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

TinCool

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Brad Pitt is a lucky guy, but he is not a brilliant actor, at all.

He's not bad. He can be pretty wide ranging. Snatch, 12 Monkeys, Seven, Fight Club. All vastly different characters.

brevity

Tree of Life and Fury too.

cdgalwegian

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Not that it really matters, but as the characters in the film are based on real-life people:

https://people.com/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-actors-with-real-life-counterparts/?slide=7182397#7182397

A much better and comprehensive one.
https://reelrundown.com/celebrities/Once-Upon-a-Timein-Hollywood-The-Real-People-Actors-Who-Portrayed-Them

Dades

TinCool wrote: »

He's not bad. He can be pretty wide ranging. Snatch, 12 Monkeys, Seven, Fight Club. All vastly different characters.

I'd have said three of those bore a lot of similarity!

Though I don't mean to detract from what are still three iconic performances.

JP Liz V1

Brad Pitt won the Oscar

El Duda

I would've gone for Pesci but Pitt is still worthy.

peteeeed

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Brad Pitt won the Oscar

was a great list of nominees this year but i think brad deserved it. hes magnificent in this movie

eviltimeban

I think he got the Oscar for being Brad Pitt. He's done other, far better acted, roles in the past (even Aldo Raine was a more substantial part).

Not taking away from Brad, he was highly watchable in this movie, but I'm not sure he did much else other than being himself. He even said so himself. Hollywood just figured he was due.

Outlaw Pete

Loved the film and Pitt's performance was good, but an Oscar?

Nah, there were far more deserving male supporting performances, some of which weren't even nominated sadly.

santana75

First thing I said after seeing Once upon a time in Hollywood was that Brad Pitt is gonna win an oscar for that. It was a great performance and he deserved the award in what was a stacked category.

Man Vs ManUre

I do think both gave great performances, but I think Leo was better. His scenes with the child were wonderfully tender. The acting within the film were great scenes. And the ending scenes with the hippies, for both of them were hilarious, but especially Leo when he comes out with the weapon. Plus he sort of changed his appearance when he came back from Italy. Pitt was a worthy winner, and so too was Pheonix so Leo was not beating him.

pixelburp

I'll be honest, this had been sitting in my watchlist for a while, its length and Tarantino's known wandering style putting it to the back of the queue ... but on watching?

This might be Tarantino's most thoughtful script in a while, even if its surface still had that slightly meandering, indulgent style of his later work. Perhaps it could be even said to be the director's most introspective writing: here was a "story" (insofar as this film had one) about an ageing creative struggling to come to terms with obsolescence in a world quickly becoming alien. And instead of learning find a new niche, reminisces and struggles against that tide. Around that were silent vignettes with Sharon Tate, whose infamous murder became something of a signifier to a loss of (slightly mythological) innocence of an era. Both these threads suggested a sadness from Tarantino for a bygone time, but one tinged with maybe some amount of personal regret. 

Still, the "shaggy dog" storytelling, chaotic editing and random stylistic changes has worn itself out for me; obviously much of this is Tarantino's own calling card, but against that quieter, character driven script became too distracting. This might also work as an interesting double-feature with Jackie Brown, being as both films involve middle-aged people coming to terms with their life and status. 

El Gato De Negocios

Watched this over the weekend for the first time. A horrible load of **** imo, really disappointed as I am in general a massive fan of QT's work.

peteeeed

its a masterpiece , watched it for the 4th time , 5th soon

Klonker

I wouldn't be QT's biggest fan but u really enjoyed this. It was just a fun watch and I'll be honest, I really didn't see the twist near the end happening.

I might go back watch some of his earlier films now as they're a bit hazy to me now and I might have a new found enthusiasm for them.

Dots1982

Klonker wrote: »

It was just a fun watch and I'll be honest, I really didn't see the twist near the end happening.

Yeah, great “twist” alright... Just take something that actually happened and fcuk in some other ending.

