|
Post by Pavan on Aug 16, 2019 7:05:11 GMT
While watching the movie i was thinking Manson and his family members would plan revenge on Cliff at Cielo drive after the Sphan ranch scene but Cliff kills them all except Manson who manages to kill Cliff and then Rick comes with the flamethrower and torches Manson and then goes to have a drink with Sharon. The end. No offense but I am very glad you didn't write the film. I mean we all expect different kind of things to happen while watching movies.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 7:39:00 GMT
Said it in my previous post but the ending loses the connections he set up - that's not what I was expecting so I felt let down rather than what I thought it would be - I mean if that's part of his point to deflate the mystery of the Manson clan he also deflates the mystery of Hollywood imo and that's not the point he had set up at all - it isn't connected to anything of weight. It is fun in a way but it's also a big nothing too.
He set up a Western ending and a profound one - the film is a Western around the edges and it suggests The Wild Bunch at Spahn ranch - and Pitt is Pike and he leaves the ranch to get DiCaprio and go back. He doesn't go to the cops given his past history or he goes and is blown off by them - he goes back, and he dies trying to do something morally right for George not fake "like the movies". That ending wouldn't leave anyone feeling good - because they'd die, but...... By the way, did everyone notice that what Pacino says to Pitt at the start "You're a good friend" and his answer "I try" is repeated in the ambulance dialog at the end with Dalton - that was a nice touch I thought.... The tonal shift that Mattsby mentioned is an additional aspect of the ending that may not work for some people, but I also think it's interesting how one's response to the ending seems in a way contingent on how much you value different ways art "functions" more broadly. It raises the issue of what gratifies us most in consuming art: art as a celebration of fantasy vs. serving real life truth through art... how satisfying you find OUATIH's idea of "righting the wrong" that ended an era and preserving/prolonging that bygone era through fiction (lamenting the idea of "what could have been") vs. an ending that actually reflects reality. Like you said, the latter ending wouldn't leave anyone feeling good, but it would have arguably given the film more weight.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 8:44:29 GMT
I'd agree - there's a famous critical idea "review the film you're watching not the film you wish you were watching" but OUATIH fails on that level for me specifically. The morality of this movie is a huge part of it and many don't see Cliff that way at all but QT does up to a point. Throughout the pic QT sets up moral dilemmas for Cliff what happened with his wife.......NOT taking Qualley's come ons to him.......insisting on actually seeing George and if he's ok......and that morality is very eerily summed up AGAINST him (and Rick) in the line near the end by the Manson girl something like "if you grew up at a certain time, TV taught us to murder" (mentioned in my previous post also) - but that line should be said at Spahn ranch to Cliff ..........or am I reviewing the movie I wish I was watching?
That's why Cliff never mentioning to Rick about what happened at Spahn ranch at all - wtf how is that possible? - is to me the big flaw - it treats his moral choices we've seen as ........merely incidental, random. It's actually less moving, less complex and less interesting even than Pulp Fiction and it's philosophical ending
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Aug 16, 2019 12:22:12 GMT
That's why Cliff never mentioning to Rick about what happened at Spahn ranch at all - wtf how is that possible? - is to me the big flaw You've brought this up like forty times and I don't see what the big deal is... because: a. Maybe he did tell him and it just wasn't shown (and maybe Rick didn't really care).
b. How would this conversation go?
Cliff: I went to Spahn's ranch and some weird shit was going on and George didn't remember me. Rick: That's wild.
c. Maybe Cliff didn't feel comfortable telling him about it because it involved him using Rick's car to pick up a dirty hippy hitchhiker (Rick's favorite) and it led to his tire being slashed. Let's not forget that they have an employer/employee relationship on top of being BFFs.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 12:42:57 GMT
lol, only brought it up 3 times - and one of them was just to ask if I missed it. Geesh. I'm not sure how the conversation should go, I'm not going to write his ending for him - but if I was writing it, it would be more like the film exploiting their joint death wish thing like The Wild Bunch.
