Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Sep 8, 2019
A nice vampire surprise!
A vampire "plague" has killed off most of the human population, only about 5% or less now survives. (This film was made in 2009, so 2019 is the year this will happen!). Vampires now occupy our cities and have transformed the Earth to suit their needs including conduit walkways between buildings, underground tunnels they can walk so they don't have to walk through the sun and even automated cars which close off the sunlight so no risk of frying on the way to work.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.