|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 1:38:10 GMT
I'm not usually a Tarantino fan and I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. Oddly, it has the hallmarks of a Tarantino film I usually dislike: overlong and self-indulgent, filled with pointless scenes. And it is tedious at times, no question about it. But when it's good, it's great. The two leads are outstanding and QT did a great job of balancing the impact each character had on the film. Pitt definitely got the more 'fun' role while Leo got more of an 'actor's spotlight.' So many great scenes for both, though honestly some of that western stuff could've been cut way down or dropped altogether. There are several scenes that convey the same message about Rick's headspace, we only really needed one. So many great creative choices by QT in this flick. The flashback to Cliff's wife's death was hilarious and cut out at the perfect moment. Let the audience decide what happened, otherwise Cliff becomes an unlikeable character. The minimal use of Manson was the way to go. You don't want to glorify or humanize him; particularly in a QT script where even the bad guys are enjoyable most of the time. That fantastic scene with Dakota Fanning and Bruce Dern. You think things are about to go sideways but it ends up being exactly what she said it was. Brilliant. Cliff is borderline superhuman in this flick so I'll excuse the draw he had with Bruce Lee. It's odd that we spend so much time with Sharon Tate when she ultimately is irrelevant to the story, but I guess that helped set up the twist. I had a hunch it would deviate from history and the climax was spectacular. Full disclosure, Brad Pitt is one of my favorite actors so that surely plays a part in my enjoyment of this film. Maybe I don't get as much out of it with a different actor. All I can tell you is I had fun watching the film, despite the way it lagged here and there. I'm having a tough time rating it because I'm big on rewatchability and I don't know how many times I could sit down and watch this flick from start to finish. Still, the crafting and execution of the story, the performances and all the fun little details as well as that romping finale make it impossible for me to rate this below a 7/10. The purpose of that long Western sequence, which I really enjoy, is not simply to show Rick's struggles and triumphs as a talented yet alcoholic actor. Rather, it is also Tarantino's way of reveling in and replicating the stylistics of Italian Westerns and, by 1969, their influence on American Westerns (although no television Western would have looked like that, with those long, slow takes, wide-angle shots, and truly cinematic values). And, obliquely, the sequence serves to build Tarantino's sense of atmosphere, anachronism (again, no TV Western circa 1969 actually looked like that), and cultural irony or distortion. The irony or distortion works on two levels. First, on a truly historical level, the notion of American Westerns being profoundly influenced by, and forever changed by, Italians and other Europeans was both unfathomable and accurate. Second, Tarantino takes that actual historical distortion and further amplifies it by making it seem as if even American TV Western pilots from 1969 might have strongly resembled Italian Westerns, which is not accurate. But that type of anachronistic inaccuracy, which can be found throughout the film (even in "Bounty Law," a TV Western from the fifties that somehow features some of the mores and manners of Italian theatrical Westerns from the sixties), helps justify the ultimate historical deviation. I appreciate your point about how Tarantino featured Manson. What do people make, though, of the Sharon Tate character mentioning Jim Morrison with Manson in the background of the frame (albeit deep and somewhat blurred in the frame, as he is outside at a distance and she is inside)? Was that mention a coincidence or was Tarantino trying to sow audience confusion, at least on a subliminal level? For although younger and much more attractive (and I say that as a heterosexual man), Morrison circa 1969-1971 coincidentally featured something of a Manson look. And was drawing that connection, however obliquely, in poor taste by Tarantino (if he indeed meant to do so)? Also, is there any evidence that Morrison did not care for Paul Revere & the Raiders? These questions regarding Morrison occurred to me after viewing Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood for a third time.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 2:07:17 GMT
I thought it was great. It didn't feel like 2 hours and 45 minutes at all. If you're an admitted obsessed film lover I'm not sure how you could dislike this movie. It's the most NON QT film QT has made which means all the white kids eager to fap to hearing the N word dropped repeatedly will be disappointed. Also the idiot generation that can't go 10 minutes without worshiping their GOD aka their "smart" phone will be confused and anxious. Fuck both those groups of people anyway. I thought the "twist" was great. Even knowing QT took liberties with history in Inglorious Basterds and suspecting he would do so here I was dreading seeing sweet likable pregnant Sharon Tate in jeopardy or worse. A missed opportunity for a scene of Polanski being anally raped but oh well. A few things that were wrong or that I didn't like may be due to QT's revisionist history. Some were just mistakes. For example. Smoking acid would not do anything at all. LSD is broken down by heat so