Jump to content
mdmost

Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Recommended Posts

i've been in a few licensing meetings with shannon lee.

everyone else in the meeting who worked for their company was pulling in the same direction.  except shannon lee.

suit will probably end up better for the movie than for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i've been in a few licensing meetings with shannon lee.

everyone else in the meeting who worked for their company was pulling in the same direction.  except shannon lee.

suit will probably end up better for the movie than for her.

Yeah i hear she's very............ dedicated i guess you could say, at protecting her late fathers image. Seems petty to me but that wasn't my dad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BERT said:

So apparently the Lee family is suing Tarantino for slander and something else? Good luck with that i guess. 

This reminds me of when Abraham Lincoln’s family sued director Timur Bekmambetov because they know for a fact Abraham wasn’t a vampire hunter. 
 

Edited by Neonmoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 4:40 PM, sidis said:

great lines...my favorite was at the end when brad was tripping...

"wait, i know you...i met you...you had a funny name."

"i am satan and i am here to do satan things."

"no, it was dumber than that."

"tex!!"

Reminded me of the IB scene where he shoots a Nazi and the other Nazi says

"You'll be shot for this!"

 

And Brad Pitt's character responds with:

"Nah, I don't think so. More like chewed out. I've been chewed out before."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched it for a second time and loved it even more. By far my favorite Tarantino movie... Leo and Pitt had one of the better relationships I’ve seen in a movie. Actually made me buy in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 2:00 PM, henrygandorf said:

ok, finally saw this on saturday night.  was actually supposed to go last week at the new beverly (it's only playing there all month) but the wife wanted to wait and she likes a bar by arclight, so we saw the 35mm there.  because of the run time, they did not show any trailers.  i love trailers, but this is why the arclight is the best.  they get it.

i enjoyed it quite a bit, and i had some skepticism built up from hateful 8, and parts of django.  it exceeded my expectations.  acting and cinematography were outstanding, obviously.  music was also great, as expected.  having the constant radio track the entire movie was very reservoir dogs, and i appreciated that.

for obvious reasons, i had not kept current on this thread, and just read 6 pages, so my comments might be a little all over the place.

many people have said it could've/should've been shorter.  i agree with this, but was not ever bored.  when guys like tarantino both write and direct, the movies will run long.  he won't ever cut scenes he wanted to shoot and really liked, no matter what it does to the story flow or the plot structure.  some scenes ran long, and others didn't need to be in there at all.  doesn't mean "this movie sucked because it was too long" but it does mean "this movie could've been better if it was a tight 2:20".

my issue wasn't the time though, it was the plot.  not even the plot, as much as "what is this movie about?"  i know tarantino isn't "by-the-book" but traditionally, movies need to be about something, and they need to be about only one thing.  and once you figure out that one thing, every scene should further the story you're trying to tell about that one thing.  each scene should be looked at and judged on its own merit.  and if it doesn't accomplish the goal, it either shouldn't be in there, or it should be tweaked and made better.  tarantino obviously doesn't do this, and has earned the right to not do this, but it's scenes like these that make people walk out and say, "what was the fucking plot of that movie?"

to me, the movie was about a 1950's western tv actor trying to adapt to 1960's hollywood (movies, hippies, whatever).  the game was changing, and dalton and booth were having trouble keeping up and staying relevant.  hollywood changes every 20 years or so, so this story isn't that unusual, and it was interesting to watch, especially during leo's scenes of frustration.  i might be in the minority, but i thought he was head and shoulders above pitt from a pure acting perspective.  he crushed this.  and i'm a huge brad pitt fan.

anyway, the issue i had was that tarantino took his story about rick dalton, and then shoe-horned a second story about sharon tate/the manson family, so that he could have some fun and revise history, like only he can.  and while the tate aspect represents the changing hollywood that dalton would have to adapt to in order to survive, i don't think it deserved (or received) enough screentime to warrant being a real "subplot" of the movie.  someone brought up the playboy mansion - which i agree was an odd choice.  he put this scene in to explain to the viewer about the relationship between tate and sebring.  while a cool looking scene, it wasn't necessary.  i didn't care that she had a male friend who was still hung up on her.

