Jump to content

ban1o

Free Account+
  • Posts

    5,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by ban1o

  1. 13 minutes ago, dudalb said:

    I think the Julie Butters, who plays the child actress ,pretty much steals every scene she is in.

     

    she was great. Hope to see more from her. 

     

    with the Bruce Lee stuff I basically agree with every thing said in the article I linked and I've been saying exactly that since I watched it. I think it's a shame with all the sensitivity he *tried* to pay to Sharon Tate he couldn't do the same to Bruce, someone else who also died so tragically young.  

     

    I feel bad for Shannon. She's dedicated most of her life to preserving her father's legacy but Tarantino didn't even bother to contact her. 

  2. I just don't know if all the marketing will be effective. It seems the only target is young kids and  pre teen girls but I don't think that's enough to make it a hit. I can't see people being too nostalgic about Dora  to pay money to see a live action movie.  Is Dora as popular as it used to be? It started towards the end of my childhood (I was like 6 when it was first released) but I remember it was massively popular back then. 

  3. 26 minutes ago, Macleod said:

    On one hand, the review may come off as "weird and creepy" because Todd McCarthy means it to sound exactly like that.  That's his point...that this impression shouldn't be creeping through these characters in this story.  But to him, it is.  McCarthy comes from Variety, from an industry tradition of using copious intelligent film-crit language to get a point across about how a film "works"... 

     

    But I get you on the copious use of almost Freudian language in his review...it gets pretty blatant.  So the question is...is it the movie, or McCarthy...or both?    

     

    I thought Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes were producing this, but looking it up, I realized their involvement ended early on, apparently...

    https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/08/14/michael-bay-forced-to-confirm-he-is-not-developing-the-live-action-dora-the-explorer-movie

     

    This shouldn't surprise anyone, but there's a long history in Hollywood (as in many other industries) of abuse of individuals both on and off screen.  Todd McCarthy has been writing film reviews for a long time, but there is always the danger to consciously or subconsciously get caught up in the underlying atmosphere of what you're writing about...as we know from some great detective stories and film noirs...

     

    I know very little about this show/stars/ or the movie, but as far as I'm concerned, having seen what kind of (immature or pervy) reaction the initial casting of Dora generated in itself, this reaction/claim by McCarthy about the actors in the film is no real surprise. 

     

    There's also long tradition of Hollywood movies depicting "17-year-old girls on the cusp of being 18."  (Including a certain Bay Transformers movie!)  Ever notice that?  Where do you think all that comes from? 

    What on earth are you going on about.  I'm so confused. The trailer makes it so clear this is a kids movie. Just because y'all were sexualizing a 17 year old girl when she was cast doesn't add any merit to what he's saying. Moner was a 17 year old playing a 16 year old teen. There is no agenda in that casting. Do y'all complain about Disney channel movies not being sexualized? It's literally the same thing, a cast of teenagers in shows and movies geared towards kids. This is not a foreign concept. McCarthy is a 70 year old man talking about a "pre-sexualized version of youth" in a kids movie and you're saying he's some sort of detective? 

     

  4. https://www.thewrap.com/dora-and-the-lost-city-of-gold-film-review-isabella-moner-eva-longoria-explorer/

     

    pretty good review. Pretty cool that they got indigenous languages in it. 

     

    I can see it ending up in the 60s or 70s based on the reviews so far. Variety and Wrap both had positive reviews. I'm ignoring THR. 

    • Like 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

     

    thank you. How can people not see the review is creepy lol. Also, again the movie was filmed when she was 17. She literally just turned 18 three weeks ago. Maybe it pisses me off so much because I have experience will full grown men sexualizing teenagers because they are considered "pretty" or whatever. 

     

    The movie aged up the characters to attract a wider audience than preschoolers, also recently dora cartoons portray her as a preteen. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's still a kids movie.  Look I think the film looks stupid but Todd McCarthy is a creep. 

  6. 13 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

    People hating this movie 😂, but US, is still the most overrated movie this year followed by Endgame 

    I don't hate the movie. 7/10 for me. I just feel it could have been so much better given the subject matter.  I do hate the Bruce Lee scene though. 