torching it destroys it. I guess the story needed the acid cig to be there months later but did we need Cliff to be tripping balls for any particular reason? If you got a chuckle because you knew Cliff was seeing trails waving his arms around then you also knew smoking acid has no effect. Zoe Bell is a painfully wretched "actress" STOP USING HER QT!!!!!!! I did like watching her die in The Hateful Eight but unless she is brutally killed right away I wish she would NEVER EVER speak or attempt to act in a movie again. Mike Moh did a spot on Bruce Lee impression especially his voice but why make Lee look like such a douchebag? Anyone else surprised that self proclaimed Asiaphile and Kung Fu rip off artist extraordinaire QT kind of shit on Bruce Lee? Perhaps the Bruce Lee in this version of history was a jerk but still seemed odd to me. By featuring Booth on acid, I guess that Tarantino wanted to tap further into the zeitgeist of the era, but in retrospect, yeah, "smoking" acid sounds like a non sequitur. But one could rationalize that decision, however dubiously, by suggesting that it represents another deliberate historical distortion in a movie full of them. I concur that the film never felt long or draggy to me; it is extremely engrossing.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 2:22:23 GMT
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. For the record, I have viewed Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood three times, and I never thought that that scene constituted an "imagining." Rather, it serves to explain why Cliff is not working with Rick on the TV Western pilot—why he is instead fixing the antenna on Rick's roof, because that producer was not going to hire him after what happened last time. I mean, anything is possible, especially in a flashback. Maybe the flashback represents some "unreliable narrator" bit, but then the climax of the film would confirm that Cliff really was that physically skilled. Also, the idea of Cliff constituting an "unreliable narrator" does not seem to fit with his character or the overall story.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 2:33:44 GMT
Just got back from seeing the film. Went in with hardly any expectations after all the mixed things I have read and it did take me a good half hour to fully get into the film and characters, but by the time it ended I was gobsmacked. I want to see more of these characters Rick and Cliff. Pitt's character especially and I am not usually a big fan of him. So cool and leathery. Some scenes could appear to play on longer than they needed, but most of them had me transfixed and it is about the acting here with Tarantino's closeups and none more pronounced than the saloon sequence with Olyphant and DiCaprio and then the kid hostage sequence. This is Tarantino's homage\ode to an era he reveres and cherishes and while it may require some insider knowledge, there are some knockout sequences and the Manson Cult sequences really creeped me out, even if the climax was over-the-top wild. It was a bittersweet end, knowing of the real tragedy. If only! Although I have gained greater appreciation for DiCaprio's performance after three viewings, Pitt has always been the one who really impressed me in this movie. He has that cool watchfulness and wry irony about him, the kind that makes him seem as if he is not even acting (all the while creating an awfully compelling character) and the kind possessed by Steve McQueen (impersonated in the film, of course) and some other laconic actors (including those from Italian Westerns) of that era, which as you note, Tarantino has long been an aficionado of.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 30, 2019 2:44:20 GMT
B++- Leo & Brad never looked happier about their roles, lines, & settings. I liked that they didn't have some crazed hidden Tarantino side to them towards the end. Has QT ever had such decent down to earth (for the most part) lead characters before? Leo's porch reading scene with Julia Butters might've been my fav of his ever. Complete dive right into that character, looking like the time of his life. I wonder if this movie will seem the demarcation point for both actors from their final touches of youth. Brad ridin' around in Hawaiian shirt for one last fling of a role. - '69 Hollywood on full parade... QT's excellent touch of soaking the sunshine in full era audio via radio, tv, & film. A very nice angle considering how tough it could be to mask 21st century physical L.A., & not using full A-list notable songs either makes it more accessible & liveable. -- I was probably expecting greater crash with reality, & yet QT delivered satisfying payoffs for all without stepping on history - nor completely rewriting it like Basterds. My takeaway was the sombre final shot implied the Manson spree would still occur, yet not on the calendar it did in real life.- Kurt Russell didn't have it here for me. His aged appearance doesn't reflect the type of alpha character he was in Death Proof, years ago now. - A high floor, alas not a real high ceiling either to the film's macro arc. Entertaining, well acted vignettes all... except as a whole, the film proper felt more a romp into '69 rather than rich storytellings. I'd maybe have it my 4th fav QT behind Dogs, Pulp, & Bill 2. Why did you find the final shot "somber"? Is it not that high-angle shot of Jay Sebring introducing Rick to Sharon Tate (and her friends) and Rick and Sharon hugging as she compliments his acting abilities? (And I believe that the shot had slowly tracked in and upwards from outside the gate, probably with a crane.) Or was the final shot something else? ... just curious. Either way, having viewed the film three times, I never sensed that Tarantino was implying that the Manson murders would occur later, and I saw the final shot and conclusion as cathartic, even fairy tale-like (a mood enhanced by Tarantino's decision to play the main musical theme from the 1972 Western The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, directed by John Huston and starring Paul Newman). But, obviously, there are no right or wrong answers in this regard, so your perspective is certainly legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 30, 2019 11:54:03 GMT
