Once Upon a Time in Hollywood *spoilers from post 356*

Ash.J.Williams

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is all good again between Quentin and Uma that her kid is in this?

i don;t think there was one, she said he nearly killed her a few times but i never detected any issues

Ash.J.Williams

adox wrote: »

True Romance was directed by Tony Scott, although Tarantino co wrote the screenplay I think.

Jackie Brown is his best film imo.

Pulp Fiction is great as well, very entertaining and hugely re-watchable. Reservoir Dogs is another classic and such a refreshing style of film at the time.

I enjoyed the Kill Bill films for what they were. Inglorious and Django are on the weaker side.

I really enjoyed The Hateful 8, especially the first half, which was beautifully shot. It did lose the run of itself a little in the second half.

jackie brown is on my list...it came out while i was still high on Pulp fiction, resevoir dogs and true romance and natural born killers so i didn't really get it properly then.

Ash.J.Williams

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

All the posts on here seem to be about Tarantino back catalogue instead of his new film which is the title of the thread.
I know it’s not out till Wednesday but has anyone seen it yet?? Anyone seen any reviews in the Irish media?? I See it’s been getting very good reviews in America. Do you think it will win oscars?? Surely Quentin is due a best director win?? Could Leo win another best actor?? Or Pitt win for best supporting?? Or Robbie win a best supporting?? Maybe it will even win best film?? Some reviews are saying it’s a masterpiece.

for every great review there's one by an angry woman asking us do we need QT anymore!

JP Liz V1

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i don;t think there was one, she said he nearly killed her a few times but i never detected any issues

I thought they had some issues over Harvey Weinstein

Bunny Colvin

Greyfox wrote: »

Cant wait to see this film, QT is one of the 5 most talented people in hollywood and nobody writes better dialogue than him. I'll definitely be watching this in the cimema as QT offers a unique type of film.

Pulp fiction is easily his best film to date. I would put Kill Bill vol 1 in second, I’ve watched over 400 martial arts films and the films final fight is far superior to any other martial arts scene. Volume 2 was very good but the ending was a bit flat compared to how Vol 1 ended

Django Unchained was fantastic and I thought the hateful 8 was terrible. DeathProof was a bit meh but enjoyed Jackie Brown, Reservior Dogs and Inglorious basterds. I like thinking of True Romance as a Tarrantino film as it felt like one.

Disagree on that one. I enjoyed The Hateful Eight more than Django.

Ash.J.Williams

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I thought they had some issues over Harvey Weinstein

as far as i know it was just the attempted murder

JP Liz V1

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

as far as i know it was just the attempted murder

only that :P

MfMan

eviltimeban wrote: »

If you think that's all QT movies are, I think you're missing something.

I actually think that's all QT films are; trying to find clever new ways to be hip and edgy, without any real depth at all. I thought, even watching it at the time, that Pulp Fiction wouldn't date well, and I don't think it has. Just a lot of guys and gals acting cool and spouting largely meaningless jargon.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

MfMan wrote: »

I actually think that's all QT films are; trying to find clever new ways to be hip and edgy, without any real depth at all.

That's kind of what I trying to convey on the previous page. Maybe not to that extreme but it's something about his work that stops me from taking him too seriously and rating him too highly.

Ash.J.Williams

QT for me is escapism to a parallel universe ....

Pulp fiction when i saw it in the cinema at 17 was the greatest movie of all time and it will never date with me because of the impact it had on me.

JP Liz V1

Jackie Brown is very underrated, fantastic performance from Pam Grier, I really enjoy SLJ in it

johnny_ultimate

It's sort of hard to tell what exactly Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood is for a good chunk of its running time. It defies genre classification in a way Tarantino's movies typically don't (although in many ways it is his third consecutive western - there's a lot of 100% western scenes in this badboy). Instead it's a rambling, indulgent collection of sequences loosely focusing on a handful of characters. That's no bad thing, because many of these scenes are pretty spectacular. One of the film's best sequence has Sharon Tate watch her own performance in The Wrecking Crew. Robbie has surprisingly few lines in the film, but in scenes like this she doesn't need them - the camera focusing on her facial expressions / body language (and, given this is a QT film, also her feet) shows this talented, excited and playful person living life to the absolute fullest. It's joyful on screen, but tinged with sadness since we know the real-world ending.

And, in a break from tradition, this also has the capacity to be legitimately sweet and thoughtful. It's a film where people reflect on missed opportunities, reminisce about the past (and possibly exaggerate it for their own entertainment, as is the case in Cliff's encounter with Bruce Lee), and worry about the future. The scene where di Caprio's Dalton chats with a young child actor (not actress) are maybe the most earnest in QT's entire filmography. And they're truly quite wonderful.

