Does Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Cross The Line? | The Big Picture
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 авг 2019
- Quentin Tarantino’s new movie set in the waning days of the Hollywood movie industry’s tumultuous late-’60s transitional period mixes fact, fiction, original characters, and real historical figures to tell a story that starts out familiar but ends up… somewhere else. And while some have praised the perpetually controversial filmmaker’s approach to the material, others have raised objections to playing fast and loose with the facts
Subscribe to Escapist Magazine! ►► bit.ly/Sub2Escapist
Want to see the next episode a week early? Check out www.escapistmagazine.com for the latest episodes of your favorite shows.
---
---
Subscribe To Our Other Channels
Subscribe to Escapist Plays! ►► bit.ly/13rrBzH
Zero Punctuation Merch Store ►► sharkrobot.com/collections/ze...
Join us on Twitch ►► / escapistmagazine
Like us on Facebook ►► / escapistmag
Follow us on Twitter ►► / escapistmag
Find us Google+ ►► bit.ly/EscapistGoogle
Follow us on Pinterest ►► bit.ly/EscapistPins 
Игры
The way you phrased that Bruce VS Cliff scene made it sound like a reference to the 'Using a Heavy to demonstrate strength' idea put across to Dalton by Pacino's character - to demonstrate how strong Cliff was (context we'd need for later in the film) we had to see him beat on a character we already knew was strong... that's a clever element I hadn't even thought of!
The Lee thing is also Tarantino calling his shot. Pacino very early on gives a whole speech about the Hollywood trick of bringing in an old badass and having the new kid win the fight to establish his cred. Tarantino wants you to see the artifice
isn't that called "The Worf Effect"?
@@hachnslay not exactly. "The worf effect" is when a character that is supposed to be a badass is easily defeated so many times, it becomes hard to see then as a badass. That is not the case here, since bruce doesn't even properly loses.
But Swarchz describes how Hollywood does not care about the heavy and only want to abuse their name recognition.
So does that mean QT also disrespects Lee and his legacy list to make Cliff look good?
@@sudevsen Maybe. That's kind of the core of this whole argument. Although I would argue that this movie, and Tarantino's whole career, has made an effort to highlight those who have been forgotten by the Hollywood system. The scene of Lee training Tate, imo, goes a long ways towards this.
@@godzero8497 It's exactly the Worf Effect because there were more than a few episodes where that character that defeated him would get more lines and screen time than Worf.
The real problem is that Bruce Lee is a Legend and a well known Hollywood icon. Making Bruce Lee into the evil caricature is like Quentin making trump a liberal activist vegan, ok...but you can only suspend disbelief on reality for so long.
Honestly, the Bruce Lee scene is a more respectful showing than the actual tale it"s based off of.
During the filming for The Green Hornet Bruce Lee and stuntman Gene LeBell started sparring, Lee was similarly cocky as he was the film. Context for Gene LeBell: He's a Legend, the Godfather of Grappling, the Toughest Man Alive, kind of a big deal. At the time he was already a two-time award-winning Judo champion. The way that sparring match ended was with Lebell throwing Lee on his back and running around the set, with Lee threatening to kill Lebell if he didn't put him down. Lee later remarked that the event played an extremely important role in the development of Jeet Kune Do, as it showed Lee that his fighting style was at a severe disadvantage to grapplers.
To hear the whole story it plays like a lighthearted comedy scene where a tough guy gets knocked down a peg, honestly more unflattering than the movie interpretation if you ask me.
The greatest crime of this movie is we were robbed of a scene of Bruce Lee being carried around like an incredibly angry sack of potatoes.
I absolutely get what Moh’s saying about portraying Bruce as though he would have won the next round.
The scene in question had Lee thrown into a solid steel car hard enough to make a dent the size of a mini fridge, get back up immediately, reset his dislocated bones in a single motion, and go back to fighting as if nothing happened.
