Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
JakeHolman

The 4 Best Manly, All-American Movies Of 2019

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, AndreaDoria said:

I nominate "Cool Hand Luke" for one of them.

Hmmm...didn't know there had been a recent remake of that Paul Newman flick, Andrea???

So who reprised Newman's role in this one? 

Lemme guess. It was one of those young Ryan What's-Their-Names actors, RIGHT?! 

Betcha they weren't nearly as good as Ol' Blue Eyes was in HIS movie though, huh. ;)

(...just kiddin'...maybe you didn't see that Jake specified the year "2019" here)

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is "manly" alright. It's so manly that no one in the audience is apparently supposed to question the morality of a scene in which "good guy" Brad Pitt beats a woman to death, continuing to smash her face into a bloody pulp after she has clearly become helpless. Yes, she's a dangerous person, but does that mean it's okay to beat a woman to death these days, no matter what the reason, even with Tarantino having a fantasy re-working of history?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomJH said:

Yeh, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is "manly" alright. It's so manly that no one in the audience is apparently supposed to question the morality of a scene in which "good guy" Brad Pitt beats a woman to death, continuing to smash her face into a bloody pulp after she has clearly become helpless. Yes, she's a dangerous person, but does that mean it's okay to beat a woman to death these days, no matter what the reason, even with Tarantino having a fantasy re-working of history?

 

Forget it Jake...err I mean Tom. It's Tarantino.

(...and when the violence in Quentin's movies begins, they usually go way over the top)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Forget it Jake...err I mean Tom. It's Tarantino.

(...and when the violence in Quentin's movies begins, they usually go way over the top)

 

Yeh but Pitt's doing it to a smallish girl he dwarfs in size. Doesn't that give reason for pause for some viewers, Chinatown, I mean, Tarantino or not? He's not a villain. He supposed to be a good guy. Are we suppose to just shrug off the fact that the "good guy" just beat a woman to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomJH said:

Are we suppose to just shrug off the fact that the "good guy" just beat a woman to death?

Spoilers ahead on Once Upon A Time In Hollywood-

 

 

 

 

 

The real Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel (still alive in prison) should be shown that scene, so she can see what should have happened to her.  Same goes for Tex Watson, Susan Atkins is already dead and burning in Hell and she gets roasted in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

The real Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel (still alive in prison) should be shown that scene, so she can see what should have happened to her.  Same goes for Tex Watson, Susan Atkins is already dead and burning in Hell and she gets roasted in the movie.

SPOILER ALERT ON ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD:

To me, Detective Jim, you're rationalizing screen violence against a woman by extrapolating what her character did in real life but doesn't do in the movie. By the way, is Krenwinkel's name even stated in the film? If not, how do you even know it was supposed to be her? And, even if it was, so what? Most people watching the film don't know her name or what she specifically did that night of terror in 1969 (I don't because I didn't chose to read the details). They know she's bad, of course, but, in viewing the film, they're just viewing a supposed macho man beating her to death.

Besides, in just viewing the film itself (and ignoring history), Pitt butchers the girl not knowing anything else about her outside of the fact that she stabbed him in the hip with a knife. (Even then she acted shocked that it happened, almost by accident, if I remember correctly). Once he has her helpless, though, he continues to smash in her face until she is dead. I appreciate Pitt's character's understandable anger with her but nothing justifies the extreme of his behaviour (based, strictly, upon what you see on screen in Tarantino's film).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TomJH said: I appreciate Pitt's character's understandable anger with her but nothing justifies the extreme of his behaviour (based, strictly, upon what you see on screen in Tarantino's film).

Don't forget that Pitt's character is also blitzed on LSD at the time, too. Combined with his lifetime of violence (both simulated as a stunt performer, and real - his war record is mentioned, as is his getting away with "murdering" his wife), and his hyper-violent reaction is more understandable, although still disturbing.

BTW, I loved the film (perhaps my favorite of the last decade), and I loved the ending.  I believe Tarantino expects that much of the viewing audience will be as cognizant of the real events of that night and the players involved as he himself surely was, and his subverting of the historical events (a fictional hyper-violent event prevents the actual hyper-violent event from occurring that would, to QT's mind, forever negatively alter the cultural landscape) is paramount to the story.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Don't forget that Pitt's character is also blitzed on LSD at the time, too. Combined with his lifetime of violence (both simulated as a stunt performer, and real - his war record is mentioned, as is his getting away with "murdering" his wife), and his hyper-violent reaction is more understandable, although still disturbing.

