Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Jul 27, 2019 4:40:04 GMT
Loved your write-up mikediastavrone96. Got back from it and I am pretty torn. This didn't quite feel like a QT movie for the most part but at the same time the most QT it can get in some scenes. Definitely my least favorite of his although I haven't seen Death Proof yet. I didn't hate it as such. I really enjoyed the first two acts. But the unbelievably ridiculous third act somewhat ruined the nice fun, charming vibe it had going for the first two. I totally get what he was going for but there would've been so many different and much more fun way of doing it. What he actually went for was soo underwhelming and in hindsight the whole Manson family scene felt pointless if he had that climax in mind. I still haven't completely taken it all in but some quick points. - DiCaprio is wonderful. He's charming, funny, desperate and what not and portrays Rick Dalton and all his movie characters in such a fun way. It's probably the most fun he's been on screen after TWoWS imo. - Brad Pitt is very good but damn, he's smoking!! - I LOVED watching Margot Robbie in this even if she has practically said nothing in the movie. She had this old movie star charisma and screen presence that totally won me over and also makes one sad knowing the tragedy that actually happened to her character. But I really liked how QT used her in this, very innocent, bubbly kind. - Qualley gives the second best performance after Leo. Dakota Fanning and Bruce Dern were so good in their respective cameos. - The soundtrack is everything I still won't call it much of a disappointment as I had a good time watching it. Just wish I didn't have that "that's it?" feeling after the end credits started rolling over. Also, I missed you Sam Jackson!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 19:45:41 GMT
Oh, boy. Tarantino and Pitt basically just gave the world another Tyler Durden.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jul 27, 2019 22:10:57 GMT
6.5ish
According to QT, when Polanski found out about the movie he contacted him and asked, “What is this?” That’s not too far from my own questioning after seeing the movie. The concept is a boundlessly fascinating one, and I usually love movies about movies…. and I was with it at the beginning, but the progression is a little lethargic, its digressions impede more than add, though many of the scenes work on their own like the Westerns.
The script is possibly his worst; the dialogue is especially bland and lacking and this from at his best a master at it. Most of the side characters, save for the brightly crazy Qualley, are too brief or otherwise awkward (the girl, McQueen). Leo is the standout - best when let loose like the trailer tantrum, or the comedic charge in those Western scenes. Also noting his very accurate stammering vocal roll. Pitt reliably charming. Soundtrack and sound design great. Highlight might be the Spahn Ranch scene where QT is actually blocking and creating and building mood and tension, and there’s the thematic tie with it being a dilapidated movie set.
Poignance and humor and “buddy picture” - none of that came thru for me. And this from QT who knows how to spike and surprise and, another specialty, switch character vantage point—you see this in his best, Pulp Fiction, Hateful Eight (which I wholeheartedly love, haters be damn'd). Leo/Pitt don’t spend that much time together so their relationship doesn’t feel deep or developed. Visually a little lacking and repetitive (in some ways, yes, intentionally). So my two cents - this is a diverting but witless, hobbled, scribbled pic with some expectedly charming perfs that just don’t really impact. The total sum is using a pivotal historical event as a fake-out—and everything else, to use a bad metaphor, QT sets at such a low simmer it never whistles. Something off here….
Note on Pacino: a good perf but what a negligible role! How about this? Start the movie with him, this wealthy agent, “rediscovering” Rick Dalton, watching all of his stuff, so it builds his history and myth, and then we follow Pacino - get some nice nostalgic scenic LA, maybe credits here? - as he goes to meet Rick who turns out to be an insecure man-child with a stutter.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 28, 2019 4:16:38 GMT
Spoilers...
Even though I heard it's not what you expect, I still didn't expect this. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a different kind of Tarantino film. There's almost no violence until the last 20 minutes. It's Tarantino's most restrained and mature film in years.
It's really a film about a day in the life of a working actor - preparing for scenes, walking around on set, and dealing with the changing times. Because of that, I can definitely understand people thinking it's slow. It is a slow burn, something we're not used to from Tarantino. I do wish there was more action, but I appreciate the tenderness of it.
While he could have cut 15 minutes or so from the first 2 days, it didn't stand out as much as Hateful Eight or Django.
