MovieChat Forums > Zilkin
Zilkin (407)
Posts
Rewatched for the first time as a 39 y old guy (first seen when I was 15)
Very boring movie
They dont make them like this anymore
Where was John McClane
Thing is nanomachines?
Smartest thing Columbo did
Guest stars if Columbo kept going
I prefer mature women
Some great visual scenes
I laughed like crazy
View all posts >
Replies
First seen it as a kid and liked it for the tits.
She had to have her sensual kit ritual.
I don't know, it's a less serious story and basically fan service with some titays and robot cheating sex on an alien space ship so what is not to enjoy?
Taarna is objectively the most well made if you judge animation and visual scenery plus story and second best is probably the Taxi story but a bit too cynical for my taste.
Yeah there's a youtube video comparing the similarity in that story, and I think same concept artists worked on the Fifth element and did art for that part of Heavy Metal, called Mobius.
If I missed it, it is on the director. Tarantino is not known for subtlety by the way, but when there is one I pick it up quickly enough. For example in Jackie Brown, Inglorious Basterds and even in Django Unchained there is a lot of subtext where the movie is not really about what it is about.
Not in this one, what you see is what you get.
She is a 2D damsel in distress not explored as an actual character. It is not because Tarantino is sexist like one interviewer implied, it is just an idealized version of Sharon that exists in the movie because Tarantino idealizes the actors of the era and wants to save her at the end. Every character is 2D and doesn't do anything interesting in the movie.
Dude you are really exploring deep things about the characters that are not in the movie at all. It is far simpler than that, there is no personal drama between the stuntman and the actor, even though it would be interesting if there was.
They are best friends at the beginning, the middle and the end of the movie. Their relationship is not explored at all, there are barely any emotions between the two or interesting dialogues. Everything you just wrote is a movie you had in your head while you were watching, a movie better than was on the screen.
Tarantino loves the stuntmen and the actors, they are his heroes of that era. That is why the actor gets all the praise at the end, he is whiny but that is for comedic effect. The stuntman also is badass because Tarantino is a fanboy of stuntmen in general. There is no "will they, won't they" in the movie. The actor gets all he wants, makes success, proves himself as the actor (to 8 year old girl) and gets into Hollywood high class at the end. The stuntman gets to be the hero. It's a straightforward happy ending.
"He rebuilt entire sections of Los Angeles, and recreated a city that had been lost to time."
I never lived in old LA so I have no idea if he rebuilt anything or not. If me knowing the LA of the 70ties is required to know if he recreated the era perfectly then this movie caters to a VERY specific demographic.
That 70ties show recreated that era perfectly.
To the average viewer to recreate the 60ties and 70ties era, wear some bell pants and have that big haircut and you are there. Drive an old timer and you are pretty there.
Linklater recreated the era in his "Dazed and confused", but that was a slice of life movie with actual characters that you feel you are in that era.
This movie is a Tarantino movie with characters who NEVER existed in any era, it is his fantasy, they just have dumb haircuts.
It is his weakest movie he ever made. And I know where he is coming from and what he was trying to do. He was trying to write a love letter to his heroes of the 60ties, the movie actors and stuntmen who made his favorite movies when he was growing up. That is why there is no sex and drugs in the movie even though that would era appropriate.
Because those characters are his heroes, his role models. They are the ones that enriched his childhood and made him love movies, so he made an idealized version of them. That is why they are two dimensional also.
"it's tarantino's best movie imo and one of the best films of the last 10 years."
Are you kidding me?
It's his worst. You think this movie is better than Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction? And I am not a Tarantino hater, at least I wasn't until recently. I waited for 30 minutes in line to go see the movie. I wanted to like it.
"it captures an era perfectly, in a wistful, sad but also fun way."
He had some guys and girls wear hippie clothes and old fashioned haircuts and they drove an old car. Wow, such a fucking genius. How did he manage to capture the era? You think he captured the era how? What did the do exactly in the movie that captures the era? Where was all the sex and drugs? Oh that's right, Tarantino wasn't getting any back then. Scooby Doo captures that era better than this movie. I don't even know what era is that, 60ties or the 70ties?
"it's sneakily moving"
It's slow and boring. It goes on for 3 fucking hours with nothing happening. There is one violent over the top finale where Tarantino gets to rewrite history again, it was even more over the top than "Inglorious basterds". The whole movie is Tarantino's fantasy on him saving Sharon Tate. I understand that, but there is nothing besides that in the movie.
Characters are not likeable. Bradd Pitt and Leo are bland as fuck. Not enough to carry it for 3 hours doing nothing. And no, it's not even a slice of life. That would mean I am following an interesting character at least living his or her life. No, this is a totally empty movie with 2D flat characters that infantile overly inflated ego filmmaker thinks are cool. "Oh wow, my character can beat up Bruce Lee, that makes him super duper cool. He also like totally saves Sharon Tate"
The movie doesn't have the charisma Tarantino used to have, the originality. The unique tempo is gone since his original editor died unfortunately, she gave the tempo he needs. He thinks he can edit his own shit, he fucking sucks at editing.
View all replies >