BTW, I loved the film (perhaps my favorite of the last decade), and I loved the ending.  I believe Tarantino expects that much of the viewing audience will be as cognizant of the real events of that night and the players involved as he himself surely was, and his subverting of the historical events (a fictional hyper-violent event prevents the actual hyper-violent event from occurring that would, to QT's mind, forever negatively alter the cultural landscape) is paramount to the story.

I'm very aware that Tarantino's "re-write" of history is his justification for the ultra violent behaviour which prevents that historical violence from occurring. But why does the violence to a young woman (who hasn't done anything in the film yet except stab Pitt in the hip) have to be so extreme? And so protracted.  Okay, maybe that's just Tarantino. But (and I know I will sound like an old fashioned prude here) it's so damn unhealthy to view stuff like this, particularly when it's performed by a "good guy" we are rooting for.

Yes, Pitt's character is on drugs and he has a history of violence, including that unspecified talk about getting away with murder. But does that mean the audience has to admire him when he beats a woman to death? (You saw Detective Jim's comment - the beating should have happened to her). I get the feeling that many rationalize Pitt's violence (he's just killing female scum, they might think) and will even cheer him on. Am I wrong?

To me that is wrong and unhealthy, and I can see why women concerned about violence against women in real life would be alarmed by that kind of audience reaction.

So is this a reflection of the "manly" films Jake apparently admires - films with a woman being beaten to death?

This, by the way, has nothing to do with what I thought of Pitt's performance. I thought he was terrific in his role.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, here's a pic of the guy who wrote the original post's article from The Federalist website, which should tell you all you need to know:

20160322_230527.jpg

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

By the way, here's a pic of the guy who wrote the original post's article from The Federalist website, which should tell you all you need to know:

20160322_230527.jpg

WAIT! You're tellin' me THIS young hipster lookin' dude HERE writes for that ultra-conservative The Federalist website???!!!

MAN, I tell ya! They sure as hell are making some different lookin' rightwing nutcases now days, ain't THEY?!

And here I thought they all pretty much kind'a looked like THIS ol' fat boy HERE...

ZZ-APP-100918-Rush-Flag.jpg

(...well, live and learn, I guess)

LOL

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TomJH said:

I'm very aware that Tarantino's "re-write" of history is his justification for the ultra violent behaviour which prevents that historical violence from occurring. But why does the violence to a young woman (who hasn't done anything in the film yet except stab Pitt in the hip) have to be so extreme? And so protracted.  Okay, maybe that's just Tarantino. But (and I know I will sound like an old fashioned prude here) it's so damn unhealthy to view stuff like this, particularly when it's performed by a "good guy" we are rooting for.

Yes, Pitt's character is on drugs and he has a history of violence, including that unspecified talk about getting away with murder. But does that mean the audience has to admire him when he beats a woman to death? (You saw Detective Jim's comment - the beating should have happened to her). I get the feeling that many rationalize Pitt's violence (he's just killing female scum, they might think) and will even cheer him on. Am I wrong?

To me that is wrong and unhealthy, and I can see why women concerned about violence against women in real life would be alarmed by that kind of audience reaction.

So is this a reflection of the "manly" films Jake apparently admires - films with a woman being beaten to death?

This, by the way, has nothing to do with what I thought of Pitt's performance. I thought he was terrific in his role.

 

OH, and btw here gentlemen ('cause I don't see any ladies participating in this thread so far), I THINK what Tom is tryin' to say here is that he would've MUCH preferred watching the Tex Watson-based character being plumped to death by Pitt mano-o-mano AND the Patricia Krenwinkel-based  character having her throat ripped out by Pitt's pit bull instead, and unlike how Tarantino played it out in his flick.

Well, tell ya what here then, Tom. I'll see of I can find Quentin's email address and IF I can, I'll ask him in the name of Gentlemanly-ness and Fair Play, if he wouldn't mind reshooting that scene like that and so as to better represent a more socially responsible ending to his movie.

