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

eviltimeban

Hoping it'll be on Sky Movies and can watch it again tonight!

Relikk

peddlelies wrote: »

The scene he was walking around the camp trying to check on his friend was brilliant.

Precisely the time I turned it off when I tried to watch it again at home. DiCaprio is superb, but that's about it.

peteeeed

peteeeed wrote: »

Tarantino returning to Kill bill

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

Disappointed to hear that. I'd prefer if he tried something new again.

Greyfox

peteeeed wrote: »

Tarantino returning to Kill bill

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

Delighted to hear this. I'd put Kill Bill vol 1 in my all time top ten films ever and the Bride up their with Ripley and Arya stark as one of the best female characters in storytelling.

Theboinkmaster

Greyfox wrote: »

Delighted to hear this. I'd put Kill Bill vol 1 in my all time top ten films ever and the Bride up their with Ripley and Arya stark as one of the best female characters in storytelling.

isn't he only meant to do 10 films? That's a shame he'd go back there, I'd prefer something original from him.

El Duda

This won't be his 10th and final film. This will be Kill Bill Part 3. He won't count it as number 10.

artvanderlay

Goodshape wrote: »

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

Maybe I should look again.

Don't bother. It's a nasty movie. I don't like him rewriting history like that; it's borderline offensive. Brad's sticky-out-chin performance was annoying too. And Quentin giving a role to a douche like Eli Roth only made me question Tarantino's judgement even more. The scene in the bar was the only good thing about it.

sydthebeat

artvanderlay wrote: »

Don't bother. It's a nasty movie. I don't like him rewriting history like that; it's borderline offensive. Brad's sticky-out-chin performance was annoying too. And Quentin giving a role to a douche like Eli Roth only made me question Tarantino's judgement even more. The scene in the bar was the only good thing about it.

The opening scene is a masterpiece

mikecope

Great movie, will definitely watch it again. Really captured the look and feel of LA in 1969, a feast for the eyes if you're interested in that time and place.

Ash.J.Williams

artvanderlay wrote: »

Don't bother. It's a nasty movie. I don't like him rewriting history like that; it's borderline offensive. Brad's sticky-out-chin performance was annoying too. And Quentin giving a role to a douche like Eli Roth only made me question Tarantino's judgement even more. The scene in the bar was the only good thing about it.

Tell me this, how can a work of fiction rewrite history? it's actually impossible.

Goodshape

artvanderlay wrote: »

Don't bother. It's a nasty movie. I don't like him rewriting history like that; it's borderline offensive. Brad's sticky-out-chin performance was annoying too. And Quentin giving a role to a douche like Eli Roth only made me question Tarantino's judgement even more. The scene in the bar was the only good thing about it.

Yeah, that's pretty much the impression I got from my first viewing. Although I'm willing to give it another look! Keep hearing it's [one of] his best.

El Duda

Inglorious has 2 of Tarantino's greatest ever scenes and not a lot else imo. Absolute slog on a rewatch.

Mizu_Ger

I finally got around to watching OUATIH last night. I managed to avoid everything but the basics of the plot. Having watched it now, it's I can understand how I managed to avoid so much. it's not really easy to summarise what happens. A very breezy atmospheric film. Wasn't what I was expecting, but i enjoyed it. It seemed a bit slight on first viewing, but I would expect to find more on repeat viewings. The transition from an old way of life to a less innocent outlook was handled nicely.

One thing about the ending (spoilers!)...


When Rick was invited up to the Tate house after the attack I had it in my head that the actual Manson murders were yet to happen (I didn't remember the specifics of who exactly carried out the attack). So that Rick got out alive, but was walking right back to his death. He'd been on a downward trajectory for much of the film and I thought there was some kind of perverse humour irony) in the ending. Did anyone else think this? Seems I took it completely the wrong way!

bennyl10

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

I finally got around to watching OUATIH last night. I managed to avoid everything but the basics of the plot. Having watched it now, it's I can understand how I managed to avoid so much. it's not really easy to summarise what happens. A very breezy atmospheric film. Wasn't what I was expecting, but i enjoyed it. It seemed a bit slight on first viewing, but I would expect to find more on repeat viewings. The transition from an old way of life to a less innocent outlook was handled nicely.

One thing about the ending (spoilers!)...