     

    The only reason I went on so much about the film assuming too much prior knowledge is because I think it will negatively affect the legs lol. The audience RT score keeps dropping.

     

    It seems to be well liked in the film industry though since it is  hollywood love fest so I can see it still nominated for a bunch of awards. 

     

     

  7. Human chemistry between who? Diego and Dora are cousins....  People are really pervs who wanted to see a sexualized Dora movie? I don't expect the movie to get great reviews but the review is just weird. The reviewer insists it should take place in the 50s because it's "squeaky clean" Says Isabela Moner "looks 18 despite preventative measures" - LIKE WTF she's playing  a 16 year old. The movie was filmed when Isabela Moner was 17...What on earth is he trying to say there... 

     

    And then he goes on about the director trying to disguise human nature by presenting a "pre-sexualized version of the youth" and that sexuality is "throbbing unacknowledged beneath the surface" Like yes, a Dora movie is totally going to have sexualized teen characters lmao. The reviewer is a weirdo.  

    33 minutes ago, Macleod said:

    This is totally believable based on the *Producer* and casting.  Isn't this what many here were talking about when this thing was cast, anyway? 

     

     

    Producer of movies like Ice Princess and Christopher Robin? Director and writer of movies like the Muppets? Casting choice of a 17 year old latina rising actress as a famous latina character? 

     

  8. 2 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

    Read the whole THR review to see if it came off any better...nope, just as creepy/strange. I guess we found the guy who really wanted the sexed up Michael Bay version of Dora that everyone joked about when this movie was announced. 

     

    it's such a creepy review lmao. like it's a kids movie. WTF is he talking about. I'm actually a little concerned lol. 

     

    Yeah I knew Jeff was half dominican.  I think I follow Donnie on twitter for some reason and he congratulated him when he was cast and someone asked if he was latino lol. 

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  9. 26 minutes ago, baumer said:

    I think when you put it all together, those of us who didn't care for it all that much just felt that it kind of meanders and doesn't really have a point or a plot and some of the movie could have trimmed down.  

    I just feel Tarantino could have done so much better with what he had. 

     

    IMO he should have give Margot a bit more to do to create a better parallel between Sharon's rising career and Rick's declining career and for the audience to create a better connection to her character in order to truly dread her death. I understand he wanted to kinda keep her mysterious but this didn't really work for me.

     

    Rick's storyline could have just flowed so much better too. His storyline just felt like a bunch of funny scenes put together. It needed more structure, a better narrative. 

     

    What worse to me is the first 2/3 of the film were so long and almost completely irrelevant to the last act of the film. Aside from the flame flower scene and Cliff getting to say "I know you guys" to the Manson kids. The ranch scene with Brad Pitt should have had had more implications on the movie later on. I wouldn't have even minded maybe one or 2 scenes from the perspective of the Manson family without Cliff's character.

     

    I enjoyed the film over all but I just feel it could have been so much better. It needed to be shorter and to have more structure. 

     

     

    And yeah the Bruce Lee stuff annoyed me so much not just the fight but how he was depicted over all but if I think too much about it it's going to make me hate the whole film. I've already talked about it enough lol. 

     

    • Like 1
  10. 10 minutes ago, baumer said:

     

    I like it when there's a lot radio and tv stuff from the era.  Stranger Things does it incredibly well.  I felt it was too in your face in this one, but its not the main thing about the film that bugged me.  

    Yes Stranger Things does this really well. I also think some of the radio and tv stuff was a little in your face as well at times. 

     

     I'm also still not sure how I feel about using the real Sharon Tate in the Wrecking Crew footage because she looks nothing like Margot but I think that was a little tribute  to her on Tarantino's part.  

    • Like 1
  11. 15 minutes ago, MrPink said:

     

    I don’t think you need to know much other than you know who the Manson cult is and the end result of what happened there

    This. All you have to know is that the Manson family was a hippie cult lead by Charles Manson and that one one day a group of them went out, invaded Roman Polanski's home and killed a bunch of people  including an upcoming actress Sharon Tate (Polanski's wife). The problem is many people don't know this and many people watching the film don't even know it's about the Manson family murders because this was not made clear in the marketing. Not everyone spends time on film forums lmao. 

