|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 12, 2019 12:11:57 GMT
Apparently we've been interpreting the Bruce Lee scene incorrectly. It's supposed to be Cliff imagining what a fight between him and Lee would've been like. That's why the scene is cut the way it is, as a flashback-type sequence. Cliff even says, "Yeah that sounds about right," when it cuts back to him on the roof. A friend of mine saw the film a second time and pointed this out to me, and I heard a podcast also make this point. It makes a lot more sense, especially when you consider the over-the-top nature of the fight, where the side of the car is completely demolished by Lee being flung into it; or the fact that Bruce Lee is a caricature in the film.
Mike Moh (the actor who plays Lee) said in an interview that the scene was supposed to be even more over the top with Cliff really beating the hell out of Lee, but Brad Pitt didn't like it so they changed the scene. Very respectful decision by Pitt, but ironically I think it added to the confusion surrounding this scene. Had they gone completely over the top with it, it may have been a bit more obvious this was essentially a dream sequence. It still would've been extremely disrespectful though, so I think Pitt made the right call.
Some viewers picked up on this (certainly not me), but I hadn't seen it mentioned in this thread before now.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 14, 2019 15:25:43 GMT
Finally watched it yesterday. During most of the movie I was underwhelmed, finding it a bit disconcerting that this was a Tarantino movie without a plot. I even said to my friend about one hour in “when does the movie start?”. But ultimately I liked it a lot, and look forward to watching it again when it is released on Blu-ray, so that I can rewind to review particular scenes or catch bits of dialogue that I missed.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Aug 15, 2019 20:29:19 GMT
Apparently we've been interpreting the Bruce Lee scene incorrectly. It's supposed to be Cliff imagining what a fight between him and Lee would've been like. That's why the scene is cut the way it is, as a flashback-type sequence. Cliff even says, "Yeah that sounds about right," when it cuts back to him on the roof. A friend of mine saw the film a second time and pointed this out to me, and I heard a podcast also make this point. It makes a lot more sense, especially when you consider the over-the-top nature of the fight, where the side of the car is completely demolished by Lee being flung into it; or the fact that Bruce Lee is a caricature in the film. I don't think I buy that. I need to see the movie again to be sure but it sounds like some fan fiction/wishful thinking by some fans to me.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 16, 2019 3:33:34 GMT
So for 2 hours and 40 minutes we basically watch Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Margot Robbie drive around, eat food, dance around, watch movies, have pointless conversations (or a fight scene), an unnecessary, inconsistent Kurt Russell narration, and act out long scenes on a set with Timothy Olyphant. There is a story to this movie, right? Where is the narrative thrust? A disappointment from Tarantino.
"The story is the foundation of all entertainment. You must have a good story otherwise it's just masturbation." - George Costanza
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 16, 2019 10:27:38 GMT
So for 2 hours and 40 minutes we basically watch Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Margot Robbie drive around, eat food, dance around, watch movies, have pointless conversations (or a fight scene), an unnecessary, inconsistent Kurt Russell narration, and act out long scenes on a set with Timothy Olyphant. There is a story to this movie, right? Where is the narrative thrust? A disappointment from Tarantino. "The story is the foundation of all entertainment. You must have a good story otherwise it's just masturbation." - George Costanza The fact that you used a quote from a character who is by design a clueless idiot should have made you think twice.
This is a "hang out" movie--a film built around the idea that you just share time with the characters. This isn't a bug, it is a feature.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 16, 2019 12:00:45 GMT
Apparently we've been interpreting the Bruce Lee scene incorrectly. It's supposed to be Cliff imagining what a fight between him and Lee would've been like. That's why the scene is cut the way it is, as a flashback-type sequence. Cliff even says, "Yeah that sounds about right," when it cuts back to him on the roof. A friend of mine saw the film a second time and pointed this out to me, and I heard a podcast also make this point. It makes a lot more sense, especially when you consider the over-the-top nature of the fight, where the side of the car is completely demolished by Lee being flung into it; or the fact that Bruce Lee is a caricature in the film. I don't think I buy that. I need to see the movie again to be sure but it sounds like some fan fiction/wishful thinking by some fans to me. I'll have to see it again to decide how I feel about it. That wasn't my takeaway on my initial viewing but it does make more sense. It's like the flashback with his wife, you're seeing his interpretation of the events, where things are never his fault. For the record, QT hasn't commented on how to interpret the scene, but he has commented on the backlash to it. He's said Cliff is a trained killer and in a martial arts competition, Lee would win. If they met in a jungle, Cliff would win. He compares a fight with Bruce Lee and Cliff to a fight with Bruce Lee and Dracula-- Cliff is a fictional character so he can do whatever QT wants him to do. The more I think about it, the more the 'Cliff reimagining things' theory makes sense; but I guess it's up to the viewer. The fight was a draw in my book anyway so it's not a big deal. I do like that QT didn't weigh in on how we're supposed to interpret it. You produced the artwork, let the audience decide what it means.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Aug 16, 2019 12:36:55 GMT
Like a very long episode of Entourage. I knew the ending was going to be different from history, so I half expected to be offended....but it was just kind of meh. As someone who lived through those times I was never bored but I can see how many others would be.