Leo and Pitt are excellent. I hope they do something else together. I definitely prefer when Leo lets loose has fun. Robbie doesn't have much to do but I like how the film portrays her as an actual person. You feel her presence through the film and I like how QT handled the ending.
This is the first film that makes me think Tarantino will actually retire. There's a scene where Rick breaks down as he talks about a story he's reading. The story echoes Dalton's own life (and Tarantino's). They are worried their best has passed them by and they'll never be as good as they once were.
For Tarantino, he'll never surpass Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction's shadow hangs over him and he's told every movie he makes is not his best. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood doesn't need to be his best. It's still a damn good film. It's a hard film to rank because it's so different from his previous efforts, but I think it's a film that will grow on me. 8/10
1. Pulp Fiction 2. Inglourious Basterds 3. Reservoir Dogs 4. Kill Bill 5. Django Unchained 6. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 7. Jackie Brown 8. Kill Bill 2 9. Death Proof
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jul 29, 2019 8:45:21 GMT
Well that was underwhelming. I have no idea why this film needed to be as long as it was, and I felt every minute of it. It's a frustratingly shapeless thing that is shockingly thin on ideas. I love a couple of Tarantino's films, strongly dislike others, but this one left me weirdly indifferent, which should not have been the case for a subject like this. So much of what the film insists on spending time to show us feels maddeningly without purpose, it actually made me want to re-edit this thing as I was watching it. I guess I should have known better than to expect a thoughtful rumination on this specific era of Hollywood from Tarantino instead of the hollow nostalgia trip that he delivered instead. This subject demands a sense of tragic weight and melancholy that the film sorely lacks... the end result is a first draft sketch with some memorable scenes scattered throughout, but ultimately its thematic trappings feel ornamental rather than like strong connective tissue... there's no "there" there.
Also, why does QT now think it's a good idea to randomly insert voiceover narration in the middle of his movies? The bigger crime though is how horribly wasted Pacino is in this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 11:18:49 GMT
So, the Natalie Wood reference... A strange misstep that should have been cut - it's totally out of place with the warmth and radiance of the Sharon Tate sub-plot. This can't be Tarantino's idea of honoring Classic Hollywood?
The performances are uniformly good (all of the stars make the most of their cameos), but in my opinion, this is easily DiCaprio's best performance in well over a decade - a very funny, vivid star turn.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 29, 2019 13:50:07 GMT
So, the Natalie Wood reference... A strange misstep that should have been cut - it's totally out of place with the warmth and radiance of the Sharon Tate sub-plot. This can't be Tarantino's idea of honoring Classic Hollywood? The performances are uniformly good (all of the stars make the most of their cameos), but in my opinion, this is easily DiCaprio's best performance in well over a decade - a very funny, vivid star turn. Better even than WoWS? That's my personal fav of his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 14:37:00 GMT
So, the Natalie Wood reference... A strange misstep that should have been cut - it's totally out of place with the warmth and radiance of the Sharon Tate sub-plot. This can't be Tarantino's idea of honoring Classic Hollywood? The performances are uniformly good (all of the stars make the most of their cameos), but in my opinion, this is easily DiCaprio's best performance in well over a decade - a very funny, vivid star turn. Better even than WoWS? That's my personal fav of his. Yes. In my opinion, it's his best since The Departed.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 29, 2019 15:39:36 GMT
So, the Natalie Wood reference... A strange misstep that should have been cut - it's totally out of place with the warmth and radiance of the Sharon Tate sub-plot. This can't be Tarantino's idea of honoring Classic Hollywood? The performances are uniformly good (all of the stars make the most of their cameos), but in my opinion, this is easily DiCaprio's best performance in well over a decade - a very funny, vivid star turn. Better even than WoWS? That's my personal fav of his. I'd rank it 4th right now. His performance in Wolf is one of my favorites of all-time. This is still one of my favorites.
