Waste of time
It's a relatively nice funny movie, but it's too long and kinda pointless from my point of view..
shareAgreed. For me it's definitely Tarantino's weakest, and an actual plot from start to finish would have been nice. Classic Tarantino in the final 30 minutes but what the heck took so long to get there?
shareTrue that...
shareFor me it's definitely Tarantino's weakest,
No, you're thinking of "Reservoir Dogs" and "Death Proof."
Classic Tarantino in the final 30 minutes but what the heck took so long to get there?
Let me list some of the great or near-great pieces that occupied the viewer's time before the entertaining hippie attack in the final act and the heartwarming close (which is the way it should have turned out on that infamous night): The amusing satirical Bruce Lee confrontation and the great Spahn Ranch episode, which effectively creates an underlying sense of menace and includes Cliff kicking so-and-so's axx.
Then there's the friendship and respect of Rick and Cliff; Rick's breakdown with the precocious girl actor (not actress, lol); the beautiful women throughout; the great cast, including several celeb cameos; the entertaining soundtrack; Brandi, the pit bull; Rick's meltdown in his trailer; Rick finally pulling off a quality acting scene via ad libbing; George Spahn not remembering Cliff; everything (surprisingly) turning out to be precisely as so-and-so said; and the amusing allusion to what MAY have happened to Cliff's nagging wife (Rebecca Gayheart) on the boat, to name several. share
Reservoir dogs is a masterpiece, Once upon a Time in Hollywood is straight to tv level.
shareTo each his/her own. I think "Reservoir" is the least of Tarantino's flicks. It's hampered by a low-budget vibe, which I can handle, but not the uninteresting lowlife characters, their self-made conundrum, their interminably dull dialogue and the one-dimensional setting where about 80% of the story takes place in an old (curiously green) warehouse, not to mention no females in the main cast.
Still, it's interesting to observe Tarantino's first serious stab at filmmaking and it has its moments of genuine entertainment. It's a lesson on humble beginnings, which shows potential while not being up to snuff.
Why would no female characters be a problem? It's a guy flick, it's like me complaining about no male characters in a movie like Divorced wives club. Its not like Once upon a Time in Hollywood has strong female characters, it has Margot Robbie who is there only to be damsel in distress. It has no strong male chars either, to be sure.
share"... not to mention no females in the main cast."
Pardon my French, but what the fuck does this matter? I'm quite surprised at this comment, from you of all people, especially. Aren't you typically against the nonsense of the radical left, or have I mistaken you with another user? If a female (or male) doesn't fit into the plot, why force one?
Absolutely I'm against the lunacy of the radical Left, but I prefer a winsome female or three in film, generally speaking. They're a staple of most genres (e.g. horror, sci-fi, fantasy, drama), even if minor in some cases (e.g. Westerns).
I said "to each his/her own" and "it has its moments of genuine entertainment," so it's not like I'm disrespecting "Reservoir" or its devotees; I'm just being honest about why it's my least favorite Tarantino flick. Also, my criticism of no women was the least of my caviling.
In its day it was fresh (albeit noticeably low-budget), but it was quickly & spectacularly outdone by both "Pulp Fiction" and "Jackie Brown" in the 90s (especially the former). I suppose it doesn't help that I viewed those two first and then backtracked to "Reservoir" in 2018.
But if you and Zilkin love it, more power to ya. I'll give it another chance in the next few years.
" Also, my criticism of no women was the least of my caviling."
It was just the only one that I didn't understand. Again, especially from yourself.
I'm not really trying to be in heavy defense of the film or anything. I definitely like it better than most of his. I think I ranked it second, behind PF, in another thread. Then again, I think I also ranked "Death Proof" and "Jackie Brown" as my #3 and #4, which most people seem to not like (especially "Death Proof"). So, what do I know?
I liked most everything about "Death Proof" except the dreadfully dull inane chatter of the girls, especially in the second half, which constituted too much of the story. Interesting dialogues are usually one of Tarantino's strong points, but not here. I guess the point was that these particular women were shallow.
shareNot enough women in RD, too many in DP haha. That's a good point about the chatter and the fact that they were shallow though. Truth be told, I, myself, was probably always pretty shallow in all of those moments, looking more than I was listening.
share"I liked most everything about "Death Proof" except the dreadfully dull inane chatter of the girls"
Practically the whole movie consisted of those birdbrains squawking. It was the most annoying movie I've ever seen. No other movie even comes close. Before I saw Death Proof, Twister (1996) was the most annoying movie I'd ever seen, but if Twister is like a mosquito, Death Proof is like a whole swarm of Maine black flies.
Totally agree. I loved this movie....
share“Let me list some of the great or near-great pieces that occupied the viewer's time “
I would like to add the contrasting of Cliff Booth and Roman Polanski. The scene where Polanski is dressed in his robe outside and is a aggravated by his dog is the exact opposite of Cliff. When Cliff turns down the advances of the underaged hippie on the way to Spahn Ranch we certainly understand at that point that Polanski, in a similar situation, would have made a different choice.
The entire film leading up to the final show down is full scenes that feel like we are just spending time with the characters but everything is happening for a reason.
It’s easy to understand why people can be puzzled by this type of film on first viewing. I absolutely love it more and more each time I watch it.