That’s fuckin’ badass, and I don’t see why everybody got so up-in-arms about that fight.
yeah if you think about it the exchange makes sense. first Cliff underestimates Bruce and gets knocked down, then Bruce underestimates Cliff and gets knocked down. Now that the two have felt each other out and recognize that the other is the real deal they really start to get into it only to have it interrupted before either one gains a real advantage. From a story perspective it tells us that Cliff (an unknown) is at least good enough at fighting that Bruce (a known) has to take their exchange seriously letting us know that Cliff is a bad dude while also leaving us wondering what would have happened had they not been interrupted.
bug1494 Oh yeah. The story’s already building up Cliff as a near-superhuman physical combatant by showing that he can keep pace with such a mythically capable figure as Lee.
It isn't the fight that was insulting, it was the way they treated his personality/character.
Nimno74 It’s nowhere near as insulting as the biopic they made about him.
@@Nimno74 his personality is super over the top sure but so is just about everyone else in just about every Tarantino movie i could see how someone might be bothered by it but its not real life its a caricature, a fairy tale.
I thought the movie was pretty good. Better than most to come out this year, QT knows what he’s doin. Crossing the line though? Nah.
Not crossing a line, just pissing people off. Even Kareem his personal friend and student doesn't like that they straight out lied about the things he would do and say in person. This was an evil caricature of Bruce Lee, and considering QT counts as the old Hollywood type, there is something troublesome about it.
shindean Well aren’t most QT’s character hyperized versions of people? Also, considering its fiction and not like some documentary on Lee himself or based on reality.
@@r.e.z9428 And there's your problem: You're still referring to him as just a character when we have decades of who he really was as a person (he never said he'd be able to beat up Muhammad Ali because he said in interviews he would never be able to beat him). The people who are upset just have a simple question: Why portray him as just a throwaway chinese caricature? Even Roman Polanski was handled with better respect than Bruce Lee.
@@shindean Bruce Lee did get angry and walk off a set because we was meant to lose a fight to Robin, in Batman and Robin
They had to re-write the script so that it ended in a draw.
I think QT was pretty on point with the character of Bruce Lee in his film
@@august6389 Bruce Lee never said that he would beat Muhammad Ali because he had an interview were said he could never beat Muhammad Ali. And why would he let himself get beaten by Burt Ward, to placate white Americans about beating up a Chinese guy? This is why Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was upset, because if you're going to turn a great man into nothing more but a Chinese caricature, clearly you don't care about the man.
Dirty feet is what finally crossed the line
Lol, lightweight :D Seriously though, I fing that a lot less repulsive than the bright red nail polish in Death Proof. Probably just me.
All overthinking aside, I immensely enjoyed Pitt and his pit bull (hehe) beating and mauling the would-be Manson clan murderers to death and preventing the horrors that happened in reality. It felt so good that I was grinning ear to ear.
You are the first to actually get me, thanks.
I did too, but then as we see Sharon in the final scene, hugging Rick I suddenly felt sad that it wasn't what really happened, and that this poor innocent woman and her friends were still dead.
@@Sajirah
I think those are good emotions to have when confronted with the ending.
We are meant to miss the dead for the opportunities remaining unfulfilled in our much too real world.
We are meant to laugh in relief as the horror of the Manson murders are turned into Tarantino-trademark action farce.
It is a film that challenges our emotional response, and those are the kind of films that I enjoy watching again and again - not just to evaluate to movie, but to also see how the then current version of me handles the emotional rollercoaster-ride.
When I saw it the entire theater was laughing their asses off, it was amazing.
I went from HOLY SHIT to laughing in disbelief when they pull out the flamethrower, to crying when Rick is slowly led up into the house. It's a great payoff
"He only defeated Wong Jackman a year ago, and..." THAT WAS NOT EASY SON
Wait, I thought the Bruce Lee scene was just a fantasy daydream scene and not an actual flashback.
I think the fact that it made Lee look like a cocky asshole caused it to go over everyones heads.
@@TrueMediator it wasn't Lee's attitude that threw me off. It was just how Pitt was on top of the roof already down in his luck and desperately needing a job > suddenly demanding Leo pull strings > kicking Lee's ass > getting fired > cut back to Pitt on top of the roof smiling and shaking his head. It was like: this is what would happen if he forced Leo to get him the job other than stuntsman and that he'd muck it up in the worst way possible.
