Jump to content

veritas aequitas

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by veritas aequitas

  1. 1 hour ago, Spider2YBanana said:

    I don't think he was as great of a man as people perceived him to be. Wasn't he mentioned as the other man in a divorce?

    Better not mention anything of the sort I got piled on pretty good back when he was hired for questioning why everyone was saying he was a great guy.

    • Like 2
  2. 3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    my issue wasn't the time though, it was the plot.  not even the plot, as much as "what is this movie about?"  i know tarantino isn't "by-the-book" but traditionally, movies need to be about something, and they need to be about only one thing.  and once you figure out that one thing, every scene should further the story you're trying to tell about that one thing.  each scene should be looked at and judged on its own merit.  and if it doesn't accomplish the goal, it either shouldn't be in there, or it should be tweaked and made better.  tarantino obviously doesn't do this, and has earned the right to not do this, but it's scenes like these that make people walk out and say, "what was the fucking plot of that movie?"

    to me, the movie was about a 1950's western tv actor trying to adapt to 1960's hollywood (movies, hippies, whatever).  the game was changing, and dalton and booth were having trouble keeping up and staying relevant.  hollywood changes every 20 years or so, so this story isn't that unusual, and it was interesting to watch, especially during leo's scenes of frustration.  i might be in the minority, but i thought he was head and shoulders above pitt from a pure acting perspective.  he crushed this.  and i'm a huge brad pitt fan.

    anyway, the issue i had was that tarantino took his story about rick dalton, and then shoe-horned a second story about sharon tate/the manson family, so that he could have some fun and revise history, like only he can.  and while the tate aspect represents the changing hollywood that dalton would have to adapt to in order to survive, i don't think it deserved (or received) enough screentime to warrant being a real "subplot" of the movie.  someone brought up the playboy mansion - which i agree was an odd choice.  he put this scene in to explain to the viewer about the relationship between tate and sebring.  while a cool looking scene, it wasn't necessary.  i didn't care that she had a male friend who was still hung up on her.

     

    I thought the intertwining of the 2 stories was the point of the Once Upon a time in Hollywood ending. Rick Dalton was fading into obscurity but then his career was saved by the Manson family failed murder attempt leading to him getting the invite up to the Polanski house he had dreamed about. So now he is in with the in crowd and since Sharon Tate wasn't murdered then Polanski doesn't get ran out of town for banging kids and goes on to make some big block busters.

    • Like 1
  3. On 8/4/2019 at 3:33 PM, Prepuce of Doom said:

    Also, you can't smoke LSD. Kind of surprised that Tarantino fucked that one up. 

    I mean, I guess you *can* smoke it, but it doesn't do anything for you. 

    I thought it was just the paper was soaked in it so it would be similar to those little tabs of paper which would provide the desired effect prior to being burned. 

  4. On 5/21/2019 at 9:26 AM, Red Five said:

    I find the concept of fast forwarding through a show you enjoy totally fucking bizarre. 

    I am guilty of fast forwarding porn shows at times. Sometimes the acting, story lines and character development are not all that great but I still enjoy the show.

    • Haha 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

     Damnit!  I need to start listening to the Ticket online.   Was it the Farrah "Midnight Plane to Houston"  story?  Because I told that story to Corby in an email exchange.

     

    Yeah heard that this afternoon. Was the first time i had heard that story. 

  6. On 4/5/2019 at 4:33 PM, Neonmoon said:

    My wife turned on new Kevin Hart special. I just don’t find his standup funny. He can be funny in movies, but his standup is not for me. He just screams a bunch of regular stories. I don’t get it. 

    He and Rob Riggle basically have the same act yell something then start laughing and everyone else will think it's funny. But it actually sucks.

×
×
  • Create New...