Should I watch Knives Out or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood will give you some degree of anxiety, but the catharsis is probably going to be worth it.

Beautiful film, with some fun moments, it is pretty long (TWSS), with some slow burn scenes.

QT's bowel movements have to be more entertaining than any Rian Johnson film, anyway.

Knives and it isn’t close. OUTIH is just a much to do about nothing

I’ve seen both.

Both worth a watch.

I liked OUATIH a bit more, but I like QT and loath Johnson. Still, Knives Out is a good movie. The rumors of it being a troll towards conservatives is false.

Can't go wrong with either. Both are solid films

quote:

---

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

---

Is a fun jaunt through early Hollywood via old school machismo.

Knives Out is....boring.

I haven’t seen Knives out yet but I thought Once Upon A Time in Hollywood was fantastic. I could see not liking it if you don’t like Tarantino.

quote:

---

Throw in The Gentleman

---

I don't know if I've ever even heard of that movie. I'll add it to the list. I guess I'll start slowly working my way through movies people enjoyed months or years ago now.

Knives Out is a fun, easy-going whodunnit mystery. It’s well-acted, not overly quirky (Wes Anderson), has plenty of humor, has plenty of twists without seeming full of itself (M. Night Shamalan), doesn’t rely on clunky exposition to explain overly complicated plot devices to the audience like they’re children (Christopher Nolan), it doesn’t feel overly tense and talky in between intense bouts of near pornagraphic violence (Quenten Tarantino), Johnny Depp isn’t in it playing a crazy technicolor palette of a person with a really eccentric wardrobe (Tim Burton), and there’s no giant explosions (Michael Bay), mafiosos from 1970’s New York (Martin Scorseze), drab depressed caped heroes (Dan Snyder), samurai cowboys in space (George Lucas), and it’s not a part of a larger intricately constructed cinematic universe (Jon Favreau), or a tired old franchise in need of a safe but lense-flare-heavy reboot (J.J. Abrams), so Rian Johnson actually does a good job of subverting expectations in an enjoyable way that makes sense in the scheme of the well conceived and paced plot in line with the established personalities and motivations of the film’s well-developed characters. I have a hard time imagining a kind of person who wouldn’t enjoy it at least a little.

I don’t really hate them, I just like trolling the board. I do find that some directors get these weird cult-like followings on internet message boards, followings that to me feel disproportionate to my perceived quality of their overall body of work. I know what that’s like because I too am a fan of certain frivolities with, at best, niche followings, as I am currently posting on a sub board of an internet site devoted to the college football team of the university I attended.

I don’t actually have a problem with that, I just like finding ways to get a rise out of those people who take something as unserious as movies seriously. I recognize that even this statement of mine is one of pure hypocrisy on my part because TLJ still gives me Vietnam-style flashbacks that make me want to slice off Samuel Jackson’s hand, kill some younglings, and try to front flip over my saber-wielding lava-adjacent best friend so I can scream NOOOOOOOOOO into a shaky camera with my clenched robot fists.

Where was I? Oh, right, distinct styles. See, my issue with distinct styles is that they can often become a crutch. Directors, much like musicians, tend to get famous by creating their own style. However, just like musicians, both sticking with or evolving from that style come with major consequences. Bands that find a sound that resonates who never evolve are accused of being hacks as audiences get bored hearing what sounds like a bunch of albums that all sound the same. However, when bands change too much, they can alienate their listeners and be accused of “selling out” by changing what made them famous to chase new fans.

What that has to do with directors is that some times, they get so engrossed in their own style, that their movies start to feel like assembly line productions. Their preferences become tendencies, tendencies become calling cards, and calling cards become tropes. The more they use their formula, the more visible and distracting that formula is. Rather than their formula being a vehicle for the story, it starts to feel like the story is just a vehicle for the formula to play itself out again.

Much like how a great actor disappears into a role to the point that all the audience sees is the character, I believe that so should the director disappear into the story he’s trying to tell. A director that has to use the same tricks to tell every story is just like an actor that seemingly plays the same character in every film. While there’s something to say for knowing what you’re good at and sticking to it, I like to see directors avoid becoming predictable by learning from their own tropes or them be very meta about them and brutally roast themselves in a way that’s funny, creative, breaks the 4th wall, and is somehow both smug and self-deprecating (Dan Harmon). Directors who develop styles that are too distinct become as predictable as a Les Miles offense. Movies are no fun if you constantly know the play call even though you’ve never seen this movie before. I like to be surprised and not be able to see the pattern. Just look at LSU, they started throwing on first down and getting the ball out quicker from the shotgun and boom, greatest offense of all time, never saw it coming. I was utterly in suspense every play of every possession. Is it too much to ask of directors that they make movies that are about the story they’re telling rather than trying to make the story about them and their vanity?