Duncan Idaho said:

---

It was a flashback to explain that Rick wasnt being a dick by not asking if he could be on the crew

---

I got it eventually, but that was my initial impression. Should add I drink beer while watching movieS.

As far as the music in the film, I was very moved by Tarantino's use of an old Stones song which I have not heard in years.




Being "out of time" refers to the friendship between Rick and Cliff, which seems to be drawing to an end, but of course also alludes to what really happened to Tate and her friends.

But then the magic gates leading to the Promised Land open up, reality fades away, and those people do not die the horrible deaths that history says they endured.

One of the best sequences of the movie, with all the signage lighting up.

The ranch bit was great because of the flat tire.

nm

Just got back from seeing the movie. But didn't pace myself well for drinking so had to use bathroom.
Was any reference made as to why the Manson "family" went to the wrong house other that just an alternate ending of the 1969 murders since before when they scouted the house they went to the correct one

Medium story short: Leo came out and accosted them so they changed their minds and went to his house instead.

Two of the "family" remembered Rick Dalton from their youth, and they decided that killing him--who "taught them to kill" through his role on TV--would be a kind of poetic justice.

Yo. I'm new to this forum and only joined because I am enjoying the discussion about Tarrentino's OUATIH. I have seen it 4 times so far. I intend to try and see it 10x before it leaves the theater. Actually got a Regal Theaters Unlimited pass mostly for this movie.

As you can tell, I hate it.

But seriously, this is my favorite of his movies this far (full disclosure: have not yet seen Death Proof).

It inspires me (never thought I'd say that about a Tarrentino movie), makes me laugh, even gives me the chills a few times. And it really gets better each time - in a way that few movies do. I liked it the first time, but I didn't know if I'd like it more or even as much upon repeated viewings.

It has often happened to me that a movie *doesn't* hold up (or at least as much) upon repeated viewings. And I really did not expect to like this movie as much as I do now. In fact, I still find it quite surprising.

And yet, I can see why many people won't like it. I think this is his most personal movie yet. And that very personal nature of this movie will either bore or p.o. many people.

But for me, somehow resonating with the personal quirks in this movie, it's a masterpiece.

Already pre-ordered the Blu-ray.

With the exception of The Hateful Eight, I have at least liked all of the QT flicks I have seen. But I never expected to feel *inspired* by one of his movies. Since it has, I have been doing a deep dive into all of his work, including getting the Director's Cut of True Romance and listening last night to QT's commentary.

And BTW, I'd argue that even though he didn't direct that one, that and OUATIH are his two most personally revealing films, and the most (as he calls True Romance), "autobiographical".

I also love the strong connections between OUATIH and Inglourious Basterds.

Anyways, my two cents...

Same here.

Gomer95 said:

---

I went and saw this for the 2nd time tonight because I wanted to see what I really thought of it and if I would like it as much the 2nd time. The answer is yes I LOVE it and I think it might be my favorite of all his films. I can't explain why I like it so much and think it's so cool and rewatchable for me and a lot of other people but I also totally get how a lot of folks could be bored most of the way except for the end.

I think the main leads are probably the main reason I like it so much because it's some great acting mixed with the whole Tarantino stereotypical movie qualities (lots of long conversations, driving to cool music, etc.) and then being reflective of a love of movies in general which I know is a quality of his as well.

I liked it a lot the first time, have listened to the soundtrack the last 2 weeks a lot and love it, and loved the movie tonight for the 2nd time. The almost 3 hours seemed like they flew by to me and that's with me knowing what was going to happen. I'm done now until it comes home but I hope he makes an extended edition. Maybe the official "flamethrower edition" lol.

---

I will add to my post above that I have one nit pick (and it gets less of that each time I see it):

I have never been a huge fan of voice over narration. And it almost seems that QT put it in here to piss off people like me.

But that's not even my main problem with it here. It's rather, I want to see more of the Europe trip, rather than hear about it. I'm hoping that will be in an extended cut.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

The whole bit at the ranch was so awesome because of the let down. Being a QT movie, I wasnt sure what to expect, but it wasnt what we got.

---

It was a nice tease. You're expecting **** to go down, and instead you get to laugh at Pitt knocking the smug hippy off his feet.

I'd never done much reading on the Manson family, so I had no idea about the story of the ranch and the old man still living there.

Saw it Friday. Amazing movie. Loved the slow burn and the ending was comedy GOLD.

Surprised this wasn't able to beat out Django as QT's highest grossing movie. (Domestic or worldwide.)

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Surprised this wasn't able to beat out Django as QT's highest grossing movie. (Domestic or worldwide.)

---

Well it ain't necessarily done yet.

It's 7 weekends in. Django was at $154 domestic at that point. Made $8M more after that.

It's still in a similar number of theaters 1400ish compared to 1500 for Django. Drops to 1000 the next week.

But yeah it is not going to pass Django even with $8M+ more.


I think the primary difference is probably release time - more competition in the summer. Django was released in late December and probably got an Oscar boost in mid Jan from 5 Oscar nominations including Best Picture. Summer release for this one would not get that kind of boost.

maybe that's all it is - cuz it did open bigger.

I like the ticket price inflated numbers, with those Pulp Fiction is a clear #1, the Django, then Basterds, then Once upon a time.

So uhh...maybe this was obvious to everyone else, but I had 0 clue this movie was about Charles Manson.

I'm 30 years old and just had a tertiary knowledge of Manson but 0 knowledge about the victims or his geographic presence lol.

Soooo imagine my frustration with the movie in what I thought was a completely plotless movie that climaxed with Leo fire flaming a screaming chick in his pool? Lol

I literally didn't understand the context of anything I watched until I got home and googled "wtf did I just watch l?"

Now, having read up on everything, I can see in hindsight the ominous tension those scenes with Margot Robbie was supposed to have (which went over my head during actual viewing lol).

I need to re watch it BUT in my defense, I re watched the trailer and I feel a little vindicated because outside of "Sharon Tate" (a name that had no significance for me) being mentioned, nothing else was given about Manson or a cult or murder plot. Lol man I haven't been this confused, frustrated or clueless in a movie...ever.

Anyways, I haven't gone through this thread yet but wasn't sure if anyone experienced the same thing?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The Spahn Ranch scenes didn't give you weird vibes at all that some weird **** was going on?

---

Well yea but I didn't know it was like a real thing. And all the tension kinda went out like a balloon when Pitt punched that guy and comically made him change his tire before driving off.

Like, I had no idea this movie had any basis in the real world. So to me, I didn't know what the point of the movie actually was when it kept cutting between Leo/Pitt and Margot Robbie.

I told this pretty young girl at my office to see it because I thought she'd really like it, but I hammered home that she had to read up on Sharon Tate/The Manson Murders first. I knew she wouldn't know a thing about that and it would be lost on her, thus not delivering in the way it should.

Totally get where you're coming from

I was wondering what it would be like to watch the move with no foreknowledge. I knew a little about Manson and the Tate murders, but hadn't read up on the details so I had no idea the Spahn Ranch was real either. One of those situations where the f'd up reality wouldn't seem credible as fiction.