The passion of the Christ with the cross being used Bruce Lee style to take out a scatter of Roman Soldiers is what we should have seen,

peteeeed

Klonker wrote: »

I wouldn't be QT's biggest fan but u really enjoyed this. It was just a fun watch and I'll be honest, I really didn't see the twist near the end happening.

I might go back watch some of his earlier films now as they're a bit hazy to me now and I might have a new found enthusiasm for them.

He's said in a couple of interviews, he was sitting down and saw a movie with Sharon tate in it and he got the idea that she deserves a better ending and so he worked backwards with the story

Klonker

Dots1982 wrote: »

Yeah, great “twist” alright... Just take something that actually happened and fcuk in some other ending.

The passion of the Christ with the cross being used Bruce Lee style to take out a scatter of Roman Soldiers is what we should have seen,

Well maybe not a twist in the traditional sense but I expected it to go along the lines of how it did in real life and that was in the back of my mind all through the film but then it went another way. So I expected something to happen and then something completely different happened, so yeah that's a twist.

Fysh

Dots1982 wrote: »

Yeah, great “twist” alright... Just take something that actually happened and fcuk in some other ending.

The passion of the Christ with the cross being used Bruce Lee style to take out a scatter of Roman Soldiers is what we should have seen,

I have some bad news for you about how Inglorious Basterds ends :pac:

chicorytip

There has never been a film made about Manson, the "Family"and the Tate murders. This is what this film ought to have been about. A straight type of docu-drama. It's an interesting story. Tarantino, obviously, is not the right man for that kind of job given his penchant for over the top comedic buffoonery. There is little that is engaging or memorable about this particular film other than some of the actors playing secondary roles. Timothy Olyphant, for example. DiCaprio, in particular, and Pitt are both dislikeable actors of very limited ability and are unappealing to look at for such a long running time given that both share the majority of scenes.

cian68

chicorytip wrote: »

There has never been a film made about Manson, the "Family"and the Tate murders. This is what this film ought to have been about. A straight type of docu-drama.

The movie is about a fading Hollywood star juxtaposed with someone who's just getting started. Wanting it to be a completely different movie feels an unfair criticism. A true story film about a pregnant woman being butchered might not have had as much mass appeal

eviltimeban

chicorytip wrote: »

DiCaprio, in particular, and Pitt are both dislikeable actors of very limited ability and are unappealing to look at for such a long running time given that both share the majority of scenes.

Yes, those two will never make it in Hollywood! :pac:

Ash.J.Williams

chicorytip wrote: »

There has never been a film made about Manson, the "Family"and the Tate murders. This is what this film ought to have been about. A straight type of docu-drama. It's an interesting story. Tarantino, obviously, is not the right man for that kind of job given his penchant for over the top comedic buffoonery. There is little that is engaging or memorable about this particular film other than some of the actors playing secondary roles. Timothy Olyphant, for example. DiCaprio, in particular, and Pitt are both dislikeable actors of very limited ability and are unappealing to look at for such a long running time given that both share the majority of scenes.

this quite possibly the worst post i've ever seen. Tarantino makes movies.

there is up 200 manson movies in existance.

chicorytip

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

this quite possibly the worst post i've ever seen. Tarantino makes movies.

there is up 200 manson movies in existance.

Your post simply makes no sense.
Try writing in plain English next time.

Dades

You just suggested QT should have made a straight doc-drama - even though he's also not the right man for that job, given his penchant for not making straight doc-dramas.

Soooo...

chicorytip

Dades wrote: »

You just suggested QT should have made a straight doc-drama - even though he's also not the right man for that job, given his penchant for not making straight doc-dramas.

Soooo...

Not necessarily QT but I think there would be an audience for a big budget, cinematic retelling of the events rather than something made for TV. Tarantino was in close consultation with members of the Tate family throughout the production so would be sensitive as to how they wanted her story portrayed on screen so what we got was a happy ending for her while her real life killers are portrayed as buffoons.

sydthebeat

Weird criticism that a "once upon a time" movie isn't true to what happened....

