Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 452

Thread: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino)

  1. #426
    Quote Quoting Ezee E (view post)
    I've covered Telluride Film Festival for certain sites before. I always ensured to write my reviews without any spoilers, and did so just fine. It was also my choice to drive six hours to the fest, and after seeing a movie there versus at a typical movie theater, is that I have the chance to somewhat be influenced from the filmmakers that are there to explain or give discussion. So, in a way, it's more possible for me to enjoy the movie at the festival setting than it is at a complex.

    But it looks like we're aiming on to agree to disagree. And that's okay too.
    How would you define a spoiler? If, in this case, Tarantino is referring to some Crying Game-like reveal, most reviewers will have sense enough not to give it away (though it's likely to become common knowledge within a few weeks of the film's release, à la The Sixth Sense, which sucks for people who haven't been born yet or are still too young to see an R-movie unaccompanied), but it's not always so clear cut what's a spoiler and what isn't. Dave Kehr in his review of Days of Heaven describes the final scene in some detail, and in his Great Movies column, Roger Ebert without describing it as closely still signals pretty clearly that things don't work out for the characters, yet I don't think either review spoils the film.
    Just because...
    How Fernando Pessoa Saved Portugal (Eugène Green, 2018) mild
    Le Monde vivant (Eugène Green, 2003) warm
    Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996) mild

    The last book I read was...
    Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe


    The (New) World (August: L'Enfant secret, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood)

  2. #427
    - - - - - Irish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,897
    This reminds me that Siskel and Ebert regularly discussed third act details on their show, cf: their televised reviews of "Aliens" and "Silence of the Lambs." Siskel literally revealed the key plot element to "The Crying Game" when they talked about it, lol.

    Kael did this too, in The New Yorker, although she had the benefit of writing about films that were larger and deeper than their plot.

    Barry Gifford's collection on his favorite film noir has major spoilers in virtually ever essay, but of course they weren't intended to be commercial newspaper reviews, either.

    I think people are more sensitive nowadays because contemporary mainstream movies don't have much going for them outside cheap surprise.

  3. #428
    Smug As Hell MadMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    A land of corn and technology
    Posts
    19,147
    Or maybe they don't want the movie spoiled before they go see it? Shocking, I know...
    BLOG

    Currently Watching:

    *Daredevil S3
    *Veronica Mars S2
    *SeaLab 2021 S4
    *The Punisher S2
    *The Last Drive In Week 5
    *The Detour S2
    *Lucifer S3

  4. #429
    good for health Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    12,060
    I'm not trying to be a troll, baby doll, seriously. Just trying to understand where you're coming from. You say critics cant do their job without revealing plot, then say the good ones dont (but some absolutely do).

    What is your optimal solution? It feels like you want critics to be able to see films first, review/spoil them all they want so the masses aren't "tricked" into seeing a shitty movie. But even though it's fairly common knowledge if a film isnt screened for critics it probably doesnt have the faith of the studio releasing it. Yet the masses GO ANYWAY.

    It's not that I'm disagreeing with you on critics as much as im disagreeing with you on the biggest deciding factor of the studios...the public. They dont give A FUUUUCK about critics. We who care about dissection and are desercening ticket purchasers are a 10%. The studios do not give a shit about us. Yet we Oliver Twist up to the counter every week saying "thank you sir may I have another".

  5. #430
    Quote Quoting Skitch (view post)
    I'm not trying to be a troll, baby doll, seriously. Just trying to understand where you're coming from. You say critics cant do their job without revealing plot, then say the good ones dont (but some absolutely do).

    What is your optimal solution? It feels like you want critics to be able to see films first, review/spoil them all they want so the masses aren't "tricked" into seeing a shitty movie. But even though it's fairly common knowledge if a film isnt screened for critics it probably doesnt have the faith of the studio releasing it. Yet the masses GO ANYWAY.

    It's not that I'm disagreeing with you on critics as much as im disagreeing with you on the biggest deciding factor of the studios...the public. They dont give A FUUUUCK about critics. We who care about dissection and are desercening ticket purchasers are a 10%. The studios do not give a shit about us. Yet we Oliver Twist up to the counter every week saying "thank you sir may I have another".
    With regards to how much reviewers should or shouldn't reveal, it depends to a large extent on the film. The Crying Game is an obvious example of a film where the narration deliberately withholds a piece of information in order to surprise the audience. Still, reviewers could describe the plot of the film accurately and in some detail without giving away that she's a he. (In his print review, Ebert actually suggests that readers put his review aside until after seeing the film, even though he only hints at the surprise.) On the other hand, there are films like Days of Heaven where it doesn't spoil the experience of the film to know going in that the days of heaven don't last forever and that Linda Manz's character is last seen running away from a boarding school. My optimal solution is that reviewers reveal as much as they feel they have to about plot and style in order to give the reader a reasonable idea of what to expect if they choose to see the film.

