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

p to the e

There were several scenes in this movie that I initially thought were dragged out but on reflection I thought really worked. The best example of this is the simple scene of Sharon Tate watching herself, with glee, on the big screen. While this was happening I was just counting down the seconds when it would be over but afterwards I actually began to consider it quite sweet and honest and actually quite emotional when you realise that Tarantino decided to use the real Tate in the clip.

This clip didn't have the same impact if you weren't aware of her fate. When we see her we see the 60's rolled into one person. Peace, love and good times. It is said that the 60's were ended with her murder and her looking and crying at a movie of herself just reminds us of all of this.

I have to say I really enjoyed this movie. Yes I think Tarantino should have brought in an outsider to cut out a few minutes here and there but there were several scenes that were extremely tense (the whole ranch scene) and laugh out loud hilarious. Leo in the pool at the end had me in stitches.

Pitt was Pitt. You know you'll get a decent acting job but never anything that will blow you away. Leo was the star of the show. His ability to act as a character within a movie within a character in a movie could not have been easy. I felt Margot Robbie was under utilised but I'm biased as she will be my mine one day. Was nice to see Luke Perry in a decent but small role before his passing. Pretty sure I saw Cheech Marin in one of the saloons but don't see him credited on Wikipedia.

Thelonious Monk

Sharon Tate was supposed to be very shy and unassuming in real life so maybe that's why she didn't say that much

Beechwoodspark

So some reviews said this rivals pulp fiction

Not a hope

Too long and needed much more discipline. Too much self indulgence. Too long. Narrator was superfluous.

Cameos bit pointless

Ricks character wasn’t particularly likeable. Pitt was good, very laidback. At start I wondered was there going to be a sexual subtext to their relationship but no, strictly good buddies.

Lot of self indulgent messing around doing pastiches of spaghetti westerns etc. QT loves this but seemed bit pointless

Why caption the playboy mansion and various stars but not in the rest of the movie? Jarring.

The scene at the ranch should’ve been edited.

The last section (fight scene) is pretty jarring in terms of tone - took me a minute or two to think “ok so this is where we are going.”

Loved the soundtrack. Music plays basically throughout the entire flick.

overall despite my reservations I enjoyed the ride. I’d give it maybe 7 out of 10.

Dots1982

Struggled to take the movie seriously unfortunately. Did it even really take itself seriously?

Sudden Valley

Film was extremely comedic and just a bit too long for me. Ending felt like a cop out. A lot of memorable scenes so on balance I enjoyed it.

OU812

Just in from it. Absolutely loved it.

Tarintino has an L.A. trilogy - Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown & Once upon a time in Hollywood & they're all glorious.

Great acting, great story & great soundtrack. Kind of want to see it again to be honest.

Outlaw Pete

Seen it tonight too and loved it.

Could have watched another hour, easily.

RasTa

Hated this. No plot and about an hour too long. Not sure what the point of the movie was.

However Pitt and Leo where great and the 35mm version looked beautiful.

completedit

Really good watch and went quick even though was bursting to go jacks about 30 minutes in but I dunno, was slick and everything but type of film you'd want to have an idea of what you were watching. I know seems obvious but I actually didn't know what the film was about, obviously pretty soon I could see where it was going but I guess a lot of people wouldn't know the real story so the movie might have been lost of them.

I think before it started some more context should have been given about the golden age of Hollywood, hippy movement etc.

Sudden Valley

one scene that stood out for me was the weird throwaway scene with Bruce Lee. I have never seen Lee depicted as so arrogant and mediocre at fighting. From a film that had so few non-White actors (which doesn't bother me i hate forced diversity)its a pity that they dpeict him like that.

completedit

Yeh the audience were laughing at him even though he was a badass.

Ash.J.Williams

Sudden Valley wrote: »

one scene that stood out for me was the weird throwaway scene with Bruce Lee. I have never seen Lee depicted as so arrogant and mediocre at fighting. From a film that had so few non-White actors (which doesn't bother me i hate forced diversity)its a pity that they dpeict him like that.

