Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
the plot isn't really thick and never gets to the point of building up excitement.
its kind of like once upon a time in Hollywood romanticizing with the Hollywood of the 60s 70s but far less good and interesting and accurate.
also I dont even know what time this plays since they dont use mobile phones but other modern technology.
i dont like how the camera picture has vignettes. the one shot in the beginning has unnatural speed to thinks you would do like smoking for 2 sec just to cough and the way the camera goes plus the walls dont look like its been made in a good way.
this goes through out the movie. some whacky shots and it just doesn't look like a movie.
nico is a talented actor who I could see in a few horrible but still good college movies. ararmis and the main character were just exchangeable if it wasn't about skating and had 5min of skating in it.
vince vaughn did his thing and was one of the only believable characters.
Wow NH is less accurate than a movie that ends with the Manson family not murdering anyone. Woof
im talking about framing the time it plays. once upon a time in Hollywood is only about showing people how the 60s and 70s were. the plot ends beeing not accurate to what happened in real life but it shows real life in the 60s and 70s in Hollywood.
NH plays with being "vintage" like going to a diner drinking a milkshake in converse and your college jacket.
it romanticizes with older times by not including phone calls from your mobile phone or instagram or any type of modern technology.
but also it misses to make it logical by including other modern things.
I don’t know what you’re babbling about. Once Upon a time also takes place in 69 and at no part is in the 70s
you dont seem to bright up there
what makes most movies fucking great is how they frame the world that the movie plays in.
once upon a time in h is great example for not only not having a classical tension arc but perfectly framing the end of the 60s and the years to come (70s). it has so many details that you feel like living in that era.
Wes anderson for example creates alternative worlds full of saturated colors and beautiful shot pictures that somehow make sense in its own.
North Hollywood doesn't define the time it plays in but wants you to love the vintage aspect in it. it has saturated colors (f.e. the swimming pool scene) but ugly shots. it want to create its own world but it doesn't work.
this is a fun conversation to watch unfold, and i feel like it would benefit from these film-studies terms...i'll be lazy and just include the definitions from Wikipedia:
diegetic (or
diegesis)-- "in the cinema, typically refers to the internal world created by the story that the characters themselves experience and encounter: the narrative 'space' that includes all the parts of the story, both those that are and those that are not actually shown on the screen (such as events that have led up to the present action; people who are being talked about; or events that are presumed to have happened elsewhere or at a different time)"
non-diegetic -- "Thus, elements of a film can be 'diegetic' or 'non-diegetic'. These terms are most commonly used in reference to sound in a film, but can apply to other elements. For example, an insert shot that depicts something that is neither taking place in the world of the film, nor is seen, imagined, or thought by a character, is a non-diegetic insert. Titles, subtitles, and voice-over narration (with some exceptions) are also non-diegetic..."
edit: i meant to mention that nothing about this film seemed interesting...has it been on Netflix?
Topic: North Hollywood was an objectively terrible movie (Read 29791 times)