When Rick was invited up to the Tate house after the attack I had it in my head that the actual Manson murders were yet to happen (I didn't remember the specifics of who exactly carried out the attack). So that Rick got out alive, but was walking right back to his death. He'd been on a downward trajectory for much of the film and I thought there was some kind of perverse humour irony) in the ending. Did anyone else think this? Seems I took it completely the wrong way!

That’s a nice take. But the ones who were taken out in Ricks house are the people who committed the murders.

Mehaffey1

Back watching this for the second time now, best movie of the year for me

Dades

bennyl10 wrote: »

That’s a nice take. But the ones who were taken out in Ricks house are the people who committed the murders.

I really liked the alternative history aspect of it. That was a nice twist in a very straight story.

Kill Bill 1 & 2 were all style over substance, even for Tarantino.

Hopefully it's not actually the case that he will be pursuing that avenue.

"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" was pretty good - but a fair bit of pointless meandering occurred therein.

cdgalwegian

glasso wrote: »

"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" was pretty good - but a fair bit of pointless meandering occurred therein.

OUATIH is just like the 'spur-of-the-moment' trips, with no real aim in mind, except to experience. Sometimes, they're duds, sometimes they're the best. Personally, the experience of it made it film of the year.

cdgalwegian

cdgalwegian wrote: »

OUATIH is just like the 'spur-of-the-moment' trips, with no real aim in mind, except to experience. Sometimes, they're duds, sometimes they're the best. Personally, the experience of it made it film of the year.

I would agree with you that the pointlessness did largely succeed here.

Controversial choice but I'm going for Midsommar for my movie of the year for sort of the same reasons - the imagery and music (for me) made it a great trip of a movie also - with more emphasis on the "trippy" aspect in that case!

cdgalwegian

glasso wrote: »

Controversial choice but I'm going for Midsommar for my movie of the year for sort of the same reasons - the imagery and music (for me) made it a great trip of a movie also - with more emphasis on the "trippy" aspect in that case!

Been really looking forward to seeing this as it happens. Apparently Florence Pugh is excellent in it as well.

Always Tired

I hate Kill Bill the soundtrack is obnoxious and it just does nothing for me but to each their own.

Was pleased to see OUATIH grab the top spot on a lot of peoples year end lists. Not even close IMO

cdgalwegian

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

Shybride2016

Marc Maron’s podcast interview with Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio about the film and their careers.

Quite a funny listen as he sounds absolutely bonkers - also knew I recognised his voice from somewhere and realised he’s the guy from Glow on Netflix who plays the director.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/episode-1086-brad-pitt-leonardo-dicaprio/id329875043?i=1000461671578

Always Tired

Maron's been around for ages but he's bigger in the US, think he played here in the summer tho. I really enjoyed his sitcom, just heard today is the last day it's gonna be on Netflix. They seem to love removing good shows.

Anyway, back to OUATIH... currently 21/10 slight favourite for best picture on paddypower, stuck 50 on it. If it doesn't win there is no justice.

Thelonious Monk

OUATIH was my favourite film of the year, followed by Joker. I could have spent hours and hours more in that 60s LA world he built. And Cliff is the coolest man of all time. I did feel the Kurt Douglas narration bits weren't in line with the rest of the film but that was my only minor critique.

ziggyman17

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

OUATIH was my favourite film of the year, followed by Joker. I could have spent hours and hours more in that 60s LA world he built. And Cliff is the coolest man of all time. I did feel the Kurt Douglas narration bits weren't in line with the rest of the film but that was my only minor critique.

kurt Russell.............

rob316

Finally got around to watching it and I absolutely loved it. Leo and especially Pitt were outstanding, what a waste of a career he has had doing popcorn flicks when he could of been a serious hollywood actor.

Margot Robbie just what a woman absolutely flawless and looked like the ghost of Sharon Tate. The scene where she is watching "wrecking crew" was great just to see her innocence and happiness. QT was right to cut down on her dialogue it gave her this sort of aura.

It built nicely to the night of the murders, it was a nice surprise and Inglorious Bastards-esque when they trio of killers went to Ricks house instead. In typical QT style the revenge plot was revealed and they were all brutally murdered.

I get the criticism that there wasn't much of a plot but it was just a nice place to be in a wonderfully shot film of 1960's California.

