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

El Duda

Seeing this again tonight. Expecting to enjoy it a lot more.

Ohmeha

I enjoyed it as much second time round, not all of Tarantino's movies have held up for me on repeated viewings

spurious

Really couldn't watch the over the top violence close to the end. Actually had to close of my ears to the sounds too. This may be because I actually know someone had her head bashed into walls like that.

Laughed out loud at Rick chilling in the pool missing all the events only to be woken suddenly by your one. That was funny, as was the flamethrower. The dog was cool too.

Thought Pitt and De Caprio worked really well together.

El Duda

I'd defo add another star after a second viewing. Loved it. Managed to pick up on a lot more of the nuance and quirks of the performances.

The way it uses the Manson murders for context and catharsis gave me goosebumps at times. So well done.

Arghus

Was this a good movie? Yes. Was I sometimes bored by it? Yes. Did I sometimes wonder what the point of whole chunks of it was? Yes. Was I mesmerised by other sequences? Oh, definitely.

Ah, man. It’s been a few days since I went to see Once Upon a Time... and I still can’t fully decide where I stand on it. Part of me thinks in a lot of ways it might be amongst Tarantino’s absolute best. So much of it has a tone to it, a melancholy, even a gentleness that’s most surprising and gives the movie an emotional core that’s been missing from everything he’s done since Jackie Brown.

Tarantino uses immaculate craft these days to make live action cartoons. That’s fine; nobody does it better, but for long stretches of the running time here he dials down the patented wackiness and raises the level of genuine heart and poignancy, so that they mesh nicely together to create something that functions as a new riff on his established formula - and, dammit, when it works, it satisfies.

There’s a sadness to this movie that feels real. The main characters are washed up, past their best or essential usefulness and the world is moving on just fine without them. That’s sad. That’s a universal fear. It’s a very mature thing for Tarantino to have on his mind in one of his films and he pulls it off in his own fashion, not suddenly morphing into a latter day Bergman on anything like that, he just dials everything down a notch and allows us to meander with the two main characters through the story as they try to figure out their new places in the world.

The usual craft and care is present and correct throughout, but this film feels a lot more character driven than anything he’s done in years - and I think he cares about our main characters and is empathetic towards their struggles in this unreal world that they’re a part of. They are larger than life and often cartoonish, sure, but their struggles feel fundamentally real - not just fodder for some gimmicky plot device or sequence - and that helps root a great deal of the film in - dare I say it? - compassion. Which is not something I was expecting when I bought my ticket.

Largess is everything with Tarantino. In all of his movies you get so much of so much. So much running time. So much music. So much detail. So much dialogue. And often it’s dazzling, but it can also be fatiguing. Once Upon a Time is more low key than either of Inglorious or Django so the occasional feeling of someone trying to impress you constantly isn’t as insistent, but he can’t fully rein in his indulgent tendencies, so portions of the film do flab a bit to no definitive purpose. There were stretches of the running time that had me thinking that nothing much had really happened for a while. Yes, it was easy to keep watching, but sometimes it was more in the expectation that something mind-blowing was surely around the corner. But, in retrospect, it’s hard to say what shouldn’t be there. That’s the paradox I guess. It is indulgent, but it’s that indulgence that makes Taratino’s films so singular and even when they aren’t consistently riveting it’s still fun to go along for the ride.

And I’m still conflicted on the ending. Did I enjoy it in the moment? Fuck yes. If you are going to bring the violence, then really bring it. But... it was a predictable turn for the film to take. It did work and, yes, it was great, but, to a certain extent, I knew it was coming. The explosion of blood letting at the climax is a trademark and you, as a viewer, want it, but I’m still not fully convinced that the film needed it. It was out of whack with the tone of the rest of the movie and I can’t help what wonder how a different ending, more in keeping with the somewhat downbeat and relaxed feel that runs through the rest of the film, would have felt.

Here I go, committing the cardinal sin of reviewing a movie based on what I think it should have been, rather than what it actually is. So, enough of that now from me. Let’s focus on some of the lots of other good stuff that the film is full of -

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. The boys were absolutely fantastic. DiCaprio has never been better. He’s always been a good actor, but, let’s face it, a bit of an obvious try-hard at the same time. I didn’t feel that here. He seemed a bit more relaxed on screen than usual, playing the part with an equal mixture of buffoonery and sympathy which was absolutely perfect. Pitt was as cool as fuck. They both get their stand-out sequences - DiCaprio acting on set, battling against himself, and Pitt at the farm, battling against the terrifying spectre of the potential future.