the problem with combining these two plots into a disjointed story is that margot robbie is a big actress.  if she wasn't, nobody would be talking about how few lines she got.  she got few lines because her story wasn't that important to the overall narrative being rolled out.  in fact, he could've almost told this story and barely mentioned tate/polanski.  we could've found out they lived next door after the murders even.  he chose to do it differently, and that's ok, i'm not trying to challenge his brilliance.  they're part of the misdirect, because everyone knows the real story.

besides the playboy mansion, the scene in westwood village (when she went to go see her movie) was drawn out and ultimately added very little.  everyone in hollywood seeks recognition, no matter what they say to jimmy kimmel.  dalton missed it.  tate was starting to get it.  booth looked like he should be getting it, but didn't ever really get it. 

the middle part of the movie - while he was shooting the tv show - was a very long part of the movie.  sure, it could've been shorter.  but to me, that was the focal point of the movie.  that answered the question - what is this movie about.  the scene with the little girl.  the knee pads.  all the extra shit that little actor (not actress) did to make herself better.  rick drinking then losing his shit, then seeing younger versions of himself, but keeping it together to give a standout performance when it counted, even though it was some bullshit western pilot.  

the scene he had with that director was great, all the wardrobe details - the world was changing.  i would've rather pacino play that character (assuming he had to be in the movie for some reason) and then changed the intro scene at musso's.  i get that it foreshadowed the italy part, but that, again, wasn't really necessary for the plot.  the two of them shooting the shit at musso's would've been a better use of my time.

the funny thing is that the latest avengers is 3 hours long, and it actually took 3 hours to tell that story.  it was just a really long story, instead of other superhero movies that insist upon themselves with 40 minute fight scenes to end the movie.  this movie, even with its plot, could've been told perfectly in ~2:20. 

but here's the thing about movies with plot issues, is that it really only matters the first time you watch a movie.  moving forward, this will likely be even more enjoyable that it was, and i would probably give the first viewing a b+ or a-.  i will probably see it again in the theater, just because it's one of those.

Enjoyable read and well expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We love Pussy."

Cliff: "Yes we do."

I love this movie more with each watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it again this weekend. Even better the second time. Best movie of the year. And Leo was robbed.

Edited by ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajax said:

Saw it again this weekend. Even better the second time. Best movie of the year. And Leo was robbed.

Agreed.  Should have won Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor.  I understand Leo not winning, but the rest of it is just proof that QT is never winning a Best Director or Best Picture Oscar.*

 

* Possible exception is the current voting members die out and are replaced by a group of voters whose heads are not lodged in their asses.  The problem with that is the new voters will probably be excessively woke and QT's movies will offend them.  And if he does ever win one, it will be for his 17th movie and it will probably be his 15th best film.   He'll get Scorsese'd.  Or Pacinoed.  Or Newmaned.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked this movie.  I do my best to avoid spoilers of any type when I see or hear about a movie that actually looks interesting.  This movie was no exception.  I had no idea what was going to happen at the end.  Funny because, at one point, I was thinking, it sure would be cool if Brad Pitt's character went all "Inglorious Bastards" on the Manson Family.   Sure enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it could/should have been shorter. Yes, there really was no plot to the movie. Also, Tarantino revising history always seems weird to me, but hey, I sure loved it!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2020 at 11:19 AM, BERT said:

So apparently the Lee family is suing Tarantino for slander and something else? Good luck with that i guess. 

For fuck's sake.

Lee's family, or anyone else who thought that scene disrespected Lee, is a Simple Simon motherfucker who doesn't know how to watch a fucking movie.

Cliff Booth is clearly an unreliable narrator and that clearly didn't "really happen", within the context of the movie. There are plenty of clues about this, with the most blatant being that the people who are gathered around watching it happen disappear all of a sudden halfway though the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Cliff Booth is clearly an unreliable narrator and that clearly didn't "really happen", within the context of the movie. There are plenty of clues about this, with the most blatant being that the people who are gathered around watching it happen disappear all of a sudden halfway though the scene.

you think that scene was supposed to have been imagined?  haven’t heard that view of it from anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, futureman said:

you think that scene was supposed to have been imagined?  haven’t heard that view of it from anyone. 

Not fully imagined... there was likely *some* incident between Booth and Lee that got him kicked off the show, but he clearly didn't really beat him in a fight.