Cliff clearly could be killed at Spahn ranch on some level he has no fear of dying there alone and he has a kind death wish too and Rick drinking himself to death has it less explicitly but it's touched on ........I'm just saying they should get what they want.
If Rick was told and "didn't really care" why should I care about Rick then ......if he told him and we didn't see it why wouldn't Rick say "oh sh*t this is the Spahn ranch you told me about?" ..............what's the point of Cliff going through that great Spahn scene at all if it's only for a coincidental happenstance ending? Just too many things dependent on that point to me, and I let a lot of sh it go in movies all the time, but that one takes it from a movie about a guy and his moral code to something much closer to a farce. Ymmv
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Aug 16, 2019 14:38:47 GMT
Saw this the other day, really liked it. I definitely agree that it feels like Tarantino's most mature film to date, tempering his excessive stylization without losing his particular cinematic flair. Much of it was slow and contemplative, exploring the loneliest of faded stars with empathy and nuance. DiCaprio was absolutely fantastic, Pitt effortlessly charismatic (his is probably the closest to being an iconic QT character), and the wide array of supporting performances were all wonderfully eclectic and entertaining - biggest shoutouts to Qualley, Fanning and Pacino. After a calm, meditative two and a bit hours (by QT standards, at least) there was of course that violent, gonzo finale, and I thought it was vicious, funny and glorious in that Tarantino way. By the time the film closed on that rather beautiful note, I was hugely impressed.
By no means a perfect film. I think it's definitely overlong and a little too meandering at times, and I wish they'd done more with Robbie's Sharon Tate. Her performance was warm and intriguing, but she had shockingly little to do, and Tarantino had the opportunity to craft another fantastic heroine here. It's not my favourite QT, but it's certainly one of his stronger efforts that I've appreciate more the more I've sat with it.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Aug 16, 2019 17:44:03 GMT
Well where to start. This was surely something very different and in many ways very un-Tarantino, which is not a bad Thing as I liked that he gave this film a different Approach. It was also my most anticipated film of the year so of Course my expectations where extremly high wih it, especially since I am quite familiar with the Manson Murders myself. What is this movie? It is not a Biopic. This is the first Thing audiences have to understand before seeing it. It is a true love letter from Quentin Tarantino to Los Angeles and the "good" old days of Hollywood. And it is a personal love letter to Sharon Tate. Audiences and criticized it for the lack of a narrative plot it has. And they are Right, the film doesnt really. In fact there are many Scenes that could have been shortened or even cut when we just look at the narrative but it was not Tarantino's Intention to make a plot-based film. It is his Memory-piece. His "Roma" so to say. He emphasized on the characters rather than plot and Boy he did! Both leading characters Cliff Booth and Rick Dalton are extremly exciting and you Keep Looking Forward to see what this dynamic due is doing next. It of Course helps that the Performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt are undoubtly Career-best turns and absolutely Award worthy in every regard. Especially Pitt soaked his role up as he never did before. You Keep forgetting it is Brad Pitt you are watching on screen. And DiCaprio's greatest Moments is when he is playing his different characters. Exceptional Performances in any way. Margot Robbie perfectly interpreted Sharon Tate. No, she doesn't say a lot in the film. But the way she adapts the character in such lovely Details brought Tate back to life for at least a few Hours and it was such an angelic-performance by Tate to really nail the Person Tate was. The rest of the appearances are rather small…. many characters come and go when they pass the paths of our three leading characters. The most noteable of those small roles / cameos are for sure Bruce Dern who was extremly hilarious and Margaret Qualley who embodied the perfect "Manson Girl". Not to Forget the great turn of Young actress Julia Butters and also Mike Moh and Damien Leweis deserve a shout Outs for their very small roles. Al Pacino perfectly fits his role as well and it was intersting to see Dakota Fanning in a role like that. Another thrilling aspect of the film is the cinematography. Pitch perfect Images and camera ankles. Also the way Los Angeles is portrayed in dawn or night are among the most atmospheric imageries I have seen in a Long time on screen. The Soundtrack is absolutely Fitting the atmosphere and was well Chosen for that period, too. Great editing and writing, too. And then that ending came….. oh Boy that ending. Well, see it yourself. Don't expect a film with a clear plot line but expect a real journey in time back to 1969.