@@MahmoudElgassier I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a flashback to why the director definitely wouldn't let him on set after Rick stuck his neck out for him the first time.
@@MahmoudElgassier No, it was definitely a flashback to a previous incident. There really is no ambiguity about it.
When Cliff dropped Rick off at the studio in the morning he asked if he would be needed as a stunt-man on Lancer that week, and Rick tells Cliff: "I've been meaning to tell you... the guy who cast it is best friends with Randy, the guy from The Green Hornet". The scene between Cliff and Bruce Lee explains to us who Randy is and how Cliff got on the wrong side of him. When it cuts back to Cliff on the roof, after we see him being told to get off the set, he says "fair enough" to himself as he knows he fucked up.
@@jdh6752 fair enough. lol
Quick Answer: No
Long Answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Feature Film Documentary on the answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It doesn't cross the line in terms of the subject matter. The title of the movie tells you exactly what is in store for you and Tarantino treats the subject matter respectfully.
His fetish for feet however, (dirty hippie feet in this case since it's 1969's Hollywood), is out of control. I'm talking out of focus feet in the foreground for minutes worth of the runtime. Dude is not holding back anymore.
Me and my buddy said the same thing, each time a pair showed up we was like, "we see you Quinton" lol.
And the fact that they're hippie feet make it worse. They're so dirty and gross it's distracting. It almost took out of the scenes completely.
It's so blatant that I'm 99% sure he's doing it because he knows it will piss people off. I mean fine, PARTIALLY it was so that he could jack it to Margot Robbie's feet in the editing room, but still.
Eeh, almost everyone has some sort of fetish anyways.
If it doesn't hinder his ability to make good and/or interesting movie, or cause him to cross boundaries that would make him off-putting to work with, what's so bad about him being blatantly on the nose about his podophilia here and there?
The closest film of his I can compare it to in terms of tone, pacing, and drama-to-action ratio is Jackie Brown.
Sharons family liked how Sharon was portrayed. Their opinion is all that matters on the subject
A lot of Brad Pitt running errands in real time.
Alternative history movie where I get to watch the Manson family get their ass kicked? Ok, I’m sold.
Play the video at 0.75X speed and it just sounds like someone talking normally
New to MovieBob?
@@84jesterx yeah
That's no fun though.
What I like most about this film is the portrail of the two protagonists. Both DeCaprio and Pitts characters seem more human than their comparable counterparts, which makes the historical leaps much more believable.
I once saw Jackie Chan being interviewed by Charlie Rose on his PBS show talking about the Bruce Lee Mystique as he saw it. Jackie basically said that he got the part of an extra in Bruce's film because he "fell down good." He also mentioned that when he auditioned, Bruce was surrounded by "yes-men in suits." I interpreted that as "Bruce hired talented stuntmen in front of the camera and suited yes-men behind the camera for the same reason: to make him look good. After seeing the "fight scene" in this movie that ticked off the Lee family, I was thinking of Jackie Chan's assessment and it fit in with what Jackie said in my opinion. Yes Bruce was a legend but even legends are made, not born.
The Tarantino impression and the Bruce Lee info alone is worth the watch. Cheers for that!
I'm from Austria and the movie comes to cinemas this Thursday. Looking forward to seeing it
In the world of the movie, Charles Manson is at large, but I assumed that Brad Pitts character would tell the police about their situation, and perhaps they won't have moved yet when the police get there. I know it's just my head canon, but I think it fits, and we don't need a scene of it to assume it happened. He recognized them and was already fishy about that place. The cops will ask about the people he killed, and I can't imagine him not telling them about the compound. Maybe they won't get arrested though, if there's nothing on the scene to incriminate the rest of them.
Thank you, Bob, for saying thoughtful things about thoughtful things. It’s refreshing in a total sense of the word. I’ve been a fan for such a long time and love all the content from then till now. Good luck! Keep doing what you do. Love to the fans, peace out
I can say that Bruce Lee is one of the greatest people to live as the movie's portrayal isn't that bad.
Sharon teases Jay about Dancing to Paul Revere & the Raiders and asks if he's afraid she'll tell Jim Morrison. In real life Jay was Jim's hairstylist
Love the new thumb nail design! 👍
Hey glad you noticed!
