Jump to content

Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood


mdmost

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, tbone_ said:


The shit I have to explain to that bunch in my office is maddening sometimes. Yes, Brylee, we had a tax law change in the 80s that wiped out about half the value of commercial real estate, the savings and loan industry with it, and plunged the country into a massive recession. How is it again that you have an MRED and have never heard of this concept?

But that’s a different discussion.

If it's not on Netflix or YouTube, 20 somethings haven't seen it. 

99% of the them haven't seen When Harry Met Sally. How is this possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it tonight.  Thought it was . . . interesting.  Worth seeing just for the 60's kitsch if nothing else.  Brad Pitt was really good. 

I thought the movie would drag given that it was 2:45, and there were some spots where I thought some film editor should have beaten Tarantino unconscious and then taken a scalpel to the film, but the movie definitely held my attention and the 2:45 ended up passing quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tbone_ said:


 How is it again that you have an MRED and have never heard of this concept?

But that’s a different discussion.

Go right to the source and ask the horse 
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse. 
He's always on a steady course. 
Talk to MrEd. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truth be told, I didn't have a ton of knowledge about the murders as they were a full year before I was born. I knew about them, knew the principal players, knew a little about the background story.  I actually looked up more about them about 4 or 5 months ago when the trailers started coming out to educate myself a bit more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Saw it last week and the more I think about it the more I like it. 

Thinking about it? What are you some kind of cot-damned philosopher commie? It's 2019, you watch it once, react immediately (classic or trash?) and the proclaim how much you hated it or loved it to whoever you know, loudly, and never think about it again.

Deej had a pretty good/succinct write-up, kudos.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2019 at 9:40 AM, Deej said:

Yes. I had to explain the Manson murders to some 20 year olds at the office after they saw the movie. They had zero knowledge. 

I was googling it during the movie because yeah, I had very little knowledge other than knowing the name. 

It was 50 years ago and isn't discussed as much as you would think. 

Think about when you were in your 20s, then go 50 years back. There are plenty of news stories that would have fallen out of public discussion or that you wouldn't know about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BurdineBandit said:

Thinking about it? What are you some kind of cot-damned philosopher commie? It's 2019, you watch it once, react immediately (classic or trash?) and the proclaim how much you hated it or loved it to whoever you know, loudly, and never think about it again.

Deej had a pretty good/succinct write-up, kudos.

Haha, yeah. It's funny. I was thinking about this just yesterday --- how I find myself thinking more and more about movies after seeing them these days than ever before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, futureman said:

I would love to know which parts

Spoiler

Off the top of my head . . . I thought the scene in which DiCaprio's character meets the child actress on set could have been shortened.  I wouldn't advocate deleting that scene -- it showed Rick Dalton's realization that his career is on the same arc as the main character in the book he's reading -- but the leadup to that realization was stretched out too long IMO.  I thought Tarantino could have been more economical.  (FWIW, I thought the kid who played the child actress was excellent in her role.)  The Playboy Mansion scene, while nice from an eye candy standpoint and somewhat informative as to the relationship between Tate and Sebring and the types of men who were attractive to Tate, was mostly gratuitous otherwise.  And the scenes of Tate in the movie theatre didn't particularly advance the plot.  I think they dovetailed with Tarantino's homage to that era of Hollywood and I also think they show Tate as more than just a pretty face, so I understand why QT included them, but if they had been deleted I don't think the movie would have been the worse for it.  Overall, I liked the movie.  I just thought it could have used a little editing.  And note that I said editing with a "scalpel," not a cleaver.    

 

Edited by Carl Spackler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I thought the scene in which DiCaprio's character meets the child actress on set could have been shortened. 

Agreed.

23 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

And the scenes of Tate in the movie theatre didn't particularly advance the plot. 

Double agreed. Went to the bathroom during one of these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I was googling it during the movie because yeah, I had very little knowledge other than knowing the name. 

It was 50 years ago and isn't discussed as much as you would think. 

Think about when you were in your 20s, then go 50 years back. There are plenty of news stories that would have fallen out of public discussion or that you wouldn't know about. 

So, that was you ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Not knowing the Manson Tate story pretty much robs the viewer of the tension the movie is built around I would think. Sort of like missing the whole point.

 

Yeah. It'd be like not knowing the story of the end of WWII in Europe and the fate of Hitler before watching "Inglourious Basterds"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Not knowing the Manson Tate story pretty much robs the viewer of the tension the movie is built around I would think. Sort of like missing the whole point.

 

I wouldn't tell someone they need to go read up on Charles Manson before seeing the film. If you're familiar with the Manson happenings then you will obviously pick up on the tie in, but the plot doesn't rely on outside knowledge or perspective at all. Especially since it's a complete alternate reality that isn't attempting to follow or dramatize what actually occurred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I wouldn't tell someone they need to go read up on Charles Manson before seeing the film. If you're familiar with the Manson happenings then you will obviously pick up on the tie in, but the plot doesn't rely on outside knowledge or perspective at all. Especially since it's a complete alternate reality that isn't attempting to follow or dramatize what actually occurred. 