    As for the audiences you're describing, since they read don't read reviews to begin with, it can't matter to them whether or not a review spoils a surprise. Perhaps if they did, they wouldn't see as many disappointing films.
    Just because...
    How Fernando Pessoa Saved Portugal (Eugène Green, 2018) mild
    Le Monde vivant (Eugène Green, 2003) warm
    Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996) mild

    The last book I read was...
    Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe


    The (New) World (August: L'Enfant secret, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood)

  6. #431
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    With regards to how much reviewers should or shouldn't reveal, it depends to a large extent on the film. The Crying Game is an obvious example of a film where the narration deliberately withholds a piece of information in order to surprise the audience.
    Tarantino's past career, the marketing for this and his note would indicate this is also one of those cases.

  7. #432
    Guttenbergian Pop Trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Yay Area
    Posts
    4,665
    Quote Quoting Irish (view post)
    This reminds me that Siskel and Ebert regularly discussed third act details on their show, cf: their televised reviews of "Aliens" and "Silence of the Lambs." Siskel literally revealed the key plot element to "The Crying Game" when they talked about it, lol.
    Ehhh I just rewatched their reviews of Lambs and Crying, and that's not really true. There's some offhand remark about Buffalo Bill's house at the end, but they don't mention specifics and no information is gleaned that you wouldn't pick up on from the information in the first act.

    They don't really give away anything about The Crying Game, other than saying Jaye Davidson's performance is really good. I'm old, so I saw The Crying Game in the theater when it came out. If you read "Down and Dirty Pictures", it goes into how brilliant Harvey Weinstein's marketing campaign was for that. He spearheaded the "don't give away the twist!" thing, which got a lot of people to watch a fairly low key Irish movie just to see the what the twist was all about. It fell apart when Jaye Davidson got Awards buzz and obviously had to be put into the "best supporting actor" (rather than "actress") category.
    Last edited by Pop Trash; 05-23-2019 at 10:16 PM.
    Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:

    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - 9
    Manson (1973) - 7
    Brick - 7
    War of the Worlds (2005) - 8
    The Dead Don't Die - 5
    No Country for Old Men - 10
    Fear (1996) - 7
    Midsommar - 8
    The Last Black Man in San Francisco - 8
    Booksmart - 2

  8. #433
    Quote Quoting Grouchy (view post)
    Tarantino's past career, the marketing for this and his note would indicate this is also one of those cases.
    Even assuming this is the case, I still have a problem with the idea that general audiences watching the film in a multiplex (or on an airplane or on a streaming service) could, or should, experience the film "in the same way" as the audience at the Cannes premiere. To put it another way, even if one sees the film not knowing what the big surprise(s) is (are), it still won't be the same film that was screened for press and industry people at Cannes.
    Just because...
    How Fernando Pessoa Saved Portugal (Eugène Green, 2018) mild
    Le Monde vivant (Eugène Green, 2003) warm
    Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996) mild

    The last book I read was...
    Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe


    The (New) World (August: L'Enfant secret, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood)

  9. #434
    - - - - - Irish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,897
    Quote Quoting Pop Trash (view post)
    Ehhh I just rewatched their reviews of Lambs and Crying, and that's not really true. There's some offhand remark about Buffalo Bill's house at the end, but they don't mention specifics and no information is gleaned that you wouldn't pick up on from the information in the first act.
    With "Silence," they specifically talk about 3rd act plot details that don't appear in the trailer. If a contemporary critic did that, people would scream bloody murder. (Cf: The extremely plot-phobic and shallow reviews of the recent "Halloween" re-boot.)

    With "Crying Game," the moment I'm thinking of might have been during their year-end "best of" or Oscar recap episode. I didn't see it when it aired. I only know about it because I binge watched most of S&E's run in the last year or two.

    There are many more examples than just these. The point was that they were able to talk about films in a way that critics today cannot.

  10. #435
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    Even assuming this is the case, I still have a problem with the idea that general audiences watching the film in a multiplex (or on an airplane or on a streaming service) could, or should, experience the film "in the same way" as the audience at the Cannes premiere. To put it another way, even if one sees the film not knowing what the big surprise(s) is (are), it still won't be the same film that was screened for press and industry people at Cannes.
    You're obviously trolling, the pertinent point has already been made.