9/10
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 16, 2019 18:08:50 GMT
I'd agree - there's a famous critical idea "review the film you're watching not the film you wish you were watching" but OUATIH fails on that level for me specifically. The morality of this movie is a huge part of it and many don't see Cliff that way at all but QT does up to a point. Throughout the pic QT sets up moral dilemmas for Cliff what happened with his wife.......NOT taking Qualley's come ons to him.......insisting on actually seeing George and if he's ok......and that morality is very eerily summed up AGAINST him (and Rick) in the line near the end by the Manson girl something like "if you grew up at a certain time, TV taught us to murder" (mentioned in my previous post also) - but that line should be said at Spahn ranch to Cliff ..........or am I reviewing the movie I wish I was watching?
That's why Cliff never mentioning to Rick about what happened at Spahn ranch at all - wtf how is that possible? - is to me the big flaw - it treats his moral choices we've seen as ........merely incidental, random. It's actually less moving, less complex and less interesting even than Pulp Fiction and it's philosophical ending cliff would not have said anything. It was against his character. He is too matter factly with Rick. Do you really think he would want to explain why that person was in his car when Rick hated that type.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 18:30:23 GMT
cliff would not have said anything. It was against his character. He is too matter factly with Rick. Do you really think he would want to explain why that person was in his car when Rick hated that type. I don't buy that at all - it's like bending over backwards to cover a writing flaw......I love plenty of movies with writing flaws I don't see why people can't admit you can love this film and not love it all and it does something batsh it weird here. I mean people can like it but it's not "in character". Blow Out is one of my favorite movies ever and has a very stupid plot hole in it........that's what this is also. He could tell Rick without telling him who was "in his car" - the point is he's going back and he's gonna die like Pike died - Cliff being matter of fact is more "his character" than the moral choices he makes prior? Not to me ........that's a stretch imo. I think he's specifically a moral character up until then - then he's just a guy - there's no point in Spahn ranch then ......and Spahn ranch is the peak of the film
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 20:09:13 GMT
Not sure I get why people are calling this Tarantino's most "mature" film yet. Just because it has less violence than usual and ends on a somewhat elegiac note (that completely depends on one's knowledge of history, so it might not even have that impact with ppl not "in the know") ? It's weird to me how this and Jackie Brown are usually referred to as "mature" Tarantino when (as pacinoyes pointed out above) he hasn't ever made anything as emotionally impactful and thematically resonant as the philosophical ending of Pulp Fiction. Maybe I'd call OUATIH relatively restrained for Tarantino, but mature it ain't. If anything, it reveals just how little thought Tarantino gives to the writing choices he makes anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Aug 16, 2019 20:17:43 GMT
Not sure I get why people are calling this Tarantino's most "mature" film yet. What's so hard to "get" about someone thinking different than you? lol... Plenty of critics have used the word "mature" as well. Not saying I care about critics, but saying it's his most mature film isn't some sort of outlandish statement.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 20:25:25 GMT
Not sure I get why people are calling this Tarantino's most "mature" film yet. What's so hard to "get" about someone thinking different than you? lol... Plenty of critics have used the word "mature" as well. Not saying I care about critics, but saying it's his most mature film isn't some sort of outlandish statement. The thing I'm not getting is not people thinking differently than me, it's the reasoning behind it. I haven't read a single convincing argument as to why this film should be considered "mature."