Yeah too long and WAAAAY too self-indulgent, but the actors were great. I'll watch it again next year on DVD or whatever when I expect my current rating will drop. For now, a generous 7/10.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Aug 16, 2019 15:58:12 GMT
I'd lie if I didn't say I was a little disappointed, but then I think I do always go to a QT film expecting something fresh and/or kinetic like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill.
It's still a very good movie. Not much happens for the most part, yet I was still entertained, and I was surprised how little Robbie was in it. Though the scenes focusing on her enjoying people enjoying her on screen were great.
As for the end. I loved it. I like his historical wish fulfilment on screen. Despite the violence on show, it was sweet, almost a bit moving, seeing the people you know die survive and those that committed such atrocities get their comeuppance.
A film about Hollywood, set in Hollywood, at times commenting on Hollywood, I think in the future it will be one of his most studied and critiqued films. I also think for many it will be a "grower"
|
|
kingslayer
Sophomore
@kingslayer
Posts: 263
Likes: 120
|
Post by kingslayer on Aug 16, 2019 22:29:58 GMT
I was bored to be frank. For someone who writes such sharp entertaining dialogue the movie was disappointing. Characters weren't interesting enough to hold my attention, only Brad Pitt did anything for me, by the time the strange climax of the film comes around it was too late for me to really care. Seems like a film about Hollywood made for insiders as I certainly wasn't that interested but maybe those in the business can get something from it like in something like La La Land.
|
|
soullimbo
Sophomore
@soullimbo
Posts: 377
Likes: 72
|
Post by soullimbo on Aug 22, 2019 23:46:26 GMT
Apparently we've been interpreting the Bruce Lee scene incorrectly. It's supposed to be Cliff imagining what a fight between him and Lee would've been like. That's why the scene is cut the way it is, as a flashback-type sequence. Cliff even says, "Yeah that sounds about right," when it cuts back to him on the roof. A friend of mine saw the film a second time and pointed this out to me, and I heard a podcast also make this point. It makes a lot more sense, especially when you consider the over-the-top nature of the fight, where the side of the car is completely demolished by Lee being flung into it; or the fact that Bruce Lee is a caricature in the film. Mike Moh (the actor who plays Lee) said in an interview that the scene was supposed to be even more over the top with Cliff really beating the hell out of Lee, but Brad Pitt didn't like it so they changed the scene. Very respectful decision by Pitt, but ironically I think it added to the confusion surrounding this scene. Had they gone completely over the top with it, it may have been a bit more obvious this was essentially a dream sequence. It still would've been extremely disrespectful though, so I think Pitt made the right call. Some viewers picked up on this (certainly not me), but I hadn't seen it mentioned in this thread before now. I thought the scene was to explain why he isn't needed on set (or rather why Russell's character didn't want him). A while back, Rick had persuaded him to let Cliff on, and this was the outcome, he wrecked his wife's car....which leads him to say "that sounds about right".