Re-watch the scene. There is a group of 10 or so people gathered around listening to Lee tell his story and then the exchange between Booth and Lee.  As it cuts back and forth the people move around and change.  Then when it cuts to the fight, all of the people are gone.  Where did they go?  Surely they wouldn't have run away... they would have wanted to sit there and watch.  

When it cuts back to Booth on the roof, he has kind of a goofy smile on his face and then says something like "fair enough."   

There is also a cutaway scene later that shows Lee training with Sharon Tate where he's being extremely kind and encouraging.... nothing like how he was acting in Booth's memory.

To me, this is Tarantino just blatantly telling us that Booth is an unreliable narrator and that the "fight" never happened.

Edited by oSuJeff97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it twice this past weekend, rented it on iTunes Saturday night and decided to watch it again on Sunday, fuck it. 

So fucking good. I want to say it’s my favorite QT movie. Leo and Brad were amazing. Leo should have won over Phoenix, mainly because I feel like Phoenix is just playing himself. I commented to my husband that Leo’s portrayal of Dalton and then Dalton’s portrayal of Caleb DeCoteau flawlessly is why he should have won best actor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, futureman said:

well, it's an interesting take.  one that hadn't occurred to me.  but interesting.

I've read it a few times elsewhere as well.  Jeff isn't talking out of his ass here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Go Pokes said:

I've read it a few times elsewhere as well.  Jeff isn't talking out of his ass here.  

Haha thanks man.

I had a hunch about it when I watched it in the theater and noticed all of the onlookers were gone once they started fighting. 

On my second and subsequent viewings, I feel like all of the other clues I noticed really confirmed the notion (for me anyway) that the fight "never happened."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I commented to my husband that Leo’s portrayal of Dalton and then Dalton’s portrayal of Caleb DeCoteau flawlessly is why he should have won best actor. 

most people will say it's hard for a good actor to play a bad actor in a movie/tv show.  like when a character daniel day lewis is playing is doing a shitty job lying to his wife or telling some tale in a scene.  i think it's much harder for a good actor to play a good actor, and to toggle back and forth.  bummer of a year to be matched up with joker, because his portrayal was truly haunting, but leo turned in a worthy performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

most people will say it's hard for a good actor to play a bad actor in a movie/tv show.  like when a character daniel day lewis is playing is doing a shitty job lying to his wife or telling some tale in a scene.  i think it's much harder for a good actor to play a good actor, and to toggle back and forth.  bummer of a year to be matched up with joker, because his portrayal was truly haunting, but leo turned in a worthy performance.

A podcaster correctly pointed out that Leo plays 5+ roles in the movie. A down on his luck actor. The Great Escape scene. A villain. A successful Italian film star. And back to arrogant asshole Rick Dalton. And he switches back and forth between them in the same scene. He improved the trailer freak out. None of this is easy to do. 

I think it’s going to be tough for Leo to win another one in the next 10 years. He’s going to have to something really daring and “woke” to win it. Something like Dallas Buyers Club. He will be nominated plenty. 

He’ll almost certainly win one in old age as a lifetime achievement type award. 

It sucks, but it was it is. It’s not a performance award, it’s a will of the Academy/momentum/everybody gets one trophy award. The Academy is in no hurry to give anybody a second Oscar in a leading role. Just my two cents. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Not fully imagined... there was likely *some* incident between Booth and Lee that got him kicked off the show, but he clearly didn't really beat him in a fight.

Re-watch the scene. There is a group of 10 or so people gathered around listening to Lee tell his story and then the exchange between Booth and Lee.  As it cuts back and forth the people move around and change.  Then when it cuts to the fight, all of the people are gone.  Where did they go?  Surely they wouldn't have run away... they would have wanted to sit there and watch.  

When it cuts back to Booth on the roof, he has kind of a goofy smile on his face and then says something like "fair enough."   

There is also a cutaway scene later that shows Lee training with Sharon Tate where he's being extremely kind and encouraging.... nothing like how he was acting in Booth's memory.

To me, this is Tarantino just blatantly telling us that Booth is an unreliable narrator and that the "fight" never happened.

Also the door and side panel on the car collapsing like a sheet of aluminum foil upon impact from Lee’s body. Reminded me of blood spraying in Kill Bill like an open fire hydrant. Loved the movie though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...