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 16, 2019 20:48:10 GMT
That's why Cliff never mentioning to Rick about what happened at Spahn ranch at all - wtf how is that possible? - is to me the big flaw You've brought this up like forty times and I don't see what the big deal is... because: a. Maybe he did tell him and it just wasn't shown (and maybe Rick didn't really care).
b. How would this conversation go?
Cliff: I went to Spahn's ranch and some weird shit was going on and George didn't remember me. Rick: That's wild.
c. Maybe Cliff didn't feel comfortable telling him about it because it involved him using Rick's car to pick up a dirty hippy hitchhiker (Rick's favorite) and it led to his tire being slashed. Let's not forget that they have an employer/employee relationship on top of being BFFs. I agree with the latter. There is no way he would mention it to Rick.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 16, 2019 21:01:01 GMT
cliff would not have said anything. It was against his character. He is too matter factly with Rick. Do you really think he would want to explain why that person was in his car when Rick hated that type. I don't buy that at all - it's like bending over backwards to cover a writing flaw......I love plenty of movies with writing flaws I don't see why people can't admit you can love this film and not love it all and it does something batsh it weird here. I mean people can like it but it's not "in character". Blow Out is one of my favorite movies ever and has a very stupid plot hole in it........that's what this is also. He could tell Rick without telling him who was "in his car" - the point is he's going back and he's gonna die like Pike died - Cliff being matter of fact is more "his character" than the moral choices he makes prior? Not to me ........that's a stretch imo. I think he's specifically a moral character up until then - then he's just a guy - there's no point in Spahn ranch then ......and Spahn ranch is the peak of the film so you're saying since cliff didnt tell Rick about the ranch then the scene was pointless?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 16, 2019 21:04:59 GMT
I'm not sure how the conversation should go, I'm not going to write his ending for him - but if I was writing it, it would be more like the film exploiting their joint death wish thing like The Wild Bunch.
Cliff clearly could be killed at Spahn ranch on some level he has no fear of dying there alone and he has a kind death wish too and Rick drinking himself to death has it less explicitly but it's touched on ........I'm just saying they should get what they want. Why should they get what they want? I never really understood people criticizing a movie for what it isn't. If I were a waning, narcissistic actor struggling for relevance and if my stunt double told me that a professional acquaintance of ours that we hadn't seen in 8 years was living with a bunch of hippies and was happy letting them stay on his ranch in exchange for underage poontang, I'm not sure I would really care either. I would suggest that that was weird as hell before getting back to worrying about finding a suitable home with a pool in Italy. If you found Rick Dalton interesting as a character, you'd care about him regardless of whether he cared about somebody he barely knew. If you didn't find Rick Dalton interesting, you wouldn't care about him even if he were a saint. So the real question is, was Rick Dalton interesting enough for you to watch him or was he not? I don't know, what's the "point" of the segment where Vincent Vega hangs out with Mia Wallace? Not everything needs to have a point. Maybe it's just an opportunity for us to watch an interesting character in an interesting situation (if you did find Booth and the situation interesting, which you didn't necessarily have to). How much you learn about Booth and about the Manson family culture (as the movie shows it) from that scene is down to the audience member, but even that isn't requisite. A lot of the greatest movies have a lot of "pointless" scenes and shots. Again, I'm not saying you have to like the scene or the movie at all. It just sounds like you wanted the movie to be something and you're criticizing it for not being it. Whatever happened to seeing the movie for what it is and then criticizing it for where it failed? I don't admit it was a writing flaw because I don't think it's a writing flaw. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you haven't explained why you don't "buy it". Do you not buy Booth not telling Dalton about the ranch (or Dalton not caring) just because that made the movie different to what you wanted it to be?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2019 21:22:00 GMT
