversation with his neighbors is the true climax because his entire career hinges on their acceptance.

---

Is it just me or do you contradict yourself here?

The problem is the climax of the film is the home invasion.

Either the home invasion was central to the story of leo/Pitts story or is a peripheral event to the story of Leo's career. It cant be both. And if the latter is true narrative of the film then the climax is nothing special and QT did it for the giggles.

Head Ninja In Charge said:

---

Had a few days to think about it. Someone said this and I agree. This was Tarantino doing Linklater. That worked for me. Good flick.

---

That's a good description if you mean Tarantino+Linklater as opposed to just doing Linklater.

I saw it last Friday and been just letting it percolate in my mind. I literally think about the film every day. That's very telling on how much it kind of grabbed me.

It's a hard film to define or even explain really even in Tarantino terms and comparisons. I kept thinking it was simply more artistic and indulgent than other Tarantino films which is saying something. But it was so intentionally just a day in the life (or about nothing really) that it defied the usual Tarantino constructs which is where the Linklater comparison comes in. As much as his other films might be out of sequence or all over the place and have disparate parts this took that to an extreme. But it was also an homage film to hollywood of the 60s as well as the spaghetti western era which is another Linklater comparison he paints periods so well with diverse ensemble characters.

Anyway I think this film will always be hard to define and explain so I'm not gonna try any more. Where it fit into the Tarantino legacy I'm not sure yet. top half for sure and could be top 3 but I need to see it a few more times. I still have PF and KB way up there and maybe even IB above it.

As for performances:

Leo - was absolutely amazing. He was the perfect lead and delivered a towering performance. There was so much just incredible acting in his acting scenes within the shows being filmed. His cutaways to ask for a line, getting in and out of character, and his scenes were he criticized himself or interacted with other actors (like the girl) were incredible. the layers of his performance were intriguing and perfectly delivered.

Pitt - was Pitt. He owned every scene he was in really and was bigger than life. Oddly he was the standout moreso than Leo in that sense. He just oozes movie star. It wasn't acting per se but just being himself. That's no slight really some stars are always themselves and you can't see anything but them (like Nicholson). Still his acting was well done and it was a perfect character for him.

Margot Robbie - used in an interesting way. She didn't "do much" and yet she just breezed through scenes and really added a lot in terms of the setting, the period stuff, the look of it all. She was superb in her reall only scene in the movie theater though giving a great performance of the oddity of watching yourself act and hearing the crowds reaction.

I don't really mean to minimize all of the rest but it was really an ensemble thing and while the rest were all great none stood out so much - although Olyphant was really intriguing to me and I wanted more of him actually.

It is a superbly MADE film. But may not grab everyone because it is so different. It's the most accessible of all of his films really and yet may be one of the hardest to digest for just casual movie fans because they want everything to be about something.