Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


publicist last won the day on December 25 2018

publicist had the most liked content!


About publicist

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

17645 profile views
  1. It's perfectly good for a crime procedural and with - who doubted - first rate production values and some inspired character bits (Holt McCallany is the same kind of favourite like the duo of Kevin Bacon/Aldis Hodge in the also-recent 'City on a Hill' - you just perk up when these guys enter the frame). Again its biggest miss is the lack of a psychogram of the killer to counterbalance the investigation. It's about the gruesome Atlanta child murders of the late 70's, another half-solved crime, and if you expect anything beyond tying up the loose ends of this case you will be disappointed. Me for the life of it cannot understand people sitting through season after season of 'Vikings' or stuff like that. Diff'rent strokes..
  2. It may have been Spielberg's interference, but compare how varied the base of the thematic material is compared to his later animation scores (Fievel II excluded). They all sound very 'maerican-ized' (for the lack of a better word) whereas the main theme here is, rather unusually, pure russian (Prokoviev's First, to be precise).
  3. That's the most probable interpretation, and also proof why it doesn't work: a) in stark contrast to IB, changing the chain of events is puzzling because 80% of the audience doesn't know Tate - she is a blond starlet who happens to be with Roman Polanski - and isn't really familiar with Manson and his gang either - the movie doesn't tell you why they really were out to kill these people but invents its own reasons - , and b) you open up that whole can of worms hippies=Manson, which is a rather wicked/loaded argument to make by QT and c) the chain of events is changed by people who are connected arbitrarily, even worse, by way of an invention of this very movie. Things like that drive me nuts because it probably would have been a better movie without that showy stunt ending but a fitting resolution of the main storyline. But i think that's enough focus and probably a better outcome in the sense that at least it had me thinking instead of being too bored to even write about it.
  4. So? What is gained by this re-reversal? (apart from the fact that the sentence is an invention of the movie, which makes the whole thing even more dubious)
  5. Both were great (i actually dug all the trivia before the Invaders part because i'm just not into the whole Twilight Zone thing) and your conversations with MRT and JB/DN will be an important addition to the final Goldsmith legacy once you're finished with the project. And the necessity to interview many 'invisible' guys form behind the curtains is a blessing in the disguise of necessity: it's probably easier to get an orchestra player reminiscing about 'Poltergeist' than Spielberg, but you also dig up much more interesting side information this way. Sadly neither Arthur Morton nor Alexander Courage are with us anymore, they would have been an audio library of great stories.
  6. While this sounds reasonably close to the relative truth, i still have a hard time believing that - given the long development/production process - this is the plain truth. Tarantino's usual approach is to pick up certain meta ingredients for either the narrative or the characters acting in it, i. e. larger than life (etc.). That seemed completely lacking here until the end and without a set-up i really wonder what QT thought people would see in this reversal of history. What is it for? What does it accomplish? Maybe the master will enlighten us at some point.
  7. Isn't there a spoiler police? @KK what did you get out of the whole thing? Was it random shit or artfully concealed musing?
  8. It also does not make much sense. And with that final scene, it better should.
  9. Still, what we got here was an ordinary character with very ordinary problems. In this context, it just doesn't seem to bring much to the table - if i read the archetype shit right. The scenes with Pitt and DiCaprio played better than his single ones. But in the end, we all sat there and asked ourselves 'why did we watch this?' (also see: the half-hearted characterization of Robbie/Tate..why bother, honestly?)
  10. IB at least has not these pointless everyman scenes DiCaprio has to act out in OuatiH. I still wonder why QT thought it a swell idea let us revel in basic afternoon drama class stuff like that.
  11. It's short, so... Not 'classical', but this and selected other cues from Christopher Gordon's score for some kind of Shakespeare project are so good they need exposure beyond the film score realm (where they get lost in an instant, anyway).
  12. I don't find the sound on this very appealing in either form.
  13. Still, the core material is so wonderfully moody that i don't care (it's good that it found a life beyond the horrid movie). Goldenthal heavily manipulates his sound in studio mixes, so another thing is that it sometimes just doesn't sound right in concert form like here.
  14. I would nutshell it like this: Woody Allen does one film per year and at this rate there are going to be some clunkers along the way. Tarantino stated once he will stop at 10 movies so he has a no wiggle room for less-than-stellar work. I don't long for something important, but a certain throughline, an engaging thought behind a 170-minute movie would be nice.
  15. Well, that was...puzzling. For years, 'Deathproof' was considered Tarantino's lamest movie, but this lackadaisical affair now is a hot contender for that throne. Usually when QT's movies start to ramble, it's for good reason: you may not like every digression but you get why they are there. Or they're cool. In positioning his story so squarely in the *real* Hollywood of 1969, the director handcuffs himself into lingering too long on people and places that just not warrant the excessive runtime, even worse, the writing here is so indifferent and all loose ends that it seems only geared towards people who cannot get enough of old B-movie posters and neon-lighted billboards. But first things first. DiCaprio plays a down-on-his-luck western actor (a luckless McQueen), who drinks too much, hangs around too much with his old fall guy pal (Brad Pitt, in a performance of real Marlboro Man splendor) and is now relegated to playing bad guys on lowbrow tv pilots. He, by coincidence, lives next to famous/hip couple Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate. It would be an overstatement to say that after 2.5 hours their fates intertwine, it just happens to be the end of the movie. We follow DiCaprio's travails through B-movie land, including a detour to Rome (a short summation of Cinecitta's movie culture ca. 1969, the movie's only amusing bit), but all this is basically a background for the male bonding between DiCaprio and Pitt. Glimpses of late 60's hippie culture are sprinkled throughout that only gain momentum when Pitt finds an enclave of spooky hippies who squat an old Hollywood western ranch, impersonations of the infamous Manson gang who a short while later brutally murdered the pregnant Tate and her friends. As stated above, by that point the movie has run its course as the end - not to be spoilered here - rewrites history to headscratching effect that really makes you question what Tarantino possibly could have in mind. So much for story, there are so many things running afoul before the denouement that OuatiH lost me on several occasions: i could stomach DiCaprio, a good actor, never remotely looking like a 50's/60's western guy (it takes you right out of the scenes he has to re-enact) but even worse, a long succession of scenes devoted to seeing old 'Have Gun Will Travel' episodes filmed seem totally arbitrary. I can claim to have watched many programs of that ilk in my merry youth but nothing that Tarantino puts up the screen looks right. That ain't 'Bonanza', it ain't 'The Men from Shiloh' and it ain't 'A Fistful of Dollars', either. It's a rough mix of disparate styles (and totally uncharacteristically high production values) you start asking yourself why QT then so painstakingly re-creates old LA, GTA-style, if he's so blasé here? (don't get me started on silly one-upmanship bs like the scene with Bruce Lee) The mellow glow doesn't do the movie any good - it lacks punch and observational wit, the things QT is famed for - and when the end credits roll, all that's left is a good needle-drop score (what else is new?) and the impression that 1969 was a banner year because murderous hippies drove old backlot Hollywood down (equated with mediocre assembly line tv here). Except they weren't hippies and nothing really changed (the Tate murders, heinous as they were, came late in a long line of public crimes that shook he US). Tarantino's brutal retaliation pose makes no real sense, one, because it was a freak crime without any systemic connection to anything (many people in my cinema didn't even seem to know the Tate murders) and our main protagonists do not represent anything besides washed-up Hollywood dudes. I still look for possible interpretations that make any sense. Till i find them i file 'Once upon a Time in Hollywood' under 'watchable but doesn't warrant second viewing'.
  • Create New...