Was that not the "Hollywood " depiction of Bruce lee?

Sudden Valley

I think both characters were the butt of the joke in scene - Bruce Lee for being arrogant and bradd Pitt's character for being sacked again.

Just thought it was strange conisdering a lot of real people depicted in the movie and only Bruce Lee and "The Family" were the butt of jokes, from what I can remember.

johnny_ultimate

Whatever about whether the portrayal of Lee works (for me it’s very much wobbling on the border between affection and parody), I do think the scene is there to alert the audience that not everything is *on the level* so to speak. It seems to me an exaggerated memory, with Pitt’s character entertaining himself as he carries out a menial task. It’s there to cue up

the more overt departures from reality that take place later

. Still don’t think the ending works, but the Lee scene to me feels a precursor to what happens later.

TiGeR KiNgS

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So some reviews said this rivals pulp fiction

Not a hope

Too long and needed much more discipline. Too much self indulgence. Too long. Narrator was superfluous.

Cameos bit pointless

Ricks character wasn’t particularly likeable. Pitt was good, very laidback. At start I wondered was there going to be a sexual subtext to their relationship but no, strictly good buddies.

Lot of self indulgent messing around doing pastiches of spaghetti westerns etc. QT loves this but seemed bit pointless

Why caption the playboy mansion and various stars but not in the rest of the movie? Jarring.

The scene at the ranch should’ve been edited.

The last section (fight scene) is pretty jarring in terms of tone - took me a minute or two to think “ok so this is where we are going.”

Loved the soundtrack. Music plays basically throughout the entire flick.

overall despite my reservations I enjoyed the ride. I’d give it maybe 7 out of 10.

If Harvey Weinstein was producing he would of pushed for a snappier pace and editing. The ranch scene was ridiculous waste of time. Reminds me a bit of George Lucas in the Star wars Sequels, no one had the power to reign him back, or just full of yes men.

Bunny Colvin

Really enjoyed this.

Loved the setting they created, the colour and music seemed to really nail the L.A experience in the 60's.

Leo and Brad were top class too.

A solid 9/10 for me. Definitely would be better viewed at the cinema rather than at home.

Duane Dibbley

IMO one of the worst Tarantino movies I’ve seen. Some great acting by Pitt and DiCaprio But that’s it.

Stephen15

Was at today and enjoyed it. Although it seems like the kind of film that would have to be seen in the cinema to get full enjoyment out of it and I did think it was a little too long at nearly 3 hours, I certainly didn't find it boring but there were one or two bits I felt were dragged out a bit but overall it was decent film which I would give a 7/10.

tunguska

Saw it tonight and Loved every single second of it. Didnt want it to end and i couldnt believe it when the credits started to roll, time flew by. The acting was top, especially from Brad pitt. Hope he gets an oscar nomination at the very least. A lot better than the Hateful 8 and right up there with Django and Inglorious. That said it wont be to everyones tastes, there were no walk outs at the screening i went to but id say its a possibility in some cinemas. 10/10 for me.

Deisler

tunguska wrote: »

Saw it tonight and Loved every single second of it. Didnt want it to end and i couldnt believe it when the credits started to roll, time flew by. The acting was top, especially from Brad pitt. Hope he gets an oscar nomination at the very least. A lot better than the Hateful 8 and right up there with Django and Inglorious. That said it wont be to everyones tastes, there were no walk outs at the screening i went to but id say its a possibility in some cinemas. 10/10 for me.

Spot on. A great tonic to the standard fare out there. Can’t wait to see it again this time in 35mm in The Lighhouse.

babybuilder

Saw it last night. Fairly slow paced but I still enjoyed the minuettes with Pitt and de caprio. Even though De caprio has longer exposure Pitts denouement seals the day. He's old school Hollywood charisma. What an actor!

IspeakcozIcan

Overall, I liked the film. Particularly the main performances. I enjoyed the speed of the film, very slow and lingering, I felt fully immersed in the time and place.