It is a film of transition, and one about ageing. Late 1960s Hollywood is realised with the sort of lavish style and production values only someone like Tarantino can afford, but there's a sense of progress pushing a lot of these people, cultures and films into irrelevance. All of Tarantino's films are love letters to particular eras, genre or indeed people - rest assured this is no different.

Then there's the ending. THAT ending.

This is truly a film that can't be assessed outside the context of the ending, because it so fundamentally and inescapably determines what the film ultimately is. Endings are always important, but few shape the meaning of the whole thing quite like this one does.

Here, I liked what it was aiming for but really disliked how it aimed for it.

So, the ending is basically an ultimate, alternative universe tribute to Sharon Tate - not allowing her killers to write history, and instead to allow her have the long life and career she deserved. When the title card 'Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood' appears, it underlines that this was a fairy tale - rewriting tragic history as a fantastical happy ending. It's a middle finger to the Manson family, and an unashamed bit of movie mythmaking.

But Tarantino's done that before in Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. Indeed, this films ending is effectively the same as the former's albeit within a different context. The sudden burst of cartoonish, comedic and ridiculous violence undermines what is thematically a really interesting and complex ending point. It bursts in as if from a different movie, but worse than that it comes across as Tarantino being sort of out of ideas. We know he can end a movie like this, and given how much of the rest of the movie tries to be something different than his usual fare it was super disappointing to me that he couldn't have come up with a more interesting or fresh way to do what he wanted to do.

There's something particularly disappointing about seeing a film where the ending, especially one that so dramatically underscores and defines what the film is about, so awkwardly misses the landing - leaving the cinema on a bit of a downer threatens to drown out all the good that came before. But on balance I really liked the film - it's the type of big, expensive, offbeat auteur work that's critically endangered in real life Hollywood. Maybe a revisit with the ending in mind will allow me to more comfortably settle into the final act's grooves. But for now it's a really cool and well-made film that fumbles when it most needs to soar.

pixelburp

I've heard chatter about the ending, and like your review Johnny (ignoring the spoiler text) said talk has never spoiled as to the details, but the fact there even IS chatter tells me it's ... impactful. A talking point for sure. Sometimes just knowing there's a thing, spoils the thing without knowing any actual details of the thing lol.

It's enervating because I know Tarantino and equally know he has the grace and tact of a sledgehammer, so it has coloured my enthusiasm to see the film - and presumptions of its content. Almost to the point of saying "F it" and spoiling it so I can make the value call. And like I said, only because Tarantino is a clumsy storyteller at times, and have suspicions what the finale involves.

Outlaw Pete

See this is being screened in Cineworld's IMAX also.

Would it lose/gain anything on that screen given it's shot in 35mm?

Lighthouse Screen One 35mm my second option.

Most likely see it Friday.... tomorrow night's Lighthouse 35mm is sold out.

delbertgrady

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

See this is being screened in Cineworld's IMAX also.

Would it lose/gain anything on that screen given it's shot in 35mm?

Lighthouse Screen One 35mm my second option.

Most likely see it Friday.... tomorrow night's Lighthouse 35mm is sold out.

I saw it in IMAX in Cineworld (a decision governed primarily by the convenient time, rather than any specific wish to see it in that format) and thought it looked and sounded great.

sp00k

I don't know what to think of this film.

I think had I not had a bit of historical context this one would have flown right over my head. Specifically,

the Manson family and Sharon Tate

.

There is a whole lot of nothing going on, but it's very visually pleasing. The acting is top notch too. But something just didn't click for me...

gmisk

sp00k wrote: »

I don't know what to think of this film.

I think had I not had a bit of historical context this one would have flown right over my head. Specifically,

the Manson family and Sharon Tate

.

There is a whole lot of nothing going on, but it's very visually pleasing. The acting is top notch too. But something just didn't click for me...

It is visually quite brilliant imo, the acting was excellent as was most of the dialogue. But I don't know I just didn't really engage with it. It was also overly long.
The whole mixing with the Manson thing didn't work for me, I'd have preferred if it was a made up story or a real one not a weird blend.

I loved Brandy

she was definitely a he btw

Decuc500

I saw this in the Lighthouse on beautiful 35mm. I was completely bowled over by the experience.

It's Tarantino's homage to sun kissed, neon lit LA. It's also a film about friendship. QT's most personal film. So many memorable scenes and moments. I also loved Margot Robbie's sweet and poignant portrayal of Sharon Tate.

The third act was nuts. The ending will probably polarize people. I loved it. I left the cinema on a high. How can Tarantino possibly top this?