It doesn't rely on it per se, but at the very least a significant portion of the impact of the ending will be lost on anyone who doesn't know anything about how that story turned out in reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wood said:

It doesn't rely on it per se, but at the very least a significant portion of the impact of the ending will be lost on anyone who doesn't know anything about how that story turned out in reality.

I'd probably buy that. I'm in a weird spot perspective wise since I knew that Sharon Tate was murdered but didn't know much else. So I can't speak at all to the accuracy of the depiction of the Manson clan but I was able to enjoy the idea of "what if they broke into the wrong/a different house?"

I mean it piqued my curiosity enough to skim wikipedia while I was watching it so maybe that's all the proof you need. 

I do think you could enjoy the film walking in knowing nothing - but going back and reading about what actually took place probably increases the appreciation and could prompt a desire to rewatch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoyable write up.  I wonder if it will be as good the second time though.  The Spahn Ramch scene had all this tension and you’ll go in knowing nothing happens.  And the laughter of the gang getting slaughtered was half because of the surprise.  Those were two big parts of the enjoyment to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

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 agree. That was the real story and what I thought was done best. Probably why I feel that knowledge of Manson/Tate's murder isn't totally requisite to enjoy the film. 

 

Edited by ztejas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, and about 3 pages ago, someone made the comment that this movie "wasn't set in hollywood" or something.

for those who don't know, or are too lazy to look it up, here is where everything is in real life, to the best of my recollection.

cielo drive (where they all lived) is in benedict canyon, which is above beverly hills.  the physical address is probably los angeles, but could be bh.  not to be confused with the wonderland murders (john holmes, boogie nights, etc) which was on wonderland ave, off lookout mountain, and very close to where i lived for 8 years during my frat house rock phase.

before the murders, they went to el coyote, on beverly, which is technically weho, since it's west of la brea.  the new beverly (www.thenewbev.com) is across the street, and tarantino owns it.  he redid it and it opened back up in january, but i haven't been since, largely because of the shitty schedule.  but you can't go to the new beverly without going to el coyote first.  the guys went to casa vega, which is in sherman oaks in the valley.  while inconveniently located, you could cut through beverly glen and it wouldn't be too terrible to get from the valley to cielo.

musso and frank is on hollywood, in hollywood.

the long day dalton spent shooting that western looked to be on the warner bros lot, judging from where he got picked up.  that's in the valley in burbank.

booth made a comment to pussycat about her trolling up and down burbank blvd, which is also not in hollywood.  it's in the valley.  he picked her up and went to the spahn ranch in chatsworth, which is very west valley near woodland hills, several miles west of the 405.  until recently, it was the porn capital of the world. 

i can't remember all the neon shots, but one was the cinerama dome, which is part of arclight, but not the theater we saw the movie in.  the dome is playing it in 70mm, because that's how the dome rolls.

sharon tate went to go pick up the book for polanski and see the movie at the bruin - one of the huge one-plexes in westwood village (by ucla).

panorama city where cliff lived was up near van nuys - in between warner bros and the spahn ranch.

the playboy mansion is on charing cross in beverly hills.

i can't really remember anywhere else.  but yeah, not much took place technically in hollywood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

I agree. That was the real story and what I thought was done best. Probably why I feel that knowledge of Manson/Tate's murder isn't totally requisite to enjoy the film. 

 

I loved that little moment where the you see the girl's stunt double after Rick's scene cuts. It's her own little Cliff.

And Pitt going home to his trailer and his dog gave me a Lethal Weapon vibe.

Edited by Deej
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deej said:

I loved that little moment where the you see the girl's stunt double after Rick's scene cuts. It's her own little Cliff.

And Pitt going home to his trailer and his dog gave me a Lethal Weapon vibe.

The scene where he's explaining the book he's reading got me in the feels. Very well acted by Leo. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed it.
Tarantino's attention to detail is pretty phenomenal. As a car guy, I was impressed with the realism and variety of the 2000 extra cars used in the film.
The '66 Cad that Pitt drove was the same one used in Reservoir Dogs and is still owned by Madsen. I'm betting that car could go for some cash some day at auction.  

I was going WTF when Pitt was racing through traffic in the Ghia. Just read that it actually had a modern Subaru engine and auto tranny.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

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.