Look forward to rewatching and I give it a solid 8.5/10

eviltimeban

rob316 wrote: »

Finally got around to watching it and I absolutely loved it. Leo and especially Pitt were outstanding, what a waste of a career he has had doing popcorn flicks when he could of been a serious hollywood actor.

I wouldn't have said Pitt has just done "popcorn" films - in the last decade alone he's done some great and serious stuff, like Ad Astra, Big Short, Allied, Fury, Moneyball, all the way back to Basterds and Burn After Reading.

Sure he did the Ocean's series but they were great fun. I certainly would disagree that his career was a "waste".

Dots1982

Brad Pitt is a movie star, he isn’t a heavyweight as a actor. He hasn’t much range.

In this movie he plays the same part he plays most of the time. Cool alpha male smoker who isn’t fazed by anything.

It’ll be humorous if he gets an Oscar for the same part he’s being playing since Thelma & Louise.

eviltimeban

Dots1982 wrote: »

Brad Pitt is a movie star, he isn’t a heavyweight as a actor. He hasn’t much range.

In this movie he plays the same part he plays most of the time. Cool alpha male smoker who isn’t fazed by anything.

It’ll be humorous if he gets an Oscar for the same part he’s being playing since Thelma & Louise.

Could say the same about Leo. Everytime I watch him I know I'm watching Leonardo DiCaprio. Or Tom Cruise. Or Tom Hanks. That's what happens when you get uber famous.

Anyway I'm sure there's more subtleties at play that we're not aware of, to make a role like that work.

Dots1982

eviltimeban wrote: »

Could say the same about Leo. Everytime I watch him I know I'm watching Leonardo DiCaprio. Or Tom Cruise. Or Tom Hanks. That's what happens when you get uber famous.

Anyway I'm sure there's more subtleties at play that we're not aware of, to make a role like that work.

No you couldn’t say that about Leo. His range is far far larger.

Pitt plays a slight variation of his own personality in all his movies apart from 12 monkeys and burn after reading (I haven’t seen burn after reading so can’t be sure).

ginger_hammer

Was an OK film, lots of shots of shoes walking and nothing much happened.

Stewball

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Was an OK film, lots of shots of shoes walking and nothing much happened.

I wouldn't even say it was 'OK'.
I thought it was rubbish. I was bored after an hour and kept with it because of all the hype.

I can't believe it's got 10 nominations at the Oscars.

eviltimeban

I was ambivalent about it the first time I saw it. Didn't see what the fuss was and sort of thought nothing happened.

Second time I watched it, I loved it. Thought it was really great.

Dades

Dots1982 wrote: »

Brad Pitt is a movie star, he isn’t a heavyweight as a actor. He hasn’t much range.

Inclined to agree, though he has been brilliant when he's doing what he does best.

Troy was a memorable misfire, and I have to say Ad Astra fairly bored me to tears. Though that might have been the fault of the movie itself.

cdgalwegian

Saying not much happens in this film is like saying you had an uneventful walk- in the Louvre or the Grand Canyon. True; but there's so much to be appreciated.

mikecope

mikecope wrote: »

Great movie, will definitely watch it again. Really captured the look and feel of LA in 1969, a feast for the eyes if you're interested in that time and place.

Out of curiosity, how would you know? Are you very very old?

Or do you mean it "captured" how you would wish it would feel?

sydthebeat

Dots1982 wrote: »

No you couldn’t say that about Leo. His range is far far larger.

Pitt plays a slight variation of his own personality in all his movies apart from 12 monkeys and burn after reading (I haven’t seen burn after reading so can’t be sure).

100% agreed, DiCaprio in my opinion is a much better actor.
Hes been doing challenging roles ever since gilbert grape.
the characters he played in the revenant, django, shutter island, gangs of new york, departed etc all all varied and challenging.

his portrayal of howard hughes was something Pitt couldn't do imho.

DiCaprio is recognisable simply because of his unusual face

brevity

Di Caprio is very overrated IMO. He is a good actor, and was very good in this movie, but I find his performances tend to be the same in all movies. "Be more intense and shouty"

I much prefer Brad Pitt. He has this effortlessness about his performances and although it's hard to see him as anyone other that Brad Pitt, he does have a better presence in his movies.

IAMAMORON

I didn't feel the movie was up to much if I am honest, it looks like he is getting general recognition for all his movies. But the movie itself is not a patch on Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards or anything else you liked. Very average and a real head scratcher as to why people liked it if I am being honest.