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 25, 2019 4:43:35 GMT
Apparently we've been interpreting the Bruce Lee scene incorrectly. It's supposed to be Cliff imagining what a fight between him and Lee would've been like. That's why the scene is cut the way it is, as a flashback-type sequence. Cliff even says, "Yeah that sounds about right," when it cuts back to him on the roof. A friend of mine saw the film a second time and pointed this out to me, and I heard a podcast also make this point. It makes a lot more sense, especially when you consider the over-the-top nature of the fight, where the side of the car is completely demolished by Lee being flung into it; or the fact that Bruce Lee is a caricature in the film. Mike Moh (the actor who plays Lee) said in an interview that the scene was supposed to be even more over the top with Cliff really beating the hell out of Lee, but Brad Pitt didn't like it so they changed the scene. Very respectful decision by Pitt, but ironically I think it added to the confusion surrounding this scene. Had they gone completely over the top with it, it may have been a bit more obvious this was essentially a dream sequence. It still would've been extremely disrespectful though, so I think Pitt made the right call. Some viewers picked up on this (certainly not me), but I hadn't seen it mentioned in this thread before now. I thought the scene was to explain why he isn't needed on set (or rather why Russell's character didn't want him). A while back, Rick had persuaded him to let Cliff on, and this was the outcome, he wrecked his wife's car....which leads him to say "that sounds about right". That was my take too. Cliff was pondering if it was fair he was banned and decided the punishment "sounds about right."
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 26, 2019 0:24:49 GMT
The more I think about this movie, the more I love it.
I love the ending throw down.
Fuck those hippies. Anyone defending them is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 26, 2019 0:37:19 GMT
The more I think about this movie, the more I love it. I love the ending throw down. Fuck those hippies. Anyone defending them is garbage. I loved watching that murderous scum get brutally killed. Too many movies these days allow the villains (especially women) to commit heinous acts only to (at best) die with a quick bullet shot or worse be arrested or worst go unpunished all together. It was very gratifying to see the "family" die in horrible pain.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 26, 2019 0:49:51 GMT
The more I think about this movie, the more I love it. I love the ending throw down. Fuck those hippies. Anyone defending them is garbage. I loved watching that murderous scum get brutally killed. Too many movies these days allow the villains (especially women) to commit heinous acts only to (at best) die with a quick bullet shot or worse be arrested or worst go unpunished all together. It was very gratifying to see the "family" die in horrible pain. Especially in the case of these three. Not sure how familiar you are with the killings in real life, but they were truly and purely evil. Anyone as cruel and cowardly and evil as them deserves to have their throat stomped or head bashed or body toasted via flamethrower. In fact, I welcome it.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Aug 29, 2019 17:35:43 GMT
I saw it on Tuesday evening, and I found it to be a long and drawn out film without much of a storyline to justify its length. However, I loved the cinematography and the production design of 1969 California. The soundtrack was a highlight to listen to and it introduced me to some golden classics. Leonard DiCaprio and Brad Pitt had really good chemistry. I give it a 7.5/10.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 0:06:20 GMT
7/10. Pretty good, very long and isn’t a plot driven story. It’s more of a 2.5 hour hangout movie in Sunny California, has very entertaining performances and is pretty funny. The one scene of violence was kinda dumb imo. If you expect a Tarantino-y movie, adjust your expectations. Was it good? Yeah, I’d say it was pretty good for the most part. I definitely have some problems with it. But considering the cast, the setting, the premise, and the fact it was in the Hands of Quentin Tarantino....it’s a little disappointing. With the emphasis on diegetic or quasi-diegetic popular music emanating from car radios (and home stereos), along with jingling radio advertisements and Los Angeles weather reports, once could draw an analogy between Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood and American Graffiti (George Lucas, 1973).
