***ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD***
186,593 Views |
1255 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by aTmAg
I wonder why he gave Kurt Russel the narrator part in this, especially since he's in the movie. Would've been the perfect place to have SLJ narrate, as a throwback to Basterds.
OldArmy71 said:
Is there a good time for a bathroom break about an hour or hour and a half into it?
The best time is any time Margot Robbie is on screen.
Maybe I missed something, but her role in the film is merely to cement this to real events, and nothing she does is meaningful to the plot or the payoff
Change spoiler to sp
Thanks bunk!
Just got back. I am not a huge fan of Pitt or Leo, and I haven't liked any of Tarantino's movies except the first three. That said, I enjoyed this one. It provides good roles for the two guys. As others have said, the Bruce Lee scene was great, one of the best parts of the movie.
I am ambivalent about the ending.
As suggested by the "Once Upon a Time" in the title, the movie is about how movies are fairy tales.
The film is an homage to the innocence and wonder of making movies. Despite the inherent mundane silliness of dressing up in costumes so you can pretend to be someone else, actors and writers and producers want to believe that there is something special about the craft of movie making, something about this world of make believe that gives their lives significance.
Tarantino decides to emphasize the importance of this fairy tale world by saying that in Hollywood, the barbaric slaughter of some beautiful people did not occur; that some instant karma struck those who so well deserved it; that the fairy princess lived to have her baby.
[sp]In that sense, the movie is quite similar to Yesterday: it provides an alternate reality that we can all wish were true, and it says that movies really can change the world, that such mundane people can fabricate real fairy tale endings.[/sp]
[sp]My only complaint about Tarantino's decision to end the movie like that is that he's done it before. My Movie Rule #43: You get to do alternative history retributive justice endings just once.[/sp]
The problem if you do them more than once is that they become predictable. There were only two ways the movie could end. If Tarantino stuck with reality, then the movie would end with the grisly murders, though it would not be clear how he would work in Rick and Cliff. If he did the alternative ending, on the other hand, it is quite predictable that Rick and Cliff would be the instruments of revenge visited upon Manson's followers.
I did find the ending sweet and wistful. But that fairy tale ending is no match for the horror that was Charles Manson.
I am ambivalent about the ending.
As suggested by the "Once Upon a Time" in the title, the movie is about how movies are fairy tales.
The film is an homage to the innocence and wonder of making movies. Despite the inherent mundane silliness of dressing up in costumes so you can pretend to be someone else, actors and writers and producers want to believe that there is something special about the craft of movie making, something about this world of make believe that gives their lives significance.
Tarantino decides to emphasize the importance of this fairy tale world by saying that in Hollywood, the barbaric slaughter of some beautiful people did not occur; that some instant karma struck those who so well deserved it; that the fairy princess lived to have her baby.
[sp]In that sense, the movie is quite similar to Yesterday: it provides an alternate reality that we can all wish were true, and it says that movies really can change the world, that such mundane people can fabricate real fairy tale endings.[/sp]
[sp]My only complaint about Tarantino's decision to end the movie like that is that he's done it before. My Movie Rule #43: You get to do alternative history retributive justice endings just once.[/sp]
The problem if you do them more than once is that they become predictable. There were only two ways the movie could end. If Tarantino stuck with reality, then the movie would end with the grisly murders, though it would not be clear how he would work in Rick and Cliff. If he did the alternative ending, on the other hand, it is quite predictable that Rick and Cliff would be the instruments of revenge visited upon Manson's followers.
I did find the ending sweet and wistful. But that fairy tale ending is no match for the horror that was Charles Manson.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Leo was absolutely hilarious in this one.
Best Actor oscar?
I hope
Go see this in a theater bc 95% of the movies coming out soon are female power(!) heist flicks.
Yeah watching all of those previews was pretty discouraging. Not even one slightly interested me. Outside of Star Wars, I guess, although I had obviously seen that preview before and am still kind of burned out on that franchise after the last Jedi.
Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods
Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
677
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
I saw it this weekend, and it just didn't work for me.
It felt like Tarantino was over-indulging in all his Tarantino ways. There were so many references and allusions that I am sure film school kids will be breaking down this movie for years to come. To me, though, it felt like he is cramming stuff in that he wants to pay homage to. We all know he only wants to make 1 more film, and maybe that is hurting him a bit in this movie.
I also have a hard time with using true-crimes as a narrative entertainment. Its a hard line to define for me, because sometimes it works, but other times it just makes me feel weird, and this is one of the times that it kinda feels off to me. Those murders were pretty terrible, and to use the collective memory of them for humor just felt off.
I know it can be argued that by making Hollywood this beautiful memory he is paying tribute to those that were murdered, and by proxy the Hollywood that past away with them, but this also just feels overly nostalgic to me, as if we are supposed to look at the past through rose colored glasses, while being led by characters who more accurately represent the time an alcoholic, washed-up, narcissistic actor and a man who likely murdered his wife and got away with it. The whole thing just felt kinda tone deaf to me.
The acting was good. DiCaprio was awesome. There were scenes that really popped with great dialogue. BUT I am not a fan of the overall message of the movie, and feeling it left me with. I think Tarantino needs to stick to fiction, and he needs to get back to making movies that take place in the present. I haven't really enjoyed his historical movies as much (save for Inglorious *******s).