I don't admit it was a writing flaw because I don't think it's a writing flaw. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you haven't explained why you don't "buy it". Do you not buy Booth not telling Dalton about the ranch (or Dalton not caring) just because that made the movie different to what you wanted it to be? Yeah, this has confused me a bit as well. There are a lot of things to criticize in the writing of this movie, but Cliff not telling Rick about Spahn Ranch isn't one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:33:25 GMT
What's so hard to "get" about someone thinking different than you? lol... Plenty of critics have used the word "mature" as well. Not saying I care about critics, but saying it's his most mature film isn't some sort of outlandish statement. The thing I'm not getting is not people thinking differently than me, it's the reasoning behind it. I haven't read a single convincing argument as to why this film should be considered "mature." Needing in depth reasoning for a simple, broad descriptor given in other people's takes on a film is...something...and gives off a weird stand-offish vibe towards fans of it, but it's pretty self-explanatory regardless - if you're really confused why people are using that word, it's because the film feels impressively refined from a thematic and conceptual perspective, deals with adult and layered ideas in an intelligent, artistic way, and is not aimed at children in a way that has nothing to do with how violent or sexual it is (e.g. an average 11 year old would probably dig Reservoir Dogs if his parents let him watch it). Obviously not everyone is going to feel that way, especially for a film that's proving as divisive on here as this one, but there you go, not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2019 21:36:41 GMT
The thing I'm not getting is not people thinking differently than me, it's the reasoning behind it. I haven't read a single convincing argument as to why this film should be considered "mature." Needing in depth reasoning for a simple, broad descriptor given in other people's takes on a film is...something...and gives off a weird stand-offish vibe towards fans of it, but it's pretty self-explanatory regardless - if you're really confused why people are using that word, it's because the film feels impressively refined from a thematic and conceptual perspective, deals with adult and layered ideas in an intelligent, artistic way, and is not aimed at children in a way that has nothing to do with how violent or sexual it is (e.g. an average 11 year old would probably dig Reservoir Dogs if his parents let him watch it). Obviously not everyone is going to feel that way, especially for a film that's proving as divisive on here as this one, but there you go, not rocket science. I dunno, I think asking why people feel it's his most "mature" film is a pretty understandable question. Is it because it's decidedly less violent than his usual fare (even though it certainly isn't bloodless)? Or is it more of a thematic question? It's been tossed about as a buzzword so frequently that it does beg the question: what makes it more mature than, say, Pulp Fiction?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:36:58 GMT
ends on a somewhat elegiac note (that completely depends on one's knowledge of history, so it might not even have that impact with ppl not "in the know") Also, this is an incredibly dumb point. Schindler's List wouldn't have the same impact on someone if they didn't know the Holocaust happened/was real. Why does the quality of a film/scene of a film depend on the historical knowledge of some hypothetical ignorant viewer?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 21:37:15 GMT
I don't buy that at all - it's like bending over backwards to cover a writing flaw......I love plenty of movies with writing flaws I don't see why people can't admit you can love this film and not love it all and it does something batsh it weird here. I mean people can like it but it's not "in character". Blow Out is one of my favorite movies ever and has a very stupid plot hole in it........that's what this is also. He could tell Rick without telling him who was "in his car" - the point is he's going back and he's gonna die like Pike died - Cliff being matter of fact is more "his character" than the moral choices he makes prior? Not to me ........that's a stretch imo. I think he's specifically a moral character up until then - then he's just a guy - there's no point in Spahn ranch then ......and Spahn ranch is the peak of the film
so you're saying since cliff didnt tell Rick about the ranch then the scene was pointless?Should we keep this stuff in spoilers? If you think so, please add to previous posts, ok? If not, that's fine. Yeah, unfortunately it's basically pointless in the scheme of his picture - it's something QT does to set up his ending just for us (the audience) so we know who's who at the end but ..........
Cliff nearly got killed merely because he had to physically check on George - and he was willing to die right there, alone and no one would know - but now he's just going to let George be gouged and feasted upon by those vultures because Rick might get mad at him?
