|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 14, 2019 4:45:16 GMT
What if it goes the way of American Beauty? That movie is dumb as fuck. This one is not. Ok, fair enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 5:57:05 GMT
As Ismael Muñoz said, this film is going to age really well. Definitely feels like the type of thing more people will greatly appreciate/reevaluate as time passes.
I think my one complaint is that the first 10ish minutes should’ve been structured differently (love the suggestion of opening the film with Pacino), but other than that, yeah, this thing is just ridiculously good. I want Kurt Russell to narrate random shit in my life.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Aug 14, 2019 11:26:34 GMT
Regardless of how you feel about the film, you can't deny that its huge opening was big win for cinema. Adults want to see movies, too! Aaaand starting Friday, it's already gone from my 12-screen theater to make room for Angry Birds 2, 47 Meters Down, and that "Jacob Tremblay says 'fuck'" movie.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Aug 14, 2019 13:26:30 GMT
Going to see this in a few hours, and having to wait two weeks longer than so many people to see it has finally raised my anticipation levels. Like with all of the last four Tarantino films, I'm hoping this is the one I will love as much as the Kill Bills.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Aug 15, 2019 7:38:41 GMT
Well, well, well...if this is what happens when I have no hype for a film by one of my favourite directors, maybe there's hope for The Irishman yet.
I honestly loved this. I walked out of the film with a big smile on my face and as I thought about the film more and more over the course of the night, I liked it more and more. I think what threw me most (in a good way) about this one was the level of warmth in the film. Considering where we all knew it was headed at some point, it was sorta like a big hug coming up to that point, and I kinda loved the alternate events ending. It worked perfectly well as far as I'm concerned. Turns out, if I was to use one word to sum up this film it would be 'sweet', and I never thought I would say that about a Tarantino film, but surprises are the joy of going to the movies.
It doesn't quite hit peak Tarantino for me (Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill's) as it's not without some issues. I thought the first act was a little labourious, and occasionally throughout the film your had some lazy, boarding on clunky dialogue, which I don't expect from Tarantino. Once the film kicked into high gear when Booth dropped off Dalton on set for the recording, it really started to soar for me.
Cast wise, Margot Robbie was sweet, but honestly she had little or nothing to do. The much anticipated performance from Al was solid, but really he had little or nothing to do. This is the DiCaprio show as far as I'm concerned, and as someone who isn't his biggest fan, I am delighted to say so. He was absolutely brilliant, and I loved his performance from top to bottom. It might even be my new favourite of his. I guess it's time to accept that I really only fully enjoy the mans acting when he's in fun mode. Pitt was pretty great too, and elevated his quieter part for sure, but he just didn't have enough of those big moments to shine like DiCaprio did. In terms of the supporting cast, I don't really see this one as being as strong as a normal Tarantino ensemble, but perhaps that's more so because most of the parts outside of the two leads were just so small. Margaret Qualley definitely shone and Julia Butters was lots of fun too. I suppose on the male front Emile Hirsch was nice in his role, but it was the ladies that stood out most when you leave the leads to one side.
So, I'm sure I'll have lots more to say about this film as time goes on, but right now I'm a happy bunny.