 

I thought the intertwining of the 2 stories was the point of the Once Upon a time in Hollywood ending. Rick Dalton was fading into obscurity but then his career was saved by the Manson family failed murder attempt leading to him getting the invite up to the Polanski house he had dreamed about. So now he is in with the in crowd and since Sharon Tate wasn't murdered then Polanski doesn't get ran out of town for banging kids and goes on to make some big block busters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, veritas aequitas said:

I thought the intertwining of the 2 stories was the point of the Once Upon a time in Hollywood ending. Rick Dalton was fading into obscurity but then his career was saved by the Manson family failed murder attempt leading to him getting the invite up to the Polanski house he had dreamed about. So now he is in with the in crowd and since Sharon Tate wasn't murdered then Polanski doesn't get ran out of town for banging kids and goes on to make some big block busters.

are you saying that dalton becomes jake gittes?

jack nicholson chinatown GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, and about 3 pages ago, someone made the comment that this movie "wasn't set in hollywood" or something.
for those who don't know, or are too lazy to look it up, here is where everything is in real life, to the best of my recollection.
cielo drive (where they all lived) is in benedict canyon, which is above beverly hills.  the physical address is probably los angeles, but could be bh.  not to be confused with the wonderland murders (john holmes, boogie nights, etc) which was on wonderland ave, off lookout mountain, and very close to where i lived for 8 years during my frat house rock phase.
before the murders, they went to el coyote, on beverly, which is technically weho, since it's west of la brea.  the new beverly (www.thenewbev.com) is across the street, and tarantino owns it.  he redid it and it opened back up in january, but i haven't been since, largely because of the shitty schedule.  but you can't go to the new beverly without going to el coyote first.  the guys went to casa vega, which is in sherman oaks in the valley.  while inconveniently located, you could cut through beverly glen and it wouldn't be too terrible to get from the valley to cielo.
musso and frank is on hollywood, in hollywood.
the long day dalton spent shooting that western looked to be on the warner bros lot, judging from where he got picked up.  that's in the valley in burbank.
booth made a comment to pussycat about her trolling up and down burbank blvd, which is also not in hollywood.  it's in the valley.  he picked her up and went to the spahn ranch in chatsworth, which is very west valley near woodland hills, several miles west of the 405.  until recently, it was the porn capital of the world. 
i can't remember all the neon shots, but one was the cinerama dome, which is part of arclight, but not the theater we saw the movie in.  the dome is playing it in 70mm, because that's how the dome rolls.
sharon tate went to go pick up the book for polanski and see the movie at the bruin - one of the huge one-plexes in westwood village (by ucla).
panorama city where cliff lived was up near van nuys - in between warner bros and the spahn ranch.
the playboy mansion is on charing cross in beverly hills.
i can't really remember anywhere else.  but yeah, not much took place technically in hollywood.
.cd3e25a52b3da347087aa9adcba12814.gif
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Enjoyable write up.  I wonder if it will be as good the second time though.  The Spahn Ramch scene had all this tension and you’ll go in knowing nothing happens.  And the laughter of the gang getting slaughtered was half because of the surprise.  Those were two big parts of the enjoyment to me. 

i'm super excited to watch that scene again, and although nothing bad happens, i'm guessing it will still be tense upon a rewatch.

stuff definitely happens in each scene, but once upon a time in nazi-occupied france and operation kino are still very tense rewatches even if you know what happens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mdleast said:

I did enjoy in my second viewing being able to focus on the backgrounds and sets. So much detail and stuff to look at in every shot.

Just purchased my ticket online to see it again. 

And note to Alamo Drafthouse: if a movie is more than 2 1/2 hours long, and you sell buckets of beer, have a 5 minute intermission. 

Edited by Deej
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Deej said:

Just purchased my ticket online to see it again. 

And note to Alamo Drafthouse: if a movie is more than 2 1/2 hours long, and you sell buckets of beer, have a 5 minute intermission. 

Agreed. That was a great thing about seeing Grindhouse as a double feature there back in 2007 - they had an intermission with a countdown clock in between the two films so you knew how much time you had to do your business and not miss anything later on in the film/credits.  I always felt like the Avengers films are kinda fucking with the audience with what seem like especially long credits making you wait for that last stinger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mdleast said:

Agreed. That was a great thing about seeing Grindhouse as a double feature there back in 2007 - they had an intermission with a countdown clock in between the two films so you knew how much time you had to do your business and not miss anything later on in the film/credits.  I always felt like the Avengers films are kinda fucking with the audience with what seem like especially long credits making you wait for that last stinger.

I saw Grindhouse at the Alamo. Went through two buckets of beer by myself. The intermission was welcomed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2019 at 3:07 PM, ztejas said:

I wouldn't tell someone they need to go read up on Charles Manson before seeing the film. If you're familiar with the Manson happenings then you will obviously pick up on the tie in, but the plot doesn't rely on outside knowledge or perspective at all. Especially since it's a complete alternate reality that isn't attempting to follow or dramatize what actually occurred. 

Impossible to have a worse take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mdleast said:

 I always felt like the Avengers films are kinda fucking with the audience with what seem like especially long credits making you wait for that last stinger.

 

You could probably go piss, hang out at the bar and get a drink, post in the Marvel thread what you thought about the movie, and be back to your seat in time to see the credits thanking Canada where it was filmed on location just before the after credits scene rolls.

Link to comment
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.



×
×
  • Create New...