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

cdgalwegian

Can the thread title be adjusted for spoilers now please?

Unearthly

OU812 wrote: »

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.

It will be a director's cut of once upon a time in hollywood done as a mini series on Netflix. He had 4 hours and 20 mins of footage which had to be cut to about 2 and a half hours.

He did it with The Hateful eight which was made into a 4 episode mini series on US Netflix. It had about 30 mins extra footage.

Ash.J.Williams

Unearthly wrote: »

It will be a director's cut of once upon a time in hollywood done as a mini series on Netflix. He had 4 hours and 20 mins of footage which had to be cut to about 2 and a half hours.

He did it with The Hateful eight which was made into a 4 episode mini series on US Netflix. It had about 30 mins extra footage.

I'd say you could add another few hours onto that...the 4 hours was already edited

Unearthly

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'd say you could add another few hours onto that...the 4 hours was already edited

Yeah there was a few actors who had their parts cut like Tim Roth and James Marsden.

I know some people felt the cinema version dragged but I'm all for this :pac:

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Please feel free to post without spoiler tags from here on out. Obviously don’t read on if you don’t want any plot details spoiled!

El Duda

Tarantino is someone who would translate brilliantly into TV/Mini series format.

Hopefully when he's finished his 10th and final film, we'll then get 10 different mini-series.

Greyfox

Overall I liked it but that was due to Brad and Leo been brilliant in it, the story is only ok and drags a bit with about 15/20 mins of unnessisary fluff. I also think they were a bit disrespectful to Bruce Lee.

cdgalwegian

Two interesting pieces about the re-imagining of Sharon Tate as not dying on that fateful night. The first is more factual, the second giving more context (very well written):

https://www.inverse.com/article/58041-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending-explained-rewrites-sharon-tate-murders

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/29/20734546/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending-explained-real-history-manson-murders-sharon-tate

eviltimeban

I saw this movie on Tuesday and really had mixed feelings about it. I went from thinking it was the worst Tarantino movie to date (and this is from someone who likes Deathproof), to thinking that I had at least enjoyed it and the leads, so it couldn't be all that bad.

I've read a lot of pieces about which have helped put it into context. I do believe it needs another viewing to really to get to grips with it.

One thing I did find was, initially at least, the screen was very dark - even during daytime scenes. Not sure if that was just the screen I saw it on (Movies@Swords, usually grand).

The acting can't be criticised, it was excellent. I may have been expecting a lot more from it, and find that the pacing was rather slow and frustrating - lots of scenes of driving around, not much happening, no great "set piece" scenes like the opening of Inglorious Basterds, or the ending of Kill Bill 2. But maybe this movie isn't about that, it didn't need those scenes or that dialogue. Maybe Tate in the cinema watching herself is all the dialogue we needed.

My first thought of the whole "alternate reality" thing was that it was just a copy of IB. But perhaps it was more than that - a fantasy for sure, but rooted in something other than just a spectacle (which the end of IB very much was). It was rather fun watching Pitt, tripping balls yet making short work of the Manson murderers ("Are you real?") - we all need a dog like that!

I was fully expecting to see Tate get murdered in this movie (and wondered how it was going to handled), and when it became apparent this wasn't going to happen, it really threw me and I didn't know what to think. It made me question the whole point of the movie.

El Duda

I think this may be looked back on as his masterpiece.

****, that was a boring pile

El Duda

El Duda wrote: »

I think this may be looked back on as his masterpiece.

No. I've seen six of his, this was the least

Dots1982

El Duda wrote: »

I think this may be looked back on as his masterpiece.

I doubt that will come to pass. The opposite in fact.

Every QT movie up to this had a classic scene, even deathproof, this came up empty on that and many other things.

Ash.J.Williams

Dots1982 wrote: »

I doubt that will come to pass. The opposite in fact.

Every QT movie up to this had a classic scene, even deathproof, this came up empty on that and many other things.

So he has to do it every movie?

sydthebeat

Dots1982 wrote: »

I doubt that will come to pass. The opposite in fact.

Every QT movie up to this had a classic scene, even deathproof, this came up empty on that and many other things.

The whole movie is a classic scene. It's his most seemless movie since Jackie Browne, and doesn't rely on being a collection of vignettes

Dots1982

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

So he has to do it every movie?

It would have helped. The ranch scene is the closest it gets to it.

