Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, July 26, 2019) Movie • Page 31

Totally on board with this. Re-watching the trailer before a recent movie, Leo's performance is quintessential QT direction.

 

would y’all rather have a QT directed movie written by someone else or someone else direct a QT script?

i feel like he’s a better screenwriter than director but i tend to enjoy his visual stylings more than the quotes or pop culture references

 

need some time to consider it all and definitely see it again, but i thought it was marvelously layered and, without saying much about the ending, pretty haunting. every choice seems to build upon itself in a way that constructs a really unique and immersive world. such a unique film, feels like the best elements of other QT films rolled into one at times


have tickets to see it in 70mm next week

 

4:00 can't come soon enough.

 

Honestly not sure how I feel about it. I was LOVING it while watching it up until the last 20 minutes, which is just fucking goofy and not done very well the girl covered in blood running around shrieking and flailing like a muppet was so fucking bad, I don't know how Tarentino thought that was funny/well done
But now looking back, it just feels kind of messy. Some very weird editing. Scenes are just kind of slapped together. DiCaprio and Pitt (and Margot in her brief scenes) are charming and entertaining enough to carry it, but I think it's Tarentino's weakest in terms of writing.

Still enjoyed it though.

 

the man just has a sense of style that is something else man.

loved this. just being immersed in the era added so much to these characters.

and it just builds and builds to a terrific climax.

seeing it in 70mm was just so comforting as well

 

His best since Inglourious Basterds, although that isn't too hard. It is a brilliant director making something he is truly passionate about, and has some of the best scenes of tension he has ever filmed, rivaling the menace of Hans Landa.

 

if we only talking about his foot fetish and not the quality of the film, this is clearly his magnum opus

 

(not knowing anything about the history of the tate murders really did a disservice as so much of this film relies on you knowing about that situation)

 

Got a ticket for tomorrow morning, can’t wait!

 

Probably won’t get to see this til Sunday afternoon

 

Definitely his best since IG. dunno if I’m as madly in love with it as others, but I enjoyed it. Need to think about it more. The final 20 was hilarious

 

Really enjoyed it , but probably my 2nd or 3rd least favorite of his.

 

For everyone else who saw this, how would y'all compare your enjoyment of this to your first time seeing Django or H8. I ask this because I loved both first impressions I got with those, only for that to subside on rewatches for each. Really hope that doesn't happen with this one

 

Immediate reaction was much more positive than those two

 

Yeah, same here. Much fewer qualms what I saw than the other two

 

Things I liked:
-The Spahn Ranch scene was absolutely incredible. Really loved how tension was built. Even though I was positive Pitt's character would survive, and even though I knew that Dern was showing up as the owner, I was still really worried about what was going to happen.
-All of Sharon Tate's scenes were very well done. As stated in every review, the scene in the movie theater (gratuitous foot shot aside) was really sweet. The meaning behind Tarantino keeping her alive and altering history is something that I will need to think about.
-Leo's trailer freakout and then ridiculous performance as he holds the little girl was a lot of fun.
-The ending 20 minutes was insane. Great setup, lot of humor and the fucking blowtorch and dog food can. Jesus Christ
Things I didn't:
-I felt like we spent a bit too much time with DiCaprio's character. Once the film solidifies the fact that he is a past his prime actor fighting for relevancy, he became the least interesting character in the film. The scene with him and Raylan Givens went on for far too long, even if it did setup the freakout/payoff scene. I found myself zoning out during these scenes. I assume it was Tarantino fulfilling a dream of directing one of the shows he grew up watching, but after the last two of his films I was done with the Western schtick.
-While funny, the flashback to the Bruce Lee fight was weird
-Lena Dunham & Emile Hirsch

 

Premature Ranking:

Pulp Fiction
Inglorious Basterds
Reservoir Dogs
Jackie Brown
Once Upon a Time
Death Proof
Kill Bill
H8
Django

 

Because of Tarantino's history, I didn't know what was going to happen at the ranch. If it had been most directors, the character shield applies.

 

The thing I will have to think about the most before I can settle on my final feelings about the film are the ways in which he is essentially repeating the narrative trick of Inglourious Basterds.

There are some pretty big differences in the approach. It is clear early on that the Basterds and Shoshanna will have an effect on Hitler and the Third Reich, but no one could have really anticipated the absurdity of Hitler's face being torn apart by a machine gun, in a burning theater, only for dynamite to then go off. It is the ultimate audience gratification, since everyone (or it seemed that way in 2009) hates Hitler.

Here it is very different. You know that Dalton is fictional and his interactions with Tate will be fictional, but the film makes it appear that the murders will play out mostly how they happened, and the question is how Dalton and Booth will be connected. That the film doesn't take that route, and instead goes for the happier ending, is a different emotion. The Manson killers are obviously loathed, but most people associate those murders with Manson himself. It is also a question of necessity; a World War II revenge movie has to have Nazis, but did a movie about glorifying the late 60's have to have the Tate story? It isn't on the same level.

It leads to questions of exploitation. Did Tarantino use the allure of a beautiful movie star playing a beautiful movie star that was infamously brutally murdered to tell a story that wasn't really about it? Where can that lead and what would be considered over the line? If you were a family member or friend of Tate and her friends at the house that night, how would you feel about that tragedy essentially being used as a framing device for something different? How would you feel as those murderers walk up to the house, only for it to turn into a Tarantino bloodbath? It is hard to say at what level it is fair to judge the film on these questions and if Tarantino even thought of them.

 

for like the first half of this movie i actively wondered where this was all going and then when it ended i was very happy with where it went

 

Seriously,
Took a while to develop but man it really turned a corner hard and I walked out thoroughly entertained

 

I think for awhile at the start of the movie I was mildly enjoying it but not as enraptured by QT films as I usually am, then once they bring up that Brad Pitt killed his wife I was hooked. Lotta great stuff. Pitt in the invasion scene was spectacular.

 

I think I like what this movie ultimately says by utilizing the Manson crew and Sharon Tate. It really exemplifies just how dumb the crew was, and how "lucky" they had to be to make any sort of impact and how it was in service of nothing, really, they were just dumb horrible people, and Sharon's scenes in the movie are so simple and sweet and human that you're reminded that, for all the hubbub about true crime stories like the Manson murders, someone's life existed at the center of it and was cut short. When Pitt is taken away to the hospital and Leo is calming down after all the craziness, and he's called up to chat with her and it's back to such a small, human, interaction, I felt it. The Manson crew were shitty lunatics who sucked and any slight difference in that evening and it all happens worlds differently.

 

I wish this was coming out sooner here.