1. The Wolf of Wall Street
2. The Departed 3. The Aviator 4. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 29, 2019 15:44:28 GMT
So, do you think Cliff ... killed his wife? QT leaves it ambiguous on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 29, 2019 15:59:35 GMT
So, do you think Cliff ... killed his wife? QT leaves it ambiguous on purpose. Ambiguous? I think it's made pretty clear that he did it. If anything, Tarantino seems to kind of justify the killing by having Billie needling Cliff the entire time on the boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 16:15:53 GMT
So, do you think Cliff ... killed his wife? QT leaves it ambiguous on purpose. Ambiguous? I think it's made pretty clear that he did it. If anything, Tarantino seems to kind of justify the killing by having Billie needling Cliff the entire time on the boat. The character's name is Natalie, not Billie - hence the Wood reference. Really distasteful in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 29, 2019 16:17:10 GMT
Ambiguous? I think it's made pretty clear that he did it. If anything, Tarantino seems to kind of justify the killing by having Billie needling Cliff the entire time on the boat. The character's name is Natalie, not Billie - hence the Wood reference. Really distasteful in my opinion. Gayheart's character said the name "Natalie" on the boat, but she's credited in the film as Billie Booth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 16:21:33 GMT
Yes. In my opinion, it's his best since The Departed. Wow, that's a heavy thing to say Seems the two male leads are at the top of their game here! My favorite DiCaprio performances are: 1. What's Eating Gilbert Grape 2. The Aviator 3. The Departed 4. The Basketball Diaries 5. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 6. Romeo + Juliet 7. The Wolf of Wall Street 8. Catch Me If You Can 9. Titanic 10. This Boy's Life
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 16:24:01 GMT
The character's name is Natalie, not Billie - hence the Wood reference. Really distasteful in my opinion. Gayheart's character said the name "Natalie" on the boat, but she's credited in the film as Billie Booth. Gotcha. Do you feel that this was an intentional reference to Natalie Wood's mysterious death on Tarantino's part? If so, what do you think of that? Especially when he's re-writing Sharon Tate's history?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 29, 2019 16:31:37 GMT
So, do you think Cliff ... killed his wife? QT leaves it ambiguous on purpose. I think it's obvious he killed her. The only question is if he did it on purpose or by accident.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 29, 2019 16:55:21 GMT
Gayheart's character said the name "Natalie" on the boat, but she's credited in the film as Billie Booth. Gotcha. Do you feel that this was an intentional reference to Natalie Wood's mysterious death on Tarantino's part? If so, what do you think of that? Especially when he's re-writing Sharon Tate's history? I don't think it was intentional, no. Tarantino's not subtle; he'd be far more aggressively blatant about it -- he'd probably have Natalie Wood herself tell the story and then when someone asks if she was there, she'd scoff and say, "You couldn't pay me to get on a boat in the middle of the ocean."
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jul 30, 2019 0:53:43 GMT
I liked this a lot better than some of you did. Some of it is that my expectations weren't all that high and I didn't really know what to expect. It's an indulgent alphabet soup of a movie and I sort of wondered why it needed to be as long as it was and why a lot of scenes were even there, but it was consistently entertaining. Also well shot. Leo is definitely the highlight. This and Django are his best performances for me, QT really brings the best out of him, as does being able to let it all hang out and play absurd characters like this. He deserves an Oscar nod for the meltdown scene in his trailer alone, which is probably going to end up being the funniest scene of the year. Pitt and Robbie were fine and a lot of the big names like Pacino were basically cameos. As a caveat I'm not the biggest QT fan (part of why I didn't have crazy expectations like some people) but I might consider this for his second best film behind Basterds. 8/10Spoilerific thoughts-
Unlike some people I liked the ending, but the movie was so well paced I didn't think it was over despite how long it was. It might have been interesting to cut some of the hanging out stuff early in the movie and actually have them go back to the ranch to kill everyone including Manson. I was thinking it would go in that direction in the middle of the movie.