    Quote Quoting Irish
    I binge watched most of S&E's run in the last year or two.
    I couldn't gather up the stomach for a binge like that - I don't get the love for Siskel or Ebert. The latter was at least a talented writer but they're both annoying and pretentious snobs.

  11. #436
    The Pan megladon8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    25,255
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    Even assuming this is the case, I still have a problem with the idea that general audiences watching the film in a multiplex (or on an airplane or on a streaming service) could, or should, experience the film "in the same way" as the audience at the Cannes premiere. To put it another way, even if one sees the film not knowing what the big surprise(s) is (are), it still won't be the same film that was screened for press and industry people at Cannes.

    I really don’t understand your logic here.

    How has the film changed between Cannes and wide release?

  12. #437
    Replacing Luck Since 1984 Dukefrukem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    32,990
    He means the elitist people who get to go to Cannes have a much more deserving and better experience than us common folk, and therefor are allowed to spoil movies.

    Just Watched
    Avengers Endgame ★★★★★ ★★★★★ ★★★★★ ★★★★★

    Currently Playing | Played
    The Division 2 ★★★★★

    TV Show Currently Watching | Watched
    n/a

    Currently Reading | Read
    Fever Dream (Douglas Preseton & Lincoln Child)


    Thoughts / Youtube / Film Diary

    Quote Quoting D_Davis (view post)
    Uwe Boll movies > all Marvel U movies

  13. #438
    Quote Quoting megladon8 (view post)
    I really don’t understand your logic here.

    How has the film changed between Cannes and wide release?
    It's changed in the sense that every screening is a unique, unrepeatable event. This is not to say that seeing the film at its festival premiere is inherently a better experience than seeing it in any other screening situation (quite often, it's the reverse), much less that it is a norm against which other screenings should be measured; only that it is different. For one thing, festivals create an atmosphere where movies seem tremendously important, and accordingly one's expectations for each film are that much higher (anything less than a masterpiece is a disappointment), whereas seeing a film in a multiplex, one may take a more measured view of it.
    Just because...
    How Fernando Pessoa Saved Portugal (Eugène Green, 2018) mild
    Le Monde vivant (Eugène Green, 2003) warm
    Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996) mild

    The last book I read was...
    Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe


    The (New) World (August: L'Enfant secret, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood)

  14. #439
    Screenwriter Lazlo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    2,207
    Oh jeez. Clearly what QT means is for the audiences to have comparable levels of knowledge about the plot the first time they see it, whether it's at Cannes or in a multiplex come July. This isn't about atmosphere and the vocational makeup of the audience.
    last four:
    isle of dogs - 5
    auto focus - 8
    much ado about nothing - 7
    stuart little - 7

    now reading:
    the wes anderson collection by matt zoller seitz

    Letterboxd
    The Cruise Cruise - A Podcast About Tom Cruise

  15. #440
    The Pan megladon8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    25,255
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    It's changed in the sense that every screening is a unique, unrepeatable event. This is not to say that seeing the film at its festival premiere is inherently a better experience than seeing it in any other screening situation (quite often, it's the reverse), much less that it is a norm against which other screenings should be measured; only that it is different. For one thing, festivals create an atmosphere where movies seem tremendously important, and accordingly one's expectations for each film are that much higher (anything less than a masterpiece is a disappointment), whereas seeing a film in a multiplex, one may take a more measured view of it.
    This seems like you don’t have any legitimate arguments to back up your statement.

    You stated that the film itself is different. As if the people at Cannes see an entirely different film from those who see it later in multiplexes

    It’s the same movie.

  16. #441
    Quote Quoting megladon8 (view post)
    This seems like you don’t have any legitimate arguments to back up your statement.

