Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, July 26, 2019) Movie • Page 42

It was embellished, it was his memory of him being the hero and Bruce being this cartoonishly buffoon version of himself.

 

I gotta be honest man, this made his character a lot more interesting to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I embarrassingly knew pretty much nothing about Sharon Tate or her murder going into this movie, so I was pretty lost until I went home and read up on what happened. Like I knew about Charles Manson and his cult but didn't know the details about Sharon Tate.

Even with that though, this movie has grown on me a ton since I left the theater and I can't wait to watch it again eventually, probably at home in a few months.

 

Noticing this seems to be hitting way better with people on a second viewing.

 

As his films typically do, at least for me, ever since Kill Bill and forward

 

I know expecting tact and subtlety from Tarantino is like to quote Clueless searching for meaning in a Pauly Shore movie but I think treating her death like a Family Guy cutaway drained any meaning for me personally

 

Since it's Tarantino I was expecting this to be darker, even though the trailers pretty perfectly captured the overall tone. I expect to like it on second viewing as well knowing nothing terrible happens to the protagonists.

 

I don't care too much about whether Pitt killed his wife or not - but I do wonder what the PURPOSE was of that ambiguous plot point??? Is the movie any different, better/worse if that is left out?? I mean, the dude is basically the hero of the piece, right? (minus that one inference). I find it to be an interesting choice.

 

It's a Natalie Wood reference, right?

 

Yes, I think so, but how is it relevant to the plot/character? It's just distracting and doesn't pay off later with any big revelation or anything. Plus QT sets himself up for more of the misogynist claims with that scene, for no gain.

 

I'm in the boat (no pun intended) that the scene was not supposed to be ambiguous and I think we are 100% meant to believe he killed his wife.

I thought it was weird that people interpreted it otherwise.

 

Have some people in here never watched a movie/tv?

 

OK, so what purpose does that serve? To show us that he's lethal? Unhinged? Not the hero he later seems to be?

Not trying to criticize the choice, I just found it kind of an odd plot point that was needless.

 

It’s a reason he doesn’t get work and is tethered to Leo’s character. The nature of the crime also causes the audience to be suspicious of the character and how far he could potentially go if pushed

 

That's a good answer. Thanks.

 

People have posited that its a commentary on how rumors spread in the industry. I think it was also supposed to be a reason that Cliff's career was declining even independent of Rick's doing the same, something that meant he might be less likely to be hired without Rick and making him even more dependent on him

 

Well yeah, he 100% killed his wife. The ambiguous part is whether or not it was an accident.

 

We don’t even know if his wife is actually dead, do we?

 

It’s probably safe to say the rumor wouldn’t have spread at all if his wife was still alive.

 

I’m sure his wife is dead, I’m uncertain of his role in her death

 

She’s totally dead

 

How did Leo react to Kurt Russell? I don’t remember exactly

 

Throughout the whole movie, we are wondering how these two characters are going to tie into the Manson murders. By suggesting that he may have killed his wife, it makes it much more mysterious what is going to happen when he goes to the Manson ranch. Will he join them? Will he get blamed for what they do? It is unclear.

 

Exactly. It also adds another element to Cliff's last day as Dalton's employee coinciding with the murders. It raises the suspicion that he may have something to do with it.

 

Do u guys think Cliff and Rick stayed friends after Rick got into Polanski's circle and revived his career?