I hate to say it but Margot Robbie made very little of an impression on me. I know that her performance of Sharon Tate - and her scenes of her cinema trip - are supposed to bring a sense of grace to the film, joyfulness even, and I’ve commended the movie for generally being full of adjacent qualities to those, but I just didn’t feel a lot of it when I was watching her, sitting there watching herself on-screen - mainly, I felt a little bored. I don’t blame her as an actress, I think she wasn’t given much to work with, which is a shame.

Ash.J.Williams

Arghus wrote: »

Was this a good movie? Yes. Was I sometimes bored by it? Yes. Did I sometimes wonder what the point of whole chunks of it was? Yes. Was I mesmerised by other sequences? Oh, definitely.

Ah, man. It’s been a few days since I went to see Once Upon a Time... and I still can’t fully decide where I stand on it. Part of me thinks in a lot of ways it might be amongst Tarantino’s absolute best. So much of it has a tone to it, a melancholy, even a gentleness that’s most surprising and gives the movie an emotional core that’s been missing from everything he’s done since Jackie Brown.

Tarantino uses immaculate craft these days to make live action cartoons. That’s fine; nobody does it better, but for long stretches of the running time here he dials down the patented wackiness and raises the level of genuine heart and poignancy, so that they mesh nicely together to create something that functions as a new riff on his established formula - and, dammit, when it works, it satisfies.

There’s a sadness to this movie that feels real. The main characters are washed up, past their best or essential usefulness and the world is moving on just fine without them. That’s sad. That’s a universal fear. It’s a very mature thing for Tarantino to have on his mind in one of his films and he pulls it off in his own fashion, not suddenly morphing into a latter day Bergman on anything like that, he just dials everything down a notch and allows us to meander with the two main characters through the story as they try to figure out their new places in the world.

The usual craft and care is present and correct throughout, but this film feels a lot more character driven than anything he’s done in years - and I think he cares about our main characters and is empathetic towards their struggles in this unreal world that they’re a part of. They are larger than life and often cartoonish, sure, but their struggles feel fundamentally real - not just fodder for some gimmicky plot device or sequence - and that helps root a great deal of the film in - dare I say it? - compassion. Which is not something I was expecting when I bought my ticket.

Largess is everything with Tarantino. In all of his movies you get so much of so much. So much running time. So much music. So much detail. So much dialogue. And often it’s dazzling, but it can also be fatiguing. Once Upon a Time is more low key than either of Inglorious or Django so the occasional feeling of someone trying to impress you constantly isn’t as insistent, but he can’t fully rein in his indulgent tendencies, so portions of the film do flab a bit to no definitive purpose. There were stretches of the running time that had me thinking that nothing much had really happened for a while. Yes, it was easy to keep watching, but sometimes it was more in the expectation that something mind-blowing was surely around the corner. But, in retrospect, it’s hard to say what shouldn’t be there. That’s the paradox I guess. It is indulgent, but it’s that indulgence that makes Taratino’s films so singular and even when they aren’t consistently riveting it’s still fun to go along for the ride.

And I’m still conflicted on the ending. Did I enjoy it in the moment? Fuck yes. If you are going to bring the violence, then really bring it. But... it was a predictable turn for the film to take. It did work and, yes, it was great, but, to a certain extent, I knew it was coming. The explosion of blood letting at the climax is a trademark and you, as a viewer, want it, but I’m still not fully convinced that the film needed it. It was out of whack with the tone of the rest of the movie and I can’t help what wonder how a different ending, more in keeping with the somewhat downbeat and relaxed feel that runs through the rest of the film, would have felt.

Here I go, committing the cardinal sin of reviewing a movie based on what I think it should have been, rather than what it actually is. So, enough of that now from me. Let’s focus on some of the lots of other good stuff that the film is full of -

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. The boys were absolutely fantastic. DiCaprio has never been better. He’s always been a good actor, but, let’s face it, a bit of an obvious try-hard at the same time. I didn’t feel that here. He seemed a bit more relaxed on screen than usual, playing the part with an equal mixture of buffoonery and sympathy which was absolutely perfect. Pitt was as cool as fuck. They both get their stand-out sequences - DiCaprio acting on set, battling against himself, and Pitt at the farm, battling against the terrifying spectre of the potential future.

I hate to say it but Margot Robbie made very little of an impression on me. I know that her performance of Sharon Tate - and her scenes of her cinema trip - are supposed to bring a sense of grace to the film, joyfulness even, and I’ve commended the movie for generally being full of adjacent qualities to those, but I just didn’t feel a lot of it when I was watching her, sitting there watching herself on-screen - mainly, I felt a little bored. I don’t blame her as an actress, I think she wasn’t given much to work with, which is a shame.