You're criticising the movie for being something it never claimed to be, or set out to be.

s7ryf3925pivug

chicorytip wrote: »

Not necessarily QT but I think there would be an audience for a big budget, cinematic retelling of the events rather than something made for TV. Tarantino was in close consultation with members of the Tate family throughout the production so would be sensitive as to how they wanted her story portrayed on screen so what we got was a happy ending for her while her real life killers are portrayed as buffoons.

Was he in close consultation with members of the Gailey family too?

s7ryf3925pivug

Generally boring and too pleased with itself. Films about film-making and Hollywood get inflated reviews because reviewers are usually into film-making and Hollywood. I enjoyed the scenes with the Manson family though.

pixelburp

A weird complaint to say that the film would have been better if it was an entirely different production?

There are plenty of documentaries, adaptations and "inspired by"s of the Manson murders. QT didn't need to contribute another and notwithstanding the ending, wasn't half as disrespectful or vulgar as I was fearing.

My reading of the inclusion of Tate's murder was to tie into Cliff Booth's (and, arguably, Tarantino's) feeling of obsolescence: Hollywood was changing & not necessarily taking actors like Booth with it. He was being left behind and the Manson murders have always had a sense of a change of era. A loss of innocence. I think this was Tarantino's most introspective film, projecting his own post middle-age angst into DiCaprio & Pitt's own ageing characters.

Ash.J.Williams

chicorytip wrote: »

Not necessarily QT but I think there would be an audience for a big budget, cinematic retelling of the events rather than something made for TV. Tarantino was in close consultation with members of the Tate family throughout the production so would be sensitive as to how they wanted her story portrayed on screen so what we got was a happy ending for her while her real life killers are portrayed as buffoons.

they were absolute bufoons in real life. Manson is an absolute scrote that deserves nothing. There are more than adequate manson movies out there that tell the story.

This movie was about a time and a place it was not a manson movie.

sydthebeat

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

This movie was about a time and a place it was not a manson movie.

100%

The whole point of this movie was to take manson away from the story of Sharon tate

eviltimeban

It was a fairytale, plain and simple. This is evident from the title. Tate flows through the movie like a flower in the wind, carefree and innocent. The ending was just taking the fairytale element through to it's natural conclusion.

Dades

eviltimeban wrote: »

The ending was just taking the fairytale element through to it's natural conclusion.

Exactly. And every good fairytale ends with flamethrowers!

chicorytip

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

they were absolute bufoons in real life. Manson is an absolute scrote that deserves nothing. There are more than adequate manson movies out there that tell the story.

This movie was about a time and a place it was not a manson movie.

... but why then do Manson, the Family, Tate and her entourage feature so prominently? It's a kind of con job really by Tarantino to draw the audience in expecting to see something that never occurs.

peteeeed

Dades wrote: »

Exactly. And every good fairytale ends with flamethrowers!

amen

s7ryf3925pivug

https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/film-tv/quentin-tarantino-plans-to-turn-fictional-western-bounty-law-into-a-real-series/news-story/a2e81c7d1d29df7e5782eb19e1f2d87b

A real series of Bounty Law is being produced.

Ash.J.Williams

chicorytip wrote: »

... but why then do Manson, the Family, Tate and her entourage feature so prominently? It's a kind of con job really by Tarantino to draw the audience in expecting to see something that never occurs.

He can do what we wants , he’s not a historian

sydthebeat

chicorytip wrote: »

... but why then do Manson, the Family, Tate and her entourage feature so prominently? It's a kind of con job really by Tarantino to draw the audience in expecting to see something that never occurs.

Manson doesn't feature prominently at all?

He has what, about 20 seconds in one scene in an almost 3 hour movie.

Obviously tate and her entourage feature highly as she's integral to the story being told.

Your criticism is off the wall.
The whole premise of the movie (apart from the aging movie star and the changes happening in Hollywood in the late sixties) is the reworking of the Sharon tate story to give her a bit of a fairytale ending.... Ergo the title of the movie.