Tarantino likes to apply genre conventions out of their usual context, like Django Unchained being a western set in the South and so forth. This was like a 60's fairytale. None of the bad stuff happens, the Manson family gets stopped, and Sharon Tate doesn't die. It sort of sinks in when the title comes on the screen right when you realize the movie's ending and that Tate isn't going to die. Looking at the movie from that angle it's a success. I think a lot of people were expecting it to be this big social commentary on a whole era and the end of movie stars and classic Hollywood and that's why they're disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jul 30, 2019 6:48:45 GMT
My thoughts on the ending: I've been reading some different takes on the ending, and it seems like many of those who responded positively to it appreciate the way the film chooses to memorialize Tate by presenting an alternate version of "what could have been" rather than follow the path of other media that merely define her legacy primarily through her brutal murder. While this might sound like a nice idea, Tarantino just uses it as an excuse to indulge a wish fulfillment fantasy that strips the Manson followers of their menace for the sake of comic book retribution. Tarantino takes the easy way out in avoiding dealing with real pain and tragedy. I'm not saying that he needed to show the murders, but this film cheaply sidesteps history in a way that undercuts the thematic premise he sets up early on. The fading era and the arrival of a new one... this idea crucially needs to be linked to the real world tragedy that Tarantino erases here. The wistfulness that the viewer experiences during the final scene does not arise from the film internally, but the pain is only meta-fictional. We the audience know what really happened, therefore we still feel the loss... but the film doesn't earn its melancholy on its own terms.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jul 30, 2019 7:10:58 GMT
My thoughts on the ending: I've been reading some different takes on the ending, and it seems like many of those who responded positively to it appreciate the way the film chooses to memorialize Tate by presenting an alternate version of "what could have been" rather than follow the path of other media that merely define her legacy primarily through her brutal murder. While this might sound like a nice idea, Tarantino just uses it as an excuse to indulge a wish fulfillment fantasy that strips the Manson followers of their menace for the sake of comic book retribution. Tarantino takes the easy way out in avoiding dealing with real pain and tragedy. I'm not saying that he needed to show the murders, but this film cheaply sidesteps history in a way that undercuts the thematic premise he sets up early on. The fading era and the arrival of a new one... this idea crucially needs to be linked to the real world tragedy that Tarantino erases here. The wistfulness that the viewer experiences during the final scene does not arise from the film internally, but the pain is only meta-fictional. We the audience know what really happened, therefore we still feel the loss... but the film doesn't earn its melancholy on its own terms. I think a better ending might have been Tate dying as in real life and then doing what I said and having Leo and Pitt go to the ranch and kill everyone for a Tarantino revenge ending that doesn't whitewash the real events as much. That's sort of what I was expecting to happen midway through the movie
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 30, 2019 15:51:54 GMT
My thoughts on the ending: I've been reading some different takes on the ending, and it seems like many of those who responded positively to it appreciate the way the film chooses to memorialize Tate by presenting an alternate version of "what could have been" rather than follow the path of other media that merely define her legacy primarily through her brutal murder. While this might sound like a nice idea, Tarantino just uses it as an excuse to indulge a wish fulfillment fantasy that strips the Manson followers of their menace for the sake of comic book retribution. Tarantino takes the easy way out in avoiding dealing with real pain and tragedy. I'm not saying that he needed to show the murders, but this film cheaply sidesteps history in a way that undercuts the thematic premise he sets up early on. The fading era and the arrival of a new one... this idea crucially needs to be linked to the real world tragedy that Tarantino erases here. The wistfulness that the viewer experiences during the final scene does not arise from the film internally, but the pain is only meta-fictional. We the audience know what really happened, therefore we still feel the loss... but the film doesn't earn its melancholy on its own terms. The film is a fairy tale. It tells you that in the title... "Once upon a time..."