Very interesting, thanks for sharing!
I went into the movie nervous that I was getting another Hateful 8,and a tasteless interpretation of the Manson Family murders. Instead, I got exactly what the title suggested. I left the theater smiling.
Jorae Reegers I love The Hateful Eight, but I understand the criticism behind it. Most of the characters in that film aren’t really likable compared to the characters in all of Tarantino’s other films, including Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood.
The only thing that could surpass this now is if Tarantino makes a movie set in Britain during the '90s and his characters save James Bulger and kill Venables and Thompson.
Jack Dalton as Captain America in the Realer Than Real '60s MCU!
@@skepticalbadger Yeah, sounds good. The multiverse thing Mysterio brought up in FFH might turn out to not be BS. Spider-Man Noir could happen in the MCU.
I just have a bit of an issue with a movie that totally romanticizes a time period while completely condemning and demonizing a social movement/subculture, without acknowledging any of the things that they were fighting for. I think the message of the film is pretty clear: "the hippies sucked and they ruined the 60s. If they hadn't, good ol' tough guys like Cliff would still be around/be successful". The only 'hippies' we ever see however are murderous Masonites though, and the movie totally ignores the civil rights movement, Vietnam, etc. and doesn't give them a single positive/normal portrayal. Just because some "hippies"--and for the record most people from a group like that don't give themselves the name, that's how other people label them--just sat around and got high doesn't mean none of them did anything important.
You know, I didn't see it that way. I was around in 1968, and the general disgust with "hippies" mirrors what I remember hearing from my parents, their friends, and on TV. You're absolutely right that there were positive contributions made by the hippie (and allied) movement, but I don't remember that being generally acknowledged for several years. Heck, I remember one TV newscaster sneering at the Lord of the Rings as an "off-beat fairy tale" because it was catching on with the Haight-Ashbury crowd in San Francisco. Anything even vaguely associated with "hippies" was denigrated.
I think you just answered your own question.
Hippy was a collective label applied uncritically to several different movements and subcultures of the era, some of which where more benign and forward thinking and some who where delusional useful idoits that damaged their own political tribe's reputation making it easy to turn the cultural tide against them. It not entirely unfair however to assert that the response to hippies (apathy) created an environment ripe for abuse with the likes of the Manson Family who could hide in plain sight because they adopted and practiced iconography and cultural signifies that gave them the appearance of belonging to the greater collective of "hippies".
And this isn't new, almost ever generation and every political group makes use of collective labeling of themselves and their opposition which inevitably leads to abuses by those who learn to co-opt the subculture. Its why free speech advocates get lumped in with White Supremacists and Feminists get conflated with misandrists and Turf; because its so easy to adopt a title when people litter them all over the place like unwanted trash.
@@Mister-Thirteen A thoughtful response.
Man, I appreciate both of these responses a lot. I guess I'm not sure if they totally agree with my point or not, but they're very thoughtful and not needlessly aggressive (which is always a pleasant surprise on the internet). Cheers, you two.
@@Finkster5 Cheers,
Better to have a dietetic then an argument.
One point of contention however; "aggression" is not the same thing as hostility. My post could very easily be read as snide, pompous or even bullish just by changing the tone you read it in. I try very hard to avoid such readings with word choices that make it clear I lack hostility towards the person I'm replying to. But that doesn't mean my post wasn't aggressive as it was in part a refutation of your own, though I also think much of what you stated has merit as well.
When the final Manson Family scene began I was a bit wary. I wasn’t sure how receptive I was going to be to an alternate telling of the story. However, once the chaos began; I burst into laughter...as did the entire audience. I suppose there was just something truly cathartic about watching those assholes get what they truly deserve.
As for the Bruce Lee scene...what you have to remember is that this was 1969. Bruce was indeed a good fighter at the time, but it was several years before his peek conditioning.
I wouldn't mind the ultra violence if it actually established why we should hate those characters. You can't just rely on everyone knowing the Manson family. They literally do nothing and say nothing about their ideology until the massacre
@@coreyander286 with some things like the Nazis and 9/11, that's fair enough, but I don't think Tarantino appreciated how few people around the world know the details of the Manson Family. I live in the UK and even I had to look up the Wikipedia article. It was 50 years ago. A lot of people don't know much about it.