Mr E

Nope. I know I'm in the minority, but I really disliked this. QT's worst movie by a long shot

The acting was good for the most part, and there was great chemistry between Leo and Brad, but there were only 3 standout scenes/sequences in the whole movie.
The rest was self-indulgent, with laid-on-thick 60s pop culture.
Some scenes were so drawn out that they'd prompt a quick look at the watch to see how long was left.
I saw a good few phones being turned on too, so I'm not the only one who was distracted.

Very few laughs too.

The first hour and a half was so drawn out that they had to

rush through a period of Dalton's life with Kurt Russell (?) narrating

.
Some better editing would have resulted in a more even pace across the whole movie.

It could easily have fit into 2h15 and it would have been all the better for it.

Thelonious Monk

Just got home from this. Right now I think it's one of the best films I've ever seen. Bravo Mr Quentin.

chopperbyrne

Saw this last night. Highly recommend it.

delbertgrady

I can see how it might polarise audiences, even in a minor way, but for me, it is, overall, the most satisfying Tarantino film since Jackie Brown, and probably the film of his to which I will return the most. Some have identified certain sequences that outstayed their welcome, or queried the lack of clarity in terms of flashbacks, etc., but there was never a moment where I thought it was flagging. It felt like the shortest 161 minute film I've ever seen. It carries many of Tarantino's traits - disjointed chronology, pop culture references, a veritable archive of period music - but its interweaving tales and character studies, as well as the city itself as a character in its own right, are more Altmanesque than anything he's done before.

The plethora of credited players that are listed in the trailer is almost misleading. Many of them (Bruce Dern, Dakota Fanning, Damian Lewis) have little more than glorified cameos. Margaret Qualley is excellent in what someone described as that "cute/creepy" Manson Family way. But this is primarily The Leo and Brad Show, with Pitt a standout in particular. Grievances concerning the lack of dialogue for Margot Robbie are misguided. Sharon Tate looms large over the film. There needs no six page monologue to tell us this.

The sheer volume of detail in the production design demands repeated viewings. It's not even a case of "blink and you'll miss it" either; things are often just populating the background to create a convincing world. At one point, when Cliff is driving, I spotted a billboard for Tanya Tanning Butter; it's not even remotely in focus.

Kudos for some great casting, even for minor scene-fillers, like Michelle Phillips (uncanny) and Cass Elliot. In fact, the John Phillips estate is doing well here, with three of his songs - José Feliciano's version of California Dreamin', the Mamas and the Papas' own (effectively placed) Twelve Thirty (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon) and Abigail Folger's rendition of Straight Shooter (the group's own version having been in the trailer) - all featured.

I've always had an interest in what happened at Cielo Drive and in that era in general, so this had me on side as soon as it was announced.
I'm delighted that it didn't disappoint. Already, I feel that I may come to regard this as my favourite Tarantino film.

kerplun k

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is all good again between Quentin and Uma that her kid is in this?

She's a great actress. I'm predicting big things from her. She's in stranger things. and kills every scene in that. She only plays a tiny part in this, but I instantly noticed from from watching ST.

Hector Savage

Saw this yesterday, really good film, really felt the nostalgia watching it, I can only imagine what it must be like for people who grew up in LA and were fans of films from that era.

Violence was a bit over the top though - even for Tarantino standards, but weirdly because it was so much so it wasn't disturbing - in fact most of the cinema was laughing ...

Then I went home and watched Reservoir dogs ! latest and first Tarantino film ....



edit - jesus, I was just reading about Sharon Tate !!! my God!!! :O

I need to see this again !!

IrishAlice

Really enjoyed this movie.

Brad Pitt's performance was the stand out for me, I found myself wanting more and more screen time for Cliff.

I had guessed the ending early on but enjoyed it none the less.

kerplun k

I’m gonna spoiler this whole thing because I think the less you know about this, the more enjoyable it will be. Full spoilers as well

Hollywood is getting nostalgic about classic Hollywood.
With a plethora of these type of films in that last few years including Hail, Caesar!, La La Land, Café Society and now OUATIH, Hollywood seems to be getting quite found of kissing its own arse and reminiscing about classic Hollywood.

But this is Tarantino, so of course I’ll go see it. Is it Tarantinos best film? Probably not, but the bar is set high, so that doesn’t stop this from being one of the best films of the year.

It’s hard to tie this to any one genre, it’s a western, it’s a comedy, a drama, its meta, it’s a fictional biographical, a fantasy, a fairy tale.
There’s a lot going on here. The opening scene sets the tone with actor Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and his stunt double/best friend Cliff Booth (Pitt), arguably two of Hollywood’s biggest leading men being interviewed on the set of Daltons western TV show, and right off the bat you get a sense of what type of film this is. Tarantino sets the scene like only he can, the nonchalant dry humour, the on-screen chemistry between DiCaprio and Pitt, the 1950s promotional cuts for Daltons TV show.