The scenes were DiCaprio was acting were excruciating and a waste of time

Dots1982

brevity wrote: »

Di Caprio is very overrated IMO. He is a good actor, and was very good in this movie, but I find his performances tend to be the same in all movies. "Be more intense and shouty"

I much prefer Brad Pitt. He has this effortlessness about his performances and although it's hard to see him as anyone other that Brad Pitt, he does have a better presence in his movies.

You think Leo was intense and shouty in Titanic?

There’s no contest between Leo and Brad as actors. Across his movies from shutter island to the departed to basketball diaries to this boys life to titanic to Wolf of Wall Street he is capable of depicting hugely different characters.

Brad is largely a one note movie star like Tom cruise. He depends on his own charisma and star appeal. They’ve both appeared in more good movies than bad.

mikhail

Dots1982 wrote: »

No you couldn’t say that about Leo. His range is far far larger.

Pitt plays a slight variation of his own personality in all his movies apart from 12 monkeys and burn after reading (I haven’t seen burn after reading so can’t be sure).

I have seen Burn After Reading. He plays a goofy and foolish loser to great comic effect. I broadly agree with you that his range is limited, but BAR is evidence at least that he's not completely one-note.

Dades

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I didn't feel the movie was up to much if I am honest, it looks like he is getting general recognition for all his movies.

Not sure how you can say that, given how many people really love this movie. Unless you're suggesting they only love it because its from QT?

IAMAMORON

Lets be honest he has never really stretched himself as an actor. His character in Burn after Reading was hardly challenging, anyone can act like a dope who works in a gym.

In the meantime an actor like Eddie Redmayne plays a motor neurone victim who moonlights as a leading pioneer in quantum science... or a Transgendered artist hell bent on sexual realignment surgery.

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

IAMAMORON

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how you can say that, given how many people really love this movie. Unless you're suggesting they only love it because its from QT?

I just quite simply did not find it very entertaining. Certainly incomparable with Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards and the Kill Bill movies. For the record I think he makes great movies, but this was not one of them.

And yes I am kind of insinuating that he is getting recognition for a movie that is not all that great. The Oscars are politics.

Scorcese is a classic example, no Oscar for Goodfellas and yet he get one for " the Departed " … please. Guess what movie won best film over Goodfellas, ….?

Dances with Wolves

… oh yeah.

The Oscars is politics, the best movies hardly ever end up winning.

Dades

Definitely people sometimes get dropped into the mix because of who they are. Scorcese is the obvious one for me. He can't look at a camera without getting nominated.

Just not agreeing QT is one of those this year. It's no Pulp Fiction, but OUATIH is of very few films that has stuck in my mind this year, and I believe there's genuine love for it as an offbeat story.

Earthhorse

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I just quite simply did not find it very entertaining. Certainly incomparable with Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards and the Kill Bill movies. For the record I think he makes great movies, but this was not one of them.

And yes I am kind of insinuating that he is getting recognition for a movie that is not all that great. The Oscars are politics.

See, I feel Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds are overrated. The Oscars may be political but not all praise is.

So if QT is getting praise for everything he does it's often coming from different quarters.

hetuzozaho

I'm no way involved with the politics of the Oscars... And I loved it.

One of my favourite films from him. Beautiful looking from start to finished. So well filmed and directed, and loved the dialogue. All the things I love tarrantino films for!

Have seen it twice and must catch it on the big screen again sometime.

Leo's frustration of forgetting his lines even though he'd practiced so hard was great.

MfMan

Dots1982 wrote: »

You think Leo was intense and shouty in Titanic?

There’s no contest between Leo and Brad as actors. Across his movies from shutter island to the departed to basketball diaries to this boys life to titanic to Wolf of Wall Street he is capable of depicting hugely different characters.

Brad is largely a one note movie star like Tom cruise. He depends on his own charisma and star appeal. They’ve both appeared in more good movies than bad.

Capable of depicting hugely different characters with the same grim, rather nihilistic performance. A character actor he definitely is not.

Dots1982

MfMan wrote: »

Capable of depicting hugely different characters with the same grim, rather nihilistic performance. A character actor he definitely is not.

Titanic? Grim? Wolf of Wall Street? Grim?