Plus, the film doesn't discuss their white supremacist beliefs or what they were trying to achieve, so even in their portrayal, they're sanitised as just "crazy hippies". Just because it's set in the past, doesn't mean you shouldn't establish the stakes and character motivations.
Bob you have pickup artists advertising on your videos?
Being a late Gen-X person Sharon Tate isn't much more than a trivia question to me. I'm not much of a Tarantino fan, but generally this is much ado about nothing. Hollywood fiction has been playing fast and loose with history for...ever.
The last 15 minutes made the whole movie worth it.
They gave margot robbie nothing to do, all her scenes were just her walking around saying hi. A waste of a good actress, if her scenes were cut from the movie nobody would know they were suposed to be there.
Honestly the most fascinating thing for me alt history is buff is pondering what would have happened next in both Inglorious Bastards and Once Upon a time. Like Hitler dies in 1944, so who took over Germany? How did the Wehrmacht react once they were freed from the Hitler oath and learned that he’d died at the hands of a band of Jewish Americans? Was there still a Cold War? And as for OUATIH, what would Tate have done with her life? Did Star Wars still get made? I hope someone dropped Shanon a tip-off about what Roman was really up to in London and she got out with the baby fast.
Cool video!
To be fair, crossing the line is what Tarantino does best.
The thing about this is I’m kinda right there with you. I enjoyed the movie but as far as this debate goes, I think there’s good points on both sides as to whether or not stuff like using actual historical figures for a narrative like this is in poor taste. I will say though QT has balls of steel for doing stuff like this on the regular, even when it might not work out.
You speak too slowly i say
Thats why I watch these videos at 1.25x speed
Go watch his 30 minute take on the mcu. It was so fast I couldn't keep up.
Lee being the recognisable "heavy" who exists to get his ass whooped and make Cliff look good is an example of how Scharz described why Dtpn gets cast as a "heavy" to make the fresh faced actors look good.
It was meant to show that nobody cards about the "heavy" and QT doesn't care about Lee either.
Wow that's just a huge misinterpretation
The big problem i personaly have with the movie, is that Roman Polanski is a part of the film, a man who raped a 13 year old girl, who Tarantino later defended saying the girl wanted to have it (IK QT has appologized since, But still..), and that no critizism is given to RP, and that the film ALSO includes a scene where an underage girl tries to have sex with Brad Pitt. Lke thats kinda iffy to me
I'm sorry but I don't see how this is crossing the line in any way. Other than the last 10-15 minutes, this is the tamest Tarantino film to date, and still a damn good one. And anyone still saying Tarantino doesn't do strong female characters clearly didn't watch Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, Jackie Brown etc.. I thought the film was brilliant and a positive alternate history if anything, and I still don't understand the alleged 'controversy' around it 🤷♂️🤷♂️
another historical change that might have happened would be Roman Polanski not getting convicted of Child Rape. Meaning he never would have run off and would continue making hollywood movies. Quentin has also defended Roman from this in the past. It probably didn't have that intent behind it but it stopped me from truly enjoying the movie
Cassius Clay had already changed his name to Mohammad Ali long before 1969. To hear the two men referring to Ali as Clay was the inaccuracy that irked me.
A surprising number of people still referred to Ali as Clay after his name change; it was even used in Coming to America. It's a real, but weird thing, as if Ali only had to be respected in terms, and by a name, that other people chose for him.
GOOD LORD. I guess some people will go out of their way to whine, moan and bitch about any and every movie possible.
Tariontion may think hollywood favors idealoy over narrative by daring to question him.
What is film if not an illusion of reality that our brains can digest and think about. I would argue that we almost demand film to be a portal into "what if?".
well, that was interesting video.
This was really good, loved how you seamlessly went through all the topics. Congrats Bob
The line doesn't exist anymore because I snorted it!
The Bruce Lee scene I read as "unreliable narrator". No one seems to confirm his story.
It dirsbt matter, it still exists as a "real" scene until the end.