But criticising QT for not making an historically accurate movie is just silly.

greenspurs

not sure if I liked it....

It is enjoyable to watch, but is a wee bit long and drags a bit, before the inevitable Tarantino ending ..

I like Pitt in movies, and DiCaprio plays his part very well.

mikhail

sydthebeat wrote: »

The whole premise of the movie (apart from the aging movie star and the changes happening in Hollywood in the late sixties) is the reworking of the Sharon tate story to give her a bit of a fairytale ending.... Ergo the title of the movie.

But criticising QT for not making an historically accurate movie is just silly.

The ending left a sour taste for me, a childish and cartoonish ending to a more mature and interesting story that utterly spoiled my sense of immersion, but I certainly don't think changing the story is inherently silly. I quite like Inglourious Basterds, for example, which pulls the same trick to fabulous effect. I figure there's a reasonable chance I'll warm to it to one degree or other when I get around to rewatching it.

Ash.J.Williams

i'm still annoyed there wasn't a single mention of the battle of the boyne in pulp fiction

sydthebeat

mikhail wrote: »

The ending left a sour taste for me, a childish and cartoonish ending to a more mature and interesting story that utterly spoiled my sense of immersion, but I certainly don't think changing the story is inherently silly. I quite like Inglourious Basterds, for example, which pulls the same trick to fabulous effect. I figure there's a reasonable chance I'll warm to it to one degree or other when I get around to rewatching it.

the absurdness of the ending is one of the best parts of the movie in my opinion. Ive never laughed so hard while someone was being 'flame-thrown' to death.
and the fact that Brads pitts character was tripping balls while fighting yer one was hilarious too. It brought a level of brevity that wasnt apparent in any of the preceding scenes... and was the perfect foil for hat unknown viewers would have expected.

the tension was building, the dread was building, and then we got that completely outlandish, hilarious finale.

It left me smiling anyway.

branie2

I got it on Blu-ray as one of my birthday presents today, so I'll probably watch it later on.

JoeExotic81

Finally got around to this. Hugely impressed. My god it looks fantastic, and the sound too! Didn't really know what to expect. I very much enjoyed it. If anything I could have watched more of Rick and cliff's capers.

dubstepper

I enjoyed this movie more than I though I would. It cleverly interweaves history with fiction, while take a few liberties on the way (Bruce!). I thought the relationship between Brad and Leo was believable. I also liked Leo's story of the fading star who ends up making spaghetti westerns. I would imagine the fall from the top is very hard. Especially when you see the new kid in town, and it explored it a little.

I'm surprised some people didn't liked the ending. Was it not almost playing with the audience? You want a Hollywood ending, well here's one. How the Manson family would have fared out if they were in a spaghetti western.

peteeeed

Books on the way in the same universe

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/quentin-tarantino-book-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-1234833633/

bnt

I watched this movie this evening, and was just bowled over by the production values. One little thing that I picked up on is that we see Sharon Tate buying a copy of Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles for Roman Polanski. This happened IRL, she gave it to him as she was heading back to the USA, thinking she might play the title character. It was the last time Polanski saw her alive, and he would eventually go on to make Tess in 1979 with Nastassja Kinski in the lead role.

De Bhál

Watched it last night, I enjoyed it.
Can't really understand people giving out about it being childish or cartoonist...it's a Tarantino movie.
Really enjoyed Pitt and Di Caprio.

flasher0030

bnt wrote: »

I watched this movie this evening, and was just bowled over by the production values. One little thing that I picked up on is that we see Sharon Tate buying a copy of Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles for Roman Polanski. This happened IRL, she gave it to him as she was heading back to the USA, thinking she might play the title character. It was the last time Polanski saw her alive, and he would eventually go on to make Tess in 1979 with Nastassja Kinski in the lead role.

All the production values in the world couldn't camouflage the monotony that many scenes carried. It was about an hour too long. The only memorable scene was Leo Di Caprio acting out his scene in the saloon. And the last 20 mins of course.