     

    Knowing additional details about the golden age of hollywood and about the Manson family will help you appreciate it more but it's not necessary to understand it. 

    • Like 1
  12. 26 minutes ago, ViewerAnon said:

    Seems weird that the response to me comparing people who know nothing about the Manson murders to people who knew nothing about the Titanic is "Some Americans didn't know about the Titanic."

     

    Yes. And they were silly.

    I still don't understand your point of view. The movie Titanic is able to be fully appreciated or understood without knowing much about the real Titanic story and imo Titanic was more universally known disaster than the Manson murders is today. OUATIH is not able to fully appreciated if you don't know much about the Manson Murders. This is just a fact. I  can't go into detail without going into spoiler territory but the way the film is done you just can't appreciate it without knowing some detail about the Manson family Murders. That is a drawback to the film and I definitely think it's playing a part in the divisive reaction from General audiences. . 

     

     

    • Like 1
  13. 6 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

    To the ending and being aware of the event and events that surrounded the true event, I explained what happened to a group of young people I overheard as the movie let out. They straight up had zero idea or understanding of what actually happened and how, why or even what Tarantino was subverting. I think this will be the case for everyone who sees it that's unfamiliar. And, I think it's actually a lot more people than Tarantino expected. People aren't aware of even remotely close as they to the true histories and contextual history behind Basterds or Django.

    This. I could literally hear people confused as we left he theatre and this was Thursday night. I heard one group totally confused about he ranch scene and they were like “so what was that whole hippie cult thing about. Why did they want to kill them?”  

     

    In another group a guy was trying to explain to a girl about the Manson murders and she was just like “oh so she was supposed to die? And they changed it? ... was she pregnant in real life” lmao.

     

    The film is very niche. 

     

    • Like 1
  14. 8 minutes ago, ViewerAnon said:

    I check out this thread for the first time in a couple days and suddenly it's gone full "Did you know TITANIC was based on a true story??"

    Titanic was completely understandable for someone who knew nothing about the true story. Also I think the titanic disaster was more universally known than the Manson family murders is imo. I really don’t get what you are trying to say here.  We’re discussing how the movie might not be completely accessible and that does have an impact on legs and box office. 

  15. 17 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

    Neither of those demographics are being targeted with this R-rated Los Angeles lovefest.

    I think you (and Tarantino) over estimate the amount of Americans under the age of 40 know about Charles Manson. Aside from film buffs or true crime geeks. I honestly don’t think it’s as common knowledge as people think. When I left the theatre ( in Thursday night so these were people who rushed to see it) I heard people say things that made me think they didn’t know much about the real thing. I can’t say exactly what they said because it veers into spoiler territory but some things were “was she pregnant in real life?” And “were they really a like a hippie cult” and “I was a little confused by the ranch scene” 

  16. 15 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

    who the fuck doesn't know anything about the manson murders lol

    My parents and sister didn’t. My mom vaguely knew the name Manson and that he killed people but she didn’t know Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was about that. My sister didn’t know anything about it and all and didn’t recognize the name Manson. She’s 20. I had to explain it to them but they weren’t that interested lol. 

    • Disbelief 1
  17. 10 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

     

    I guess The Bride was just wearing the same yellow jumpsuit that Bruce Lee wore on accident? 

     

    Almost every second of Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a 'love letter to Asian cinema/martial arts movies.' 

     

    Too bad he treated the actual Bruce Lee like crap. Someone so inspired by Asian cinema in his films (with white protagonists) treated one of the originators of asian influence in hollywood like crap in his "love letter to hollywood

     

    LMAO like that's supposed to work in his favour 

  18. 18 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

    This. Highly important. It's actually a fault of the movie honestly. Think QT presupposed more possessed this working knowledge than actually do. Especially younger viewers.

    yeah I actually wondered how people who didn't know much about the Manson's would react to the film. A lot of it wouldn't make sense imo if you really knew nothing about it. It's a big problem of the film because it doesn't work at all if you aren't familiar with the Manson family murders and imo you shouldn't need prior knowledge to watch an original film. 

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.