Dots1982

sydthebeat wrote: »

The whole movie is a classic scene. It's his most seemless movie since Jackie Browne, and doesn't rely on being a collection of vignettes

What what you call the collection of scenes where Leo’s character is acting in a play within a play?

sydthebeat

Character building obviously

Dots1982

sydthebeat wrote: »

Character building obviously

The way of building a character is to do it while moving the plot along with scenes that are relevant.

Considering he had the offers of spaghetti westerns in one of the first scenes and that’s what he ended up doing anyway then I’m not sure the character building or redemption of an actor storyline really went anywhere.

sydthebeat

Nah, if every scene has to be plot building, then stick to the mission impossible movies

Dots1982

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nah, if every scene has to be plot building, then stick to the mission impossible movies

Every scene in The Godfather is moving the plot somewhere so stop talking nonsense.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

The whole movie is a classic scene. It's his most seemless movie since Jackie Browne, and doesn't rely on being a collection of vignettes

Interesting. I got the exact opposite impression of what you said. I felt it was a disjointed set of loosely connected vignettes.

if the ranch, leo acting-within-the-movie and sharon watching herself arent classic scenes then the bar for classic scenes would want to be very high indeed

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

if the ranch, leo acting-within-the-movie and sharon watching herself arent classic scenes then the bar for classic scenes would want to be very high indeed

Two out of three of those scenes left me scratching my head wondering what the point of them were.

eviltimeban

Dots1982 wrote: »

It would have helped. The ranch scene is the closest it gets to it.

As per the comment above, I'm seeing the cinema scene being the most talked about in reviews and articles that I've read.

Not a bad achievement, for a scene with no dialogue, and the use of real movie footage which could've been jarring or take you out of the movie. But it worked.

It also highlights the point that perhaps this wasn't the "real" Sharon Tate in the cinema - this was the fantasy version who survived. Two different people, two different actors.

Agree with the similarities to Jackie Brown, which at the time was criticised for being slow and different from Pulp Fiction.

Where QT goes from here is anyone's guess. He has one movie left. What does he do with it?

Stallingrad

eviltimeban wrote: »

What does he do with it?

Same thing he always does?

Earthhorse

I have a funny feeling he's going to keep making movies after his "last" movie.

Mehaffey1

Just back from the cinema and I thought this was brilliant.

I do agree some of the scenes were a bit unnecessary but the movie as a whole went by very fast for 2 hrs and 40 mins or so.

The Ranch Scene with Pitt was exceptional as was the ending, I was laughing out love and didn't want it to end

fisgon

Thought this was wonderful - Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.

One of the things that made if for me was the lack of senseless, blood-spattering violence - violence is fine in a movie, if it is merited, but QT has a tendency to just revel in it and go too far. Here, he restrained himself, and allowed everything good about his film-making to come out.

A joy to watch, funny, clever, subtle, controlled.

fisgon

fisgon wrote: »

Thought this was wonderful - Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.

One of the things that made if for me was the lack of senseless, blood-spattering violence - violence is fine in a movie, if it is merited, but QT has a tendency to just revel in it and go too far. Here, he restrained himself, and allowed everything good about his film-making to come out.

A joy to watch, funny, clever, subtle, controlled.

The final act?

Always Tired

Definitely getting this on DVD when it gets released in december to watch again at Christmas, agree that it's his best film since Pulp Fiction. Didnt feel long to me and i loved the way they recreated late 60s California so believably. One of my favorite films all time is Boogie Nights and this ticks a lot of the same boxes.

And when I first hears what it was about I was like, I don't want to see that tragedy depicted on screen but obviously like Tate's family I had no idea what QT was going to do and I love what he did. Haven't had such a buzz off a film in a long time!

peteeeed

New version hitting US screens this weekend, 10 extra minutes

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/quentin-tarantino-once-upon-hollywood-new-scenes/

Relikk

peteeeed wrote: »

New version hitting US screens this weekend, 10 extra minutes

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/quentin-tarantino-once-upon-hollywood-new-scenes/

It needed 20 fewer minutes, at least, to begin with.

Always Tired

Relikk wrote: »

It needed 20 fewer minutes, at least, to begin with.

Not for me, I'm hoping the longer version is on the dvd.

Outlaw Pete

'Additional Footage' screenings of this start tonight and apparently that 'footage' bookends the film.