It felt like Tarantino was over-indulging in all his Tarantino ways. There were so many references and allusions that I am sure film school kids will be breaking down this movie for years to come. To me, though, it felt like he is cramming stuff in that he wants to pay homage to. We all know he only wants to make 1 more film, and maybe that is hurting him a bit in this movie.
I also have a hard time with using true-crimes as a narrative entertainment. Its a hard line to define for me, because sometimes it works, but other times it just makes me feel weird, and this is one of the times that it kinda feels off to me. Those murders were pretty terrible, and to use the collective memory of them for humor just felt off.
I know it can be argued that by making Hollywood this beautiful memory he is paying tribute to those that were murdered, and by proxy the Hollywood that past away with them, but this also just feels overly nostalgic to me, as if we are supposed to look at the past through rose colored glasses, while being led by characters who more accurately represent the time an alcoholic, washed-up, narcissistic actor and a man who likely murdered his wife and got away with it. The whole thing just felt kinda tone deaf to me.
The acting was good. DiCaprio was awesome. There were scenes that really popped with great dialogue. BUT I am not a fan of the overall message of the movie, and feeling it left me with. I think Tarantino needs to stick to fiction, and he needs to get back to making movies that take place in the present. I haven't really enjoyed his historical movies as much (save for Inglorious *******s).
Great video analysis.
Needs to stick to fiction? That's all he's ever done.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
677
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
I understand. That isn't worded right. He needs to stick to fiction with his characters. He has done the history re-write thing with real people, and given his tonal proclivities, it just feels in bad taste to me. The melding of fiction and fact is what I am saying he should move on from.
I'll go ahead and disagree there. Seeing Hitler's face turned into swiss cheese with bullets was pretty awesome.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
677
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Ha. I agree with that. But, the revisionist history stuff as a plot device feels tired. He has done it in 3 of his last 4 movies now. And in this film it feels more exploiting the event for shock.
I get that this movie worked for people and can see how, but just didn't for me. I don't think it's a bad movie, I just didn't like/enjoy it and I wish Tarantino would take his talents down another road.
I get that this movie worked for people and can see how, but just didn't for me. I don't think it's a bad movie, I just didn't like/enjoy it and I wish Tarantino would take his talents down another road.
I guess I'm dense. What revisionist history was there in Django? Or Hateful Eight?
Can we talk about the weird foot fetish thing QT has going on in this flick? It was a bit off putting and creepy to me.
I assume this is sarcasm.
If not, you'll probably want to check out every QT movie aside from Reservoir Dogs.
If not, you'll probably want to check out every QT movie aside from Reservoir Dogs.
Maybe I've never noticed before or have forgotten. I've killed off a lot of brain cells in my life.Brian Earl Spilner said:
I assume this is sarcasm.
If not, you'll probably want to check out every QT movie aside from Reservoir Dogs.
QT is not shy about his love for the female foot and every movie he's done has had at least one scene of a closeup of someone's feet.
Maybe because it was multiple times and what seemed like extended shots that it finally caught my eye.Bruce Almighty said:
QT is not shy about his love for the female foot and every movie he's done has had at least one scene of a closeup of someone's feet.
Here's a link to the actual pilot of "Lancer," the TV show that Leo is guest appearing on.
Leo is playing a character originally played by Joe Don Baker.
I remember this brief series mostly because it was so strange that the more educated of the two brothers wore turtleneck sweaters right out of the sixties.
Leo is playing a character originally played by Joe Don Baker.
I remember this brief series mostly because it was so strange that the more educated of the two brothers wore turtleneck sweaters right out of the sixties.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
677
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
The end of Django is revisionist revenge, just like in Inglorious *******s. The Hateful Eight is the one he hasn't done it in. So 3 outta 4 (including Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood)
You're reaching on Django IMO.veryfuller said:
The end of Django is revisionist revenge, just like in Inglorious *******s. The Hateful Eight is the one he hasn't done it in. So 3 outta 4 (including Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood)
It was good, but so drag ass. Could've been shorter. Leo was great, Pitt was Pitt. The action was great.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
677
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
That is a common view on what he is doing in that film. Most articles and reviews about OUTIH refer to Django in that way, even when they are raving about the movie and that storytelling device.
Before the finale came down, did anyone else wonder if Pitt's character was going to turn out to be the one that murdered Sharon Tate et al, after smoking the LSD cigarette?
TequilaMockingbird said:
Before the finale came down, did anyone else wonder if Pitt's character was going to turn out to be the one that murdered Sharon Tate et al, after smoking the LSD cigarette?
No. My only question was would the slaughter of the Manson family go down up at Tate's house in front of her or at Rick's house.
I saw this movie over the weekend. Truth is, it was a very long, slow-moving movie. No bueno...
Sucks that TC decided to book it out of Texags right before this movie came out. He was one of the guys who was just as excited as I was about this one, really curious to hear his thoughts.
TCTTS left? When did that happen? And why?
He got annoyed that staff locked the Marvel thread during comic con. And all because someone complained about Stranger Things spoilers.
He made a big post announcing his departure, but staff promptly deleted it.
He made a big post announcing his departure, but staff promptly deleted it.
He's done this before. He'll be back.
He's taking a break.
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
9h ago
14k
42:45
17h ago
3.6k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
20h ago
3.5k