Edit: I also cant help but feel like Tarantino is taking the piss out of his own foot fetish at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Aug 15, 2019 15:57:45 GMT
Mid-tier Tarantino. Mostly works due to Leo and Brad's chemistry and their performances. Leo gets to perform while Brad gets to show off (he has the best scenes,IMO). They were great as the actor and his stunt double trying to get back in the game in a changing Hollywood. The first two hours is Tarantino at his most restrained and mature but also some of those scenes felt too long and made me think, "and the point is?". Once the film gets to Spahn ranch the trademark Tarantino tension builds in slowly. He brings his A game here and from this point to an explosive climax he killed it. I didn't mind that he Hollywood-ized a real life tragedy mainly because he took away the menace of the Manson family members and portrayed them as brainless oafs trying to commit horrible crimes just because they watched too many TV shows about people killing each other? . That said the time jump and the voice over narration was jarring. The movie is at least 15 min. too long and was in dire need of good editing. The costumes, production design and soundtrack were great though- 7.5/10
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 15, 2019 16:03:12 GMT
Mid-tier Tarantino. Mostly works due to Leo and Brad's chemistry and their performances. Leo gets to perform while Brad gets to show off (he has the best scenes,IMO). They were great as the actor and his stunt double trying to get back in the game in a changing Hollywood. The first two hours is Tarantino at his most restrained and mature but also some of those scenes felt too long and made me think, "and the point is?". Once the film gets to Spahn ranch the trademark Tarantino tension builds in slowly. He brings his A game here and from this point to an explosive climax he killed it. I didn't mind that he Hollywood-ized a real life tragedy mainly because he took away the menace of the Manson family members and portrayed them as brainless oafs trying to commit horrible crimes just because they watched too many TV shows about people killing each other? . That said the time jump and the voice over narration was jarring. The movie is at least 15 min. too long and was in dire need of good editing. The costumes, production design and soundtrack were great though- 7.5/10 I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Aug 15, 2019 16:21:31 GMT
Mid-tier Tarantino. Mostly works due to Leo and Brad's chemistry and their performances. Leo gets to perform while Brad gets to show off (he has the best scenes,IMO). They were great as the actor and his stunt double trying to get back in the game in a changing Hollywood. The first two hours is Tarantino at his most restrained and mature but also some of those scenes felt too long and made me think, "and the point is?". Once the film gets to Spahn ranch the trademark Tarantino tension builds in slowly. He brings his A game here and from this point to an explosive climax he killed it. I didn't mind that he Hollywood-ized a real life tragedy mainly because he took away the menace of the Manson family members and portrayed them as brainless oafs trying to commit horrible crimes just because they watched too many TV shows about people killing each other? . That said the time jump and the voice over narration was jarring. The movie is at least 15 min. too long and was in dire need of good editing. The costumes, production design and soundtrack were great though- 7.5/10 I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days. I was disappointed that he didn't bring Manson back. Could've used him if he was going for that ending. Would've been more a heroic and fairy-tale ending for Rick, Cliff and Tate.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Aug 15, 2019 20:58:13 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.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Aug 15, 2019 21:12:39 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. yikes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 21:17:30 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 21:21:36 GMT
Mid-tier Tarantino. Mostly works due to Leo and Brad's chemistry and their performances. Leo gets to perform while Brad gets to show off (he has the best scenes,IMO). They were great as the actor and his stunt double trying to get back in the game in a changing Hollywood. The first two hours is Tarantino at his most restrained and mature but also some of those scenes felt too long and made me think, "and the point is?". Once the film gets to Spahn ranch the trademark Tarantino tension builds in slowly. He brings his A game here and from this point to an explosive climax he killed it. I didn't mind that he Hollywood-ized a real life tragedy mainly because he took away the menace of the Manson family members and portrayed them as brainless oafs trying to commit horrible crimes just because they watched too many TV shows about people killing each other? . That said the time jump and the voice over narration was jarring. The movie is at least 15 min. too long and was in dire need of good editing. The costumes, production design and soundtrack were great though- 7.5/10 I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days. A big part of what makes the climax so effective and resonant is the disbelief (and anger and disgust) that those three numbskulls are the ones who did what they did. It wasn't some mastermind. That's part of the point.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 15, 2019 21:26:36 GMT
Reading these alternate endings is making me appreciate Once Upon a Time in Hollywood a little bit more.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 15, 2019 21:27:54 GMT
I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days. A big part of what makes the climax so effective and resonant is the disbelief (and anger and disgust) that those three numbskulls are the ones who did what they did. It wasn't some mastermind. That's part of the point. Eh, I think that's a cop-out, especially for someone like Tarantino, who doesn't normally deal in subtleties. Hardly anyone remembers the individual names of the murderers; they fall under the umbrella of Manson's name and image, so it's essentially tantamount to having the Inglourious Basterds taking out the Nazis in the basement bar and then calling it a day, rather than going for the big dog. Plus he already introduced Manson and the thrall that he held over his "family," so narratively speaking, he's already set up Manson as this adversarial figure, and coupled with his real-life notoriety, it makes sense that if you're going to change history, you have to bring him into the climax. As I said above, Tarantino is good at setting up dominoes to fall, but he tends to just knock them all over at once in one sweeping arm-gesture rather than actually follow through with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 21:32:52 GMT
A big part of what makes the climax so effective and resonant is the disbelief (and anger and disgust) that those three numbskulls are the ones who did what they did. It wasn't some mastermind. That's part of the point. Eh, I think that's a cop-out, especially for someone like Tarantino, who doesn't normally deal in subtleties. Hardly anyone remembers the individual names of the murderers; they fall under the umbrella of Manson's name and image, so it's essentially tantamount to having the Inglourious Basterds taking out the Nazis in the basement bar and then calling it a day, rather than going for the big dog. Plus he already introduced Manson and the thrall that he held over his "family," so narratively speaking, he's already set up Manson as this adversarial figure, and coupled with his real-life notoriety, it makes sense that if you're going to change history, you have to bring him into the climax. As I said above, Tarantino is good at setting up dominoes to fall, but he tends to just knock them all over at once in one sweeping arm-gesture rather than actually follow through with them.