From there the film takes off, we get the classic Tarantino scene setting, the character interplay, beautiful shots of movie studios and cool cars driving through a neon lit 50/60s Hollywood, all over a perfectly selected soundtrack. All the neat stuff you’d expect from a Tarantino movie.

Most people probably know the story of the infamous Tate murders. I’ve seen a number of documentaries and content on the subject and I’ll admit that going into this I was expecting the film to tell Tarantinos version of that story, I was surprised at how much the film directs its attention away from Sharon Tate (Robbie), instead the film weaves her in and out of the story and we only see sprinkles of her and Polanskis life. Robbie is perfectly fine in the role, and excels in the one meaningful scene she has, and that’s just fine because DiCaprio and Pitt are on top form. DiCaprios shows many layers to Rick Dalton which I won’t go into but one scene in particular really blew me away. We’re watching a story within a story, DiCaprio, playing Dalton, playing another villainous character and is chewing out his lines and messes up on a tricky piece of dialogue, He switches back to Dalton and asks the prompter for the line, who then feds it back to him, he then switches back to the villainous character and finishes the scene. It’s all done flawlessly. DiCaprios chemistry with a young snobby child actress (Julia Butters) is also another stand out, the scenes they share together are all too brief and are real highlights.

Then we have Brad Pitt, his character Cliff Booth is fascinating. This is how you direct Brad Pitt in a movie. He’s just so f**king cool. I had to keep reminding myself that Pitt is 55. He plays a stuntman, but encapsulates what a movie star is supposed to be, he kills every scene he’s in just by being there, and there’s a great bit of mystery surrounding him regarding his wife which I’m glad was left open.

And then the ending…. Talk about subverting ones expectations.
Having some knowledge of the Tate murders, I was fully expecting the plot to play out as it did in real life and during the climactic scene it took me a while to register what was actually happening. I think it was at the point DiCaprio pulled out his flamethrower and toasts the remaining Manson member that I realised something was up.

We have the usual movie aftermath of such a scene, the ambulance and police show up, take statements, good guy gets taken away in ambulance, and two main leads have a friendly goodbye, but then we have the real ending. In the aftermath of the events, Rick Dalton haphazardly chats with neighbour Sharon Tate about the nights events, she invites him in, and we see them all greeting each other, Tates alive, Rick Dalton may get that career boast he needs, it’s a happy ending. The camera zooms out and the film ends rather oddly, like as if it’s just the beginning of a TV show or movie.

The title displays. Once Upon a Time In... Hollywood. Then something clicks in my head, I’ve just watched a fairy tale.

One big criticism I do have about the film is that we’ve seen this trick before from Tarantino, while maybe not a fairy tale, Inglourious Basterds pulled a similar stunt that does dilute the impact of this film. Having just watched Darren Aronofsky Black Swan again the other night, I remember I had the same criticism in that he’s done this before with The Wrestler, (performance artist sacrifices body for their art). And Like I said at the start,

it’s probably not Tarantinos best film and the movie as whole is probably not as good as the sum of its parts, but like all of Tarantinos films, it’s worth your attention, more importantly, it’s worth your undivided attention and a trip to the cinema.

Gardiner 2001

Saw this yesterday in Charleston. Really enjoyed it not overly blown away by end of it tho. Want to say thanks to the 2 women in front of me who had their mobiles on for half of the film, if Tarantino had of been directing that scene of you two on your mobiles it might of ended up badly for you. Seriously tho leave the feckin film people if your not into it or any other film and realise people have come to watch the film and not being distracted by stupid mobiles.

KilOit

Loved it. Could watch Brad Pitts character all day

BuffaloTengo

Incredible film.
I’m a big Tarantino fan, saw Reservoir Dogs twice in the cinema on release and have loved all his films since but this to me was almost on another level.
Definitely seeing it in 35mm in the Lighthouse screen 1 added to the impact. The cinematography and sound were both fantastic. They sure did play the film loud which showed off the great soundtrack.
The film flew by for me, even when there was not much happening in the way of action I felt I was spending time hanging out with these characters.
The set designs and backgrounds are done so well, it was an immersive experience.

alwald

I watched the movie on Wednesday without having any idea of the real story behind it and I have highly enjoyed watching it. Obviously I researched the real story afterwards and I love all the changes/twists that Quentin Tarantino made.
Leonardo and Brad were excellent in the movie and I would definitely watch it again...one of the best movies I watched in the last 2 or 3 years.