Just knowing sharons injuries made her scenes more than amazing

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/sharon-was-hanged-as-she-died/

Beechwoodspark

Good empire podcast including an interview with Tarantino worth a listen

cdgalwegian

This is a hard film to approach, mainly because of what many people might see as an atypical plotline, in that there is a sense of directionless meandering occurring- where there is generally just a sense of a timeline (which later becomes overt), with no orthodox character arcs to aid obvious plot development. The overall impression I had of the film was how I was taken in, and made to feel at ease, by whatever it was that was unfolding in front of me, with superb acting and amazing attention to detail. Made to feel at ease, which is then supplanted by Tarantino’s usual addition of dread/foreboding, culminating in his subvertive finale.
I think expectation has a lot to with enjoyment of this film. It’s hard, but the best thing to do is to try to forget it’s a Tarantino film; set expectations to zero, switch brain off, and enjoy. Not that the film itself is brainless, it’s far from that.
This is a very personal film, made for a broad audience. Its use of pastiche and cultural references, and subverting of history in a fantasy homage to Tarantino’s youth, makes this a postmodern tour de force. Films, movies- are the Moving Images. Tarantino’s expert direction puts these images in chronological order, giving them a semblance of a narrative that he is playing with. Like any work of art, its now out of his hands, and with ‘the death of the author’, we are the judges, the interpreters. As an aesthetic experience, ..in Hollywood was solidly a real pleasure to view. It lingers long after, and like much of art requires revisiting. Unless of course you didn't like it. Well, that's art for you.

Raconteuse

If you're like me and you are fascinated by Laurel Canyon, westerns, old Hollywood, the slightly murky (and literally smoggy) feel to 60s southern California... just the 60s in general - the clothes, hairstyles, accessories, cars, TV, interiors, the style of filming, even the advertising... and the music! Then yeah, you'll kinda like this one.

Beautiful piece of work. Absolutely adored it.

Didn't drag for me - just meant more of it to get lost in.

Earthhorse

I heard that Laurel Canyon was full of famous stars; well I hate them worse than lepers and I'll kill them in their cars. :mad:

Raconteuse

And Brad... over 27 years after Thelma and Louise, still got a butt that won't quit.

Murdoc90

Absolutely loved it. Acting superb, the cinematography (The neon sign scene with the Stones Out of Time playing. My god!!) Sharon Tate is almost like a ghost in the film, some really nice sweet scenes. I think it's almost perfect she has limited lines. I'm glad it ended the way it did. QT told the story of the murder without giving any of the 'glory' to the Mansons which was a nice 2 fingers. Loved the ranch scene, very chainsaw massacre-y. Going to watch it again this weekend, think it deserves a second viewing.

peteeeed

Raconteuse wrote: »

And Brad... over 27 years after Thelma and Louise, still got a butt that won't quit.

riiiight .... hes gone full Robert Redford

peteeeed

can this thread go full on spoilers now please ?

Man Vs ManUre

peteeeed wrote: »

can this thread go full on spoilers now please ?

Please NO. I still have not got round to watching.

Raconteuse

peteeeed wrote: »

riiiight .... hes gone full Robert Redford

Doesn't mean he doesn't still look good. He looks unreal. As does Mr Redford!

Absolutely though, the likeness was uncanny at times.

facehugger99

Conflicted by this one.

I wasn't bored at all during the film but have no real desire to watch it again anytime soon.

I liked the slow dreamy pace and the two leads were excellent. It felt like a movie about two guys that are past their prime and a world, which they no longer really understand anymore, has moved on without them. In some ways, it's a surprisingly mature film for Tarantino.

It's beautifully shot as on would expect and I could have happily spent the run time just looking at Margot Robbie's face.

The ending

totally caught me by surprise - i thought (and feared) it was a straight-up re-telling of the actual events. The way it played out was cartoon-y and cathartic - I really liked it.

As for the Bruce Lee bit, I can see why it upset some people but I still laughed.

Raconteuse

Loved the Bruce Lee bit!

peteeeed

Raconteuse wrote: »

Doesn't mean he doesn't still look good. He looks unreal. As does Mr Redford!