Completely disagree. I don't think involving Manson himself would've added anything and actually would've made the bittersweet/sorrowful ideas of the ending wayyy too on the nose. But even outside of killing Manson not flowing well at all with what was set up, it would also be disappointingly near the same exact thing that Tarantino already did once with Basterds - which I do *not* think would be a good thing, given his track record of repeating himself. As they currently stand, the films are really different and working with entirely different concepts outside of a very broad "history changes" backdrop. Basterds is about propaganda and terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 15, 2019 21:36:21 GMT
Eh, I think that's a cop-out, especially for someone like Tarantino, who doesn't normally deal in subtleties. Hardly anyone remembers the individual names of the murderers; they fall under the umbrella of Manson's name and image, so it's essentially tantamount to having the Inglourious Basterds taking out the Nazis in the basement bar and then calling it a day, rather than going for the big dog. Plus he already introduced Manson and the thrall that he held over his "family," so narratively speaking, he's already set up Manson as this adversarial figure, and coupled with his real-life notoriety, it makes sense that if you're going to change history, you have to bring him into the climax. As I said above, Tarantino is good at setting up dominoes to fall, but he tends to just knock them all over at once in one sweeping arm-gesture rather than actually follow through with them.
Completely disagree. I don't think involving Manson himself would've added anything and actually would've made the bittersweet/sorrowful ideas of the ending wayyy too simple and on the nose. But outside of killing Manson not flowing well with what was set up, it would also be disappointingly near the same exact thing that Tarantino already did once with Basterds. As they currently stand, the films are really different. They're different beasts, but I honestly don't think the resolution of Once Upon a Time is any different than Django's. Tarantino just seems to think if he shoots his way out, it's a reasonable exit strategy, but I don't think it is. I think that he really missed the boat on the Cliff character in particular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 21:39:34 GMT
Completely disagree. I don't think involving Manson himself would've added anything and actually would've made the bittersweet/sorrowful ideas of the ending wayyy too simple and on the nose. But outside of killing Manson not flowing well with what was set up, it would also be disappointingly near the same exact thing that Tarantino already did once with Basterds. As they currently stand, the films are really different. They're different beasts, but I honestly don't think the resolution of Once Upon a Time is any different than Django's. Tarantino just seems to think if he shoots his way out, it's a reasonable exit strategy, but I don't think it is. I think that he really missed the boat on the Cliff character in particular. I respect your take but couldn't disagree more. Django is QT's biggest flop in my eyes and the ending only works on a very childish level. Hollywood feels like - by far - his most mature work yet, and I really have a hard time imagining anything else he does topping it. I'm glad there's so much discussion around the film either way. It's a great one to talk about.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 15, 2019 21:43:07 GMT
They're different beasts, but I honestly don't think the resolution of Once Upon a Time is any different than Django's. Tarantino just seems to think if he shoots his way out, it's a reasonable exit strategy, but I don't think it is. I think that he really missed the boat on the Cliff character in particular. I respect your take but couldn't disagree more. Django is QT's biggest flop in my eyes and the ending only works on a very childish level. Hollywood feels like - by far - his most mature work yet, and I really have a hard time imagining anything else he does topping it. I'm glad there's so much discussion around the film either way. It's a great one to talk about. I still think the second half of Django is the worst thing he's ever done (although The Hateful Eight has aged pretty poorly), but I just think that Hollywood is a sprawling melange of his best and worst tendencies, and what frustrates me is that I think he's capable of tempering the latter. The elements were all in play, but I don't think it hit the mark. Still an entertaining film, for sure, but for me it's not a great one.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 15, 2019 21:51:01 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....