I don't agree with that.
"Once Upon A Time..." it is textually a fantasy so it makes sense there is a in universe fantasy.
Nah, it definitely happened in the reality of the movie. Because he beat the shit out of lee and destroyed the car of the stunt coordinator's wife, he was unable to get work with him on the new Rick Dalton show
I agree a fight happened. But I don't think it happened the way his memory claims.
personally, i tend to consider making oscarbait crossing a line.
So fast I misspelt unnecessarily...see below
I’m pretty sure that if you have Tate s sisters blessing and can even use her real jewelry there is no controversy only people looking for one. This is the same director that killed Hitler in a movie theater together with a 1000 other Nazis
QT's thing is starting to be meh. I get it but I don't care about movie making enough for these things to grab me. I just watch them to keep up with everyone. Like a job.
I think we all now know Roman Polanski's judgement isn't exactly the best, so him suspecting Bruce Lee isn't a surprise.
it's so sad bruce lee and son got murdered so young :(
So, the morale of the story is that Tarantino made exactly the kind of film Tarantino would make. Kewl.
I like the hot takes made by "let's talk about stuff", by Sarah zedig.
It's supposed to be fictional and somehow that's also restricted.
Omega Styles - yeah fiction creates too much anxiety for some people, so that should also be restricted now.
Yes. Fictionalized accounts of real events are not immune from scrutiny. Your decision to invoke some event with emotional weight should be justified by what contribution you are making. It should also take into account the perspectives of those who experienced the non-fictional version of these events.
None of this is new ground in film criticism. In 1939 very similar debates were had regarding Gone With the Wind. The very questions of identity, remaining history in a fictional setting, and the appropriateness of those involved to say what they were saying all were valid discussions.
Nah.
Well... it's Tarantino.
I'm just surprised nobody is addressing how many shots of feet Tarantino put into the film. Seriously, there's a looooot of foot shots compared to his other films.
The dude is well known for his fetish. It's not too surprising that this would come up a lot in a movie about a mythologized version of the world that he credits with shaping him.
2 things annoy me the big one being the swap of the Manson family to just Hippies which is more than a bit objectionable and a minor thing in the Ali comment because that seems wrong for Bruce Lee to say. Still I loved the movie over all.
I mean, it wouldn't be a Tarantino movie if it didn't, would it?
I'm going to be completely honest here, I had absolutely no idea that scruffy hippie-looking guy was supposed to be Charles Manson. I think I either took a bathroom break at that point and completely missed the reveal as they were rolling up to the house, or wasn't paying attention during the ranch scene and just never connected that this was supposed to include real life events. I'm also unfamiliar with the Charles Manson murders other than the part about starting a race war and so never connected any of this together. I seriously thought this was just a really fun, really dark action-drama with an excessively violent ending.
Edit: And now I come to learn that the scruffy guy wasn't actually Charles Manson. There is so much I don't know about this movie.
Leviathon672015 the hippie attacker’s where real people, and Manson did make a short appearance in the ranch scene.
Short answer: Yes, definitely.
Long answer: Yes, but who cares anymore?
The problem of the Lee depiction is not that he looses, its that they show him like a douchey moron. Tate gets to become a human being, Lee gets to become a punchline.
Think about french guys looking this vidéo !
I never really figured out how to square away the ending of Inglorious Basterds. I never LIKED it, but I wasn't sure how far to go, as in whether I should criticise it for, in this era where many believe the Holocaust never happened, creating a movie where the Holocaust... never happened.
Its his masterpiece
Imagine how people would react if there a movie that stripped away all the overwhelming legacy to tell a more human, personal story about jesus. I bet that story could be interesting to tell, but good grief, i wouldn't want to be anywhere near that flame war 0_o
i think you just gave Tarantino his next film idea.
It already exists, kind of... The Last Temptation of Christ. It was pre-internet, kind of a controversy.
I love the idea of the finale, but I wish they could have killed Manson as well. C'mon Tarantino! If you're going to make an alternate history, go all the way on the cartharsis factor!
As for the Bruce Lee part... I kinda get the sense that it was an embellished point of view. And this is coming from a Bruce Lee fan...
