Quoted from Demento I like cinema, I like Tarantino. I think this was one of his worse movies. I would put it below The Hateful Eight.

I still haven't seen it, but if it's worse than Hateful Eight...damn...that was a shitty movie!  And I've sat through it 1 and a half times!  No more, though.  Brutally dull and smug and such a weak, nonexistent payoff.

Quoted from Dreamscale I still haven't seen it, but if it's worse than Hateful Eight...damn...that was a shitty movie!  And I've sat through it 1 and a half times!  No more, though.  Brutally dull and smug and such a weak, nonexistent payoff.

This movie has no plot, story. It's more of people going about their day, and then there's a finale. Again, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. It's just for me, here, it didn't work. It seemed like Tarantino was making something that appeals mainly, heavily to him. Which is fine, he can do that. But, I don't have to like it

Quoted from Demento I like cinema, I like Tarantino. I think this was one of his worse movies. I would put it below The Hateful Eight. The stars, the glitz and glamour seem to elevate the material for some. However, I thought this movie was shallow and had no point or flow.

Fair enough. To me its about the end of an era, a cultural shift, not just in how Hollywood operated but American society at large. The Manson murders (revisionist treatment non-withstanding) are used to illustrate this as they are often seen as a demarcation between 60s idealism and 70s pessimism. The film builds to that moment, those murders hang over events like a dark spectre which we know about but the characters don't has they blighly struggle and succeed in their own little lives. The languid story pace, its digressions and tangents feed into this obliviousness.  

I'm not saying you think this but I feel people sometimes confuse a film that is low on traditional plot mechanics as having no point. On the contrary, I see this to be Tarantino's most thematically rich films. One working on a very different, more low key register (bar the ending) than any of his other work. For that alone, watching it unfold was a fascinating experience.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Fair enough. To me its about the end of an era, a cultural shift, not just in how Hollywood operated but American society at large. The Manson murders (revisionist treatment non-withstanding) are used to illustrate this as they are often seen as a demarcation between 60s idealism and 70s pessimism. The film builds to that moment, those murders hang over events like a dark spectre which we know about but the characters don't has they blighly struggle and succeed in their own little lives. The languid story pace, its digressions and tangents feed into this obliviousness.   I'm not saying you think this but I feel people sometimes confuse a film that is low on traditional plot mechanics as having no point. On the contrary, I see this to be Tarantino's most thematically rich films. One working on a very different, more low key register (bar the ending) than any of his other work. For that alone, watching it unfold was a fascinating experience.

I honestly enjoyed this description more than the movie! A majestic take.

RE: the low on traditional plot mechanics, for me, it shares a similar structure to 'There Will Be Blood', and the reason I choose that as reference is:

1) I love it  and was underwhelmed with this.
2) Tarantino is on record as a big fan of PTA - he considered Inglorious as his answer to TWBB, but can't help feel it's stayed with him and influenced him more fully on his latest.

I'd argue this is just not suited to Tarantino's style, and while he is a visionary and genius, he just doesn't have the range of a Kubrick or Scorsese to work outside his comfort zone, IMO.

How would you compare the two on this little plot / no point basis?

SPOILERS

It has a very straightforward plot. It's an underdog story about a once-popular actor whose career is winding down but who still wants to be famous. When he's confronted by the talent and eagerness of a young actor of the next generation, he initially sinks into despair, but ultimately manages something important -- reconnecting with the acting talent that brought him here in the first place. Having made peace with himself, he accepts his place in the world, and the universe responds by bringing him together with the people who can revitalize his fame.

There's an animating conflict set up in the first full scene, a midpoint turn where the protagonist goes from reactive to active and commits to his path, a low point at his separation from his closest friend and supporter in life, and a goofy deus ex machina that allows him to use the tools of his greatest skill to triumph over evil and make all well for himself and in the universe. The first scene establishes a problem. The last scene celebrates the solution to that problem. This is straightforward, by the "rules" stuff -- all the subplots and digressions don't change that.

It's a cheapie drive-in drama plot, not a 2019 blockbuster plot, but it's definitely a plot.

Quoted from Andrew RE: the low on traditional plot mechanics, for me, it shares a similar structure to 'There Will Be Blood', and the reason I choose that as reference is: 1) I love it  and was underwhelmed with this. 2) Tarantino is on record as a big fan of PTA - he considered Inglorious as his answer to TWBB, but can't help feel it's stayed with him and influenced him more fully on his latest. I'd argue this is just not suited to Tarantino's style, and while he is a visionary and genius, he just doesn't have the range of a Kubrick or Scorsese to work outside his comfort zone, IMO. How would you compare the two on this little plot / no point basis?

That's an interesting comparison. I never thought of Inglourious Basterds and TWBB together. I love both films but for very different reasons. In terms of comparing TWBB and ...Hollywood, again, I don't really see the comparison. I suppose, broadly speaking, they are more character driven than plot driven, more concerned with evoking a time and place rather than an A+B=C narrative, and, in essence, are about the American dream, the American spirit...so I guess they do actually have something in common haha. ...Hollywood feels much more sprawling though, a a larger canvas, while TWBB burrows into one man, so by the end its just him and a bloody bowling pin. But yeah, definitely something to consider.

Evidently, I disagree with you saying Tarantino didn't have the range to try a more meditative, languidly paced approach that is not regularly (bar two sequences) punctuated by violent set pieces. I loved how he clearly tried to make a film apart from his others, particularly given the infamous material he was working with.