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Aug 15, 2019 23:13:29 GMT
Adding my two cents - Ending didn't work for me. That it's exploiting a pivotal historical event with a blatant lie is a minor protest considering it's a movie and Tarantino after all, but it's done in a way that isn't very clever or following thru tonally or otherwise what came beforehand. It's an exclamatory ending, a hysterical one, and a cheap one before resting itself on poignance but at that point I was pulled away. It's a wasted surprise, as it's too much and too self-aware. What plays on the TV right before the attack: the host says - "Now, the moment you've all been waiting for!" You can almost hear QT snickering. If anything it's a jarring tonal spike compared to the rest of the movie, with the extreme slapstick violence and high strikes of comedy. And the very end, well, he puts a great score over it, ripped from Cable Hogue, and as an idea it's sort of a sweet ending sending him chimerically adrift, but it didn't connect right for me. I don't see why they'd introduce the hallucinogen if they weren't going to ambiguously frame that climax? You have the Bruce Lee fight which is some sort of what-if scenario meeting his previous set memories, and the fancy retrofit Great Escape bit, etc - so why wouldn't their movie-star-esque heroism be plated similarly? It kinda bothers the major theme by removing that previous contrast of internal character and narrative reality, bc without that texture, QT serves up awkward exult and laughter and a bloody mess... for what... Having said that I really liked the perfs and most of the movie too. But yea, see Hateful Eight for an ending that works!!
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 15, 2019 23:30:12 GMT
AMARA’s season is gonna be *real* interesting.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Aug 16, 2019 1:44:40 GMT
My letterboxd 5 stars review. I really, really loved. Will read your thoughts on the movie, it's a lot to unpack. There's some light spoilers at the end but I'll blank them in case someone hasn't seen and reads it. one more time (hopefully not the last), tarantino shows why he’s one of hollywood’s most singular voice, and he showcases a sensibility and good-taste to deal with very delicate, controversial questions — something i didn’t know he had in him. what an incredible movie. it’s got a touching sensibility, tarantino’s affection and love is felt in each and every frame. this is a beautiful and thought-provoking story of how art is humanity’s biggest refuge, where we can understand and stabilize our rocky, ambiguous relationship with time and life. it’s not only a love letter to cinema, but an affirmation of its value as the only thing that can keep its fans sane in times of crisis. cinema, art, fiction, those are the things that makes it possible to imagine and dream about the world we wish we lived in, and that’s how we can figure out how to get there. as anyone with a basic knowledge of contemporary cinema knows, quentin tarantino is widely known as a director of blood and guts, of revenge quests, of scandalous plots with unusual structures. so, in his ninth movie, circling around one of the most infamous, bloody and scandalous crimes of the 21st century in an era in which la lived ludicrously, he decided to mostly avoid all of those things. instead make a sensitive, colorful, groovy love letter to the city that made him a star, to the cinema he loves and to his personal heroes. even after subverting all those expectations, he delivered something that is thoroughly a quentin tarantino film. ouatih is a movie that takes full-advantage of tarantino's frenetic energy not to shock audiences, but to slowly captivate them. the picture follows its three main characters - two ficctional has-beens and a real about-to-be - not advancing a heavy plot, but getting into situations that flesh out their psychologies. it's character-based, laid-back and breezy, but also very dynamic due to the director's style. it makes you root for those people, even though only robbie's sharon tate is pictured as a truly benevolent, egoless figure. the dialogues are very sharp and the situations are just so, so engaging. you could watch rick dalton freak out, cliff booth drive around la, and sharon tate dance for hours and hours. it's fun, it has tension, excitement and emotion. it's incredibly acted, it feels vivid all the time. pitt is the mvp of the cast. his robert reford-esque charisma is a perfect fit for this