I'm not usually a Tarantino fan and I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. Oddly, it has the hallmarks of a Tarantino film I usually dislike: overlong and self-indulgent, filled with pointless scenes. And it is tedious at times, no question about it. But when it's good, it's great. The two leads are outstanding and QT did a great job of balancing the impact each character had on the film. Pitt definitely got the more 'fun' role while Leo got more of an 'actor's spotlight.' So many great scenes for both, though honestly some of that western stuff could've been cut way down or dropped altogether. There are several scenes that convey the same message about Rick's headspace, we only really needed one. So many great creative choices by QT in this flick. The flashback to Cliff's wife's death was hilarious and cut out at the perfect moment. Let the audience decide what happened, otherwise Cliff becomes an unlikeable character. The minimal use of Manson was the way to go. You don't want to glorify or humanize him; particularly in a QT script where even the bad guys are enjoyable most of the time. That fantastic scene with Dakota Fanning and Bruce Dern. You think things are about to go sideways but it ends up being exactly what she said it was. Brilliant. Cliff is borderline superhuman in this flick so I'll excuse the draw he had with Bruce Lee. It's odd that we spend so much time with Sharon Tate when she ultimately is irrelevant to the story, but I guess that helped set up the twist. I had a hunch it would deviate from history and the climax was spectacular. Full disclosure, Brad Pitt is one of my favorite actors so that surely plays a part in my enjoyment of this film. Maybe I don't get as much out of it with a different actor. All I can tell you is I had fun watching the film, despite the way it lagged here and there. I'm having a tough time rating it because I'm big on rewatchability and I don't know how many times I could sit down and watch this flick from start to finish. Still, the crafting and execution of the story, the performances and all the fun little details as well as that romping finale make it impossible for me to rate this below a 7/10. The purpose of that long Western sequence, which I really enjoy, is not simply to show Rick's struggles and triumphs as a talented yet alcoholic actor. Rather, it is also Tarantino's way of reveling in and replicating the stylistics of Italian Westerns and, by 1969, their influence on American Westerns (although no television Western would have looked like that, with those long, slow takes, wide-angle shots, and truly cinematic values). And, obliquely, the sequence serves to build Tarantino's sense of atmosphere, anachronism (again, no TV Western circa 1969 actually looked like that), and cultural irony or distortion. The irony or distortion works on two levels. First, on a truly historical level, the notion of American Westerns being profoundly influenced by, and forever changed by, Italians and other Europeans was both unfathomable and accurate. Second, Tarantino takes that actual historical distortion and further amplifies it by making it seem as if even American TV Western pilots from 1969 might have strongly resembled Italian Westerns, which is not accurate. But that type of anachronistic inaccuracy, which can be found throughout the film (even in "Bounty Law," a TV Western from the fifties that somehow features some of the mores and manners of Italian theatrical Westerns from the sixties), helps justify the ultimate historical deviation. I appreciate your point about how Tarantino featured Manson. What do people make, though, of the Sharon Tate character mentioning Jim Morrison with Manson in the background of the frame (albeit deep and somewhat blurred in the frame, as he is outside at a distance and she is inside)? Was that mention a coincidence or was Tarantino trying to sow audience confusion, at least on a subliminal level? For although younger and much more attractive (and I say that as a heterosexual man), Morrison circa 1969-1971 coincidentally featured something of a Manson look. And was drawing that connection, however obliquely, in poor taste by Tarantino (if he indeed meant to do so)? Also, is there any evidence that Morrison did not care for Paul Revere & the Raiders? These questions regarding Morrison occurred to me after viewing Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood for a third time. It's hard to say what Tarantino was going for, if anything with the Manson/Morrison connection. On one hand I want to say nothing QT does on film is an accident; on the other hand we could be reading too much into it, like some people might be doing with the Cliff/Lee sequence. I'm still on the fence about that one, I have to see the film again to decide what my take is for sure.
