MikeKardec
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,157
- Location
- Los Angeles
I often hate Tarantino films before I get around to liking them. Some I just hate for ever. Some I eventually admit contain brilliance. This is not a review but I do have some observations on this one.
1) There's not much story. The films ambles along following 3 to 5 story intersecting lines until they collide the night of the Sharon Tate (or not) murder. This is totally appropriate for a film about this era, as it was a trope of the time. Usually, however, it was carried off in around 90 minutes. This film is longer. I didn't mind that but some might.
2) Tarantino seems to want to excuse his amusing cartoon violence by killing off historical figures who, no doubt deserved it in these "alternate history" stories. That's okay once you get used to it.
3) The movie lovingly recreates Los Angeles in the 1960s. It's the time and place (often the exact place) where I grew up. This is one of the reasons I am so forgiving of the film's length. They really got it, maybe not the exact street lights that lined Hollywood blvd, but they really got it. I grew up in West Hollywood in the 1960s. Maybe they were light on the smog. But, generally, I was pretty impressed.
4) I generally don't care when films mess with the geography of a place, there are many reasons for it first among them the fact that scenes are often re-cut in ways that could never be imagined by a non film maker. I did hope, however, that placing Pandora's Box (well known as the last bar on West Hollywood's Sunset Strip) outside of West Hollywood was because of one of these editorial needs and not just an oversight. The ONLY thing important about the existence of Pandora's Box was it's location ... in the perfect place to set off 1966's Sunset Strip Parking Riots and therefore to inspire the classic Buffalo Springfield song For What It's Worth.
5) I liked it that the story was about a clash between "hippies" and "squares" (cowboy actors) and the has-been cowboys, one of them a loyal but possibly sociopath Audie Murphy type played by Brad Pitt, are the heroes. It's VERY rare in Hollywood these days to see anyone questioning counter culture, even if the counter culture is embodied by Manson Family crazies.
6) In Hollywood you almost never see a male character turn down sex. There's a very nice scene where this is done for completely appropriate reasons.
7) Movies have a VERY hard time showing movies being made or showing movies within movies. Usually the film in the making or the film within the film is portrayed as being of very poor quality, as if the film maker was afraid that their fictional film within a film might over shadow the main effort. That's not so much the case here, 1950s and 60s TV was often not so good to begin with, but I wouldn't say that the portrayal of the TV shows is really up to the level I would expect from a guy as seeped in film history as QT. That aspect I'll give a C+ or a B-.
8) Finally, there is a lesson here for all people involved in certain types of violence and crime. There are professional criminals who will avoid conflict and thus, hopefully we never see them in our homes. There are pros or semi pros who's egos are involved with what they do, think gang members and the like, who are desperate and very dangerous. Survival in an altercation with a group of them would be mostly luck. Then there's the dilettante, a type like the Manson group (and some others who seem to have sprung up recently) who are living in a fantasy where their violent tantrums are supposed to change the world. It's not that they can't be dangerous but they also aren't used to people who stand their ground. If we don't have any real cowboys left then maybe, as in this film, maybe some fake cowboys will do. Heck, maybe all that's needed to turn the tide of history is just a good dog.
9) ... which leads me to (SPOILER ALERT) ... the hero is really a dog. I like dog stories.
1) There's not much story. The films ambles along following 3 to 5 story intersecting lines until they collide the night of the Sharon Tate (or not) murder. This is totally appropriate for a film about this era, as it was a trope of the time. Usually, however, it was carried off in around 90 minutes. This film is longer. I didn't mind that but some might.
2) Tarantino seems to want to excuse his amusing cartoon violence by killing off historical figures who, no doubt deserved it in these "alternate history" stories. That's okay once you get used to it.
3) The movie lovingly recreates Los Angeles in the 1960s. It's the time and place (often the exact place) where I grew up. This is one of the reasons I am so forgiving of the film's length. They really got it, maybe not the exact street lights that lined Hollywood blvd, but they really got it. I grew up in West Hollywood in the 1960s. Maybe they were light on the smog. But, generally, I was pretty impressed.
4) I generally don't care when films mess with the geography of a place, there are many reasons for it first among them the fact that scenes are often re-cut in ways that could never be imagined by a non film maker. I did hope, however, that placing Pandora's Box (well known as the last bar on West Hollywood's Sunset Strip) outside of West Hollywood was because of one of these editorial needs and not just an oversight. The ONLY thing important about the existence of Pandora's Box was it's location ... in the perfect place to set off 1966's Sunset Strip Parking Riots and therefore to inspire the classic Buffalo Springfield song For What It's Worth.
5) I liked it that the story was about a clash between "hippies" and "squares" (cowboy actors) and the has-been cowboys, one of them a loyal but possibly sociopath Audie Murphy type played by Brad Pitt, are the heroes. It's VERY rare in Hollywood these days to see anyone questioning counter culture, even if the counter culture is embodied by Manson Family crazies.
6) In Hollywood you almost never see a male character turn down sex. There's a very nice scene where this is done for completely appropriate reasons.
7) Movies have a VERY hard time showing movies being made or showing movies within movies. Usually the film in the making or the film within the film is portrayed as being of very poor quality, as if the film maker was afraid that their fictional film within a film might over shadow the main effort. That's not so much the case here, 1950s and 60s TV was often not so good to begin with, but I wouldn't say that the portrayal of the TV shows is really up to the level I would expect from a guy as seeped in film history as QT. That aspect I'll give a C+ or a B-.
8) Finally, there is a lesson here for all people involved in certain types of violence and crime. There are professional criminals who will avoid conflict and thus, hopefully we never see them in our homes. There are pros or semi pros who's egos are involved with what they do, think gang members and the like, who are desperate and very dangerous. Survival in an altercation with a group of them would be mostly luck. Then there's the dilettante, a type like the Manson group (and some others who seem to have sprung up recently) who are living in a fantasy where their violent tantrums are supposed to change the world. It's not that they can't be dangerous but they also aren't used to people who stand their ground. If we don't have any real cowboys left then maybe, as in this film, maybe some fake cowboys will do. Heck, maybe all that's needed to turn the tide of history is just a good dog.
9) ... which leads me to (SPOILER ALERT) ... the hero is really a dog. I like dog stories.