Absolutely though, the likeness was uncanny at times.

no i mean he's aged great and is a handsome son of a b****

peteeeed

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Please NO. I still have not got round to watching.

you've got 2 days

Raconteuse

Margot Robbie is just extraordinary looking. Perfect. An angelic, otherworldly beauty.
Moronic posts on After Hours about how she's "freaky looking" or some sh1t. Lol.

Leo has one of those changeable faces - at times morphing into Jack Black, other times channelling Jack Nicholson menace, and other times nearly as boyish as Jack in Titanic. All the Jacks.

Stallingrad

The good bits were flawless, Brad and Leo were fantastic. I liked the pacing, the nostalgia value and lack of CGI were sublime.

But not for the first time I walked out of a Tarantino film saying 'never again'. The totally over the top violence at the end undid a lot of the craft and skill that marked out the rest of the film.

Reverting to his pantomime gore porn it just went too far for me, as if he just could not help himself. There was great restraint earlier in the film (Brad with his harpoon then again at the ranch) where the sense of menace was much more compelling than the bash, bash, of the face off the mantelpiece and the flamethrower.

I appreciate the concept of re-writing history, and the revenge, but there was a great ending here for the taking, and it was missed.

Earthhorse

Yeah, I agree. The biggest flaw in his films (for me) is the tonal inconsistency. I understand the choice he made, I think he could have made a better one personally.

Raconteuse

Actually yeah I loved the bulk of it so much that I forgot I didn't like the ending. Tacked on. Tarantino-ness for the sake of it.

peteeeed

Stallingrad wrote: »

I appreciate the concept of re-writing history, and the revenge, but there was a great ending here for the taking, and it was missed.

That's the bit i loved the most

cdgalwegian

Stallingrad wrote: »

The good bits were flawless, Brad and Leo were fantastic. I liked the pacing, the nostalgia value and lack of CGI were sublime.

But not for the first time I walked out of a Tarantino film saying 'never again'. The totally over the top violence at the end undid a lot of the craft and skill that marked out the rest of the film.

I appreciate the concept of re-writing history, and the revenge, but there was a great ending here for the taking, and it was missed.

I must admit I was taken aback at how brutal some of the violence was at the end, which felt out of sync with the rest of the film. But on reflection, on a different level, it makes perfect sense. The whole film employed, and reflected, fantasy (amid the business of fantasy), while enrolling real-life background elements. It was a fantasy of

how Sharon Tate's life should have continued

, which was played out on the peripheries, while in the foreground the reality of fading stardom was played out. The other reality was of course that

Sharon Tate's life and stardom was snuffed out - brutally. In the fantasy, the violence involving the main characters was a crucial element that simply had to be told, and seen, as an inescapable truth- told through next-door-neighbour surrogates- within the fantasy.

Ash.J.Williams

The end was deadly stfu

El Duda

I had to laugh at a sanctimonious |Guardian journalist who said something along the lines of;

"I didn't like it.... I walked out when a woman got a tin of pet food thrown in her face"


Does it even count as a walk out when you leave 5 minutes before the and of a 2hr 40min film?!

peteeeed

i am looking forward to seeing it again as

even in the lightest parts of the movie there was the menace of the Manson family in the background building up to a brutal murder , it was hard to fully relax into it , the rewriting of history was such a great surprise, i was thinking when Cliff Booth was at the ranch that he would be killed and Rick Dalton would get his revenge but the way it played out was way better

peteeeed

mini series may be on the way according the Brad Pitt , expanding on the movie for streaming platforms

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/brad-pitt-quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-1203325140/

Ash.J.Williams

El Duda wrote: »

I had to laugh at a sanctimonious |Guardian journalist who said something along the lines of;

"I didn't like it.... I walked out when a woman got a tin of pet food thrown in her face"


Does it even count as a walk out when you leave 5 minutes before the and of a 2hr 40min film?!

She was obviously unaware the murders were carried out by women

Stallingrad

Loved the pet food flavours (Rat). Sorry for the spoiler.

batman_oh

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The end was deadly stfu

Was class I thought - perfect fate for those ****e bags!

peteeeed

peteeeed wrote: »

i am looking forward to seeing it again as

even in the lightest parts of the movie there was the menace of the Manson family in the background building up to a brutal murder , it was hard to fully relax into it , the rewriting of history was such a great surprise, i was thinking when Cliff Booth was at the ranch that he would be killed and Rick Dalton would get his revenge but the way it played out was way better

It's disjointed and random when you aren't aware of that back story. The only mention of Manson is at the very end when the people in the car mention "Charlie".