|
|
soullimbo
Sophomore
@soullimbo
Posts: 377
Likes: 72
|
Post by soullimbo on Sept 5, 2019 1:09:45 GMT
I came out of the theater wishing that Tarantino had left out Sharon Tate until the very end. The whole "this is how it could have happened if one little thing had been different that day" scenario is ultimately "fantasy", which is fine...but in my opinion, if QT had made no mention of her in trailers or build up etc etc, so the viewer doesn't know that she's rick's neighbour, the possible final "twist" would have been superb. I'm not belittling Margot Robbie's performance, which was quite good. Instead of throwing her intermittently into the storyline, if QT places a few "eater-eggs" or subtle references, then the denouement could have been brilliant. As it is, the viewer knows fine well that the "family" choose to visit Rick's house next door instead on that fateful night.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Sept 6, 2019 0:41:29 GMT
How are the Bruce Lee/Steve McQueen/Sam Wanamaker lookalikes? I know they use makeup but are they somewhat convincing in look/voice? I couldn’t believe how much Damian Lewis looked like Steve McQueen. I never would have thought of it before this movie. The Sam Wanamaker likeness was fairly good, too. I just couldn’t believe when I saw in the end credits that he was played by Nicholas Hammond, one of the kids from THE SOUND OF MUSIC.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 1, 2019 17:50:12 GMT
Quentin Tarantino's movies are known for mundane conversations that manage to absorb the viewer. His ability to write good dialogue is usually the main reason. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, the main reason is how the actors deliver their lines. Not that they were badly written or anything, but there are no memorable quotes. Fred Raskin's editing is weird (and not in the cool way it's intended). Kurt Russell's narration comes and goes without any rhyme or reason and, several times, he redundantly mentions a date or time while an on-screen text is showing it. Whenever a period piece shows archive footage to provide context, it normally takes about 2 seconds. That's enough for the viewer to recognize the clip. Here, they're shown for much longer. In some cases, the scene from a movie or TV episode is almost played in its entirety. I know Quentin likes to pay homage, but there's no point in that if it's going to ruin the pacing. Not to mention that his strenght is taking elements from other works and adding his own style. Let's play a game. Imagine placing the climax of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS onto PULP FICTION. It wouldn't fit, right? That's this movie in a nutshell. We get over 2 hours of different people who are somehow connected doing all sorts of things without that much plot progression, but time flies by thanks to the writing, directing and acting. There's even a very long sequence about a fictional TV show. I was so invested that I kind of forgot I was watching actors playing actors playing characters. I will say that the tone and especially the camera work and editing felt too modern for a TV pilot in 1969. Anyway, the climax is an over-the-top gore fest that reveals that this is an alternate timeline. It's fun to watch, but a "This was just a slice of life" ending would've been more appropriate. Unlike I.B., there are no layers of depth (like the bittersweet irony of a person sacrificing themselves to kill Nazis without killing the specific Nazi they wanted to get revenge on) or an ambiguety on how the future will be affected. It's a revisionist fantasy for the sake of it that has a clear outcome. The villains experience a violent encounter, but it felt to me that the women received a more brutal treatment than the man. Coincidence? 8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 14, 2020 8:33:10 GMT
Quentin Tarantino's movies are known for mundane conversations that manage to absorb the viewer. His ability to write good dialogue is usually the main reason. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, the main reason is how the actors deliver their lines. Not that they were badly written or anything, but there are no memorable quotes. Fred Raskin's editing is weird (and not in the cool way it's intended). Kurt Russell's narration comes and goes without any rhyme or reason and, several times, he redundantly mentions a date or time while an on-screen text is showing it. Whenever a period piece shows archive footage to provide context, it normally takes about 2 seconds. That's enough for the viewer to recognize the clip. Here, they're shown for much longer. In some cases, the scene from a movie or TV episode is almost played in its entirety. I know Quentin likes to pay homage, but there's no point in that if it's going to ruin the pacing. Not to mention that his strenght is taking elements from other works and adding his own style. Let's play a game. Imagine placing the climax of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS onto PULP FICTION. It wouldn't fit, right? That's this movie in a nutshell. We get over 2 hours of different people who are somehow connected doing all sorts of things without that much plot progression, but time flies by thanks to the writing, directing and acting. There's even a very long sequence about a fictional TV show. I was so invested that I kind of forgot I was watching actors playing actors playing characters. I will say that the tone and especially the camera work and editing felt too modern for a TV pilot in 1969. Anyway, the climax is an over-the-top gore fest that reveals that this is an alternate timeline. It's fun to watch, but a "This was just a slice of life" ending would've been more appropriate. Unlike I.B., there are no layers of depth (like the bittersweet irony of a person sacrificing themselves to kill Nazis without killing the specific Nazi they wanted to get revenge on) or an ambiguety on how the future will be affected. It's a revisionist fantasy for the sake of it that has a clear outcome. The villains experience a violent encounter, but it felt to me that the women received a more brutal treatment than the man. Coincidence? 