    You stated that the film itself is different. As if the people at Cannes see an entirely different film from those who see it later in multiplexes

    It’s the same movie.
    To clarify, when I said that it won't be the same film, I didn't necessarily mean it would be materially different (although films are frequently recut for release or modified for the airline version). I meant it would be different in the sense that a film doesn't exist without an audience and the audience is always different. As Barbara Klinger puts it in her book on Douglas Sirk:

    [T]he text itself has no intrinsic meaning... [T]extual meanings are negotiated by external agencies, whether they be academic modes of interpretation, practices of the film industry, or film reviews set within a particular historical landscape. To thus explore the conditions of meaning-production is to forfeit the idea that a film or novel has an essence that can be captured once and for all by the proper critical method. Instead, forms appear as historical chameleons with shifting identities that reveal the impact culture has on shaping the ideological functions of the media through time.
    Just because...
    How Fernando Pessoa Saved Portugal (Eugène Green, 2018) mild
    Le Monde vivant (Eugène Green, 2003) warm
    Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996) mild

    The last book I read was...
    Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe


    The (New) World (August: L'Enfant secret, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood)

  17. #442
    Smug As Hell MadMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    A land of corn and technology
    Posts
    19,147
    Quote Quoting Grouchy (view post)
    You're obviously trolling, the pertinent point has already been made.


    I couldn't gather up the stomach for a binge like that - I don't get the love for Siskel or Ebert. The latter was at least a talented writer but they're both annoying and pretentious snobs.
    Heh I never liked Siskel. I liked Ebert, but there were times when his opinions made me think "Chill man. It's just a movie." Which I think can apply to this site all too well at times...
    BLOG

    Currently Watching:

    *Daredevil S3
    *Veronica Mars S2
    *SeaLab 2021 S4
    *The Punisher S2
    *The Last Drive In Week 5
    *The Detour S2
    *Lucifer S3

  18. #443
    Since 1929 Morris Schæffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    9,985
    MOVIES

    [+] closer to next rating / [-] closer to previous rating

    • Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (Leitch, 2019) ♦♦½ [+]
    • Midsommar (Aster, 2019) ♦♦♦½ [+]
    • Field of Dreams (Robinson, 1989) ♦♦♦♦ -- rewatch
    • Toy Story 4 (Cooley, 2019) ♦♦♦½ [+]
    • Spider-Man: Far From Home (Watts, 2019) ♦♦½ [-]
    • Godzilla: King of the Monsters (Dougherty, 2019) ♦♦♦ [-]
    • Rocketman (Fletcher, 2019) ♦♦♦ [-]
    • Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (Lucas, 2005) ♦♦♦♦ -- rewatch
    • Apollo 11 (Miller, 2019) ♦♦♦½ [+]
    • Aquaman (Wan, 2018) ♦♦ [+]
    • The Quake (Andersen, 2018/Norway) ♦♦♦ [-]
    • John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (Stahelski, 2019) ♦♦½ [-]

    TV

    • The Man in the High Castle (S3) ♦♦♦
    • Chernobyl ♦♦♦♦
    • Daredevil (S3) ♦♦♦♦
    • Lethal Weapon (S1) ♦♦½
    • Game of Thrones (S8) ♦♦½
    • Star Trek: Discovery (S2) ♦♦♦½

    -----------------------------------------------------
    My Blog

  19. #444
    - - - - - Irish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,897
    Quentin talking about Quentin for 3 hours (and also some stuff about this movie):

    https://purecinemapodcast.libsyn.com...ntin-tarantino

  20. #445
    Administrator Ezee E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    27,779
    I've done a pretty good job avoiding spoilers so far. Something I wasn't able to do for Inglorious Basterds.

    If I recall, Django and Hateful Eight didn't have any festival release prior to their openings.

    Peanut Butter Falcon - ***
    The Nightingale - *** 1/2
    Deadwood - The Movie - ***



    twitter

  21. #446
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Quoting Irish (view post)
    Quentin talking about Quentin for 3 hours (and also some stuff about this movie):

    https://purecinemapodcast.libsyn.com...ntin-tarantino
    That's my favorite subject!

    I'll leave it be for now, though, for fear of spoilers.

  22. #447
    The Pan megladon8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    25,255
    So what the hell is Tarantino’s reason for making Bruce Lee out to be a giant douchebag?

  23. #448
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    8,718
    Fuck it, meg, fucking spoiler tags! I've been anxiously avoiding the thread in 2019 movies.

  24. #449
    Administrator Ezee E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    27,779
    Quote Quoting megladon8 (view post)
    So what the hell is Tarantino’s reason for making Bruce Lee out to be a giant douchebag?
    Have you seen the movie? It's clearly through the mindset and memory of Brad Pitt's character.

    Peanut Butter Falcon - ***
    The Nightingale - *** 1/2
    Deadwood - The Movie - ***



    twitter

  25. #450
    Editor
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,593
    The way the discourse is still swirling, it's gonna feel like an eternity until this is released here (September 12).
    Midnight Run (1988) - 9
    The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
    The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
    Sisters (1973) - 6.5
    Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5

Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
An forum