Unfortunately, the end is polarising. One reviewer describes hearing a cosmic zip in the cinema both times he saw it; audiences are halved and end up accepting it wholeheartedly or rejecting it.

I was not convinced and found it farcical.

My other main gripe was the portrayal of Bruce Lee. Set up to laugh at his expense in a mean way. Not surprised to read afterwards there is a criticism of it. Tarantino comes across as a defensive teenager in his response.

7/10.

Dots1982

babybuilder wrote: »

Saw it last night. Fairly slow paced but I still enjoyed the minuettes with Pitt and de caprio. Even though De caprio has longer exposure Pitts denouement seals the day. He's old school Hollywood charisma. What an actor!

It’s the role he was born to play....and has been playing since Thelma & Louise.

OU812

Dots1982 wrote: »

It’s the role he was born to play....and has been playing since Thelma & Louise.

Little bit of true romance Pitt in there too

Royale with Cheese

I'd be a fan of Tarantino but thought this was poor enough. Too many nods to this and that, general cinema **** and not enough of a coherent plot. I couldn't really have cared less about the story up until the final 20 minutes or so. I enjoyed the ending but it took far too long to get there where largely nothing of interest happened.

Man Vs ManUre

I rarely go to cinema but think I will go to see this. Is lighthouse cinema in Dublin the only one showing it in 35mm?? And why exactly is this a better experience that let’s say watching it in Vue in Liffey valley where I would normally go??

johnny_ultimate

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

I rarely go to cinema but think I will go to see this. Is lighthouse cinema in Dublin the only one showing it in 35mm?? And why exactly is this a better experience that let’s say watching it in Vue in Liffey valley where I would normally go??

IFI also showing it in 35mm, they’re the only two cinemas in the country that reasonably regularly show 35mm AFAIK.

The film was shot on film, so 35mm / 70mm is how the film was envisioned to be screened. Some of the appeal of 35mm is feel so kinda hard to describe, but it does have a discernibly different look and sound to it as well. Images have a harder edge to them than digital, with deeper, richer colour and contrast. It more directly reflects the classic styles, films and eras being paid homage to here.

Just in general most multiplexes in my experience have fairly haphazard or bog standard projection standards (haven’t been to Vue so can’t comment). IFI and Lighthouse put effort into projection quality so they’re generally the best places to see films in the city (and hopefully IFI’s imminent revamp will give it a much-needed boost in the comfort department).

Man Vs ManUre

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

IFI also showing it in 35mm, they’re the only two cinemas in the country that reasonably regularly show 35mm AFAIK.

The film was shot on film, so 35mm / 70mm is how the film was envisioned to be screened. Some of the appeal of 35mm is feel so kinda hard to describe, but it does have a discernibly different look and sound to it as well. Images have a harder edge to them than digital, with deeper, richer colour and contrast. It more directly reflects the classic styles, films and eras being paid homage to here.

Just in general most multiplexes in my experience have fairly haphazard or bog standard projection standards (haven’t been to Vue so can’t comment). IFI and Lighthouse put effort into projection quality so they’re generally the best places to see films in the city (and hopefully IFI’s imminent revamp will give it a much-needed boost in the comfort department).

Thanks for the great response. I’ll make the effort so to head in to town to see it.

dudara

Absolutely enjoyed this movie. It could have done with a little tighter editing, but I thought that DiCaprio’s performance was excellent. He truly is a great actor. Pitt was his usual self, but it worked here.

I loved the visual aspect of many of the scenes, the sun setting, the golden light, the neon signs at night, the cars driving. Visually and mood wise, there’s a lot to like. I get the impression that Tarantino has a lot of love for that era.

otnomart

Just seen it, so these are my first very thoughts.
Not a Tarantino fan here, so I hated the ending.

Loved the music and the photography.
Enjoyed Damian Lewis' cameo; if there is someone that can play Steve McQueen, that is him.
Liked Di Caprio's performance, but thought that Pitt phoned in his part (and looked terrible ! )