Here's it detailed:

The most important thing to note about the new footage is that none of it is actually in the film itself. The extended cut opens with two commercials that have been made to look like they might have aired on TV in 1969; each of the ads comes before the Sony logo that kicks off the film, and each of the ads is isolated by its own ultra-modern copyright slide (Tarantino must have shot this stuff, but you get the distinct impression that he didn’t personally supervise this amiable cash-grab). The first is for Red Apple cigarettes, a cute nod to the fictional brand that pops up throughout Tarantino’s body of work. Two square-looking actors stare into the camera, one after the other, as a narrator asks them if they “want to take a bite of a red apple.” The third person up is a young black woman with an afro, and she responds to the question by whipping out a cigarette and lighting it up with a smile.

Then comes a moment that some people have been waiting for since they didn’t get to see it in theaters this summer: James Marsden appears as a young Burt Reynolds during his TV cowboy days (it’s easier to appreciate than it is to believe), and lights up a Red Apple on the set of one thing or another. It’s a nice tip of the cap to the late actor, as Reynolds starred in Sergio Corbucci’s “Navajo Joe,” which paved the way for Rick Dalton to make a career comeback with the spaghetti western “Nebraska Jim.” Who knows, maybe Rick is one “Deliverance” away from getting to hate Paul Thomas Anderson one day?

The next ad is for Old Chattanooga beer, and it’s just spectacularly uneventful. Still, even that second TV spot helps set the tone for the film to come, as it attunes you to appreciate how “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is wallpapered in commercials from start to finish. Not only does Tarantino weave a rich tapestry of period-appropriate radio ads into the film’s soundscape, but Sharon catches a few trailers before her screening, the Manson girls are constantly framed against bus stop ads that contrast them against the mainstream, and the neon signs that light up half of Hollywood are given their own romantic montage as things shift into gear for the grand finale. It’s the full evolution of an idea that Tarantino has been kicking around since at least “Reservoir Dogs.” He’s always used ads as the texture of American time, but here they’re also tinged with nostalgia and endowed with the bittersweet promise of a better life — they represent the faded beauty of Rick’s world, and the unfulfilled promise of his dreams. L.A. is a town built on aspiration, even (or especially) when it makes you feel like everyone else has already gotten what they wanted.

The other batch of new footage comes after the credits, Marvel-style. The first and most exciting bit is an extended look at the pilot of “Lancer,” another TV western in which Rick memorably played the villain. In this long and very silly little bonus, we see the Lancer brothers (Timothy Olyphant and the late, great Luke Perry) arrive in town on a stagecoach, the latter dressed in an incredible light blue suit and top hat. There’s a lot of cheesy banter between them, as it seems they’ve just learned that they’re related. Little Mirabella Lancer (Julia Butters as Trudi Fraser) is, of course, the smartest one in the family, and she has some fun laughing at her new siblings before leading them off for a meeting with dad. It ends with flamboyant director Sam Wanamaker (Nicholas Hammond) calling cut as he rides a crane into the shot and praises Trudi for a perfect take, effectively returning the compliment she pays to Rick in the film. It feels like Tarantino messing around with an entire shooting day worth of Sony’s money, and leaves this “extended cut” gamble feeling like the studio’s way of trying to get it back.

Finally, the presentation ends with some footage that patrons of Tarantino’s New Beverly theater got to see over the summer. We’re treated to a longer version of the “Bounty Law” clip from the beginning of the film, as Michael Madsen’s Sheriff Hackett exchanges some flinty dialogue with our hero Jake Cahill. When that’s over, Jake rides his horse across town as we learn that this week’s episode of “Bounty Law” was brought to us by Red Apple and Twinkies.

Is that enough to justify another trip to the multiplex? On its own, probably not — if that’s all you’re in for, you might as well wait for home video or whatever Tarantino decides to cook up on Netflix. But the bevy of commercials that now bookend “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” help blur the line between reality and dreams even more than before, cementing the golden age of Hollywood (and Tarantino’s take on it) as a place that ultimately belongs to both and neither all at once.

cdgalwegian

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

'Additional Footage' screenings of this start tonight are apparently that 'footage' bookends the film.