The only line it crossed is in being a bad movie. Its ineptness does not stem from the way it characterized any person, real or fictional, in the film. Rather from the single dimension anyone has (if they are lucky), the numerous plot threads that go nowhere, and the appalling and entirely out of place voice over work that comes and goes whenever it wants.
This question comes up almost with every Tarantino movie lmao
I can't be bothered watching any more of Tarantino's revenge fantasy porn. I imagine he'd really rather be doing some ultraviolent snuff films, but it's hard to get other people's money to invest in it to pay for the high production values he demands.
Maybe slow it down, just a tad
What was the hurry? Narrator talks so necessarily fast that to me it is annoying. I bailed.
Most people weren't pissed about the fight with Lee, they were pissed about his portrayal. They made him into a loud mouth, arrogant, blowhard, and a bit of a dumbass. The man was intelligent, funny, and extremely insightful. Yes, even that early. He was a scholar, with self confidence, and self awareness, not an immature braggart. And if you want to get into the fight error, he wouldn't have fought they way they portrayed him doing so. No jumping, no spinning, no movie shit. Love Tarantino, and his movies, but that shit pissed me off. Especially since he treated every other real life character with a level of respect and accuracy, even McQueen. But, oh, the asian guy, make him a caricature, and try to take him down a peg. F' dat!
Not even close, matey.
It is his movie he can do whatever he want whit it
I see a lot of people dislike this film but I also see a lot of people dislike Jackie Brown and I'm pretty sure those are the same people. People really just wanna see blood sacks explode huh?
I think this is one of the most ageist films I've ever seen. If you are over 50, you'll get it. If you're younger you may not. It really makes a difference in the tension level if you understand who Sharon Tate was. I was fully expecting to see Tarantino do the Manson murders. Instead we got Tarantino murdering the Manson family. Also, Mannix! *insert theme song here*
I was 18 in 1969. I am the perfect age to enjoy the film.I saw The Wrecking Crew in the theater in 1969.
No
@3:30 ish... Is.. Was that a sin?
who cares its a movie, Tarantino doesn't care if you cry about it not being real that's the point of film making to create interesting stories not documentaries, fucking awesome film!!!
I’m sorry that thumbnail is ugly
Wait . . . I'm going to guess . . . No. Be right back after the video.
Edit: So the answer is no one knows huh? And it's not like Tarantino hasn't used similar elements thematically before. Well then . . . .
This movie wasn’t my cup of tea
I get what this is, its from Escapist, but I dont really see this working for movies cause we need to absorb so much more info then a game where I already have so much info.
I'm in the same boat. I like a lot of Bob's content but so much of what's necessary to understand this is so far beyond what I know. Most of the stuff he does on this channel is in the form of explaining fancier stuff to a less knowledgeable audience when he wants to do that sort of thing. But this just left me lost trying to recall so much of this without summaries.
It seems interesting in the parts that I understood though.
It's a Tarantino movie. People being offended by him doing what he does best, shows exactly why our society is doomed. If he was good before, he is good now, and saying otherwise shows you have no integrity.
5:00
You don't have to be the same race to make a story about history ffs (Django)
Bruce Lee's achievements outside of film is what makes him so enduring. Even if this takes away some of his mystique it will return with an attempt at a one handed push up.
It didn't so much cross a line as bail out on a premise - all the tension in the movie stems from showing Tate and the Manson family as characters, otherwise meaningless outside of audience knowledge of history and the Tate murders. The ending isn't so much alternative history as a grotesque cartoon and it leads to the same kind of lazy "revenge fantasy justifies all" writing as in Inglorious Basterds. Submitted by any other director, critical patience for this kind of nonsensical self indulgence would wear thin almost immediately.
You are very cool!!!!
Huh.
There are no lines.
Well I called half of the plot twist when Tate's names was said in the preview
My 2 cents on this. It is not wrong to feel upset by historical or cultural appropriation. That does not make it wrong for them to do it.
I guess what goes around comes around. I doubt in Dragon The Bruce Lee story, the family of the man who in the film causes Bruce Lee’s paralysis was happy at the portrayal