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

It's disjointed and random when you aren't aware of that back story. The only mention of Manson is at the very end when the people in the car mention "Charlie".

in my mind that's what differs a great movie from average, you learn something..

mikhail

Deleted User wrote: »

It's disjointed and random when you aren't aware of that back story. The only mention of Manson is at the very end when the people in the car mention "Charlie".

He's actually onscreen for one scene, the sketchy looking guy asking after the previous owner of Cliff's house.

Earthhorse

mikhail wrote: »

He's actually onscreen for one scene, the sketchy looking guy asking after the previous owner of Cliff's house.

Yes, but you'd only know that if you already knew the history.

Ash.J.Williams

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, but you'd only know that if you already knew the history.

He's one of the most recognisable faces in the world...he died last year and was literally everywhere...he over saw the most famous and barbaric murders of international figures in Hollywood...he is (and It sickens me) a recognised icon....there's really no need for qt to explain anything

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

It's disjointed and random when you aren't aware of that back story. The only mention of Manson is at the very end when the people in the car mention "Charlie".

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

He's one of the most recognisable faces in the world...he died last year and was literally everywhere...he over saw the most famous and barbaric murders of international figures in Hollywood...he is (and It sickens me) a recognised icon....there's really no need for qt to explain anything

Take it up with partyjungle then, I guess?

santana75

The amount of people I've talked to who have seen the film and had never heard of Charles manson and the manson family, is unreal. Steve McQueen aswell. They have no idea who they are????

ThePott

Did a somewhat lengthier video review if anyone cares to check it out, Review starts at 03:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26d7UHcFSpE

Went into spoilers about the ending too and my issues with it towards the end of the video too. As far as the Manson of it all, at least one person I know went to see it without having any idea it was a Manson movie. Saying people know who Manson is, is completely true. On the other hand the movie doesn't hand hold so you'd need to know a bit more about the story to fully understand it is a "Manson" movie.

OU812

Cant remember where I read it, but during the week I read online that Netflix are negotiating for a limited series based on the Brad Pitt character, to star Pitt & be written & directed by Tarantino.

That'd be something really interesting, wether it'd be pre or post events, there's a thousand true stories in Hollywood Cliff Barnes could be part of.

cdgalwegian

Are we doing spoilers yet?

peteeeed

i am in the YES camp

Shred

I still haven't seen this as It came out just when I went on holiday, I’m hoping to catch it today.

Regarding spoilers; I was surprised to find the ban hadn’t been lifted yet tbh!

cdgalwegian

Found a lovely poster of the film, and wondered if it was about; found it here- the retro one is the one I was looking for. Also has faux Rich Dalton ones.

https://wiki.tarantino.info/index.php/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Hollywood_posters

The White Wolf

El Duda wrote: »

I had to laugh at a sanctimonious |Guardian journalist who said something along the lines of;

"I didn't like it.... I walked out when a woman got a tin of pet food thrown in her face"


Does it even count as a walk out when you leave 5 minutes before the and of a 2hr 40min film?!

To be fair that sounds like an opinion piece; Peter Bradshaw, regular film critic for them, gave it full marks.

whiskeyman

santana75 wrote: »

The amount of people I've talked to who have seen the film and had never heard of Charles manson and the manson family, is unreal. Steve McQueen aswell. They have no idea who they are????

I went with my missus and she may have heard the name, but didn't know the back stories.
The whole film was really lost on her so and I'm sure she wasn't alone. A few people left after 2hours probably feeling it wasn't going anywhere.

I was never really a Tarintino fan, so can't say I appreciated it.

I'm sure those who love films and his films will enjoy it, but I feel a lot will go see it due to the big names and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Man Vs ManUre

I watched it today.
Am a big fan of Tarantino and although I don’t think there was much of a story to this compared to his other films, I still enjoyed it and was never bored. The acting was really top notch, especially the 2 leads. I guess Leo will be nominated for best actor, Pitt will be nominated for best supporting, Quentin for director and film also. And deservedly so.

Shred

I finally got to see this on Saturday with the wife and we both loved it. There's been a lot made of the lack of dialogue for Margot Robbie but I really thought she/they did an immense job in how Sharon Tate was portrayed, bringing a real sense of sadness for her as the film hurtles towards the anticipated finale with a growing sense of dread. Pitt/DiCaprio were both excellent too. The time absolutely flew by and

(despite the sudden explosion of cartoonish violence)

I found the

ending

to be really very moving and it's been on my mind a lot since; the way the title comes up at the end caps it off perfectly.
I'd really like to catch it one more time in the cinema before it leaves but the times look to be getting more infrequent from the next few days on so it might not be possible.