Here's it detailed:

Thanks. Didn't read it though; I could easily have watched another hour, never mind 20 minutes extra- it was just such a pleasure to watch. I'll wait for the re-release in the cinema with extra footage.:)

Sleepy

I should be surprised by the love for this here but given the blindness of Tarantino's fans to his faults, I'm not.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is bloated to the extent that you'd wonder if he was just trying to live up to the run-time of Sergio Leone's similarly titled, and far better, film. It's not without it's positives: DiCaprio's performance is wonderful and, as always with Tarantino, the soundtrack is fantastic and it looks great but it really drags. I'm sure there's a better movie in there if an editor were to trim 40 minutes or so out of it (the awful Bruce Lee scene would be a good start and a lot of the driving scenes are far too long).

I loved the Bruce Lee scene

Ash.J.Williams

Sleepy wrote: »

I should be surprised by the love for this here but given the blindness of Tarantino's fans to his faults, I'm not.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is bloated to the extent that you'd wonder if he was just trying to live up to the run-time of Sergio Leone's similarly titled, and far better, film. It's not without it's positives: DiCaprio's performance is wonderful and, as always with Tarantino, the soundtrack is fantastic and it looks great but it really drags. I'm sure there's a better movie in there if an editor were to trim 40 minutes or so out of it (the awful Bruce Lee scene would be a good start and a lot of the driving scenes are far too long).

in your opinion

eviltimeban

There was a lot of driving in fairness.

branie2

I see it's on Blu-Ray now

cdgalwegian

Sleepy wrote: »

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is bloated

One man's bloatedness is another man's contentedness, in my opinion.
OUATIH was an exercise in self-indulgence, which many of us really appreciated, as a cruise down Tarantino's imagined memory lane.

Goodshape

Sleepy wrote: »

I should be surprised by the love for this here but given the blindness of Tarantino's fans to his faults, I'm not.

In fairness, I've not really enjoyed a Tarantino film since Jackie Brown. But I loved Once Upon A Time in Hollywood.

eviltimeban

Goodshape wrote: »

In fairness, I've not really enjoyed a Tarantino film since Jackie Brown. But I loved Once Upon A Time in Hollywood.

Nothing has been as good as Inglourious Basterds for me. That's only gotten better over time.

Sleepy

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

in your opinion

Of course it's my opinion, none of us can post anything else when reviewing a film?

cdgalwegian wrote: »

One man's bloatedness is another man's contentedness, in my opinion.
OUATIH was an exercise in self-indulgence, which many of us really appreciated, as a cruise down Tarantino's imagined memory lane.

What about his self-indulgence did you enjoy? The film reminded me of a good friend of mine who's one of those guys who can't tell a story in five lines if fifty will do. Even when the story is hilarious, you end up not laughing at it as by the time he gets to the punchline, you've grown tired of listening...

eviltimeban wrote: »

Nothing has been as good as Inglourious Basterds for me. That's only gotten better over time.

Would utterly agree with you there. Far and away Tarantino's best film imo.

peddlelies

Acting is top class from Pitt and Leo, Pitt especially. The scene he was walking around the camp trying to check on his friend was brilliant.

Goodshape

Have only really watched Inglorious Bastard's once, and really took against it for some reason.

Maybe I should look again.

peteeeed

Tarantino returning to Kill bill

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a30187442/kill-bill-3-update-quentin-tarantino/

cdgalwegian

Sleepy wrote: »

What about his self-indulgence did you enjoy? The film reminded me of a good friend of mine who's one of those guys who can't tell a story in five lines if fifty will do. Even when the story is hilarious, you end up not laughing at it as by the time he gets to the punchline, you've grown tired of listening..

Quote literally, all of it. Like I said previously; I could easily have watched another hour of such a high quality self-indulgent postmodern piece of cinema. This was a film of Tarantino's which was mined from his childhood memories, pieced together with a loose evocative narrative, meandering to a violent ending, but one based on wish-fulfillment of how one of his time's icon's life should have carried on. It was fully self-indulgent, yet full of technical skill in many departments; boring to some, mesmerising to others.

Always Tired

My DVD came on Monday, I am probably going to watch it at least twice between now and Christmas and then when my siblings are home gonna pretend I just got it as a gift and want to watch it again so I can make them watch it.

To me it's his best film. Not as iconic and significant as Pulp but I just love so many things about it. I wish I was in California in the 70s! What a time and place to be alive.

But most of all I just wish I was as cool as Cliff. Is it even possible in real life, probably not. Hopefully the repeated viewings will help.

I see there are some that don't dig it, feel bad for you squares but hey to each his own.