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 0:08:50 GMT
which parts felt cartoonish to you? I'd say the part where Pitt's dog starts chewing on Tex Watson's nutsack, Sadie Atkins taking a statue to the face, the dog then chewing her, the Italian wife's reactions to everything, Pitt's non-reactions to everything including being stabbed in the leg because he's tripping balls, Pitt bashing Red's head into 40 different orifices, Sadie running out a window and into a pool while firing a gun blindly and screaming like Yosemite Sam, and Leo pulling out a flamethrower on a whim and roasting her. So basically the entire climax. The climax or final act essentially constitutes a Mel Brooks-style parody, only with Tarantino-style violence. And the film leading up to that point had been more subtle, more of a satire than a parody.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 30, 2019 0:48:52 GMT
I'd say the part where Pitt's dog starts chewing on Tex Watson's nutsack, Sadie Atkins taking a statue to the face, the dog then chewing her, the Italian wife's reactions to everything, Pitt's non-reactions to everything including being stabbed in the leg because he's tripping balls, Pitt bashing Red's head into 40 different orifices, Sadie running out a window and into a pool while firing a gun blindly and screaming like Yosemite Sam, and Leo pulling out a flamethrower on a whim and roasting her. So basically the entire climax. The climax or final act essentially constitutes a Mel Brooks-style parody, only with Tarantino-style violence. And the film leading up to that point had been more subtle, more of a satire than a parody. Indeed. It went from The Player to Blazing Saddles in 30 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 1:02:57 GMT
I get your disappontment it was not yoir typical Tarantino but I still liked it. What about it felt pretentious to u? Glad you dug it Nora! Like I said earlier in the thread, its probably my own doing cause I was so hyped to see Dicaprio & Pitt share the screen together in a Tarantino film. Maybe "pretentious" is the wrong word to have used there but Tarantino isn't as clever as he thinks he is. The whole Sharon Tate story line was utterly stupid & pointless imo. As was the Manson cult members. I really don't know, just wasn't feeling this one tbh. Oh well. If one is going to make a movie about Hollywood circa 1969, Sharon Tate and the Manson cult would figure to be a central part of it, especially given the era's sense of social dislocation, cultural distortion, and chilling, paradoxical violence. More specifically, the Tate thread serves to build empathy for her and to develop suspense, trepidation, and fatalism. Meanwhile, the narrative regarding the Manson cult members serves to foster revulsion or perverse interest in them and also—again—to brew suspense, dread, and fatalism. To me, it all makes sense. The fundamental—although far from fatal—flaw is simply that the parodic violence of the climax is so over-the-top—if utterly characteristic for Tarantino—that it does not mesh optimally with the subtle and opaque ideas, curious irony, and atmospheric aura that Tarantino had artistically developed for most of the movie. Even then, though, I would consider the violence of the climax to be less than optimally fitting, as opposed to ill-fitting. After all, the line between satire and parody can be a thin one. And regardless, the excessively violent climax serves a purpose: to provide audiences and people all over the world with fifty-years-in-the-making wish fulfillment and vicarious fantasy. Cliff Booth (Pitt) and Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) become stand-ins for most all of us, for how so many of us (men especially) wish that we might have been able to respond in that situation, saving Sharon Tate in the process. On another level, the climax works by matching and furthering the sense of anachronistic distortion that Tarantino has built throughout Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood. From the film's beginning, of course, the director is not replicating Hollywood circa 1969 (or the fifties and sixties more generally) in a typical period-piece manner. Rather, he is shading and sometimes scrambling the historical elements, occasionally using real names and figures—such as Tate and Manson and "Squeaky" and Italian director Sergio Corbucci (who was, indeed, the "second-best director of Italian Westerns")—and sometimes creating pastiches ("mashups," in the parlance of our times), such as incongruous blends of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood (Rick Dalton on "Bounty Law") or between American TV Westerns and Italian theatrical Westerns. Add it all up, or maintain that trajectory, and of course the resolution regarding the Manson murders would be different in Tarantino's alternative version of history. In the cathartic climax, the director could not seamlessly blend his relish for anachronism with his lust for vicarious wish fulfillment. The two are nominally one in the same, but the aesthetics of the latter end up overriding the aesthetics of the former, even though Tarantino had so carefully been building his anachronisms throughout the movie, like a cinematic painter and a cultural connoisseur. In other words, an organic historical distortion (pardon the oxymoron) becomes a deliriously obvious distortion, and thus the film belatedly slouches toward lowbrow idleness. But again, the fit is not quite optimal rather than ill; after all, the use of the flamethrower, for instance, had been foreshadowed.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 1:11:18 GMT
I don't know what to think. I was completely onboard for most of the movie. Pitt was awesome, but I think it may be Leo's best performance since Gilbert Grape. I also saw it at the Cinedome in Hollywood, which was cool since not only were the featured cars (Leo's caddy, Pitt's Karmann Ghia) sitting outside, but the actual theater is in the movie itself (to which everyone cheered). But then the third act happened and I couldn't believe what I was watching. I guess it shouldn't be too surprising after Inglorious Basterds, but still. I was waiting for it to all be some hallucination or something like the scenes of fake shows and movies you see Rick Dalton in, but it just kept going. Maybe I'd like it more on a rewatch knowing what to expect, but it still felt at odds with the tone of the rest of the movie, which *was* QT's most mature and reflective. Then it became a Tom and Jerry cartoon. ... agreed.
|
|