washed-yellow, laid-back atmosphere. he's both sexy and decaying, just like the late 60s, and he can handle the humor and the action very well. it's a truly commanding performance that is always exciting to watch. dicaprio is deliciously maniac as neurotic faded actor, in a way you find him pathetic but you also feel joy when he's on his a-game. and robbie, despite her lesser screentime and fewer lines, builts an omnipresent character in a physical way (her voice-work is fantastic). sharon tate's aura of innocence and joy - a promise of better days to come - can be felt in every corner of the movie. and then, in the third act, well... there's still a lot to unpack, but let me try. if all the homages and recreations weren't enough, the final minutes of ouatih is tarantino's melancholic and yet surprisingly positive message that cinema and art are a way of relating to the world, to its changes and can be a mean to uplift the audience's spirit. the violence is well-done and, even despite (or because?) being so over-the-top, it feels earned and of good-taste.
it handles gracefully how sharon tate is a symbol of innocence lost, something that can only be saved through fiction because of how real life unfortunately unfolded its events. as the egoless, unscarred starlet on burst of becoming a huge deal, she represents a clean slate for a star system that was on its dying breath, a modern and good-natured way to approach art.
that she was killed by the hands of an insane clan of criminals in a way no one could’ve seen coming highlights her tragic nature, it’s the clash of pure and evil. that last shot with the title credits showing up as we hear tate’s gleeful voice is one of the saddest moments in tarantino’s filmography. saving sharon tate and stopping the manson cult of becoming this weird icon in western culture is the kind of happy ending, fairy tale that could only happen once upon a time in hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Aug 16, 2019 1:49:11 GMT
Mid-tier Tarantino. Mostly works due to Leo and Brad's chemistry and their performances. Leo gets to perform while Brad gets to show off (he has the best scenes,IMO). They were great as the actor and his stunt double trying to get back in the game in a changing Hollywood. The first two hours is Tarantino at his most restrained and mature but also some of those scenes felt too long and made me think, "and the point is?". Once the film gets to Spahn ranch the trademark Tarantino tension builds in slowly. He brings his A game here and from this point to an explosive climax he killed it. I didn't mind that he Hollywood-ized a real life tragedy mainly because he took away the menace of the Manson family members and portrayed them as brainless oafs trying to commit horrible crimes just because they watched too many TV shows about people killing each other? . That said the time jump and the voice over narration was jarring. The movie is at least 15 min. too long and was in dire need of good editing. The costumes, production design and soundtrack were great though- 7.5/10 I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days. I understand your opinion and I think it could've worked out really well, but in addition to what @redhawk10 has said, I'm really glad that Tarantino decided to minimize as much as he could Manson's and Polanski's roles in the picture. I couldn't bare the shitshow internet would be if they played major parts in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Aug 16, 2019 2:01:43 GMT
Also, forgot to mention but expected to see more of the Manson Girls. Qualley was quite good, sensual and, despite being a brainwashed psycho, she seems to have a good heart. As an actress, she still needs to grow, but that was a strong, solid performance. Also, Dakota Fanning was so menacing in her cameo. A stone-cold killer in a way I never pictured her. Really wish she was in the final showdown as the leader.
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Aug 16, 2019 2:41:06 GMT
Also, forgot to mention but expected to see more of the Manson Girls. Qualley was quite good, sensual and, despite being a brainwashed psycho, she seems to have a good heart. As an actress, she still needs to grow, but that was a strong, solid performance. Also, Dakota Fanning was so menacing in her cameo. A stone-cold killer in a way I never pictured her. Really wish she was in the final showdown as the leader. Agree on both! I didn't expect Fanning to be such a firecracker in her big scene. She completely steals that scene!
|
|