I loved the ending.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 30, 2019 15:55:58 GMT
My thoughts on the ending: I've been reading some different takes on the ending, and it seems like many of those who responded positively to it appreciate the way the film chooses to memorialize Tate by presenting an alternate version of "what could have been" rather than follow the path of other media that merely define her legacy primarily through her brutal murder. While this might sound like a nice idea, Tarantino just uses it as an excuse to indulge a wish fulfillment fantasy that strips the Manson followers of their menace for the sake of comic book retribution. Tarantino takes the easy way out in avoiding dealing with real pain and tragedy. I'm not saying that he needed to show the murders, but this film cheaply sidesteps history in a way that undercuts the thematic premise he sets up early on. The fading era and the arrival of a new one... this idea crucially needs to be linked to the real world tragedy that Tarantino erases here. The wistfulness that the viewer experiences during the final scene does not arise from the film internally, but the pain is only meta-fictional. We the audience know what really happened, therefore we still feel the loss... but the film doesn't earn its melancholy on its own terms. I think a better ending might have been Tate dying as in real life and then doing what I said and having Leo and Pitt go to the ranch and kill everyone for a Tarantino revenge ending that doesn't whitewash the real evI ents as much. That's sort of what I was expecting to happen midway through the movie [/spoiler] I think that would have been too much. I don't think anyone needed to see a pregnant Tate get murdered. While everyone at Spahn ranch wasn't "innocent", it would be hard to justify killing every woman on the ranch when they weren't directly involved in the murders. This a fairy tale and I have no problem with the ending The whole idea of the film is that the innocence of the 60s lives on. The Manson murders were a turning point in our culture. I loved the ending.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 30, 2019 15:58:50 GMT
My thoughts on the ending: I've been reading some different takes on the ending, and it seems like many of those who responded positively to it appreciate the way the film chooses to memorialize Tate by presenting an alternate version of "what could have been" rather than follow the path of other media that merely define her legacy primarily through her brutal murder. While this might sound like a nice idea, Tarantino just uses it as an excuse to indulge a wish fulfillment fantasy that strips the Manson followers of their menace for the sake of comic book retribution. Tarantino takes the easy way out in avoiding dealing with real pain and tragedy. I'm not saying that he needed to show the murders, but this film cheaply sidesteps history in a way that undercuts the thematic premise he sets up early on. The fading era and the arrival of a new one... this idea crucially needs to be linked to the real world tragedy that Tarantino erases here. The wistfulness that the viewer experiences during the final scene does not arise from the film internally, but the pain is only meta-fictional. We the audience know what really happened, therefore we still feel the loss... but the film doesn't earn its melancholy on its own terms. I'm not looking to change your opinion but just elaborate on why I like it. I'd rather Tarantino go for comic book retribution than another indulgence into true crime fetishism by furthering the legend of the Manson Family. The insatiable intrigue of the public towards this specific event has been appeased in the dozens of books, documentaries, and films well enough imo and that played a big part in my initial fear over this project: that Tarantino was going to take advantage of the tragedy for the sake of on-screen violence and/or turning the Manson clan into prototypical Tarantino villains. Instead, as you put it, he stripped them of their menace rather than further elevate them into iconic villainy. It felt as though Tarantino was saying they don't deserve their legendary status, especially not in lieu of Sharon Tate's memory and such a shifting of priorities away from perpetrators and towards the victims is something vitally needed in a culture where Charlie Manson is a household name. As far as I'm concerned, the film was linked to the real world tragedy anyway, it can't help but be, so why rehash the murders even as an off-screen event? The pain is meta-fictional, but that's not accidental, it's built into the film from the seemingly meandering moments where we follow an exuberant Sharon Tate for no narrative reason all the way to the ending with DiCaprio figuratively ascending through the gates of Hollywood heaven to meet everyone we as an audience know were slain that night.
As I said in my own review, this was not a tact everybody was going to like and I understand the reasons for that, but I personally resist the implication that the only way to deal with this tragedy is to preserve the menace of Manson and his followers. That route has been exercised to the point of social irresponsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 30, 2019 16:45:30 GMT
So, do you think Cliff ... killed his wife? QT leaves it ambiguous on purpose. Ambiguous? I think it's made pretty clear that he did it. If anything, Tarantino seems to kind of justify the killing by having Billie needling Cliff the entire time on the boat. I mean she's dead but it's not obvious if he "murdered" her or not. Is he capable of doing it? Sure. But that doesn't mean he did. He's alone on a boat with her. He'll be suspected no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 30, 2019 17:01:34 GMT
Ambiguous? I think it's made pretty clear that he did it. If anything, Tarantino seems to kind of justify the killing by having Billie needling Cliff the entire time on the boat. I mean she's dead but it's not obvious if he "murdered" her or not. Is he capable of doing it? Sure. But that doesn't mean he did. He's alone on a boat with her. He'll be suspected no matter what.
Yeah, but at no point does the film offer any sort of evidence or statement to refute the accusations. Even Rick falters in trying to come up with a defense beyond the fact that he was a war hero. And the film makes a point of emphasizing that Cliff points the spear-gun towards Billie during her rant.
|
|