Quoted from Heretic SPOILERS It has a very straightforward plot. It's an underdog story about a once-popular actor whose career is winding down but who still wants to be famous. When he's confronted by the talent and eagerness of a young actor of the next generation, he initially sinks into despair, but ultimately manages something important -- reconnecting with the acting talent that brought him here in the first place. Having made peace with himself, he accepts his place in the world, and the universe responds by bringing him together with the people who can revitalize his fame. There's an animating conflict set up in the first full scene, a midpoint turn where the protagonist goes from reactive to active and commits to his path, a low point at his separation from his closest friend and supporter in life, and a goofy deus ex machina that allows him to use the tools of his greatest skill to triumph over evil and make all well for himself and in the universe. The first scene establishes a problem. The last scene celebrates the solution to that problem. This is straightforward, by the "rules" stuff -- all the subplots and digressions don't change that. It's a cheapie drive-in drama plot, not a 2019 blockbuster plot, but it's definitely a plot.

Excellent summation.

I never said it didn't have a plot though. My point is for a 160 minute film, its plot is light and, more importantly, secondary to the main concerns of the film. That is why a lot of people found it to be aimless/plotless as it gets obfuscated behind the meandering structure. At least, that was my takeaway anyway.

I feel that Rick's battle is more with the changing attitudes of the new generation and the emergence of the hippie counterculture which he despises and doesn't understand, then necessarily a professional conflict. Yes, the girl is an embodiment of dutiful professionalism that he lacks but I think what bothers him more so is how out of step he feels in general with the world around him. Cliff expresses similar contempt/bemusement but is altogether more chill about it...unless cornered.

Also, I'm not sure Rick entirely makes peace with his station within the industry by the end. I think its thrust upon him rather than he accepting it. He has no choice, Italy it is!

I do love both these characters though. Two of Tarantino's most nuanced and atypical creations.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I never said it didn't have a plot though. My point is for a 160 minute film, its plot is light and, more importantly, secondary to the main concerns of the film.

Oh I agree! Was responding to Demento -- though the "no plot" sentiment seems popular everywhere.

You're definitely right that the plot is not the film's primary means of storytelling. I just think it's worth noticing that it's still there, and in a relatively conventional form. And to the extent that Leo (forget his name) is a stand-in for a filmic archetype/essence that was lost to 70s pessimism, that cheapie melodrama underdog plot, itself a relic of the 50s, perfectly aligns with the fairy tale that Tarantino presents, wherein the evils of both eras are banished and the best of both eras come together for a brave new world. So while it's definitely light on plot, I think the criticisms (not yours, Col) aimed at *lack* of plot miss how carefully plot is used.

Quoted from Heretic Oh I agree! Was responding to Demento -- though the "no plot" sentiment seems popular everywhere. You're definitely right that the plot is not the film's primary means of storytelling. I just think it's worth noticing that it's still there, and in a relatively conventional form. And to the extent that Leo (forget his name) is a stand-in for a filmic archetype/essence that was lost to 70s pessimism, that cheapie melodrama underdog plot, itself a relic of the 50s, perfectly aligns with the fairy tale that Tarantino presents, wherein the evils of both eras are banished and the best of both eras come together for a brave new world. So while it's definitely light on plot, I think the criticisms (not yours, Col) aimed at *lack* of plot miss how carefully plot is used.

Oh sorry, my bad.

Yeah, dead right, the fairytale element is a strong thread. Not just in the title but also in that penultimate shot when the gates of Rick's neighbour's open to reveal an almost enchanting winding driveway amongst trees. Its like something from Disney. Rick enters, he is accepted, as if being elevated into a new strata of society. He's finally being welcomed into a world he has felt, heretofore, so excluded from.

I saw this film a few weeks back and when you buy tickets to a Tarantino film you have only two expectations.

1) “Talky” dialogue
2) Brutal violence at least once in the film.

I’m a big fan of theater, so lots of dialogue doesn’t anger me like some people. In theater, all they do is talk! So, ramble on and let me hear the innards of thy soul!! I think, and this is a very simple way to look at it, you have to be a patient observer until the payoff (the ending) to enjoy this film. You also have to love Tarantino for Tarantino’s sake. You can’t expect genius, you have to expect Tarantino. You have to love the style to your very core.

That being said, I only felt this way after the very last scene. The most amazing and hilarious ending I’ve seen in my adult life. My argument is the ending is only as good as it is because of the contrast it has with the the rest of the film. It’s like a punchline to a joke that you didn’t even realize was a joke until you were being told the punchline because the joke was so freakin long.

Loved it.

Quoted from Talldave I saw this film a few weeks back and when you buy tickets to a Tarantino film you have only two expectations. 1) “Talky” dialogue 2) Brutal violence at least once in the film. I’m a big fan of theater, so lots of dialogue doesn’t anger me like some people. In theater, all they do is talk! So, ramble on and let me hear the innards of thy soul!! I think, and this is a very simple way to look at it, you have to be a patient observer until the payoff (the ending) to enjoy this film. You also have to love Tarantino for Tarantino’s sake. You can’t expect genius, you have to expect Tarantino. You have to love the style to your very core. That being said, I only felt this way after the very last scene. The most amazing and hilarious ending I’ve seen in my adult life. My argument is the ending is only as good as it is because of the contrast it has with the the rest of the film. It’s like a punchline to a joke that you didn’t even realize was a joke until you were being told the punchline because the joke was so freakin long. Loved it.

Haha, I enjoyed this take and can't argue with it. Well played, sir.

Thanks for letting know, on my watch it. Weird tho, it’s Tarantino and there’s no much talk about it. Maybe they skipped promoting this movie thinking that the names should do it. Otherwise why did it go by so quietly?

Quoted from khamanna Otherwise why did it go by so quietly?

Did it? It generated a fair amount of publicity when it came out. According to Wikipedia, it made 370 million. Tarantino's second highest grossing film.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Did it? It generated a fair amount of publicity when it came out. According to Wikipedia, it made 370 million. Tarantino's second highest grossing film.

It slipped me by, the only place I heard about it is here.