(...however you gotta remember here Tom that in EITHER case, those two Manson Family members STILL end up dead, right?!) ;)

LOL

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

By the way, here's a pic of the guy who wrote the original post's article from The Federalist website, which should tell you all you need to know:

20160322_230527.jpg

Ahoy, me hardies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this gut feeling that quite a few people who went to see Hollywood(knowing of the ahistorical twist ending), wanted to see the Masons get it in a savage way, the same way that they butchered Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, and the others in August of 1969. And yes, I do think that the fact that the DiCaprio and Pitt characters were drunk and stoned probably had some effect on the violence in the scene. But for me, that Sharon Tate survived (albeit only in the film) is what made the ending for me. the film has set up already what many in Hollywood in the 60s said was true; that Sharon Tate was a lovely woman, fully undeserving of what came her way. And as depicted in the film, she's kind of like the spirit of LA, shes like an angel, and we in the audience melt while watching her and are very protective toward her. That's the part of the ending that got me, just the few words she says through the PA at the end. Such ordinary words, but they made me weep. It's a very graceful moment, and while watching it I found myself saying Thank you to Tarantino for it.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2019 at 5:16 PM, LawrenceA said:

By the way, here's a pic of the guy who wrote the original post's article from The Federalist website, which should tell you all you need to know:

20160322_230527.jpg

It's probably one of those pirate shirts too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

And as depicted in the film, she's kind of like the spirit of LA, shes like an angel, and we in the audience melt while watching her and are very protective toward her.

Well said. One of my favorite scenes was where Sharon goes to a movie theater to watch herself in The Wrecking Crew.  It is great that we see the actual Sharon Tate on screen. Margot Robbie as Sharon in the audience gets to hear the others in the theater laugh at her comedy bits and applaud her martial arts fight with Nancy Kwan. I was dreading what I thought was going to happen on screen on August 9 1969.

In real life, after Sharon's murder, husband Roman Polanski had a press conference and talked about how everyone knew how beautiful she was but few know how good she was. And the film definitely shows that, she was a very kind and good hearted person. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Well said. One of my favorite scenes was where Sharon goes to a movie theater to watch herself in The Wrecking Crew.  It is great that we see the actual Sharon Tate on screen. Margot Robbie as Sharon in the audience gets to hear the others in the theater laugh at her comedy bits and applaud her martial arts fight with Nancy Kwan. I was dreading what I thought was going to happen on screen on August 9 1969.

In real life, after Sharon's murder, husband Roman Polanski had a press conference and talked about how everyone knew how beautiful she was but few know how good she was. And the film definitely shows that, she was a very kind and good hearted person. 

That was my favorite scene in the film, but I liked so many little touches throughout it as well, all the old signs and movie posters and marquees, Pitt's performance (his best), all the references to movies and TV of the era, the sweet sun-baked rhythm of the early scenes. I really wanted to see many of the characters live on for hours just going about their ways, living their lives. Of course, August 9th was coming though, and that would naturally be the end of it all. Tarantino in a way made a very canny music choice when the film skips forward to that fateful August day. The song was The Rolling Stones' "Out of Time". At first I was pleasantly enjoying the song, reminding me as it did of the 1978 film Coming Home, and then it hit me that it was standing for a lot more: Tate, Old Hollywood, Peace in LA, almost anything. It became a very tragic song all of a sudden.

Regarding Polanski, I nodded with recognition in the bookstore scene with Margot Robbie and Clu Gallagher where she is hoping to get her husband a copy of Tess of the D'ubervilles. That was one of the last books she read, and she insisted to her husband that it would make a great film. 10 years on from the tragedy, he made it as Tess and dedicated it to her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a ridiculous topic. Real men are in touch with their feminine sides.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2019 at 10:41 AM, Dargo said:

Forget it Jake...err I mean Tom. It's Tarantino.

(...and when the violence in Quentin's movies begins, they usually go way over the top)

 

Yes, Tarantino's films are legendary for the violence being almost operatically over the top. Jackie Brown is (relatively) the least violent of his films.... but it still had that infamous scene in the mall parking lot......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TopBilled said:

What a ridiculous topic. Real men are in touch with their feminine sides.

Very true.   Anyone that claims to be a manly-man is anything but.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...