No way .........the Cliff Booth we've seen prior is a moralist in behavior - a non-judgmental moralist - he doesn't judge Qualley until he sees a reason to do so
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:39:54 GMT
Needing in depth reasoning for a simple, broad descriptor given in other people's takes on a film is...something...and gives off a weird stand-offish vibe towards fans of it, but it's pretty self-explanatory regardless - if you're really confused why people are using that word, it's because the film feels impressively refined from a thematic and conceptual perspective, deals with adult and layered ideas in an intelligent, artistic way, and is not aimed at children in a way that has nothing to do with how violent or sexual it is (e.g. an average 11 year old would probably dig Reservoir Dogs if his parents let him watch it). Obviously not everyone is going to feel that way, especially for a film that's proving as divisive on here as this one, but there you go, not rocket science. I dunno, I think asking why people feel it's his most "mature" film is a pretty understandable question. Is it because it's decidedly less violent than his usual fare (even though it certainly isn't bloodless)? Or is it more of a thematic question? It's been tossed about as a buzzword so frequently that it does beg the question: what makes it more mature than, say, Pulp Fiction? Well, I do like Pulp Fiction, but it doesn't 1. feel impressively refined from a thematic/conceptual viewpoint (at all) 2. deal with adult/layered ideas in an intelligent, artistic (unless you count stealing from Godard and/or being the loudmouth in your intro to film class) way. 3. feel aimed at adults who want something that requires them to think. That's just the first reasoning that comes to mind off the top of my head. I'm sure other people will have more to add
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2019 21:40:49 GMT
ends on a somewhat elegiac note (that completely depends on one's knowledge of history, so it might not even have that impact with ppl not "in the know") Also, this is an incredibly dumb point. Schindler's List wouldn't have the same impact on someone if they didn't know the Holocaust happened/was real. Why does the quality of a film/scene of a film depend on the historical knowledge of some hypothetical ignorant viewer? I'd say that the ending of Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is designed to be viewed with that historical context in mind. I mean, we'd have to ask someone who knows nothing of the Manson murders or Sharon Tate to get more insight into what someone would think of the movie without that in mind, but there's a reason that Tate is a character in the film in the first place and not, say, an entirely fictionalized surrogate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:42:20 GMT
Also, this is an incredibly dumb point. Schindler's List wouldn't have the same impact on someone if they didn't know the Holocaust happened/was real. Why does the quality of a film/scene of a film depend on the historical knowledge of some hypothetical ignorant viewer? I'd say that the ending of Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is designed to be viewed with that historical context in mind. I mean, we'd have to ask someone who knows nothing of the Manson murders or Sharon Tate to get more insight into what someone would think of the movie without that in mind, but there's a reason that Tate is a character in the film in the first place and not, say, an entirely fictionalized surrogate. Sure, just like Gravity's Rainbow is designed to be read with some knowledge of WWII and the Tarot in mind. Underworld is designed to be read with some knowledge of Cold War era America in mind. Etc. etc. etc. I'm not seeing why that reflects poorly on the quality of the work.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2019 21:44:34 GMT
I'd say that the ending of Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is designed to be viewed with that historical context in mind. I mean, we'd have to ask someone who knows nothing of the Manson murders or Sharon Tate to get more insight into what someone would think of the movie without that in mind, but there's a reason that Tate is a character in the film in the first place and not, say, an entirely fictionalized surrogate. Sure, just like Gravity's Rainbow is designed to be read with some knowledge of WWII and the Tarot in mind. Underworld is designed to be read with some knowledge of Cold War era America in mind. Etc. etc. etc. I'm not seeing why that reflects poorly on the quality of the work. I'm just arguing the point that Tarantino relies on the viewer to come into the movie with some knowledge of what transpired in August of 1969 before watching the film. Not saying it reflects poorly on him as a filmmaker or anything for requiring that.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 16, 2019 21:45:13 GMT
Just saw that. Liked it, didn't love it. I place it above H8 and under Kill Bill, maybe tied with Django. My top are RD, PF and IB. I think I need a second watch. For now, I give it about 7.5/10. I'll post again after a few hours. And after I finally read all the spoilers here
|
|