8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.Those elements were not necessarily too modern for 1969, but they were certainly not representative of a TV pilot or television Western from 1969. Rather, the tone and camerawork and editing proved representative of an Italian Western (a good one) from the era, and Italian Westerns were generally as far as one could get from American TV Westerns. As I wrote a few posts earlier: And thus that sense of distortion or anachronism proved deliberate on Tarantino's part and helps explain the historically altered denouement. Conceptually, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is highly sophisticated, even if its concluding violence is a tad simplistic.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Mar 15, 2020 2:24:09 GMT
Anyone here ever seen the actual pilot episode of the show "Lancer"? It's interesting to see what Quentin changed and what he kept the same.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 15, 2020 14:34:42 GMT
6/10. I didn’t hate it. It’s well made and reasonably well acted, not much happening. Leonardo DiCaprio is pretty funny. Brad Pitt is seriously the best I’ve seen him in years; he’s one of the coolest characters I’ve seen in a while. Until the last thirty minutes. It’s just a bit more profane version of “Hail Caesar”, people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 16:41:05 GMT
I found it really dull. I love Brad and Leo, but there wasn't much for their characters to do. I don't really get the hype this film generated, but I was happy Brad got an Oscar. He never disappoints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 4:56:17 GMT
I found it really dull. I love Brad and Leo, but there wasn't much for their characters to do. I don't really get the hype this film generated, but I was happy Brad got an Oscar. He never disappoints. If there is a problem with the film, it could be Tarantino's over indulgence on insider and fanboy knowledge of an industry that many only are interested with on the facade level, not the mechanisms. He can also be a bit smart alecy as well. He can alienate the average and casual viewer who are not in sync with him. The flip side of this, is that the film does explain things as to who is who and what is what, and it can be seen as a bit of an education and interesting expose into Hollywood, especially in context with its era and all shrouded under the guise of a Trantinoverse jaunt. One only has to listen and observe and I found the film so much more rewarding the second time around.
I agree, Brad Pitt really shines in this film and he hits all the right notes and the film is so much better for his presence. I also enjoyed Timothy Olyphant's cameo role and I found him riveting to watch and very appealing on the eye. I found the film a vast improvement over the over-long and over-indulged Hateful 8, which really disappointed me. I always find Olyphant easy on the eye. You see Hitman? 😍
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 21, 2020 2:51:34 GMT
I saw it a second time.
Ironically, while I liked the movie until the ending the first time, this time I was okay with the ending knowing what to expect, but I got bored and impatient waiting for it. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to side with the people calling it indulgent and in need of an editor.
Although I hated the Bruce Lee scene both times. I wish an 80 year old Lee was still alive to kick QT in his giant, smug chin.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 21, 2020 3:00:56 GMT
I liked it more 2nd time around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 3:11:47 GMT
I saw it a second time. Ironically, while I liked the movie until the ending the first time, this time I was okay with the ending knowing what to expect, but I got bored and impatient waiting for it. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to side with the people calling it indulgent and in need of an editor. Although I hated the Bruce Lee scene both times. I wish an 80 year old Lee was still alive to kick QT in his giant, smug chin. Agreed, the Bruce Lee scene was terrible. Brad Pitt was really the only thing that makes this film worth seeing. I love Leo but his character was meh.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 21, 2020 3:23:42 GMT
I saw it a second time. Ironically, while I liked the movie until the ending the first time, this time I was okay with the ending knowing what to expect, but I got bored and impatient waiting for it. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to side with the people calling it indulgent and in need of an editor. Although I hated the Bruce Lee scene both times. I wish an 80 year old Lee was still alive to kick QT in his giant, smug chin. Agreed, the Bruce Lee scene was terrible. Brad Pitt was really the only thing that makes this film worth seeing. I love Leo but his character was meh I actually enjoyed Leo more. Maybe as an actor, I relate to his sensitivity and insecurities. The trailer scene is perfect. Pitt is fine, but I feel like we've seen him do all this a dozen times in other movies. Is this the first time anyone has won an Oscar just for being cool? Back to my original point, I just realized this is the first QT movie I liked LESS the second time I saw it. It took me a second time to get into Pulp Fiction and Basterds so I was hoping the same would happen here. No such luck.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 21, 2020 3:29:24 GMT
1st time 6/10 2nd time 9/10 now 10/10
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Mar 21, 2020 6:15:02 GMT
1st time 6/10 2nd time 9/10 now 10/10 What changed so dramatically for you?
|
|